1) Assume 10m users 2) Assume 200 site ratings each (so 2b total ratings) 3) build an IOT (call it X) on site:rating:user index this table on user 4) when I log in pull up all the 200 blocks I'm in (basically a list of other users with the same sites). This is easy because of the user index 5) do a frequency count for username 6) Using the index on I pull up sites they like
I can make this better if I like by having a user/frequence count table and for example adjusting 5 (so that heavy raters don't end up everyone's list).
Wiki/forums/reviews just remove the need for search engines and usenet to find certain kinds of information.
No not all. They go much further. They prompt people to unify and create information. I'll do a Wiki page on all sorts of things I wouldn't bother running a website on. More importantly I'll add to other Wikis even more freely. The net result is much more information in my head becomes available for a wide community. Multiply that by tens of millions of people and suddenly you have an order of magnitude more information for the search engines to find.
Myspace just removes the need for an HTML editor to run your own crappy website.
IE used to ship with an HTML editor. Geocities was free. They didn't have these kinds of numbers. I really can't effectively debate MySpace due to demographics so see below where I can be more effective.
Amazon offers book reviews on their site instead of you having to look elswhere for a review. I don't really see where that's a new "version" of the web.
No it offers book reviews by people who don't write reviews for a living and wouldn't run their own book review websites, but are willing to every now and then post a review. 20 million people x 2 reviews / year each x 5 years = 200m extra reviews. And those kinds of numbers create reviews on obscure titles. And that is important.
What's new is the effects of quantity. Just as AOL made email useful for business because finally there was a critical mass of customers who had an email account.
Nothing in web 1.0 was terribly novel either. Nothing in usenet was terribly novel (netnews existed on Lan's before). But at each step the effect was huge. Usenet only really was useful when you could usenet talk to people you otherwise couldn't find. HTML only really worked when you could "surf" which meant a critical mass of information, etc... Quantity matters.
Email couldn't really become a useful tool for general business use until AOL got millions of joe average people on the web. Hell AOL wouldn't have been possible without getting millions of people, who liked phone sex enough to fund a network, together. Quantity matter a lot. As I said I was on the internet before there was a "web" and I do see this as a big thing. There never was anything like Wikipedia or Amazon reviews. Not because you didn't have book reviews but you couldn't get 20 reviews on every obscure title you were interested in.
MySpace does more page views than Ebay and it is growing fast (something like 200k new users / month). Heck it primarily female teenage audience. What was the last computer thing that hit that demographic at all? That brings a whole new group of people to the web to do, whatever the hell teenage girls do when they are home.
Web 2.0 isn't a technological breakthrough, though it may drive others in later stages (just as web 1.0 drove broadband and corporate LAN/WAN technology) its a cultural breakthrough.
I disagree (16 years on the internet). You had different tools: a) usenet: good discussion but no continuity and no usability for non regular users b) gopher: lots of good information but difficult to find what you are looking for. Directories helped but were hard to maintain
web 1.0: c) HTML: fixed the graphics problem d) Search engines: made it possible to find resources e) commerce: long tail economics
web 2.0 f) Wikipedia: collaborative information creation g) My Space: I don't know. I think collaborative sexuality but I'm out of the loop on this one h) reviews (CNET, Amazon....) : tons of product information as part of the shopping experience i) price / product comparison: best deal for the knowledgeable buyer
I think that stuff is new. Web 1.0 was still information delivery you "surfed" now you participate (like usenet) but at the same time outsiders can find what they want (like HTML / search engine)
I think you let yourself get drawn off in a tangent here. We were discussing the role of encyclopedias in developing a culture of education in the homes of poor parents. Encyclopedias are not supposed to provide an easy good read. For something like what you want a biography would be perfect.
Further McClintock doesn't have 70.5 linear feet out output, she might have.1 linear feet if she published multiple papers per year. You would use linear feet to measure warehouse space not so that measure is is probably all the lab book from her lab and scrap notes. No one puts that much useful material. 70.5 linear feet would hold most small town libraries.
o... maybe they should try offering individual scenes from movies.
Other than Porn (where there are experimenting with this) when else would this ever work. I think for movies the right analogy is huge selection very cheap. No one wants to stock lots and lots of DVDs. Netflix and Amazon have shown that there is a very long tail. What's missing is a preview site with multiple trailers organized like IMDB and instant downloads.
I actually disagree. I can't see how Britannica can out-scope Wiki. What they can do is out quality them on things like organization and consistent level of difficulty. I think they should focus on better integration with their self study materials.
I was a Britannica salesperson during the late 1980s (I sucked so I didn't last long). Their are huge problems of ignorance among the children of the upper lower class and lower middle class. Britannica offered terrific self study materials for children interested in any topic to learn about it through Britannica. What they were trying to do was to teach parents how to build a culture of learning in their household.
You grew up with one. Lots of parents don't know how to "look something up", the 2 volume index taught them. They don't know how to study a subject on their own, the outline of human knowledge taught them. They don't read information in context, macropedia.
Think about what a situation would like: 3 -4 kids
Britannica Great Books of the Western World (maybe) Merriam Webster 3 volume dictionary (free) Annals of America (free) Compton's encyclopedia for the younger children (only an extra $100) Children's 6 volume encyclopedia for the very young children
I'll go further than that. I'm regular customer of Britannica's. In the last few years I've bought:
4 of their education DVDs their latest adult encyclopedia on DVD Their CDROM children's homework helper 2 almanacs 2 different young children's encyclopedia in book form and probably a few others I can't think of right now and I think this year I'm buying their next DVD encyclopedia so I can get an update
I do fork over the cash. I still use Wikipedia most of the time. No question Britannica has higher quality but: Wikipedia has: quantity, length (most of the time), internal links and web-links.
That sounds like an automated cashier's check casher. Clearly a cool technology but I don't think its an ATM since the withdraw is probably when you buy the punch cards not when you get the cash.
I'm old enough to remember the original ATMs (called Money Access Centers (MAC) at the time BTW). People thought it was a great idea and immediately saw why it would be useful. The concern were all about tellers no longer existing for those transactions that were too complicated. No one thought "why would anyone want that"?
Good points, I pretty much agree with most of them. Although I do wonder what Microsoft is supposed to do about a device driver that throws uncaught exceptions, maybe I'm not being imaginitive enough.
Have a meta device exception handler. OS/2 has something like this, a video driver error that didn't get caught would get passed to OS/2's driver control program. If they were having problems with lots and lots of exceptions... kick the screen into a lower resolution and log the problem. Of course my other suggestions would have solved it. If Microsoft QAed them and they failed the problem never gets to end users.
Crappy apps on the other hand, they should just fail. And boy did they used to bring down the whole system with them. But on the whole now, on Windows XP, they do just fail. Apples device drivers are better for a reason, Apple only has to get it right on a subset of the available hardware.
Agreed.
No doubt about the security model, but since no one uses it, and none of the major competitors that I know of use it, maybe Microsoft not using it isn't such a good criticism.
Microsoft wrote it. At the time that PCs were beginning to move towards the server space you had:
OS/2 -- handled at the app level (generally capability) Unix systems -- permissions OS/400 -- capability VMS -- capability MPE -- capability MVS -- capability
NT then became capability. But then at the last minute they changed direction and ended up with NT -- really bad permissions model
So no, their competitors (at the time the choice was made) did use it.
All your criticisms are pretty valid, although I don't think some apply to the current version of Windows. Especially the criticism of a nieve user being unable to install a rootkit. However, I know this software would have fooled me. I would have expected a piece of media playing software to need root access when installing, and I would have trusted the source of the program, so on any current platform this root kit would have beaten me.
Well if they were using a capability model it wouldn't have needed root, because basically you almost never give out root. You would have given it permission to "directly control speakers" but not permission to "overwrite boot information". You see why capability is so valuable you have to explicitly grant permissions to do stuff?
So if anything Microsoft gets a C, maybe a C- because they have the technology to prevent that. But thats because they are average, instead of above average. Now Sony, for actually installing rootkits on peoples boxes definately get an F.
Sony it appears didn't really know. Sony media did this. They are a media company I don't expect them to make the best choices when it comes to software. As far as I can tell as soon as Sony corporate found out the program was killed. Microsoft conversely has lots of full time security experts on staff and at the time these choices were made they were made by knowledgeable individuals at the highest levels.
I'm not saying Microsoft's OS is great, it's not, compared with GNU/Linux or for that matter any modern UNIX style kernel with the a suitable user environment on top, it is very average. But that doesn't take away from the fact that users blame Microsoft for things that aren't directly at least Microsofts fault.
I'm arguing this was directly Microsoft's fault. I don't want to sound condescending but I think this has to do with age. Reading your post it seems like you have never had experience with a mini computer. The world of 2006 is not the world of 1992 when this choice was made. People today think ACLs are a new idea when the reality is they are a way of bolting capability models on (badly) to permissions based systems. Back then people did use capability, permissions were for systems that didn't have important data but that needed to be flexible. And there certainly is no excuse for bad execution.
No "I could care less" is an expression meaning they don't care. Its another form of "I couldn't care less" which has the same meaning. The fact that in non idiomatic usage could and couldn't are opposites is irrelevant.
Linux is used by the GNU project. It is not maintained by the Free Software Foundation and is not necessarily subject to the FSF's charter. Most home-oriented distributions such as Mandriva and Linspire include at least some proprietary software.
Linux the kernel does subscribe, its licensed under the GNU public license. GPL has become so ubiquitous at this point people tend to forget that its a license created by a non profit with an ideology. Incidentally Linus himself identified his product as part of GNU (a temporary kernel until Hurd was ready). Things have changed a little but not that much. Even KDE (which hates Stallman) is part of GNU. What distinguishes Linux distributions from the BSDs is the heavy use of GPLed software, and a Unix V philosophy of init files.
J -The criteria you created: [...] sounds to me like someone who should stay with Windows.
T - What about the fact that 99 percent of spyware and rootkits and trojans and viruses and worms and the like target the comparatively large attack surface of Microsoft Windows?
What difference does that make to the gamer. You didn't answer my question about kind 1 or 2. He blows his PC away using the restore disk and just keeps running his games. For him the PC is just a very rich console.
J - I'm arguing your hypothetical user is unlikely to be able to tell [say, a PS1 game from a PS2 game].
T - Is Nintendo relying on this for the Revolution?
You are outside my scope of knowledge. I'm too old and my daughter is too young:-) Seems to me they are going for price (where Sony and Microsoft are both going higher end).
J - You then started asking questions about installs from CD (an odd type of install for free software).
T - Not all software is free, can be free, or should be free.
That's a different topic. The fact is that Linux is part of the GNU project which most certainly does believe that all software should be free. So its not reasonable to criticize Linux for not supporting non free software well enough.
J - You then brought up AOL caliber novice computer users , who shouldn't be using Linux in the first place.
T - Which free operating system should they use?
I'm not sure any. The criteria you created: 1) ignorant 2) not willing to learn 3) wants standard commercial software 4) has no particular need for Unix
sounds to me like someone who should stay with Windows. I don't know what Linux has to offer them. Start taking away some of those criteria and we can talk but otherwise what's the point?
I'd be happy if over the next decade to get the top 20% switched to Linux (or Darwin).
J - For them I have questions about what they need commercial software for at all. Can they really tell the difference between a high-production value game and a lower production value game? If so how?
T- The graphics on a budget title tend to look five years old. Compare a GameCube game to an N64 game or a PS2 game to a PS1 game. Almost all Free games look like budget titles.
I agree. And you can tell that difference because of experience. I'm arguing your hypothetical user is unlikely to be able to tell. You have to have a basis for comparison. So once you assume this person is a gamer then what have they been gaming on.
1) If they are gamers who have passed what is possible with console games and they want to switch then again, that's windows mandatory.
2) If they have been gaming on PCs casually for many years that means they know more than your "AOLer". They understand 386 memory models, himem/lomem/ command lines, drivers, video card specs.... They know enough to be able to handle setting up a few parameters on an installer.
Because the people who make assets for high-production-value PC games and the people who translate annually amended tax statutes and regulations into computer instructions need to eat. Or do you claim that novice computer users should do without games and tax return preparation software altogether?
The question was about which method is in general easier to getting software:
the windows method where I: 1) Have to shop between lots of alternatives 2) Make choices based on magazine adds 3) go to a store and buy or credit card buy 4) go through a weird installation and registration process 5) be careful I don't lose anything or I may have to pay again
vs. Linuxes: 1) click on type of app 2) get a list of apps. Read a short description and download all of the likely candidates. 3) Try them all out quickly, delete the ones I don't like
You then started asking questions about installs from CD (an odd type of install for free software). I mentioned that it was fully supported. You then brought up AOL caliber novice computer users , who shouldn't be using Linux in the first place. For them I have questions about what they need commercial software for at all. Can they really tell the difference between a high-production value game and a lower production value game? If so how? That sort of thing comes from experience. But if you want to stipulate an ignorant user, who refused to learn to use his computer, doesn't own a console and wants to buy the latest commercial games. Yeah he obviously is going to be happier on Windows.
As for tax prep software there isn't any good reason it couldn't exist for Linux. The Java versions work fine on Linux (like the free ones on most brokerages websites). I have pretty complicated taxes and I do them by hand. I have a feeling the people who need to use tax prep software (rather than just mildly prefer it) wouldn't like Linux anyway for other reasons.
"No problems" including the ability of an AOL-caliber user to operate the feature?
Why do AOL caliber users need to be buying software at all? Your trying to have it both ways here. If the person knows nothing then the distribution software repository should be fine for them. In any case no, Linux is (rightfully) of the opinion if you don't know how to change minor computers setting you have no business installing binaries.
Is there a HOWTO for publishers of software to distribute their software on CD for each major distribution, preferably on one CD that works on all popular distributions intended for residential use?
No because Linux doesn't encourage that model of software distribution. They encourage an indirect model where application vendors work with the distribution not the customer: application vendor -> distribution -> customer
Autopackage exists for those providers that don't want to follow the local customs. That isn't as easy and it doesn't work as well. Nor should it.
And contrast this with say WordPerfect. I know of naive versions of WordPerfect for: Dos, other CP/M platforms, Windows, Mac, VMS, OS/2, I-OS (was OS/400), Solaris, AIX. And sure there are a lot more (like I would bet HPUX, and Z-OS (was MVS)). Further Microsoft does use the office monopoly to promote the Windows monopoly (explicit threats to Apple for example).
I understand your post was clear about the main point. I was just commenting that what's good customer service in a mainstream electronics store probably doesn't translate across countries. I was actually surprised that Apple stores aren't fancier in Europe in the US they are clearly designed in a very pricey style (though its dropping a bit as they are opening more of them).
Slashdot Mirror
Amazon: Amazon reviews is classic web 2.0
Apple: linking between customer lists "if you liked X you'll also like Y"
Also you have lots of B2B web2.0 with online collaborative applications. Logistics has been front runners in this.
1) Assume 10m users
2) Assume 200 site ratings each (so 2b total ratings)
3) build an IOT (call it X) on site:rating:user index this table on user
4) when I log in pull up all the 200 blocks I'm in (basically a list of other users with the same sites). This is easy because of the user index
5) do a frequency count for username
6) Using the index on I pull up sites they like
I can make this better if I like by having a user/frequence count table and for example adjusting 5 (so that heavy raters don't end up everyone's list).
I don't see anything in your post other than opinion. they are assholes because....?
Wiki/forums/reviews just remove the need for search engines and usenet to find certain kinds of information.
No not all. They go much further. They prompt people to unify and create information. I'll do a Wiki page on all sorts of things I wouldn't bother running a website on. More importantly I'll add to other Wikis even more freely. The net result is much more information in my head becomes available for a wide community. Multiply that by tens of millions of people and suddenly you have an order of magnitude more information for the search engines to find.
Myspace just removes the need for an HTML editor to run your own crappy website.
IE used to ship with an HTML editor. Geocities was free. They didn't have these kinds of numbers. I really can't effectively debate MySpace due to demographics so see below where I can be more effective.
Amazon offers book reviews on their site instead of you having to look elswhere for a review. I don't really see where that's a new "version" of the web.
No it offers book reviews by people who don't write reviews for a living and wouldn't run their own book review websites, but are willing to every now and then post a review. 20 million people x 2 reviews / year each x 5 years = 200m extra reviews. And those kinds of numbers create reviews on obscure titles. And that is important.
What's new is the effects of quantity. Just as AOL made email useful for business because finally there was a critical mass of customers who had an email account.
Nothing in web 1.0 was terribly novel either. Nothing in usenet was terribly novel (netnews existed on Lan's before). But at each step the effect was huge. Usenet only really was useful when you could usenet talk to people you otherwise couldn't find. HTML only really worked when you could "surf" which meant a critical mass of information, etc... Quantity matters.
Email couldn't really become a useful tool for general business use until AOL got millions of joe average people on the web. Hell AOL wouldn't have been possible without getting millions of people, who liked phone sex enough to fund a network, together. Quantity matter a lot. As I said I was on the internet before there was a "web" and I do see this as a big thing. There never was anything like Wikipedia or Amazon reviews. Not because you didn't have book reviews but you couldn't get 20 reviews on every obscure title you were interested in.
MySpace does more page views than Ebay and it is growing fast (something like 200k new users / month). Heck it primarily female teenage audience. What was the last computer thing that hit that demographic at all? That brings a whole new group of people to the web to do, whatever the hell teenage girls do when they are home.
Web 2.0 isn't a technological breakthrough, though it may drive others in later stages (just as web 1.0 drove broadband and corporate LAN/WAN technology) its a cultural breakthrough.
I disagree (16 years on the internet).
You had different tools:
a) usenet: good discussion but no continuity and no usability for non regular users
b) gopher: lots of good information but difficult to find what you are looking for. Directories helped but were hard to maintain
web 1.0:
c) HTML: fixed the graphics problem
d) Search engines: made it possible to find resources
e) commerce: long tail economics
web 2.0
f) Wikipedia: collaborative information creation
g) My Space: I don't know. I think collaborative sexuality but I'm out of the loop on this one
h) reviews (CNET, Amazon....) : tons of product information as part of the shopping experience
i) price / product comparison: best deal for the knowledgeable buyer
I think that stuff is new. Web 1.0 was still information delivery you "surfed" now you participate (like usenet) but at the same time outsiders can find what they want (like HTML / search engine)
I think you let yourself get drawn off in a tangent here. We were discussing the role of encyclopedias in developing a culture of education in the homes of poor parents. Encyclopedias are not supposed to provide an easy good read. For something like what you want a biography would be perfect.
.1 linear feet if she published multiple papers per year. You would use linear feet to measure warehouse space not so that measure is is probably all the lab book from her lab and scrap notes. No one puts that much useful material. 70.5 linear feet would hold most small town libraries.
Further McClintock doesn't have 70.5 linear feet out output, she might have
o... maybe they should try offering individual scenes from movies.
Other than Porn (where there are experimenting with this) when else would this ever work. I think for movies the right analogy is huge selection very cheap. No one wants to stock lots and lots of DVDs. Netflix and Amazon have shown that there is a very long tail. What's missing is a preview site with multiple trailers organized like IMDB and instant downloads.
That's where the money is IMHO.
They pass it to the customer. There are good arguments against free trade without having to diminish the short term financial benefits.
I actually disagree. I can't see how Britannica can out-scope Wiki. What they can do is out quality them on things like organization and consistent level of difficulty. I think they should focus on better integration with their self study materials.
I was a Britannica salesperson during the late 1980s (I sucked so I didn't last long). Their are huge problems of ignorance among the children of the upper lower class and lower middle class. Britannica offered terrific self study materials for children interested in any topic to learn about it through Britannica. What they were trying to do was to teach parents how to build a culture of learning in their household.
You grew up with one. Lots of parents don't know how to "look something up", the 2 volume index taught them. They don't know how to study a subject on their own, the outline of human knowledge taught them. They don't read information in context, macropedia.
Think about what a situation would like: 3 -4 kids
Britannica
Great Books of the Western World (maybe)
Merriam Webster 3 volume dictionary (free)
Annals of America (free)
Compton's encyclopedia for the younger children (only an extra $100)
Children's 6 volume encyclopedia for the very young children
Now you tell me. Was that worth $1300?
Nature is probably the most respected scientific journal in the world. They saw this as more of a fun story "their editors suck" is just nonsense.
That was a good critique. Get an account.
Well quoting from Britannica
Entry: authoritative
Pronunciation: -thär--t-tiv, -, -thr-
Function: adjective
Date: 1605
1 a : having or proceeding from authority : OFFICIAL b : showing evident authority : DEFINITIVE
2 : DICTATORIAL 2
- authoritatively adverb
- authoritativeness noun
In other words official and respected. The social consensus is that it is a legitimate source.
I'll go further than that. I'm regular customer of Britannica's. In the last few years I've bought:
4 of their education DVDs
their latest adult encyclopedia on DVD
Their CDROM children's homework helper
2 almanacs
2 different young children's encyclopedia in book form
and probably a few others I can't think of right now
and I think this year I'm buying their next DVD encyclopedia so I can get an update
I do fork over the cash. I still use Wikipedia most of the time. No question Britannica has higher quality but: Wikipedia has: quantity, length (most of the time), internal links and web-links.
That sounds like an automated cashier's check casher. Clearly a cool technology but I don't think its an ATM since the withdraw is probably when you buy the punch cards not when you get the cash.
I'm old enough to remember the original ATMs (called Money Access Centers (MAC) at the time BTW). People thought it was a great idea and immediately saw why it would be useful. The concern were all about tellers no longer existing for those transactions that were too complicated. No one thought "why would anyone want that"?
Good points, I pretty much agree with most of them. Although I do wonder what Microsoft is supposed to do about a device driver that throws uncaught exceptions, maybe I'm not being imaginitive enough.
Have a meta device exception handler. OS/2 has something like this, a video driver error that didn't get caught would get passed to OS/2's driver control program. If they were having problems with lots and lots of exceptions... kick the screen into a lower resolution and log the problem. Of course my other suggestions would have solved it. If Microsoft QAed them and they failed the problem never gets to end users.
Crappy apps on the other hand, they should just fail. And boy did they used to bring down the whole system with them. But on the whole now, on Windows XP, they do just fail. Apples device drivers are better for a reason, Apple only has to get it right on a subset of the available hardware.
Agreed.
No doubt about the security model, but since no one uses it, and none of the major competitors that I know of use it, maybe Microsoft not using it isn't such a good criticism.
Microsoft wrote it. At the time that PCs were beginning to move towards the server space you had:
OS/2 -- handled at the app level (generally capability)
Unix systems -- permissions
OS/400 -- capability
VMS -- capability
MPE -- capability
MVS -- capability
NT then became capability. But then at the last minute they changed direction and ended up with
NT -- really bad permissions model
So no, their competitors (at the time the choice was made) did use it.
All your criticisms are pretty valid, although I don't think some apply to the current version of Windows. Especially the criticism of a nieve user being unable to install a rootkit. However, I know this software would have fooled me. I would have expected a piece of media playing software to need root access when installing, and I would have trusted the source of the program, so on any current platform this root kit would have beaten me.
Well if they were using a capability model it wouldn't have needed root, because basically you almost never give out root. You would have given it permission to "directly control speakers" but not permission to "overwrite boot information". You see why capability is so valuable you have to explicitly grant permissions to do stuff?
So if anything Microsoft gets a C, maybe a C- because they have the technology to prevent that. But thats because they are average, instead of above average. Now Sony, for actually installing rootkits on peoples boxes definately get an F.
Sony it appears didn't really know. Sony media did this. They are a media company I don't expect them to make the best choices when it comes to software. As far as I can tell as soon as Sony corporate found out the program was killed. Microsoft conversely has lots of full time security experts on staff and at the time these choices were made they were made by knowledgeable individuals at the highest levels.
I'm not saying Microsoft's OS is great, it's not, compared with GNU/Linux or for that matter any modern UNIX style kernel with the a suitable user environment on top, it is very average. But that doesn't take away from the fact that users blame Microsoft for things that aren't directly at least Microsofts fault.
I'm arguing this was directly Microsoft's fault. I don't want to sound condescending but I think this has to do with age. Reading your post it seems like you have never had experience with a mini computer. The world of 2006 is not the world of 1992 when this choice was made. People today think ACLs are a new idea when the reality is they are a way of bolting capability models on (badly) to permissions based systems. Back then people did use capability, permissions were for systems that didn't have important data but that needed to be flexible. And there certainly is no excuse for bad execution.
I
No "I could care less" is an expression meaning they don't care. Its another form of "I couldn't care less" which has the same meaning. The fact that in non idiomatic usage could and couldn't are opposites is irrelevant.
Linux is used by the GNU project. It is not maintained by the Free Software Foundation and is not necessarily subject to the FSF's charter. Most home-oriented distributions such as Mandriva and Linspire include at least some proprietary software.
:-) Seems to me they are going for price (where Sony and Microsoft are both going higher end).
Linux the kernel does subscribe, its licensed under the GNU public license. GPL has become so ubiquitous at this point people tend to forget that its a license created by a non profit with an ideology. Incidentally Linus himself identified his product as part of GNU (a temporary kernel until Hurd was ready). Things have changed a little but not that much. Even KDE (which hates Stallman) is part of GNU. What distinguishes Linux distributions from the BSDs is the heavy use of GPLed software, and a Unix V philosophy of init files.
J -The criteria you created: [...] sounds to me like someone who should stay with Windows.
T - What about the fact that 99 percent of spyware and rootkits and trojans and viruses and worms and the like target the comparatively large attack surface of Microsoft Windows?
What difference does that make to the gamer. You didn't answer my question about kind 1 or 2. He blows his PC away using the restore disk and just keeps running his games. For him the PC is just a very rich console.
J - I'm arguing your hypothetical user is unlikely to be able to tell [say, a PS1 game from a PS2 game].
T - Is Nintendo relying on this for the Revolution?
You are outside my scope of knowledge. I'm too old and my daughter is too young
J - You then started asking questions about installs from CD (an odd type of install for free software).
T - Not all software is free, can be free, or should be free.
That's a different topic. The fact is that Linux is part of the GNU project which most certainly does believe that all software should be free. So its not reasonable to criticize Linux for not supporting non free software well enough.
J - You then brought up AOL caliber novice computer users , who shouldn't be using Linux in the first place.
T - Which free operating system should they use?
I'm not sure any. The criteria you created:
1) ignorant
2) not willing to learn
3) wants standard commercial software
4) has no particular need for Unix
sounds to me like someone who should stay with Windows. I don't know what Linux has to offer them. Start taking away some of those criteria and we can talk but otherwise what's the point?
I'd be happy if over the next decade to get the top 20% switched to Linux (or Darwin).
J - For them I have questions about what they need commercial software for at all. Can they really tell the difference between a high-production value game and a lower production value game? If so how?
T- The graphics on a budget title tend to look five years old. Compare a GameCube game to an N64 game or a PS2 game to a PS1 game. Almost all Free games look like budget titles.
I agree. And you can tell that difference because of experience. I'm arguing your hypothetical user is unlikely to be able to tell. You have to have a basis for comparison. So once you assume this person is a gamer then what have they been gaming on.
1) If they are gamers who have passed what is possible with console games and they want to switch then again, that's windows mandatory.
2) If they have been gaming on PCs casually for many years that means they know more than your "AOLer". They understand 386 memory models, himem/lomem/ command lines, drivers, video card specs.... They know enough to be able to handle setting up a few parameters on an installer.
Because the people who make assets for high-production-value PC games and the people who translate annually amended tax statutes and regulations into computer instructions need to eat. Or do you claim that novice computer users should do without games and tax return preparation software altogether?
The question was about which method is in general easier to getting software:
the windows method where I:
1) Have to shop between lots of alternatives
2) Make choices based on magazine adds
3) go to a store and buy or credit card buy
4) go through a weird installation and registration process
5) be careful I don't lose anything or I may have to pay again
vs. Linuxes:
1) click on type of app
2) get a list of apps. Read a short description and download all of the likely candidates.
3) Try them all out quickly, delete the ones I don't like
You then started asking questions about installs from CD (an odd type of install for free software). I mentioned that it was fully supported. You then brought up AOL caliber novice computer users , who shouldn't be using Linux in the first place. For them I have questions about what they need commercial software for at all. Can they really tell the difference between a high-production value game and a lower production value game? If so how? That sort of thing comes from experience. But if you want to stipulate an ignorant user, who refused to learn to use his computer, doesn't own a console and wants to buy the latest commercial games. Yeah he obviously is going to be happier on Windows.
As for tax prep software there isn't any good reason it couldn't exist for Linux. The Java versions work fine on Linux (like the free ones on most brokerages websites). I have pretty complicated taxes and I do them by hand. I have a feeling the people who need to use tax prep software (rather than just mildly prefer it) wouldn't like Linux anyway for other reasons.
"No problems" including the ability of an AOL-caliber user to operate the feature?
Why do AOL caliber users need to be buying software at all? Your trying to have it both ways here. If the person knows nothing then the distribution software repository should be fine for them. In any case no, Linux is (rightfully) of the opinion if you don't know how to change minor computers setting you have no business installing binaries.
Is there a HOWTO for publishers of software to distribute their software on CD for each major distribution, preferably on one CD that works on all popular distributions intended for residential use?
No because Linux doesn't encourage that model of software distribution. They encourage an indirect model where application vendors work with the distribution not the customer:
application vendor -> distribution -> customer
Autopackage exists for those providers that don't want to follow the local customs. That isn't as easy and it doesn't work as well. Nor should it.
And contrast this with say WordPerfect. I know of naive versions of WordPerfect for: Dos, other CP/M platforms, Windows, Mac, VMS, OS/2, I-OS (was OS/400), Solaris, AIX. And sure there are a lot more (like I would bet HPUX, and Z-OS (was MVS)). Further Microsoft does use the office monopoly to promote the Windows monopoly (explicit threats to Apple for example).
I understand your post was clear about the main point. I was just commenting that what's good customer service in a mainstream electronics store probably doesn't translate across countries. I was actually surprised that Apple stores aren't fancier in Europe in the US they are clearly designed in a very pricey style (though its dropping a bit as they are opening more of them).