One of the really nice things about Linux is that there is a wide variety of user interfaces available for it.
KDE is intended to be something that isn't completely alien to Windows users. If that's not to your liking, there are others that aren't like that at all. Odds are that at least one of them would be your cup of tea.
Small companies make it possible, big companies make it cheap.
That is, a large corporation is not going to enter a new space unless it will generate a very large revenue stream very quickly. That's why large companies don't invent things as much as they buy smaller companies that have new things.
Smaller companies don't need a very large revenue stream to thrive, so they are able to innovate very early when the revenue streams are too small to be of any interest to the big guys.
I've been modelling my entire business strategy around this for decades, and it hasn't failed yet. I'll form a company, make something new, and sell it for just long enough to demonstrate there's a market. Then I sell the entire company to a big fish somewhere. Then I rinse and repeat.
Yeah, that's a problem. Technically, as several court cases have ruled, they have to. Practically, some manufacturers won't as a matter of policy, preferring to force you to sue them. Those lawsuits tend to be expensive, long, and not worth the $50 or so the refund would be.
Your only realistic option is to ask the OEM what their policy on this is before you buy their equipment. Many of them offer a "naked" option that has no OS installed at all, for a slightly reduced price (even if they don't advertise it), and if they do, then you need to buy that.
Exactly. Servers, Linux still has no answer for the reasons people run a Microsoft server.
Huh?
It's hard to nail down precise numbers (for obvious reasons), but all of the various statistics I could find say roughly the same thing -- there are more Linux servers than Windows servers.
Some studies give Linux a 10% edge over Windows, and some put Linux and Windows at about parity. So it's not an overwhelming edge, but it's pretty clear that Windows is not more popular than Linux in that space.
I was a Newton developer, and I remember those days well. Developing for the Newton was awesome, one of my favorite platforms!
Perhaps what the younger set might not know is that Apple got quite a lot of heat for killing the Newton. The only reason you don't still hear complaining from old-timers like myself is because of what you pointed out: Apple didn't abandon the product so much as they reinvented it later.
I still miss the Newton, though. I have a box of them in storage. I should pull one out and play with it again.
No problem. But IBM used to be the King of the Hill in computers, much like Microsoft is now. IBM lost that position. Microsoft being "the next IBM" means that it would lose that position as well.
Since the early '90s, I've been predicting Microsoft's future: it will follow the same trajectory as IBM -- meaning Microsoft will never go away, but will become increasingly less important until it can reasonably be ignored if you wish.
My reasoning is that their corporate behavior pretty solidly mirrors that of IBM's through its various phases. There is nearly no chance that Microsoft (or any other company of its size) could pull off such a complete reinvention of themselves as to change that behavior.
Just goes to show how well I've been trained -- a facebook link automatically equals "can't go there" in my brain because it's been true every time I've tried. Clearly, that is no longer universally the case.
As to Luddite, how does that follow? Do you know what "luddite" means?
However, if I visit your house, and Microsoft records me without my consent, Microsoft has broken the law.
Well, if such a case ever hits the courts, we'll see. It still seems to me that in that situation the courts could rule that it was me, and not Microsoft, that broke the law.
I also think that courts may very well take the stance that if the device is sitting in plain sight, then the law wasn't broken by anybody.
This is an interesting question, though, since these are new situations that I don't think there's much, if any, legal precedent about.
Whether it's an OS, browser, communication, chat, VOIP, or on-line game, every program you use or install has a line in the mass of waffle a cryptically written paragraphs which you agree to which states that anything you do with their product is fair game.
This is not universally true, but how true it is depends on the platform. Windows? It's probably true. Linux? It's probably not true.
And if you're buying Xeon-processor class systems, this price is immaterial to you.
That doesn't automatically follow. If price is really immaterial to you and you want Windows, you aren't buying Windows 10 Pro Workstation, you're buying Windows 10 Enterprise.
At this point, everyone should be migrated up to current operating systems or have plans to.
Everyone? Really? Why? There are many solid reasons why you might not want to be using Windows 10.
Nope, which is one of the reasons why I would not use Microsoft software in my business.
Microsoft licensing is a confusing clusterfuck. I wasn't trying to make the case otherwise. I was just pointing out that you do, in fact, have proof of purchase whether or not Microsoft gives you a special "proof of purchase" document.
Unfortunately, you would spend all your time explaining to your customers why your application runs on their laptop but not on their desktop with a different OS.
How long does it take to say "we don't support that OS"?
Or why they cannot do feature X on one platform while they can do it on another. Half your bugs entered would be of this type as well.
If you're getting those types of support tickets, that's a great indication that you're trying to support more platforms than you have the capacity for. The logical thing to do is to expand your resources or drop a platform.
I honestly don't understand why so many developers feel that they must support every OS out there. Why not pick one and make your software work like a dream on that? Sure, you're fishing in a smaller pool, but you're also better positioned to make your software truly awesome and to make maximal use of the features of that platform, so you can get a larger share of fish out of that pool.
This business of developers trying to target all the platforms is one of the reasons why software tends to be less than stellar these days.
The VR scene isn't interesting to me, so I haven't been following it. I just assumed that OR was the best selling such device. But your comment made me look up some numbers.
Apparently, the OR is selling 2/3rds as many units as the Vive -- even taking into account a fairly steep summer discount that made the Rift cheaper.
I wonder if the "Facebook stink" might be more powerful than I thought it would be.
If a company is making a case that they're concerned, then it becomes fair to expect them to be.
You wouldn't expect a company to be concerned about a plight, other than how it might affect their sales or equity.
If, as so many suits insist, corporations should be treated as people, then I think it's also fair to demand that they behave like people.
I expect people to have some measure of compassion -- at least enough to avoid capitalizing on a disaster -- and if they don't then there's nothing wrong with calling them out on it.
So, if Cortana records me in your house, it is very possible that Microsoft has broken the law.
That's an interesting question. I'm guessing that the courts would rule that it wasn't Microsoft breaking the law, but whoever brought the device into your home without your permission.
If I bring running dictation recorder into your house without your permission, the manufacturer of the recorder didn't break any eavesdropping law -- I did.
It's a natural human tendency to think that your life is more or less "normal" and your experience is shared with most people. It's almost never actually true, but it's very easy to think that way.
The "tech leaders" live in a very rarefied world that bears almost no resemblance to the world of ordinary people, but they tend to think of themselves as "normal".
I believe this is the source of quite a lot of the insane things that come out of SV/Seattle.
with the result that they'll focus on the biggest ones first and get round to the others later.
With the result that some developers will do this. Others will just focus on one of the smaller ones. It entirely depends on what is motivating the developer.
For the customer? I guess it depends whether they want to run anything or not.
Not so much, really. There are many examples of platforms that aren't at all dominant, yet still have a thriving developer community and a wide range of available software. It's true that the library is probably smaller, but if the platform is good, it will still be usefully large.
Slashdot Mirror
/nitpick on
It still sticks in my craw that the one thing I can't configure is getting rid of that damned cashew. /nitpick off
One of the really nice things about Linux is that there is a wide variety of user interfaces available for it.
KDE is intended to be something that isn't completely alien to Windows users. If that's not to your liking, there are others that aren't like that at all. Odds are that at least one of them would be your cup of tea.
KDE is my favorite as well -- but that's despite Plasma, not because of it.
That sort of thing is an inherent part of scale:
Small companies make it possible, big companies make it cheap.
That is, a large corporation is not going to enter a new space unless it will generate a very large revenue stream very quickly. That's why large companies don't invent things as much as they buy smaller companies that have new things.
Smaller companies don't need a very large revenue stream to thrive, so they are able to innovate very early when the revenue streams are too small to be of any interest to the big guys.
I've been modelling my entire business strategy around this for decades, and it hasn't failed yet. I'll form a company, make something new, and sell it for just long enough to demonstrate there's a market. Then I sell the entire company to a big fish somewhere. Then I rinse and repeat.
Yeah, that's a problem. Technically, as several court cases have ruled, they have to. Practically, some manufacturers won't as a matter of policy, preferring to force you to sue them. Those lawsuits tend to be expensive, long, and not worth the $50 or so the refund would be.
Your only realistic option is to ask the OEM what their policy on this is before you buy their equipment. Many of them offer a "naked" option that has no OS installed at all, for a slightly reduced price (even if they don't advertise it), and if they do, then you need to buy that.
Exactly. Servers, Linux still has no answer for the reasons people run a Microsoft server.
Huh?
It's hard to nail down precise numbers (for obvious reasons), but all of the various statistics I could find say roughly the same thing -- there are more Linux servers than Windows servers.
Some studies give Linux a 10% edge over Windows, and some put Linux and Windows at about parity. So it's not an overwhelming edge, but it's pretty clear that Windows is not more popular than Linux in that space.
I was a Newton developer, and I remember those days well. Developing for the Newton was awesome, one of my favorite platforms!
Perhaps what the younger set might not know is that Apple got quite a lot of heat for killing the Newton. The only reason you don't still hear complaining from old-timers like myself is because of what you pointed out: Apple didn't abandon the product so much as they reinvented it later.
I still miss the Newton, though. I have a box of them in storage. I should pull one out and play with it again.
No problem. But IBM used to be the King of the Hill in computers, much like Microsoft is now. IBM lost that position. Microsoft being "the next IBM" means that it would lose that position as well.
Since the early '90s, I've been predicting Microsoft's future: it will follow the same trajectory as IBM -- meaning Microsoft will never go away, but will become increasingly less important until it can reasonably be ignored if you wish.
My reasoning is that their corporate behavior pretty solidly mirrors that of IBM's through its various phases. There is nearly no chance that Microsoft (or any other company of its size) could pull off such a complete reinvention of themselves as to change that behavior.
I see no reason to modify my prediction yet.
Just goes to show how well I've been trained -- a facebook link automatically equals "can't go there" in my brain because it's been true every time I've tried. Clearly, that is no longer universally the case.
As to Luddite, how does that follow? Do you know what "luddite" means?
However, if I visit your house, and Microsoft records me without my consent, Microsoft has broken the law.
Well, if such a case ever hits the courts, we'll see. It still seems to me that in that situation the courts could rule that it was me, and not Microsoft, that broke the law.
I also think that courts may very well take the stance that if the device is sitting in plain sight, then the law wasn't broken by anybody.
This is an interesting question, though, since these are new situations that I don't think there's much, if any, legal precedent about.
Whether it's an OS, browser, communication, chat, VOIP, or on-line game, every program you use or install has a line in the mass of waffle a cryptically written paragraphs which you agree to which states that anything you do with their product is fair game.
This is not universally true, but how true it is depends on the platform. Windows? It's probably true. Linux? It's probably not true.
And if you're buying Xeon-processor class systems, this price is immaterial to you.
That doesn't automatically follow. If price is really immaterial to you and you want Windows, you aren't buying Windows 10 Pro Workstation, you're buying Windows 10 Enterprise.
At this point, everyone should be migrated up to current operating systems or have plans to.
Everyone? Really? Why? There are many solid reasons why you might not want to be using Windows 10.
Nope, which is one of the reasons why I would not use Microsoft software in my business.
Microsoft licensing is a confusing clusterfuck. I wasn't trying to make the case otherwise. I was just pointing out that you do, in fact, have proof of purchase whether or not Microsoft gives you a special "proof of purchase" document.
Unfortunately, you would spend all your time explaining to your customers why your application runs on their laptop but not on their desktop with a different OS.
How long does it take to say "we don't support that OS"?
Or why they cannot do feature X on one platform while they can do it on another. Half your bugs entered would be of this type as well.
If you're getting those types of support tickets, that's a great indication that you're trying to support more platforms than you have the capacity for. The logical thing to do is to expand your resources or drop a platform.
I honestly don't understand why so many developers feel that they must support every OS out there. Why not pick one and make your software work like a dream on that? Sure, you're fishing in a smaller pool, but you're also better positioned to make your software truly awesome and to make maximal use of the features of that platform, so you can get a larger share of fish out of that pool.
This business of developers trying to target all the platforms is one of the reasons why software tends to be less than stellar these days.
The VR scene isn't interesting to me, so I haven't been following it. I just assumed that OR was the best selling such device. But your comment made me look up some numbers.
Apparently, the OR is selling 2/3rds as many units as the Vive -- even taking into account a fairly steep summer discount that made the Rift cheaper.
I wonder if the "Facebook stink" might be more powerful than I thought it would be.
Why would anyone care?
If a company is making a case that they're concerned, then it becomes fair to expect them to be.
You wouldn't expect a company to be concerned about a plight, other than how it might affect their sales or equity.
If, as so many suits insist, corporations should be treated as people, then I think it's also fair to demand that they behave like people.
I expect people to have some measure of compassion -- at least enough to avoid capitalizing on a disaster -- and if they don't then there's nothing wrong with calling them out on it.
you have no proof-of-purchase/license, because they don't furnish one.
You do, however, have an invoice and bank records showing the payment. That would be sufficient proof in any court of law.
Windows 10 doesn't allow you to turn off the spying on any edition below Enterprise. I'm certain that's not changing now.
So, if Cortana records me in your house, it is very possible that Microsoft has broken the law.
That's an interesting question. I'm guessing that the courts would rule that it wasn't Microsoft breaking the law, but whoever brought the device into your home without your permission.
If I bring running dictation recorder into your house without your permission, the manufacturer of the recorder didn't break any eavesdropping law -- I did.
That's on Facebook, so I can't see it.
I think this is spot on.
It's a natural human tendency to think that your life is more or less "normal" and your experience is shared with most people. It's almost never actually true, but it's very easy to think that way.
The "tech leaders" live in a very rarefied world that bears almost no resemblance to the world of ordinary people, but they tend to think of themselves as "normal".
I believe this is the source of quite a lot of the insane things that come out of SV/Seattle.
This. Zuckerberg has indicated many times, through speech and deed, that he is a malicious person who cannot be trusted.
Be careful about assumptions. I'm currently looking to buy some horsepower, and Xeon based systems are certainly in my list of possibilities.
with the result that they'll focus on the biggest ones first and get round to the others later.
With the result that some developers will do this. Others will just focus on one of the smaller ones. It entirely depends on what is motivating the developer.
For the customer? I guess it depends whether they want to run anything or not.
Not so much, really. There are many examples of platforms that aren't at all dominant, yet still have a thriving developer community and a wide range of available software. It's true that the library is probably smaller, but if the platform is good, it will still be usefully large.