Linux may be a better OS, but it's not a better business plan, unfortunately. Linux isn't a better os.. Linux is the kernel... the whole pacage is named after that..
The quality of the pacage is defined by who assembles it...
Linux isn't a business plan at all.. It's just software:)
Windows however has a business plan. It has all the elements of a business.. and that business is Microsoft.
"Windows sucks" Of course is only talking about the software... There is a whole business side.
RedHats business plan sucks..
However Gateway is also suffering...
What is to be noted isn't that the evil keeps moving unphased..
Del, Compaq, Gateway, Radio Shack etc.. everyone is suffering...
Microsoft isn't.. Microsoft keeps on moving.
Thats the business side..
We already know software quality isn't in Microsofts buisness plan or Microsoft would pay more attention. The point being in a hurt ecconomy there may be something to mimic..
Microsoft treats employees well but has a well regulated staff. No more than they need.
They can not cut back becouse they never have exess staff..
Bill Gates is a smart business man.. He knew to buy up Dos and position it to suplant CP/M 86 (he was probably not expecting PC clones)
Even if it was shady and underhanded he did manage to push other Dos GUIs off the market and replace them with Windows and you have to admit he had no levrage to push Amiga or other GUI based Non PC systems off the market but they left. Bill Gates knew where the GUI was going even if no body wanted to believe it.
That kind of business skill is what is making Microsoft immune to the economy. Nobody else seems able to do that so it's worth it for CEOs to check them out.
Even if they can not repeace Microsofts success they can get a better understanding of what is happening with the economy by looking at someone who isn't phased by it.
Ok I didn't like it when computers went from the el-cheapo not so expandable console style computer (Commodore 64) to the bulky expandable not so cheap computer (PC)
I came to like it becouse it's easy to expand. The price is good etc.
Today most users aren't so worryed about price.
They don't often expand. For them upgrade is toss old computer buy new.
Dear god no.. yes that may be where we are going.
But I don't see us compleatly abandoning the upgrades. No off the shelf will satify the gamers and the gammers drive a huge wave of sales. They blow up computers overclocking them and buy new systems to overclock again. They DO upgrade and do so fanaticly. They buy the midrange low end and high end depending on where they are in life. But none are satisfyed with the off the shelf.
So expect upgrades to remain. Cheap upgrades.
I expect the wearable plug board standard 401 or 104? I forget.. Those things will become the foundation. This compaq case design will also.
But expect more inovation...
The keyboard mouse monitor and CPU will be standard eventually. Don't like the touch mouse? Buy an expensive trackball. Don't like the keyboard? Buy the new happy hacker for squish tops.
(Why Squish top? Lets cram all the PC into a laptop... SQUISH.. ewww)
Until everything is plugable standard and you are not trapped onto one vender don't expect this to fly byond CEOs, CFOs and other business executives. But business executives are the target market for laptops. For now they'll tolerate this for the cost savings of not needing a full PC at the office and the added benifits of a not quite full PC where ever they go.
Some will eventually carry a happy hacker or a trackball and other hardware to compleate the experence. They don't need the ultra neat added hardware. But some do and so the desktop remains.
Upgrading becomes an issue. Once video board upgrades become standard the lan gammer will want them.
But the upgrades won't be as cheap as we'd like.
PCs will surive. upgrades are cheaper on PCs and it's easyer to build cutting edge systems on PCs.
So expect the hacker/geek to keep his PC style case while the "avrage user" slips to the "cheaper" squish tops.
Cheaper not becouse they are easyer to make. But becouse they are made at sevral levels BELOW the PC. We get the Intel Quadomatic 25e chip while they get Intel Celeron 5.. the gammers will grab the side market Quadomatic 24e upgrade module.
Us first, gammers second, CEOs next then avrage users. Thats how the technology will trickle down.
The side effect of this...
Linux drivers...
This becouse the old PC desktop will become the exclusive domain of Linux.
Windows will move on to the squish tops.
(Linux will run on those also)
The basics of Squish tops will also find there way into full service PDAs and wearables.
But wearables will be used by gamers, collage students, sysadm and government agentcys. (Usually police).
Anywho.. Thies will go to CEOs.. future generations will be in your kid sisters hands.
Programmers don't have mono personalitys. In fact there is no such thing. I had to make the stupid term up.
The best way to tell a person isn't a hacker is the person is willing to make an effort to tell who is one.
There are many things hackers do care about. Who is or isn't a hacker isn't one of those items. They don't care. It dosn't matter.
One of the things hackers DO care about is technology issues. Open source, etc. Hackers do not all fall on the same side of an issue. Hackers can and do put lipservice to closed source and security by obscurity.
You are clearly not in business. You think marketting and advocacy is a waist of time.
You don't give an opinion very often. Opinionists usually spill so much hot air they don't ever say bad things about hot air.
In short your asking a group of people to be slient on opinions they have becouse you don't share those opinions or don't care about the issues others do care about.
Try investing in your own advice for a month. Be silent when something you care about comes up.
Don't advocate. Don't premote.
You'll be a nervous wreck by the end of it.
I don't advise trying that BTW if your in a compeditive work environment. Your carrer would be over if you didn't premote yourself a little.
When a company (any) speaks of compeating products, services, philosophys or anything not conforming to the companys own needs the consummer should reguard anything said as the same tone and quality of a political canidate refering to other canidates for the same office.
Like a political canidate the words may be true. Or they may be lies.
What matters is there is a reason for the commentary. It wasn't done in the publics best intrests but the companys own intrests.
Usually it is one of two reasons. You should do some research to identify the correct reason for the company or entity in question.
Most of the time it's probably becouse the item in question is more successful and the speaker is losing to it. Or that the speaker and the topic item are very close. In short the speaker dose not have a clear lead over the topic item and needs to bring to light the benifits of the speaker over the topic item that the public is probably unaware of.
If the speaker however has a clear lead over the topic item there is annother reason.
The most likely othe reason is the topic item is vastly suppereor to the item the speaker represents.
The speaker fears the topic item could in a head to head battle crush the item the speaker represents.
In every case the speaker fears the item he supports may suffer at the hands of the topic item. Normally this is justifyed by pure numbers. But occasionally this fear is due more to the fact that the topic item is vastly supereor to the item the speaker represents.
Microsoft has over 75% marketshare...
Linux has less than 10% marketshare...
All they seem to ever do is sue everyone.
Sorry but the companys they represent can do this already they don't need the RIAA.
Now I could see it if the RIAA members included small lables who can not afford a slick legal team. But it dosn't.
I could see it if the RIAA dose advocacy the way software industry counterparts do. Education campaigns and the like. They do not.
I might even see it if they existed as a central location for reporting music piracy. But they aren't.
They exist for massive contracts spanning many record lables contract enforcment spanning many record lables and massive lawsutes reguardless of the wishes of the record lables.
Most of the represented music artists could sue Napster if they felt like it. Why do major record lables need the RIAA?
To keep all the contracts under one roof.
You only have one deal. If you don't like the contracts the RIAA offers.. to bad.. This is it.
If they don't like what you want to do they shut you down.
How is this diffrent from Microsoft?
Simple.. Microsoft needs to maintain market control to achive what they have.
The RIAA dosn't have market control.. The members of the RIAA do. If a new kid is big enough they can join the RIAA too.
Actually they might have no choice. The RIAA is where everyone gose for the big contracts.
If I'm a small record lable I'd pay radio stations to play my music. Premotion. Probably prohibited by the RIAA contracts radio stations sign.
The larg lables don't need radio stations as badly as the small lables do.
Not that they don't but with small lables it's just harder to get the word out...
You need the RIAA to have access to radio stations and radio stations need the RIAA to have access to major lables.
If the RIAA said "Hay you can not play small lable music" radio stations say "Well ok"
Now.. if Sony said that radio stations say "Oh well.. we'll just go with compeating lables".
Now would Matalica sue Napster? Yes
Would Matalica sue Launchcast? No
Would Matalica sue Rio? No
Would Matalica sue MyMP3.com? Maybe
As long as Matalica is getting paid they don't care about the rest.
Some musicians wouldn't sue Napster...
Some would sue Slashdot for saying they might sue.
Some would sue me for what I just said.
Some would go on IRC and pretend to be fans of themselvs just so they could give away profesional quality MP3s.
It's the artists choice.
No.. it's RIAAs choice...
RIAA dosn't do anything in reguards to piracy prevention that Matalica can't do themselves.
And I think Matalica dose a better job suing people than RIAA ever will.
Maybe it's time to hire some real journalists? "Real journalists" thought Linux was RedHats property..
The great IP shortage was news.. 2 years ago...
A hacker convention was a gathering of technology terroists.
Macintosh was news.. So was the release of Windows 95. But not SunOs, Solarus, or OS/2 warp.
Also Windows crashed durring a demo.. thats news.. Other demos crash.. not news.. Ok Slashdot agreed but there is the point...
When it comes to technology news the reason it's not reported on CNN isn't becouse they know better.. but becouse they don't understand it.
When they do they'll report garbage more often than Slashdot.
If you want good technology reporting you need to fork it over to publications that pay technology experts... not jernalists.. Taco is some sort of hybred between a jernalist and a tech expert.
Also you want the good people who still need to build a name for accuracy and technical understanding not the old guys who need only mouth press releases. The later is worse than Slashdot and almost as bad as jernalists.
Also you want publications with editers who know the diffrence between someone who understands technology and someone who mouths what Bill Gates or RMS say.
"How do you feel about FidoNet" would be an example of a question a good editor should ask of a prospective reporter..
It dosn't matter if his opinion matches the editors. As long as it's a coherent opinon that shows he knows what fidonet is...
This isn't news to me...
I've done this about 10 years ago.
It wasn't anything majorly specal.
By the way... it wasn't an hour in advance.. but a week. Occasionally the satlight feed would have a problem and they'd refeed the next day. This way they'd have a day in advance to get the video to the local tv stations.
For weekly shows you get to watch all of next weeks shows. Occasionally you get a whole months worth of video in one night.. That is for sereous nocternal TV watching only.
Just having a satlight dish isn't enough. You need to be awake when the feed is done. This is becouse it's late at night and worse.. they will hop so you can not set a vcr and expect to catch the show in the same place every time. They'll leave a note in the traditional location and tell you where to go. You should set up like 5 to 10 min in advance.
We made an event of it. Everyone surrounded the larg TV in the living room.. I retreated to my bedroom to avoid the noisy group and watched on my own TV.
It was all good and fun.
Then the group would watch the same shows on cable and make bets with the poor saps who didn't know about the sat dish.
I feel sorry for the guys who didn't know...
Not much... They should visit me more often and find out thies things.
The advantage of the sat disk was watching news feeds before they went live. Some idiot messed that up by informing an advocacy organisation about one mans comments pre broudcast. This was effectively a private conversation we got to easedrop on and the poor sap got sued. Hack it wasn't even inflamitory it was his honnest opinion.
After that all news people were quiet when the sat feed turnned on. Then they'd flip the feed off so the reporters could talk and really be off camra.
I liked all the comments like "the food sucks here" and "I don't want to go home".
"They were asking us to leave again" "No we hid our equipment and they left us alone"
Stuff people hear about 10 years later I got live as it happend. Trivia..
Then... blat.. no more...
But I liked watching TV shows a week in advance that isn't being shown here and watching imbargoed news items.. items only one state will see..
I got a very diffrent view of the campaign to elect Bill Clintion. A lot of news storys that were limited to one state where Clintion made prommises local to that state that people in other stats wouldn't be happy to hear.
I figured it was fine.. they were broudcasting and didn't bother to encode. Not enough people could view the signal for them to care.
This however.. gee thanks.. By the time I get a satlight dish again everything will be unaccessable to me.
Would this apply to Amazon or CD now giving a list of CDs they have available for sale?
Such a list would be a freely available database much like your example.
Re:Things RMS didn't forsee in 1984
on
GPL FAQ
·
· Score: 1
Could you give a date?
Unix dates back to the 1960s..
In any case the exact issue is the GPL (1980s)...
Not Unix...
So you don't need to consern yourself with predating Unix.. just predate the GPL.
I myself first learnned of shared librarys in the late 1980s. Long after the GPL had been drafted.
People forget how the market works when so much of the market isn't working.
When a companys product is known to be defective you stop using the product.
Companys usually respond becouse eventually they will be cought.
The software industry ignores this rule becouse so often after being cought in lie the company in question continues to get away with it. Something is broken.
Open source and Linux are solutions in that they provide an alternitive that isn't crushed by monopolist tactics. Not becouse open source produces a better product every time but that right now close source is producing a poor product and an alternitive is nessisary.
Open source produces quality even when users have no alternitive. Open source isn't dependent on market demands so it isn't effected by them. If it didn't have another way to produce quality none would happen.
Closed produces quality as a direct result of compeditiveness. Plain and simple. They are not the only kids on the block and if they don't provide the quality software tools users demand the users will get them elsewhere.
With open source if the software tools the users demand are missing some users add them to the software. Then we all have them.
Open source dosn't produce better tools in a healthy market. But when the market is poisoned the quality of open source remains strong.
I'm not saying open source dosn't produce quality software. It dose. It just dosn't need market demand to make it happen.
If all were healthy Linux and Windows wouldn't be very diffrent in quality.
Microsoft is cought up in this game of ignoring consummer complaints. Usually companys die when they do that. It's not normal.
I'm sure in the future we'll run into some grand examples of poiosned open source work. Right now however the poison is over at Microsoft.
I think maybe you did a close miss as to the problem.
It's easy to determine if an NT box is secure or not.
Linux changes a lot normally so testing for a certen behavure is a bit problematic.
For each bug there are like 80 patches. Only one is needed to fix the bug. Testing for one patch is easy.. But 80?
Oh and here is where the fun starts...
Not all Linux patches fix bugs. Some of them are hunny pot patches. I rember a patch that fools script kiddys into thinking the Linux box was a Windows box with a bug in place. When you try to use the bug the patch then explotes a bug in the script kiddy pacage...
When you want security you need a distro made with security in mind.
RedHat is a joke. Plain and simple...
Slackware is neat but it's more a learning level. I like it. But thats just me. Hardly a system to use out of the box.
Linux from Scratch dosn't exist out of the box:)
This one really gives you an idea of what most Linux distros are thinking.
This is a START.. go forward from here.
Rock Linux, Debian and some others were made with security and stability in mind.
Windows is one box...
Linux is many boxes...
Microsoft can pick and chouse what Linux box to pull a comparison from...
I honnestly don't believe ANYTHING could be worse than RedHat without trying.
Slackware leaves a huge hole in the system by default to make setup easyer.
No need to say it. Linux advocates are occasionally raving loones.
Think of fans of a sports team, advocates for a cause or a fan of some cool software... Seems like Linux advocates right?
Now look at Microsoft marketing..
Profesionals who should be behaving in a profesional mannor. You can forget the rude fanatic but not a rude profesional.
It's quite clear why Linux adocates have a fedish level fixation on Microsoft. Microsoft has majority marketshare and market control. Linux dosen't.
Whats Microsofts excuse?
Microsoft overshadows the Linux userbase many times over. Why spend so much money attacking something so minnor?
There is but one reason I can see for Linux advocates to attack Microsoft with such intensity..
Fear.. Microsoft controls the market. Linux users are consistently living in the shadow of Microsoft. Every website and Internet service says "Requirement: Windows"
Now why is Microsoft attacking Linux so often?
There is one reason I can see....
Fear....
Fear that Microsofts products are not anywhere near ready to compeate with Linux.
Linux isn't an ideal product.. far from it.. It's got problems.
Picture it this way...
Linux is like a timex watch... the watch band keeps breaking but the watch seems to last forever.
Windows is more like a cheap watch... It works.. usually...
There are better watches at higher prices (Solarus) but the whole point is that Linux exists and remains an easy upgrade path for technosavy users.
Now if we can get the less savy users to buy Macs life would be easyer.
we're talking about computers and consoles which run complicated software that are not 100% stable.
Console makers can say no to low quality software.. Computer makers don't have that advantage.
You don't get 100% all the time.. stuff happends. That is true for TVs and radios as much as computers and consoles.
But writing software is nowhere near as complex as you make it out to be.
Actually there is a simple and well tested way of making an operating system run perfictly...
Remove anything that dosen't work.
Test the system extensively and just scrap any feature that isn't functioning correctly.
This was done often in the 1980s..
Also a lot of times whole computers would be scrapped becouse they had problems.
I had a microwave that did crash once.. I replaced it..
As for a CD player...:)... Rember those Interactive CD video players? Didn't crash...
On the issue of external programs...
Video game console makers have an added advantage.. Game companys MUST go through the console maker to sell games. If the game is flaky the console maker can just say "No"...
Microsoft and Apple do not have this advantage...
App makers can sell crummy software and blame the os or computer.
I've never actually had that problem. All the apps I've ever used were pritty good quality. But then I'm very selective and rarely buy any software. I usually just write what I need.
now if I could just get the dream world were computers DON'T crash. You could buy an older 1980s generation computer like an Amiga or a NeXT box. Such machines do most of what computers do today (just slower).
Or you could buy a Sun Sparc and run Solarus..
I'm a Linux guy.. You've heard it all before..
But it's true.. and not just for Linux. A number of operating systems and computers produced today run fine.
Hay for the people who like Windows the most it dosen't crash.
I won't use anything that dosen't work correctly.
It isn't worth my time to fight with defective technology...
If YOU think that computers shouldn't crash then you're living in a dream world.
I have a number of computers and game consoles that do not crash.
I'm not going to say Windows crashes all the time. How could I know? I don't use Windows. I don't need Windows. I don't know what is normal for Windows.
What I do use dosn't crash.
If Microsoft asks me to live with a defective game console I just won't buy it.
If the Xbox is all there is and it's defective I just won't buy a game console.
Nobody is twisting my arm...
If computers truely were so complex that they must all be defective I would not be using computers today.
I'm patent but not enough to deal with flaky technology...
Consoles crash all the time, they always have and always will. What consoles do you use? I'd like to know what to avoid in the future.
Hay why don't you put yourself on my suckers list. I mean you'll get on one eventually. Why fight it?
You have accepted the notion that defective products are an unavoidable reality.
This is an excuse for producing poor quality.
Forget Microsoft for a moment.
A lot of companys sell shotty quality and they run around saying everyone is this bad.
People who make shotty cars clame all cars are shotty.
People who sell poor quality knifes clame all knifes are the same.
People who sell high quality end up having to fight this fiction.
Quality is not a myth.
If all game consoles are defective.. why would anyone buy them?
I have never had any problems with the game consoles I've used and I only had computer problems becouse I occasionally buy cutting edge.
(When buying cutting edge you don't know if it is defective or not... and if it is you are betting the company will fix it. If it is defective and the company won't fix it you are screwed. It's worth the risk... It's usually defective it is usually fixed and the bug is usually minnor.)
But I will not ever buy from a company that isn't sereous about producing a good quality product.
Stuff happends. Clean it up.. don't plug your nose and ignore it.
(You know the correct word isn't STUFF.. but I'll leave it to you to mentally insert the correct word)
One key diffrence between the game market and the PC market is gamers are almost expected to have more than one console.
Also PCs are productivity machines game consoles are entertainment.
If the only productivity software available is for one platform you are screwed. Use it no matter how flaky.
If however all the games are for one platform and that platform is no-fun.. We get a new video game dark age.
(Like the last video game dark age... when nobody could sell video games and everyone was playing non-computer based games like chess and RPGs)
You are kinda locked into your computer platform. When you upgrade you only upgrade a part of the system. You need to maintain compatability with your old hardware.
Compaire this to video game consoles. Every upgrade you toss the whole box and start over from scratch. You aren't locked into anything.
Microsoft CAN get all the video game makers to produce all games for Xbox. Microsoft CAN get a lot of gammers to buy the box. But if it dosn't rock it is dead.
The problem is simple. The Xbox dosen't simply compleate with every game console. It compeates with the fickle short attention span of the gamers.
Only the early addopters will scoop them up and try them out. If they suck then you'll see a bunch of web pages on installing Linux on an Xbox and other such uses. This becouse the early adopters will simply put the investment to good use.. That use being something other than playing games.
I expect Microsoft isn't aware of the realitys of the video game console world and think if they can throw out some fancy hardware (working or not) and sell games they'll make money.
If the box is defective then someone will produce something better.
Slashdot Mirror
Linux may be a better OS, but it's not a better business plan, unfortunately.
:)
Linux isn't a better os.. Linux is the kernel... the whole pacage is named after that..
The quality of the pacage is defined by who assembles it...
Linux isn't a business plan at all.. It's just software
Windows however has a business plan. It has all the elements of a business.. and that business is Microsoft.
"Windows sucks" Of course is only talking about the software... There is a whole business side.
RedHats business plan sucks..
However Gateway is also suffering...
What is to be noted isn't that the evil keeps moving unphased..
Del, Compaq, Gateway, Radio Shack etc.. everyone is suffering...
Microsoft isn't.. Microsoft keeps on moving.
Thats the business side..
We already know software quality isn't in Microsofts buisness plan or Microsoft would pay more attention. The point being in a hurt ecconomy there may be something to mimic..
Microsoft treats employees well but has a well regulated staff. No more than they need.
They can not cut back becouse they never have exess staff..
Bill Gates is a smart business man.. He knew to buy up Dos and position it to suplant CP/M 86 (he was probably not expecting PC clones)
Even if it was shady and underhanded he did manage to push other Dos GUIs off the market and replace them with Windows and you have to admit he had no levrage to push Amiga or other GUI based Non PC systems off the market but they left. Bill Gates knew where the GUI was going even if no body wanted to believe it.
That kind of business skill is what is making Microsoft immune to the economy. Nobody else seems able to do that so it's worth it for CEOs to check them out.
Even if they can not repeace Microsofts success they can get a better understanding of what is happening with the economy by looking at someone who isn't phased by it.
Ok I didn't like it when computers went from the el-cheapo not so expandable console style computer (Commodore 64) to the bulky expandable not so cheap computer (PC)
I came to like it becouse it's easy to expand. The price is good etc.
Today most users aren't so worryed about price.
They don't often expand. For them upgrade is toss old computer buy new.
Dear god no.. yes that may be where we are going.
But I don't see us compleatly abandoning the upgrades. No off the shelf will satify the gamers and the gammers drive a huge wave of sales. They blow up computers overclocking them and buy new systems to overclock again. They DO upgrade and do so fanaticly. They buy the midrange low end and high end depending on where they are in life. But none are satisfyed with the off the shelf.
So expect upgrades to remain. Cheap upgrades.
I expect the wearable plug board standard 401 or 104? I forget.. Those things will become the foundation. This compaq case design will also.
But expect more inovation...
The keyboard mouse monitor and CPU will be standard eventually. Don't like the touch mouse? Buy an expensive trackball. Don't like the keyboard? Buy the new happy hacker for squish tops.
(Why Squish top? Lets cram all the PC into a laptop... SQUISH.. ewww)
Until everything is plugable standard and you are not trapped onto one vender don't expect this to fly byond CEOs, CFOs and other business executives. But business executives are the target market for laptops. For now they'll tolerate this for the cost savings of not needing a full PC at the office and the added benifits of a not quite full PC where ever they go.
Some will eventually carry a happy hacker or a trackball and other hardware to compleate the experence. They don't need the ultra neat added hardware. But some do and so the desktop remains.
Upgrading becomes an issue. Once video board upgrades become standard the lan gammer will want them.
But the upgrades won't be as cheap as we'd like.
PCs will surive. upgrades are cheaper on PCs and it's easyer to build cutting edge systems on PCs.
So expect the hacker/geek to keep his PC style case while the "avrage user" slips to the "cheaper" squish tops.
Cheaper not becouse they are easyer to make. But becouse they are made at sevral levels BELOW the PC. We get the Intel Quadomatic 25e chip while they get Intel Celeron 5.. the gammers will grab the side market Quadomatic 24e upgrade module.
Us first, gammers second, CEOs next then avrage users. Thats how the technology will trickle down.
The side effect of this...
Linux drivers...
This becouse the old PC desktop will become the exclusive domain of Linux.
Windows will move on to the squish tops.
(Linux will run on those also)
The basics of Squish tops will also find there way into full service PDAs and wearables.
But wearables will be used by gamers, collage students, sysadm and government agentcys. (Usually police).
Anywho.. Thies will go to CEOs.. future generations will be in your kid sisters hands.
When a book author dose a poor job you put the book down.
When a critic dose a poor job otherwise intrested readers don't bother.
The book being reviewed is pritty much a review itself.
That isn't the sort of book you EVER review.
It's painful to watch an otherwise profesional critic try and review something he is absolutly unable to understand.
What you call a "real coder" I call an "obsesive workaholic"...
Even then obsessive programmers usually have more free time than slop artists simply becouse the code they wrote is easy to debug and rarely has bugs.
Obsessive coders rarely have sereous problems to fix.
You are nither a coder nore are you in business.
Programmers don't have mono personalitys. In fact there is no such thing. I had to make the stupid term up.
The best way to tell a person isn't a hacker is the person is willing to make an effort to tell who is one.
There are many things hackers do care about. Who is or isn't a hacker isn't one of those items. They don't care. It dosn't matter.
One of the things hackers DO care about is technology issues. Open source, etc. Hackers do not all fall on the same side of an issue. Hackers can and do put lipservice to closed source and security by obscurity.
You are clearly not in business. You think marketting and advocacy is a waist of time.
You don't give an opinion very often. Opinionists usually spill so much hot air they don't ever say bad things about hot air.
In short your asking a group of people to be slient on opinions they have becouse you don't share those opinions or don't care about the issues others do care about.
Try investing in your own advice for a month. Be silent when something you care about comes up.
Don't advocate. Don't premote.
You'll be a nervous wreck by the end of it.
I don't advise trying that BTW if your in a compeditive work environment. Your carrer would be over if you didn't premote yourself a little.
When a company (any) speaks of compeating products, services, philosophys or anything not conforming to the companys own needs the consummer should reguard anything said as the same tone and quality of a political canidate refering to other canidates for the same office.
Like a political canidate the words may be true. Or they may be lies.
What matters is there is a reason for the commentary. It wasn't done in the publics best intrests but the companys own intrests.
Usually it is one of two reasons. You should do some research to identify the correct reason for the company or entity in question.
Most of the time it's probably becouse the item in question is more successful and the speaker is losing to it. Or that the speaker and the topic item are very close. In short the speaker dose not have a clear lead over the topic item and needs to bring to light the benifits of the speaker over the topic item that the public is probably unaware of.
If the speaker however has a clear lead over the topic item there is annother reason.
The most likely othe reason is the topic item is vastly suppereor to the item the speaker represents.
The speaker fears the topic item could in a head to head battle crush the item the speaker represents.
In every case the speaker fears the item he supports may suffer at the hands of the topic item. Normally this is justifyed by pure numbers. But occasionally this fear is due more to the fact that the topic item is vastly supereor to the item the speaker represents.
Microsoft has over 75% marketshare...
Linux has less than 10% marketshare...
Why is Microsoft conserned about Linux?
Actually it's not so easy on the executives of the dead company.
"I was the CEO for Itchi Co. and I'm looking for work"
"Ahh and reason for losing former employment?"
"Itchi Co got killed"
"Next!!!"
But then if you rip off your company enough it won't matter.. retire.. of course you can never ever come out of retirement.. ever.. pirod.
All they seem to ever do is sue everyone.
Sorry but the companys they represent can do this already they don't need the RIAA.
Now I could see it if the RIAA members included small lables who can not afford a slick legal team. But it dosn't.
I could see it if the RIAA dose advocacy the way software industry counterparts do. Education campaigns and the like. They do not.
I might even see it if they existed as a central location for reporting music piracy. But they aren't.
They exist for massive contracts spanning many record lables contract enforcment spanning many record lables and massive lawsutes reguardless of the wishes of the record lables.
Most of the represented music artists could sue Napster if they felt like it. Why do major record lables need the RIAA?
To keep all the contracts under one roof.
You only have one deal. If you don't like the contracts the RIAA offers.. to bad.. This is it.
If they don't like what you want to do they shut you down.
How is this diffrent from Microsoft?
Simple.. Microsoft needs to maintain market control to achive what they have.
The RIAA dosn't have market control.. The members of the RIAA do. If a new kid is big enough they can join the RIAA too.
Actually they might have no choice. The RIAA is where everyone gose for the big contracts.
If I'm a small record lable I'd pay radio stations to play my music. Premotion. Probably prohibited by the RIAA contracts radio stations sign.
The larg lables don't need radio stations as badly as the small lables do.
Not that they don't but with small lables it's just harder to get the word out...
You need the RIAA to have access to radio stations and radio stations need the RIAA to have access to major lables.
If the RIAA said "Hay you can not play small lable music" radio stations say "Well ok"
Now.. if Sony said that radio stations say "Oh well.. we'll just go with compeating lables".
Now would Matalica sue Napster? Yes
Would Matalica sue Launchcast? No
Would Matalica sue Rio? No
Would Matalica sue MyMP3.com? Maybe
As long as Matalica is getting paid they don't care about the rest.
Some musicians wouldn't sue Napster...
Some would sue Slashdot for saying they might sue.
Some would sue me for what I just said.
Some would go on IRC and pretend to be fans of themselvs just so they could give away profesional quality MP3s.
It's the artists choice.
No.. it's RIAAs choice...
RIAA dosn't do anything in reguards to piracy prevention that Matalica can't do themselves.
And I think Matalica dose a better job suing people than RIAA ever will.
Matalica has every right to sue.. RIAA however..
Maybe it's time to hire some real journalists?
"Real journalists" thought Linux was RedHats property..
The great IP shortage was news.. 2 years ago...
A hacker convention was a gathering of technology terroists.
Macintosh was news.. So was the release of Windows 95. But not SunOs, Solarus, or OS/2 warp.
Also Windows crashed durring a demo.. thats news.. Other demos crash.. not news.. Ok Slashdot agreed but there is the point...
When it comes to technology news the reason it's not reported on CNN isn't becouse they know better.. but becouse they don't understand it.
When they do they'll report garbage more often than Slashdot.
If you want good technology reporting you need to fork it over to publications that pay technology experts... not jernalists.. Taco is some sort of hybred between a jernalist and a tech expert.
Also you want the good people who still need to build a name for accuracy and technical understanding not the old guys who need only mouth press releases. The later is worse than Slashdot and almost as bad as jernalists.
Also you want publications with editers who know the diffrence between someone who understands technology and someone who mouths what Bill Gates or RMS say.
"How do you feel about FidoNet" would be an example of a question a good editor should ask of a prospective reporter..
It dosn't matter if his opinion matches the editors. As long as it's a coherent opinon that shows he knows what fidonet is...
This isn't news to me...
I've done this about 10 years ago.
It wasn't anything majorly specal.
By the way... it wasn't an hour in advance.. but a week. Occasionally the satlight feed would have a problem and they'd refeed the next day. This way they'd have a day in advance to get the video to the local tv stations.
For weekly shows you get to watch all of next weeks shows. Occasionally you get a whole months worth of video in one night.. That is for sereous nocternal TV watching only.
Just having a satlight dish isn't enough. You need to be awake when the feed is done. This is becouse it's late at night and worse.. they will hop so you can not set a vcr and expect to catch the show in the same place every time. They'll leave a note in the traditional location and tell you where to go. You should set up like 5 to 10 min in advance.
We made an event of it. Everyone surrounded the larg TV in the living room.. I retreated to my bedroom to avoid the noisy group and watched on my own TV.
It was all good and fun.
Then the group would watch the same shows on cable and make bets with the poor saps who didn't know about the sat dish.
I feel sorry for the guys who didn't know...
Not much... They should visit me more often and find out thies things.
The advantage of the sat disk was watching news feeds before they went live. Some idiot messed that up by informing an advocacy organisation about one mans comments pre broudcast. This was effectively a private conversation we got to easedrop on and the poor sap got sued. Hack it wasn't even inflamitory it was his honnest opinion.
After that all news people were quiet when the sat feed turnned on. Then they'd flip the feed off so the reporters could talk and really be off camra.
I liked all the comments like "the food sucks here" and "I don't want to go home".
"They were asking us to leave again" "No we hid our equipment and they left us alone"
Stuff people hear about 10 years later I got live as it happend. Trivia..
Then... blat.. no more...
But I liked watching TV shows a week in advance that isn't being shown here and watching imbargoed news items.. items only one state will see..
I got a very diffrent view of the campaign to elect Bill Clintion. A lot of news storys that were limited to one state where Clintion made prommises local to that state that people in other stats wouldn't be happy to hear.
I figured it was fine.. they were broudcasting and didn't bother to encode. Not enough people could view the signal for them to care.
This however.. gee thanks.. By the time I get a satlight dish again everything will be unaccessable to me.
Would this apply to Amazon or CD now giving a list of CDs they have available for sale?
Such a list would be a freely available database much like your example.
Could you give a date?
Unix dates back to the 1960s..
In any case the exact issue is the GPL (1980s)...
Not Unix...
So you don't need to consern yourself with predating Unix.. just predate the GPL.
I myself first learnned of shared librarys in the late 1980s. Long after the GPL had been drafted.
People forget how the market works when so much of the market isn't working.
When a companys product is known to be defective you stop using the product.
Companys usually respond becouse eventually they will be cought.
The software industry ignores this rule becouse so often after being cought in lie the company in question continues to get away with it. Something is broken.
Open source and Linux are solutions in that they provide an alternitive that isn't crushed by monopolist tactics. Not becouse open source produces a better product every time but that right now close source is producing a poor product and an alternitive is nessisary.
Open source produces quality even when users have no alternitive. Open source isn't dependent on market demands so it isn't effected by them. If it didn't have another way to produce quality none would happen.
Closed produces quality as a direct result of compeditiveness. Plain and simple. They are not the only kids on the block and if they don't provide the quality software tools users demand the users will get them elsewhere.
With open source if the software tools the users demand are missing some users add them to the software. Then we all have them.
Open source dosn't produce better tools in a healthy market. But when the market is poisoned the quality of open source remains strong.
I'm not saying open source dosn't produce quality software. It dose. It just dosn't need market demand to make it happen.
If all were healthy Linux and Windows wouldn't be very diffrent in quality.
Microsoft is cought up in this game of ignoring consummer complaints. Usually companys die when they do that. It's not normal.
I'm sure in the future we'll run into some grand examples of poiosned open source work. Right now however the poison is over at Microsoft.
I think maybe you did a close miss as to the problem.
It's easy to determine if an NT box is secure or not.
Linux changes a lot normally so testing for a certen behavure is a bit problematic.
For each bug there are like 80 patches. Only one is needed to fix the bug. Testing for one patch is easy.. But 80?
Oh and here is where the fun starts...
Not all Linux patches fix bugs. Some of them are hunny pot patches. I rember a patch that fools script kiddys into thinking the Linux box was a Windows box with a bug in place. When you try to use the bug the patch then explotes a bug in the script kiddy pacage...
When you want security you need a distro made with security in mind.
:)
RedHat is a joke. Plain and simple...
Slackware is neat but it's more a learning level. I like it. But thats just me. Hardly a system to use out of the box.
Linux from Scratch dosn't exist out of the box
This one really gives you an idea of what most Linux distros are thinking.
This is a START.. go forward from here.
Rock Linux, Debian and some others were made with security and stability in mind.
Windows is one box...
Linux is many boxes...
Microsoft can pick and chouse what Linux box to pull a comparison from...
I honnestly don't believe ANYTHING could be worse than RedHat without trying.
Slackware leaves a huge hole in the system by default to make setup easyer.
No need to say it. Linux advocates are occasionally raving loones.
Think of fans of a sports team, advocates for a cause or a fan of some cool software... Seems like Linux advocates right?
Now look at Microsoft marketing..
Profesionals who should be behaving in a profesional mannor. You can forget the rude fanatic but not a rude profesional.
It's quite clear why Linux adocates have a fedish level fixation on Microsoft. Microsoft has majority marketshare and market control. Linux dosen't.
Whats Microsofts excuse?
Microsoft overshadows the Linux userbase many times over. Why spend so much money attacking something so minnor?
There is but one reason I can see for Linux advocates to attack Microsoft with such intensity..
Fear.. Microsoft controls the market. Linux users are consistently living in the shadow of Microsoft. Every website and Internet service says "Requirement: Windows"
Now why is Microsoft attacking Linux so often?
There is one reason I can see....
Fear....
Fear that Microsofts products are not anywhere near ready to compeate with Linux.
Linux isn't an ideal product.. far from it.. It's got problems.
Picture it this way...
Linux is like a timex watch... the watch band keeps breaking but the watch seems to last forever.
Windows is more like a cheap watch... It works.. usually...
There are better watches at higher prices (Solarus) but the whole point is that Linux exists and remains an easy upgrade path for technosavy users.
Now if we can get the less savy users to buy Macs life would be easyer.
This is gonna get modded down as a troll, but it's true
First.. I certenly hope not... This is a reasonable argument...
Messing with your system is an easy way to make it crash. Stick tinfoil in a microwave.. Dust in a CD player.. etc...
I expect 75% from my technology...
Potted plant on the TV is asking for trubble...
we're talking about computers and consoles which run complicated software that are not 100% stable.
Console makers can say no to low quality software.. Computer makers don't have that advantage.
You don't get 100% all the time.. stuff happends. That is true for TVs and radios as much as computers and consoles.
But writing software is nowhere near as complex as you make it out to be.
Actually there is a simple and well tested way of making an operating system run perfictly...
Remove anything that dosen't work.
Test the system extensively and just scrap any feature that isn't functioning correctly.
This was done often in the 1980s..
Also a lot of times whole computers would be scrapped becouse they had problems.
I had a microwave that did crash once.. I replaced it.. :) ... Rember those Interactive CD video players? Didn't crash...
As for a CD player...
On the issue of external programs...
Video game console makers have an added advantage.. Game companys MUST go through the console maker to sell games. If the game is flaky the console maker can just say "No"...
Microsoft and Apple do not have this advantage...
App makers can sell crummy software and blame the os or computer.
I've never actually had that problem. All the apps I've ever used were pritty good quality. But then I'm very selective and rarely buy any software. I usually just write what I need.
I had a defective Microwave...
The counter would wig out and I'd have to unplug it to make it reset.
I replaced it...
now if I could just get the dream world were computers DON'T crash.
You could buy an older 1980s generation computer like an Amiga or a NeXT box. Such machines do most of what computers do today (just slower).
Or you could buy a Sun Sparc and run Solarus..
I'm a Linux guy.. You've heard it all before..
But it's true.. and not just for Linux. A number of operating systems and computers produced today run fine.
Hay for the people who like Windows the most it dosen't crash.
I won't use anything that dosen't work correctly.
It isn't worth my time to fight with defective technology...
If YOU think that computers shouldn't crash then you're living in a dream world.
I have a number of computers and game consoles that do not crash.
I'm not going to say Windows crashes all the time. How could I know? I don't use Windows. I don't need Windows. I don't know what is normal for Windows.
What I do use dosn't crash.
If Microsoft asks me to live with a defective game console I just won't buy it.
If the Xbox is all there is and it's defective I just won't buy a game console.
Nobody is twisting my arm...
If computers truely were so complex that they must all be defective I would not be using computers today.
I'm patent but not enough to deal with flaky technology...
Consoles crash all the time, they always have and always will.
What consoles do you use? I'd like to know what to avoid in the future.
Hay why don't you put yourself on my suckers list. I mean you'll get on one eventually. Why fight it?
You have accepted the notion that defective products are an unavoidable reality.
This is an excuse for producing poor quality.
Forget Microsoft for a moment.
A lot of companys sell shotty quality and they run around saying everyone is this bad.
People who make shotty cars clame all cars are shotty.
People who sell poor quality knifes clame all knifes are the same.
People who sell high quality end up having to fight this fiction.
Quality is not a myth.
If all game consoles are defective.. why would anyone buy them?
I have never had any problems with the game consoles I've used and I only had computer problems becouse I occasionally buy cutting edge.
(When buying cutting edge you don't know if it is defective or not... and if it is you are betting the company will fix it. If it is defective and the company won't fix it you are screwed. It's worth the risk... It's usually defective it is usually fixed and the bug is usually minnor.)
But I will not ever buy from a company that isn't sereous about producing a good quality product.
Stuff happends. Clean it up.. don't plug your nose and ignore it.
(You know the correct word isn't STUFF.. but I'll leave it to you to mentally insert the correct word)
One key diffrence between the game market and the PC market is gamers are almost expected to have more than one console.
Also PCs are productivity machines game consoles are entertainment.
If the only productivity software available is for one platform you are screwed. Use it no matter how flaky.
If however all the games are for one platform and that platform is no-fun.. We get a new video game dark age.
(Like the last video game dark age... when nobody could sell video games and everyone was playing non-computer based games like chess and RPGs)
You are kinda locked into your computer platform. When you upgrade you only upgrade a part of the system. You need to maintain compatability with your old hardware.
Compaire this to video game consoles. Every upgrade you toss the whole box and start over from scratch. You aren't locked into anything.
Microsoft CAN get all the video game makers to produce all games for Xbox. Microsoft CAN get a lot of gammers to buy the box. But if it dosn't rock it is dead.
The problem is simple. The Xbox dosen't simply compleate with every game console. It compeates with the fickle short attention span of the gamers.
Only the early addopters will scoop them up and try them out. If they suck then you'll see a bunch of web pages on installing Linux on an Xbox and other such uses. This becouse the early adopters will simply put the investment to good use.. That use being something other than playing games.
I expect Microsoft isn't aware of the realitys of the video game console world and think if they can throw out some fancy hardware (working or not) and sell games they'll make money.
If the box is defective then someone will produce something better.