Real world example, and why I don't do software development:
A customer was using a text field in a database for a "date". They wanted to have that field usable to send out notices (dog tag renewals) on a date. I was wondering why the database field wasn't set to the "Date" type proceeded to convert the field to that type. Proceeded to setup a query and template to generate the notices automatically, rather than manually doing it as had been.
I then proceeded to show the primary user that made the request the changes, how to enter the dates and thought I had done a awesome job making the software better (it was better). The user used the system for a week or so, but couldn't for the life of her figure out why it wasn't working.
So I make a house call out to the facility and watch her as she enters a new date 10/20 into the database. Well the software beeps and tells her the date is invalid (duh), and she complains that she has to type in the year.
Customers are fickle, ask for things they want, but aren't willing to implement. I had to unwind the changes even though they made the database much more functional and saved time, all because the primary user didn't want to type two extra characters, it was easier compiling the notices by hand.
All politicians will have to register all their communication devices, email addresses, phone numbers, and then make the list of all communication (not the content) available to the public.
For all the people whining about DRM, I find it really curious that same people use WINDOWS (DRMed), iPhones (DRMed), Locked Cell Phones and so on.
What I don't see is them buying/using Linux (small subset maybe), Nexus One (unlocked, non-tied Android), and I can't recall the last time I saw an MP3 player that wasn't iPod or Zune.
If Apple makes a product that works for people, regardless of how/. people view DRM or Vendor lock in, then it will be successful.
If you want unwalled garden where you can run anything, you'll complain that it gets virii and crapware (Windows) or you get a system that granny can't use because it is too "technical" (Linux).
The problem isn't Apple, it is unrealistic expectations that a company that serves the masses, needs to cater to the elite few (myself included). I'm not buying a Mac, don't own one. Don't want one. But then again I'm not Apple's market.
Because some people hate Apple and everything Apple does, even when it is exactly what they've been wanting and calling for. When Apple creates what they want, controlled by Apple, it is immediately called draconian and evil... because Apple did it.
That's why.
I've seen people suggest that Apple do something, then in the very same breath say that even if Apple did what they asked for, they would never use it, because it is Apple. Go figure.
There are issues with Linux and people who ignore those deficiencies continue to mantra of Linux is good as Windows. I don't have a problem with Linux, and I've installed it in many places including my in-laws house as a file/print server. But sharing the folder was not, is not as easy as right clicking and saying "share". And sharing a printer is even more difficult, provided CUPS has a driver for the printer.
That isn't to say that it isn't possible to do most things in Linux as is it is in Windows, but the difficulty level is higher, and heaven forbid it doesn't work at all.
Look, we're geeks, we get it. My father in-law who is quite adept at Windows might get it, but not without some headaches along the way. But there is no way I'm putting my mom on Linux, even though she is otherwise a perfect candidate for it.
A vote is not a physical object. A vote is represented by any number of things, including a physical objects. A vote is a quantity of an abstract concept, "I support ______" or "I don't support ____"
Abstracts can be represented any number of ways, including other layers of abstraction.
All those in favor, raise your hands. Simply put, a vote (noun) is a tally representation of a vote (verb) for or against an idea or person.
Here's the real test. Which costs more, AC/DC Highway to Hell at Best Buy or iTunes?
Tell me, why would you buy a title from iTunes, when you can rip DRM Free version for less at any/all bit rates you want?
I've told my kids, who are into music, to stop buying iTunes music and find whole albums of music they like instead of one song wonders, which they can rip and share with anyone, without restriction. I tell them to buy the CDs to support the artists.
If they want one hit wonder songs, they buy them from iTunes or preferably from the artist's website, but I tell them that isn't a real artist.;)
Adobe makes some sense, but not really overall, too much on the PC and no niche for mass consumer sales. Yahoo doesn't make sense, unless Apple starts viewing itself like Google, and it shouldn't do that. Novell is the most interesting, if only so they can compete with Microsoft's AD. But again, that ultimately doesn't make sense.
Apple's success of late has been in the consumer device market. Along those lines, buying Nintendo makes much much more sense. The Wii is a good Apple like product, simple device that is popular with all but the hardcore Xbox boys. Xbox and PS3 are owned by large corps and likely not on the market (assuming Nitendo is). Nintendo would make an awesome media server for a house. Hell with Netflix Channel now running it freakin feels like an iPhone.
The only other thing I would think Apple would be aiming for would be content delivery channels (Cable/SatTV), or content that is delivered (Netflix).
"but would you trust it over a peer reviewed science journal?"
AGW Climatology: UEA published all sorts of "peer reviewed" stuff. I wouldn't trust anything they wrote. And now, since their "data" is gone missing, it really can't be "peer reviewed".
Not really what you're looking for I'm sure.
Trust is based on over all reliability of the peer review going on. Wikipedia is highly "peer reviewed" information is it not?
Most articles on Wikipedia are mostly accurate, most of the time. If it REALLY was as bad as many people make it out to be, it would have failed a long long time ago as a failed experiment.
Does it have errors (deliberate or otherwise)? I'm sure of it. Just as I'm sure that some of the "peer reviewed published articles" will eventually show up as being wrong, some more spectacularly than others.
Because it isn't all you know, the answer is "yes" it will make dishes obsolete. Assuming the worst and speculating on that doesn't help things. Wait till you see the antenna array the size of a sheet of A10 paper mounted to the roof of your house.
When people talk about making something else obsolete, they are usually know what they* are talking about.
*Exceptions include Marketing Droids and brain dead CEOs
You're preaching against the ivory towers and to everyman. Kudos!
However, because the people in ivory towers (take a look at the SCOTUS) all come from and promulgate the status quo. People from Harvard (or any other "Prestigious University") get the best jobs, highest pay, and hire Harvard Grads, not because they are the best, but to keep the status going. It is self serving at best, and at worst is so incestuous that the outcome can only be genetically flawed.
On the other hand, you can do something like this which really shows how flawed current classroom education models can really be. A method which happens to fit what you seem to be proposing.
I don't see why a properly cited wiki article couldn't be a reliable citation of information. Personally, I trust Wikipedia on whole a lot more than say NBC or Fox.
Are you sure? My understanding it was... One, Two, Many
That means trolltrolltroll could be any number greater than two. And if you're counting trolls, anything more than two is... well "many", and that is never good.
Apparently you're all for taking what doesn't belong to you, under the guise of "well everyone is doing it, I might as well."
It is nothing short of looting the public (yourself) at the expense of the public (yourself) with the government being the middle man whom you pay as a conscience clearing money launderer.
But hey, if that makes you Feel Better(tm)* then by all means tell yourself that.
*(TM) Two Party System, Republican/Democrat parties,
Most of the posts so far are mentioning the obvious reasons why "not" to do build your own. However, I have another couple of reasons, which is more powerful yet.
Customized system (BIY) often include "Hidden" costs of emotion. They are "MY COMPUTERS"... and people tend to try to hold onto them much longer than they ought to, just for that one reason alone. They spend more time trying to revive dead computers, fixing hardware that should be tossed or parted out and so on.
One of the things I've also noticed lacking is the how easy most "corporate" computers are to "fix". Most Dells, HPs and so on all have quick/easy access to things like RAM, HD, and slots. Often not needing ANY tools whatsoever to gain entry, and repair. Just swap and go.
The cost of tech support is twice the wage, and if you take 30 minutes opening a case and swapping a hard drive vs 10 mins with a Dell or HP, you're saving money every time it needs fixing. It isn't worth whatever savings up front you might see.
If you really have 1000 computers you need to install/manage, you're better off building out a stable support platform to provide first line support than spending the time building them in the first place, one that plans upgrades and replacements as part of the process.
When LO starts to take off, you'll see other commercial interests (IBM, HP etc) start to add their resources to the effort in a much more significant and visible manner. I would suspect that anyone that isn't tied or doesn't want to be tied to the Microsoft or Oracle Griswold Stationwagon jump on board and start really making LO top grade open source product.
Many hands make light work.
OpenOffice.org was hindered partially by Sun, and fully hindered by Oracle. Development of LO is all but established now. If I were on the LO team, I'd stick to LO name, cut all ties to Oracle, start looking for white knight sponsors ASAP. I'd wash my hands of Oracle and NEVER look back. The sooner they can cut the ties that bind, the better off LO will be. They don't need Oracle, Oracle doesn't want them, better to part now with a quickie divorce than draw it out into a long and lengthy process that doesn't help anyone.
My impression has been that this has been what has been going on for some time now with all the larger database operations, and one of the reasons why SSD have not yet come down in price is that all the best units and tech are going to the big companies as fast as they can get it from the manufacturers. I wouldn't be surprised to see someone like Google saying something like "yawn, 50TB" and saying that they have PETABYTE versions already out there.
If you run a Database of any size, especially ones with large read to write ratios, SSD would only make things faster. And speed counts.
That is NOT what that RULE is saying. That rule is about BADGING (labels), and has NOTHING to do with open and free hardware. I'll quote it again, so you are clear. THIS has NOTHING to do with the HARDWARE and suitability to use by users.
"Any product-related materials that mention the FSF endorsement must not also carry endorsements or badges related to proprietary software, such as "Works with Windows" or "Made for Mac" badges"
It isn't about functionality, it is about badging.
SO, exactly how does restricting "Works With" badging help the user? How does that make users "more free" than now?
It doesn't, as far as I can tell. And you missed my point about claiming to be for "open and free" while adding restrictions is neither "open" nor "free".
If they were wanting to help users, they wouldn't care about anything other than making HARDWARE open and free of restrictions.
The problem here is that FSF doesn't understand "free" means. They are just as restrictive as anyone else based on that one restriction. They just see themselves as better than the others, when the reality is they are exactly the same, maybe worse.
Open and Free means without restrictions, and adding their own just means they miss the point.
Slashdot Mirror
Real world example, and why I don't do software development:
A customer was using a text field in a database for a "date". They wanted to have that field usable to send out notices (dog tag renewals) on a date. I was wondering why the database field wasn't set to the "Date" type proceeded to convert the field to that type. Proceeded to setup a query and template to generate the notices automatically, rather than manually doing it as had been.
I then proceeded to show the primary user that made the request the changes, how to enter the dates and thought I had done a awesome job making the software better (it was better). The user used the system for a week or so, but couldn't for the life of her figure out why it wasn't working.
So I make a house call out to the facility and watch her as she enters a new date 10/20 into the database. Well the software beeps and tells her the date is invalid (duh), and she complains that she has to type in the year.
Customers are fickle, ask for things they want, but aren't willing to implement. I had to unwind the changes even though they made the database much more functional and saved time, all because the primary user didn't want to type two extra characters, it was easier compiling the notices by hand.
No, I'm not kidding.
All politicians will have to register all their communication devices, email addresses, phone numbers, and then make the list of all communication (not the content) available to the public.
Who watches the watchers?
We have met the enemy, and it is us.
For all the people whining about DRM, I find it really curious that same people use WINDOWS (DRMed), iPhones (DRMed), Locked Cell Phones and so on.
What I don't see is them buying/using Linux (small subset maybe), Nexus One (unlocked, non-tied Android), and I can't recall the last time I saw an MP3 player that wasn't iPod or Zune.
If Apple makes a product that works for people, regardless of how /. people view DRM or Vendor lock in, then it will be successful.
If you want unwalled garden where you can run anything, you'll complain that it gets virii and crapware (Windows) or you get a system that granny can't use because it is too "technical" (Linux).
The problem isn't Apple, it is unrealistic expectations that a company that serves the masses, needs to cater to the elite few (myself included). I'm not buying a Mac, don't own one. Don't want one. But then again I'm not Apple's market.
Because some people hate Apple and everything Apple does, even when it is exactly what they've been wanting and calling for. When Apple creates what they want, controlled by Apple, it is immediately called draconian and evil ... because Apple did it.
That's why.
I've seen people suggest that Apple do something, then in the very same breath say that even if Apple did what they asked for, they would never use it, because it is Apple. Go figure.
No that's not right either.
There are issues with Linux and people who ignore those deficiencies continue to mantra of Linux is good as Windows. I don't have a problem with Linux, and I've installed it in many places including my in-laws house as a file/print server. But sharing the folder was not, is not as easy as right clicking and saying "share". And sharing a printer is even more difficult, provided CUPS has a driver for the printer.
That isn't to say that it isn't possible to do most things in Linux as is it is in Windows, but the difficulty level is higher, and heaven forbid it doesn't work at all.
Look, we're geeks, we get it. My father in-law who is quite adept at Windows might get it, but not without some headaches along the way. But there is no way I'm putting my mom on Linux, even though she is otherwise a perfect candidate for it.
A vote is not a physical object. A vote is represented by any number of things, including a physical objects. A vote is a quantity of an abstract concept, "I support ______" or "I don't support ____"
Abstracts can be represented any number of ways, including other layers of abstraction.
All those in favor, raise your hands. Simply put, a vote (noun) is a tally representation of a vote (verb) for or against an idea or person.
Helping you make your point:
Here's the real test. Which costs more, AC/DC Highway to Hell at Best Buy or iTunes?
Tell me, why would you buy a title from iTunes, when you can rip DRM Free version for less at any/all bit rates you want?
I've told my kids, who are into music, to stop buying iTunes music and find whole albums of music they like instead of one song wonders, which they can rip and share with anyone, without restriction. I tell them to buy the CDs to support the artists.
If they want one hit wonder songs, they buy them from iTunes or preferably from the artist's website, but I tell them that isn't a real artist. ;)
Adobe makes some sense, but not really overall, too much on the PC and no niche for mass consumer sales.
Yahoo doesn't make sense, unless Apple starts viewing itself like Google, and it shouldn't do that.
Novell is the most interesting, if only so they can compete with Microsoft's AD. But again, that ultimately doesn't make sense.
Apple's success of late has been in the consumer device market. Along those lines, buying Nintendo makes much much more sense. The Wii is a good Apple like product, simple device that is popular with all but the hardcore Xbox boys. Xbox and PS3 are owned by large corps and likely not on the market (assuming Nitendo is). Nintendo would make an awesome media server for a house. Hell with Netflix Channel now running it freakin feels like an iPhone.
The only other thing I would think Apple would be aiming for would be content delivery channels (Cable/SatTV), or content that is delivered (Netflix).
"but would you trust it over a peer reviewed science journal?"
AGW Climatology: UEA published all sorts of "peer reviewed" stuff. I wouldn't trust anything they wrote. And now, since their "data" is gone missing, it really can't be "peer reviewed".
Not really what you're looking for I'm sure.
Trust is based on over all reliability of the peer review going on. Wikipedia is highly "peer reviewed" information is it not?
Most articles on Wikipedia are mostly accurate, most of the time. If it REALLY was as bad as many people make it out to be, it would have failed a long long time ago as a failed experiment.
Does it have errors (deliberate or otherwise)? I'm sure of it. Just as I'm sure that some of the "peer reviewed published articles" will eventually show up as being wrong, some more spectacularly than others.
Because it isn't all you know, the answer is "yes" it will make dishes obsolete. Assuming the worst and speculating on that doesn't help things. Wait till you see the antenna array the size of a sheet of A10 paper mounted to the roof of your house.
When people talk about making something else obsolete, they are usually know what they* are talking about.
*Exceptions include Marketing Droids and brain dead CEOs
Now why didn't I think of that?
You're preaching against the ivory towers and to everyman. Kudos!
However, because the people in ivory towers (take a look at the SCOTUS) all come from and promulgate the status quo. People from Harvard (or any other "Prestigious University") get the best jobs, highest pay, and hire Harvard Grads, not because they are the best, but to keep the status going. It is self serving at best, and at worst is so incestuous that the outcome can only be genetically flawed.
On the other hand, you can do something like this which really shows how flawed current classroom education models can really be. A method which happens to fit what you seem to be proposing.
From the "Its not what you know, it is who you blow department"
I don't see why a properly cited wiki article couldn't be a reliable citation of information. Personally, I trust Wikipedia on whole a lot more than say NBC or Fox.
Are you sure? My understanding it was ... One, Two, Many
That means trolltrolltroll could be any number greater than two. And if you're counting trolls, anything more than two is ... well "many", and that is never good.
Apparently you're all for taking what doesn't belong to you, under the guise of "well everyone is doing it, I might as well."
It is nothing short of looting the public (yourself) at the expense of the public (yourself) with the government being the middle man whom you pay as a conscience clearing money launderer.
But hey, if that makes you Feel Better(tm)* then by all means tell yourself that.
*(TM) Two Party System, Republican/Democrat parties,
Most of the posts so far are mentioning the obvious reasons why "not" to do build your own. However, I have another couple of reasons, which is more powerful yet.
Customized system (BIY) often include "Hidden" costs of emotion. They are "MY COMPUTERS" ... and people tend to try to hold onto them much longer than they ought to, just for that one reason alone. They spend more time trying to revive dead computers, fixing hardware that should be tossed or parted out and so on.
One of the things I've also noticed lacking is the how easy most "corporate" computers are to "fix". Most Dells, HPs and so on all have quick/easy access to things like RAM, HD, and slots. Often not needing ANY tools whatsoever to gain entry, and repair. Just swap and go.
The cost of tech support is twice the wage, and if you take 30 minutes opening a case and swapping a hard drive vs 10 mins with a Dell or HP, you're saving money every time it needs fixing. It isn't worth whatever savings up front you might see.
If you really have 1000 computers you need to install/manage, you're better off building out a stable support platform to provide first line support than spending the time building them in the first place, one that plans upgrades and replacements as part of the process.
There, fixed it for you.
There, fixed that for you too.
You may be getting fscked, but eventually if you're a slut or whore, you're gonna catch a disease, and the bad ones are deadly.
No thanks.
Speculation:
When LO starts to take off, you'll see other commercial interests (IBM, HP etc) start to add their resources to the effort in a much more significant and visible manner. I would suspect that anyone that isn't tied or doesn't want to be tied to the Microsoft or Oracle Griswold Stationwagon jump on board and start really making LO top grade open source product.
Many hands make light work.
OpenOffice.org was hindered partially by Sun, and fully hindered by Oracle. Development of LO is all but established now. If I were on the LO team, I'd stick to LO name, cut all ties to Oracle, start looking for white knight sponsors ASAP. I'd wash my hands of Oracle and NEVER look back. The sooner they can cut the ties that bind, the better off LO will be. They don't need Oracle, Oracle doesn't want them, better to part now with a quickie divorce than draw it out into a long and lengthy process that doesn't help anyone.
I understand how it helps FSF and its agenda, which is your point, but which fails to address my question.
So rather than explicitly making it clear it works with something it just leads one to believe it doesn't work with anything. BRILLIANT!!!
My impression has been that this has been what has been going on for some time now with all the larger database operations, and one of the reasons why SSD have not yet come down in price is that all the best units and tech are going to the big companies as fast as they can get it from the manufacturers. I wouldn't be surprised to see someone like Google saying something like "yawn, 50TB" and saying that they have PETABYTE versions already out there.
If you run a Database of any size, especially ones with large read to write ratios, SSD would only make things faster. And speed counts.
That is NOT what that RULE is saying. That rule is about BADGING (labels), and has NOTHING to do with open and free hardware. I'll quote it again, so you are clear. THIS has NOTHING to do with the HARDWARE and suitability to use by users.
It isn't about functionality, it is about badging.
SO, exactly how does restricting "Works With" badging help the user? How does that make users "more free" than now?
It doesn't, as far as I can tell. And you missed my point about claiming to be for "open and free" while adding restrictions is neither "open" nor "free".
If they were wanting to help users, they wouldn't care about anything other than making HARDWARE open and free of restrictions.
The problem here is that FSF doesn't understand "free" means. They are just as restrictive as anyone else based on that one restriction. They just see themselves as better than the others, when the reality is they are exactly the same, maybe worse.
Open and Free means without restrictions, and adding their own just means they miss the point.
You mean John Connor.