I hate to break it to you, but it is a person's right to grow up and be worthless. As long as they don't file for government programs. The instant that they do, they cease to be making decisions which only impact themselves.
I'm not saying that it's right--but I do think that it's not as black-and-white as you make it seem.
Open Source is trademarked (though probably diluted enough for that not to matter) and has a distinct definition. Microsoft is probably trying to avoid a legal battle that would just act as free advertising for Open Source.
OSI has a trademark on the term "Open Source", so naturally they are allowed to define what "Open Source" means. The term has probably become generic enough to invalidate the mark without much trouble.
I saw your sig, but it wasn't germane to the point. The point was that your "back in my day, we did X, so you can get by with X, too" is logically fallacious.
To most people dial-up is just not acceptable. You seem to have made it a point to get by with decades-old technology--bully for you--but that isn't what most people want.
Most Linux problems these days are prevented through quality control and the fact that distributions act as a "vendor" so that problems with libraries don't happen. So yeah, nowadays, the dreaded libc problem are less common, and even if they do bork your system, there are easy ways to repair it.
On the other hand, re-installing is highly simplified, too. And since data can easily live on a separate partition, I actually think that reinstalling is faster and easier than repairing libraries, even with a Live CD.
It was VMWare? Why the hell didn't you take a snapshot before performing this major OS update?
If there was a failure of one part (e-mail, SSH, even the kernel), you only need to repair or fix that one piece and you're back and running again and that repair can be done independently of other parts of the system. Guess you've never suffered through a botched libc update.
DRM doesn't work. While it may make it harder for grandmothers to make copies of their CDs, ultimately, the media still gets out there, and once it's out there, anyone can make unlimited copies without having to worry about the DRM. That's what makes digital so great--and so scary to the RIAA.
In truth, DRM obviates copyright. DRM is a technical measure which locks up content previously only locked up by law. If a truly successful DRM scheme were ever invented, we would have to demand that copyright for digital works be dissolved.
Of course, the biggest problem with DRM is that in technologically enforcing copyright protections, it effectively removes the time-limitation of copyright. When copyright expires, will the DRM also expire? Of course not. DRM gives companies better copy protection than the government. But by the government enforcing laws protecting DRM, they are effectively removing the limited nature of copyrights. Even fair use is much, much more difficult to exercise when DRM is in play
In other words, 3 hours of TV a day at a decent HD rate would send you over the top. The "average American" spends 20 hours a week or so in front of the tube... that's roughly 80 hours a month at 10Mbps for a total of 351GB. And this is before any other usage is included. Well maybe the average American should spend that time watching TV on the TV instead of watching TV on their computers! It's almost like Comcast were also a TV conduit, and were trying to keep entertainment revenue within their control.
It's a common tactic. Advertise a product, get favorable reviews, then start cutting corners to make the product cheaper and increase your margins. In this case, it's "Sell 'unlimited' Internet. Drop the term 'unlimited.' Cap bandwidth/charge overages." And with HD: "Sell HD as higher quality. Drop quality slowly so that people don't notice a lot. Profit."
That's an interesting idea. Generally speaking, even if something costs less to produce, if it's perceived as being more valuable, it will be sold for more. VHS vs DVD about 2 years after the format was introduced is evidence of this.
Nevertheless, it feels wrong, somehow. Worse, Microsoft has a history of anticompetitive practices, which makes people wonder if they gave ASUS an extreme discount to make Linux look bad.
As for the implementation details, the Eee originally ran on Linux. Unless Microsoft subsidized their engineering staff and support folks, the extra cost would be in making sure that Windows ran on the hardware, not Linux.
I was thinking the same thing. The fact that Linux is now touted as the 'easy' OS to use is rather insulting to Redmond I would think. Perspective. Lots of people think that if something is too easy to use, it's a toy. Or their pride may be hit and they think, "I'm perfectly capable of using Windows, so I'm going to."
I don't think that there's a huge market for Linux boxes, but let's assume that there was.
First of all, one of the big reasons that knowledgeable people would like Linux to be pre-installed instead of Windows is because by all rights, it should be cheaper. After all, Linux is free, and Windows isn't. The problem is that the same computer on which they could pre-install Linux could instead have Windows pre-installed, which would both keep the company in Microsoft's good graces and increase the company's profits (assuming the company fixes their profit margin at a certain percentage[0], meaning that they make profits on reselling Windows specifically, but not on reselling a free-as-in-beer OS.[1])
Of course, a cheaper computer isn't the only reason to want Linux pre-installed. It could be that you want to avoid supporting Microsoft. It may be that you don't want to pay for something that you're definitely not going to use. It may be that you want some assurance that the hardware will work under Linux (this one usually gets my vote.) Regardless, the additional work on the part of the OEM, combined with getting on Microsoft's bad side (and let's face it, many more people are clamouring(sic) for Microsoft than for Linux) probably doesn't justify the few sales they'll take away from other OEMs by offering Linux.
[0] Not to get into a sore subject, but this is one of the reasons that Exxon posts record profits while the cost of oil keeps skyrocketing. They fix their profit margin, so if the price of oil goes up, their profits do, too. They could reduce their profit margin in order to ease the burden on their customers, but due to oil's inelastic demand, they have almost no incentive to do so.
[1] Of course, the OEM could just charge for Linux based upon the profit they make on Windows, but they'd still be out of Microsoft's graces.
DIVX had a direct competitor providing identical (and in many cases, superior) content with much wider distribution (DIVX was Circuit City-only, I believe, whereas DVD was sold in many places.) DIVX was also trying to compete simultaneously with video rentals and with video purchases by creating a hybrid--purchase the disc to get a free play, then rent it in the future if you want to watch it again (but use the same disc, so you don't have to leave the house.) Due to the nature of the technology--the fact that you need a specific player to play the discs--they had problems because early adopters tend to be technically literate. Early adopters realized the danger in not owning your media, so as you point out, they rejected the players and discs. All of this came together to cause DIVX to be a massive flop.
Computer games suffer less from these problems. The "players" are already out there, and it's all ubiquitous equipment (the computers.) You don't need to be technically oriented to own a gaming machine these days. Activation-based services also aren't acting like rentals, because you only ever pay once. And possibly most importantly, there are no other options. If I want to play Spore, I've got to agree to this consumer-hostile activation scheme[1].
The other issue is that consumers have changed in the past 10 years. Average people are using the Internet and getting access to on-demand content. They're (somewhat) used to auto updates and software phoning home (you can thank Microsoft for that.) The water has slowly risen to a boil while the frog sits in the pot.
[1] Ok, I could probably play one of the console versions, but I'm looking ahead to games which are only released in PC versions. Maybe this is just one more nail in the coffin of computer gaming.
I play older games more because I tend to find them more enjoyable than newer games. I've probably replayed the entire Ultima series a dozen times (except for the last one--such potential that became such crap.)
To me, there's nothing modern that even comes close to the enjoyment I get out of these games. I enjoyed Black & White a bit, and Spore struck a chord with me--it sounded like it was going to have similar (but refined) characteristics. I was pretty excited about it, however with this news, I will not be getting a copy.
That's fair. You might get to keep them forever, and they probably won't mind, as long as you pay your $25/mo or whatever for the service. The original poster's point was primarily flawed in that Netflix isn't giving you any sort of ownership over the "watch now" movies, anyway, nor are they purporting to. And you're not paying for them, other than by paying for Netflix service in general.
A more analogous situation already exists. Unbox (if Amazon ever turns off the DRM server, videos you've "bought" will disappear.) Google Video already turned off their DRM servers for some video, and Microsoft (MSN) is turning off servers for some of their customers' music "purchases." These are big companies, people! How long until people learn that this is not an acceptable business method?
Thanks for the suggestions! I'm not the original poster/submitter, but I was thinking about picking up something like this as a hobby. In fact, the timing of the submission almost eerily coincides with the time I got this wild hair.
I'll probably do some reading and see if it's something that I'm interested in. Again, thanks for the suggestions!
It's got an emitter-follower push-pull output stage, a common-emitter gain stage, a long-tailed pair differential input stage, some current mirrors to set up biasing, and a Vbe multiplier to help bias the output stage; it's really not complicated if you take it in parts and don't feel any particular need to understand it in one sitting. That's true of any non-textbook circuit, though, really. And what would you recommend to someone who didn't understand a word of that?
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not saying that it's right--but I do think that it's not as black-and-white as you make it seem.
Erm. Or maybe not. Guess that's my fault for parroting stuff without verifying it.
Sorry for the noise.
Open Source is trademarked (though probably diluted enough for that not to matter) and has a distinct definition. Microsoft is probably trying to avoid a legal battle that would just act as free advertising for Open Source.
I saw your sig, but it wasn't germane to the point. The point was that your "back in my day, we did X, so you can get by with X, too" is logically fallacious.
To most people dial-up is just not acceptable. You seem to have made it a point to get by with decades-old technology--bully for you--but that isn't what most people want.
Linux is free. Windows users paid to have their machines screwed up.
Times changes. Bandwidth inflation is a serious problem. Web pages don't clock in at under 10k anymore.
Oh, to be able to mod you +1 Funny. That actually made me laugh out loud.
Most Linux problems these days are prevented through quality control and the fact that distributions act as a "vendor" so that problems with libraries don't happen. So yeah, nowadays, the dreaded libc problem are less common, and even if they do bork your system, there are easy ways to repair it.
On the other hand, re-installing is highly simplified, too. And since data can easily live on a separate partition, I actually think that reinstalling is faster and easier than repairing libraries, even with a Live CD.
That's fine.
DRM doesn't work. While it may make it harder for grandmothers to make copies of their CDs, ultimately, the media still gets out there, and once it's out there, anyone can make unlimited copies without having to worry about the DRM. That's what makes digital so great--and so scary to the RIAA.
In truth, DRM obviates copyright. DRM is a technical measure which locks up content previously only locked up by law. If a truly successful DRM scheme were ever invented, we would have to demand that copyright for digital works be dissolved.
Of course, the biggest problem with DRM is that in technologically enforcing copyright protections, it effectively removes the time-limitation of copyright. When copyright expires, will the DRM also expire? Of course not. DRM gives companies better copy protection than the government. But by the government enforcing laws protecting DRM, they are effectively removing the limited nature of copyrights. Even fair use is much, much more difficult to exercise when DRM is in play
It's a common tactic. Advertise a product, get favorable reviews, then start cutting corners to make the product cheaper and increase your margins. In this case, it's "Sell 'unlimited' Internet. Drop the term 'unlimited.' Cap bandwidth/charge overages." And with HD: "Sell HD as higher quality. Drop quality slowly so that people don't notice a lot. Profit."
That's an interesting idea. Generally speaking, even if something costs less to produce, if it's perceived as being more valuable, it will be sold for more. VHS vs DVD about 2 years after the format was introduced is evidence of this.
Nevertheless, it feels wrong, somehow. Worse, Microsoft has a history of anticompetitive practices, which makes people wonder if they gave ASUS an extreme discount to make Linux look bad.
As for the implementation details, the Eee originally ran on Linux. Unless Microsoft subsidized their engineering staff and support folks, the extra cost would be in making sure that Windows ran on the hardware, not Linux.
I don't think that there's a huge market for Linux boxes, but let's assume that there was.
First of all, one of the big reasons that knowledgeable people would like Linux to be pre-installed instead of Windows is because by all rights, it should be cheaper. After all, Linux is free, and Windows isn't. The problem is that the same computer on which they could pre-install Linux could instead have Windows pre-installed, which would both keep the company in Microsoft's good graces and increase the company's profits (assuming the company fixes their profit margin at a certain percentage[0], meaning that they make profits on reselling Windows specifically, but not on reselling a free-as-in-beer OS.[1])
Of course, a cheaper computer isn't the only reason to want Linux pre-installed. It could be that you want to avoid supporting Microsoft. It may be that you don't want to pay for something that you're definitely not going to use. It may be that you want some assurance that the hardware will work under Linux (this one usually gets my vote.) Regardless, the additional work on the part of the OEM, combined with getting on Microsoft's bad side (and let's face it, many more people are clamouring(sic) for Microsoft than for Linux) probably doesn't justify the few sales they'll take away from other OEMs by offering Linux.
[0] Not to get into a sore subject, but this is one of the reasons that Exxon posts record profits while the cost of oil keeps skyrocketing. They fix their profit margin, so if the price of oil goes up, their profits do, too. They could reduce their profit margin in order to ease the burden on their customers, but due to oil's inelastic demand, they have almost no incentive to do so.
[1] Of course, the OEM could just charge for Linux based upon the profit they make on Windows, but they'd still be out of Microsoft's graces.
I wasn't suggesting otherwise--I was just responding to the person who thought that EULAs could disclaim liability of proprietary software companies.
You can still sue them and ask to have that portion of the EULA stricken as unenforceable.
I hear you. I've avoided Bioshock and Orange Box (and all Steam games, for that matter) for exactly the same reason.
I wonder if the lost sales from people like us even make a dent, though.
There are some differences.
DIVX had a direct competitor providing identical (and in many cases, superior) content with much wider distribution (DIVX was Circuit City-only, I believe, whereas DVD was sold in many places.) DIVX was also trying to compete simultaneously with video rentals and with video purchases by creating a hybrid--purchase the disc to get a free play, then rent it in the future if you want to watch it again (but use the same disc, so you don't have to leave the house.) Due to the nature of the technology--the fact that you need a specific player to play the discs--they had problems because early adopters tend to be technically literate. Early adopters realized the danger in not owning your media, so as you point out, they rejected the players and discs. All of this came together to cause DIVX to be a massive flop.
Computer games suffer less from these problems. The "players" are already out there, and it's all ubiquitous equipment (the computers.) You don't need to be technically oriented to own a gaming machine these days. Activation-based services also aren't acting like rentals, because you only ever pay once. And possibly most importantly, there are no other options. If I want to play Spore, I've got to agree to this consumer-hostile activation scheme[1].
The other issue is that consumers have changed in the past 10 years. Average people are using the Internet and getting access to on-demand content. They're (somewhat) used to auto updates and software phoning home (you can thank Microsoft for that.) The water has slowly risen to a boil while the frog sits in the pot.
[1] Ok, I could probably play one of the console versions, but I'm looking ahead to games which are only released in PC versions. Maybe this is just one more nail in the coffin of computer gaming.
I play older games more because I tend to find them more enjoyable than newer games. I've probably replayed the entire Ultima series a dozen times (except for the last one--such potential that became such crap.)
To me, there's nothing modern that even comes close to the enjoyment I get out of these games. I enjoyed Black & White a bit, and Spore struck a chord with me--it sounded like it was going to have similar (but refined) characteristics. I was pretty excited about it, however with this news, I will not be getting a copy.
That's fair. You might get to keep them forever, and they probably won't mind, as long as you pay your $25/mo or whatever for the service. The original poster's point was primarily flawed in that Netflix isn't giving you any sort of ownership over the "watch now" movies, anyway, nor are they purporting to. And you're not paying for them, other than by paying for Netflix service in general.
A more analogous situation already exists. Unbox (if Amazon ever turns off the DRM server, videos you've "bought" will disappear.) Google Video already turned off their DRM servers for some video, and Microsoft (MSN) is turning off servers for some of their customers' music "purchases." These are big companies, people! How long until people learn that this is not an acceptable business method?
Thanks for the suggestions! I'm not the original poster/submitter, but I was thinking about picking up something like this as a hobby. In fact, the timing of the submission almost eerily coincides with the time I got this wild hair.
I'll probably do some reading and see if it's something that I'm interested in. Again, thanks for the suggestions!
So is a patch not considered to be a derivative work?