Also, it seems to me that a rescue CD should not, by default, boot to a GUI. It slows down the boot, and is not that useful when GUI can not be loaded. People who use these should know how to use the command line.
Does the cumulative evidence support Lucas's assertion?
Oh whaa, they didn't make as much on King Kong as they'd like. It's just tragic.
But, King Kong was just one example. Take all the big budget movies and that have been made in the last 10 years, and see how the economics work out. Add up all the Harry Potter, Spiderman, Starwars, Lord of the Rings, Narnia, etc. and give me an average.
Frankly, I don't know how the economics of it would figure. But common sense tells me you can't make a case based on *one* example. Especially since there is tons of data out there.
BTW: the death of the cinema has been wrongly predicted for about 50 years. First with television, then with VCRs, then with HBO, now with home theaters.
Frankly, I feel the only movies worth seeing at the theaters are the big budget types. Capote may be a good movie, but unlike King Kong, it's not the sort of movie I have to see on the big screen. I can wait for Capote on HBO.
But, I'm a bit concerned about the system. The entire patent system seems to be nothing but a game. It has nothing to do with who actually invented anything. It has nothing to do with protecting rights.
When the innovators can't make money; they will stop trying. And that is the end of the USA as an economic power. Think about it: manufacturing is long since dead in the USA. Now engineering and software development are going overseas. Technical support is also being off-shored. What's left? Nothing but lawyers and politicians and a lot of gaming and you-scratch-my-back-I'll-scratch-yours.
Reading your post, it seems that a lot of that stuff could be web-based. When you develop web-based (for the most part) it doesn't matter if you're running windows of linux.
I'm sure there are not any web-based apps that do what you want, right now. I'm just thinking, that may be the way to go.
How many people and/or companies have been sued for just using F/OSS? I don't know of any. BTW: all the scox-scam lawsuits are over bogus contract violation. Scox has not sued anybody for just using Linux.
Innocent parties have been sued for using proprietary software. The msft/time-line case is one example. How many people have been harassed, or fined, by the BSA, because they couldn't find their certificate of ownership?
These articles always assert that F/OSS is a legal minefield, whereas proprietary is completely. But all logic, and evidence, say otherwise.
"I just thought they were a legal firm designed to bring up frivolous lawsuits intended to net the company monatary judgements for no real work done."
They are. I suspect this technology is just a settup for some other bogus lawsuit.
scox's ex-parent company, canopy, used to do this. For example, they aquired dr-dos, used it to sue msft, then threw dr-dos on the scrap heap. Maybe scox bought some rights to UNIX for the same reason - to sue IBM.
No offense, but you post like somebody who does not buy, or support, desktops at a major corporation.
Big companies don't usually give a rat's ass if a desktop has a pentium or amd chip. It's all about support contracts, reliability, ass covering, and the like. Big companies feel much more comfortable working with other big companies.
Again: - My very standard HP Laserjet Series II has never worked with Linux. No problem with any version of windows, or MS-DOS.
- Even getting a DVD to really work can be a pain with Linux. Hate to even think about a DVD-RW.
- Scanners are a pain. Those multi-function printer/copier/scanners, almost never work.
- About 50% of the USA population still uses dial-up, and you can't count on linux to work with a win-modems. Sorry to say, win-modems are the stardard.
- A lot of drivers that you can find for Linux are crappy, like ATI.
"Yawn. Standard that, standard this. Get a grip, man. Windows are VERY different in terms of ANY standards between versions"
Have to disagree. For example, software is installed in about the same manor in any version of windows made in the last ten years. How many different installation methods are there in Linux? Certainly over a dozen: dpkg, rpm, Yast, emerge, port, spells, pak-man. Windows has fairly standard system applications like device manager. Imaging trying to provide phone support for Linux, with two dozen different GUIs, and 300 different distros.
6) Support. Your ISP many allow you to use Linux, but don't expect the level of support a windows user would get - not even close. If a peripheral isn't working correctly, don't expect the hardware manufacturer to you if you are running Linux.
"Yeah, and there are pratically no problems with devices in Windows."
I'm afraid you have completely missed my point. Call Comcast and tell them your network isn't working - if they find out you are using Linux, they don't have to support you. And I'm sorry but if your HW is not working under Linux, you are likely SOL.
'there are lot of devices which WON'T work out of box for "Windows ready" computers.'
But they will work. A lot of stuff won't work with Linux at all. If you buy a perpherial that doesn't work with windows, you have every right to take it back. Not so with Linux becasue so few products are supposed to work with Linux.
"And by the way, by Gardner, Linux desktop has 5% at least in marketshare. Nothing big, but hey, it is not 1%"
I think you mean Gartner, and I was discussing *desktop* market share. Linux is much strong in the server market.
"Not true. Linux has very good hardware support for PC hardware. Most of the hardware I've ever tried to use works fine under Linux."
My experience:
- My very standard HP Laserjet Series II has never worked with Linux. No problem with any version of windows, or MS-DOS.
- Even getting a DVD to really work can be a pain with Linux. Hate to even think about a DVD-RW.
- Scanners are a pain. Those multi-function printer/copier/scanners, almost never work.
- About 50% of the USA population still uses dial-up, and you can't count on linux to work with a win-modems. Sorry to say, win-modems are the stardard.
- A lot of drivers that you can find for Linux are crappy, like ATI.
"Not sure what Linux distro you have been using, but mine under KDE will kick Windows ASS. "
I have installed several version of Linux side-by-side with several different versions of Windows. In every case, windows has a snappy crisp feel, while the Linux GUI seems a bit sluggish by comparison. Here is a test I often do: open a browser to some web-page, open another window on top the browser, grab the window by the taskbar, shake the window and look for tracing. I usually get some tracing in Linux, but not Windows. Anyway, that's been my experience.
My version of Linux: Debian 3.1 unstable with IceWM. And please don't recomend another distro. 1) I'm sick to death of Linux advocates giving that as the answer to everything. 2) I've tried several versions of Linux, they all have their different problems. My system AMD 1600+ with 512MB of RAM.
- My very standard HP Laserjet Series II has never worked with Linux. No problem with any version of windows, or MS-DOS.
- Even getting a DVD to really work can be a pain with Linux. Hate to even think about a DVD-RW.
- Scanners are a pain. Those multi-function printer/copier/scanners, almost never work.
- About 50% of the USA population still uses dial-up, and you can't count on linux to work with a win-modems. Sorry to say, win-modems are the stardard.
- A lot of drivers that you can find for Linux are crappy, like ATI.
1) Software. By far the biggest reason not to use Linux on the desktop. It seems that there are always a few MS applications that many users feel they must have. Dual boot systems, running two computers, or using emulators; are all inadequate solutions. I know lots of people who say they would like to use Linux, but then they wouldn't be able to this particular game, or that particular application. I know there are Linux alternatives to a lot of standard PC software, but it only takes one "must have" app to kill the deal.
2) Hardware. Since Linux only commands about one quarter of 1% of the desktop market, it stands to reason that hardware manufacturers are not overly concerned with making Linux compatible products. Linux will always lag MS in this area. I don't think I have seen Linux drivers included with any PC hardware. It is possible to put together a Linux box that runs all the hardware you need, but it takes a lot of careful planning. With windows, hardware is not an issue, the OS is typically pre-installed, and any PC hardware comes with windows drivers. You can read right on the box which windows versions will work with the peripheral. With Linux you have to look it up, or guess. Even if a driver does exist, you may have to go all the web to find it, you may also have to compile the driver - which most average users don't want to do.
3) Cost. Practically all PCs come with MS operating systems installed. PC buyers will never get their money back for those operating systems. Which mean Linux is just an additional expense. You may also have to buy an emulator if you want to run your windows apps, or partition magic if you want to dual boot. Yes, OS-less systems do exist, but none of the majors sell them (Dell, Gateway, Compaq/HP, Apple). Most people don't feel comfortable buying Wal-Mart or no-name PCs.
4) Performance. Without a GUI, Linux is very fast, and will run with minimum hardware. But, once you run KDE or GNOME, Linux performance is much worse than windows. I know there are other trimmed down GUIs, but they don't generally have the functionality of GNOME or KDE, and certainly don't approach the functionality of Windows or MacOS.
5) Lack of standards. No standard distribution, no standard interface, no standard way to upgrade, no standard installation for OS, or applications, or drivers. Frankly, no standard anything. Those who like to tinker endlessly consider this an advantage. But, the vast majority of desktop users don't want to endlessly tinker.
6) Support. Your ISP many allow you to use Linux, but don't expect the level of support a windows user would get - not even close. If a peripheral isn't working correctly, don't expect the hardware manufacturer to you if you are running Linux.
7) Convenience. With MS, the user can purchase a PC, with OS installed at any department store or electronics store. Applications are also easy to find and install. You never have to wonder if a particular peripheral will work with windows. You don't to search all over the web for drivers. You don't even have to install the OS. With windows you just go to CompUSA and pick up what you need.
8) Relative reliability. Linux advocates like to say that MS systems are too unreliable. That may have been true, with Windows 9x, but 2000 and XP seem reliable enough.
9) Available free software. Linux advocates also like to point out all the free applications that come with Linux, but there is tons of free software for Windows, including a lot of the same free applications that Linux advocates are so happy about, like OpenOffice.
10) Ease of use and installation. Linux is getting better, but still lags MS.
I have run Vector Linux on a 100mhz system with 64mb of RAM. It was okay, not great.
I have always found Vector to be buggy. To me, Vector is a novalty. Also, a niche Linux, it's tougher to get support. It's neato that Vector works on low-end hardware, but for a real day-to-day system, I wouldn't touch it.
I ran NT4 w/SP6 on a 120mhz with 64mb of RAM and it was very snappy. Even cutting down to 32mb of RAM didn't slow it down all that much. Office-97 ran very snappy on this system also.
Linux with X-Window, and similar features would be ridiculously slow on the same hardware.
I've know a linux zealot to claims that linux ran very well on a 386, with X-Window and a complete GUI. He claimed the GUI was just a little sluggish.
When advocates overstate their case, they make the F/OSS community look like a bunch of loons. Which plays right into msft's FUD campaign.
BTW: I recently bought a 1ghz system, with 512mb ram, on craigslist for $65. It's runs either windows, or linux, plenty fast. So the "leveraging old hardward" isn't much of an arguement anyway. Maybe when Vista comes out.
Scox requested, and got, complete code to every revision of AIX, released in the last 20 years.
The request makes no sense. Scox doesn't own AIX, in fact scox doesn't own sysV. And even if scox did, the AIX code has nothing to do with scox's accusations. These accusations are nothing but assertions on scox's part, after three years, and three court orders, scox has not provided a shread of evidence.
When scox first requested the AIX revisions, Wells only gave scox five years worth. Scox whined and whined; and finally after a 5 month "under advisement" period, scox was granted all the discovery they requested. Billions of lines of code. Of course, scox also had to be given time to sort though all the discovery.
Scox is still requested more irrelevant discovery, even though the discovery period is over.
Becasue the the judge did not fully grant scox's request, the cheerleaders on groklaw are having a party about scox got their asses handed to them.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't suppose that anybody here will lose any sleep over msft not being treated fairly.
But, think about it, is it really fair for the government to force taxpayers to bankroll your competition?
A lot of posters here on commented on the gastro-intestinal affects of capsaicin. Especially for those who already have bad stomachs.
Couldn't't they somehow make this into an injectable?
Is not all that impressive to me.
Also, it seems to me that a rescue CD should not, by default, boot to a GUI. It slows down the boot, and is not that useful when GUI can not be loaded. People who use these should know how to use the command line.
Something like FCKeditor that I can run from anywhere?
Does the cumulative evidence support Lucas's assertion?
Oh whaa, they didn't make as much on King Kong as they'd like. It's just tragic.
But, King Kong was just one example. Take all the big budget movies and that have been made in the last 10 years, and see how the economics work out. Add up all the Harry Potter, Spiderman, Starwars, Lord of the Rings, Narnia, etc. and give me an average.
Frankly, I don't know how the economics of it would figure. But common sense tells me you can't make a case based on *one* example. Especially since there is tons of data out there.
BTW: the death of the cinema has been wrongly predicted for about 50 years. First with television, then with VCRs, then with HBO, now with home theaters.
Frankly, I feel the only movies worth seeing at the theaters are the big budget types. Capote may be a good movie, but unlike King Kong, it's not the sort of movie I have to see on the big screen. I can wait for Capote on HBO.
Cetus is smaller, faster, and much more functional than wordpad. Includes a spell checker.
I don't give a rat's ass about RIMM.
But, I'm a bit concerned about the system. The entire patent system seems to be nothing but a game. It has nothing to do with who actually invented anything. It has nothing to do with protecting rights.
When the innovators can't make money; they will stop trying. And that is the end of the USA as an economic power. Think about it: manufacturing is long since dead in the USA. Now engineering and software development are going overseas. Technical support is also being off-shored. What's left? Nothing but lawyers and politicians and a lot of gaming and you-scratch-my-back-I'll-scratch-yours.
Reading your post, it seems that a lot of that stuff could be web-based. When you develop web-based (for the most part) it doesn't matter if you're running windows of linux.
I'm sure there are not any web-based apps that do what you want, right now. I'm just thinking, that may be the way to go.
No offense, but these countries are not exactly international economic power-houses.
It has often surprised me how much of the F/OSS v proprietary battle goes on over there.
How many people and/or companies have been sued for just using F/OSS? I don't know of any. BTW: all the scox-scam lawsuits are over bogus contract violation. Scox has not sued anybody for just using Linux.
Innocent parties have been sued for using proprietary software. The msft/time-line case is one example. How many people have been harassed, or fined, by the BSA, because they couldn't find their certificate of ownership?
These articles always assert that F/OSS is a legal minefield, whereas proprietary is completely. But all logic, and evidence, say otherwise.
"I just thought they were a legal firm designed to bring up frivolous lawsuits intended to net the company monatary judgements for no real work done."
They are. I suspect this technology is just a settup for some other bogus lawsuit.
scox's ex-parent company, canopy, used to do this. For example, they aquired dr-dos, used it to sue msft, then threw dr-dos on the scrap heap. Maybe scox bought some rights to UNIX for the same reason - to sue IBM.
No offense, but you post like somebody who does not buy, or support, desktops at a major corporation.
Big companies don't usually give a rat's ass if a desktop has a pentium or amd chip. It's all about support contracts, reliability, ass covering, and the like. Big companies feel much more comfortable working with other big companies.
As I understand it. And a lot of techs in India know Linux.
Interesting for me to read that list.
I worked for IBM, for a while, some time back. Everything on that list was practiced by IBM.
I wonder if it isn't just common practice within the industry.
>>No, you can patent a patentable invention. Ideas are often not inventions nor patentable.
I would say the line has been significantly blurred in recent years. Have you been following all the bogus msft patents?
"Most hardware which can be supported on Linux"
Again:
- My very standard HP Laserjet Series II has never worked with Linux. No problem with any version of windows, or MS-DOS.
- Even getting a DVD to really work can be a pain with Linux. Hate to even think about a DVD-RW.
- Scanners are a pain. Those multi-function printer/copier/scanners, almost never work.
- About 50% of the USA population still uses dial-up, and you can't count on linux to work with a win-modems. Sorry to say, win-modems are the stardard.
- A lot of drivers that you can find for Linux are crappy, like ATI.
"Yawn. Standard that, standard this. Get a grip, man. Windows are VERY different in terms of ANY standards between versions"
Have to disagree. For example, software is installed in about the same manor in any version of windows made in the last ten years. How many different installation methods are there in Linux? Certainly over a dozen: dpkg, rpm, Yast, emerge, port, spells, pak-man. Windows has fairly standard system applications like device manager. Imaging trying to provide phone support for Linux, with two dozen different GUIs, and 300 different distros.
6) Support. Your ISP many allow you to use Linux, but don't expect the level of support a windows user would get - not even close. If a peripheral isn't working correctly, don't expect the hardware manufacturer to you if you are running Linux.
"Yeah, and there are pratically no problems with devices in Windows."
I'm afraid you have completely missed my point. Call Comcast and tell them your network isn't working - if they find out you are using Linux, they don't have to support you. And I'm sorry but if your HW is not working under Linux, you are likely SOL.
'there are lot of devices which WON'T work out of box for "Windows ready" computers.'
But they will work. A lot of stuff won't work with Linux at all. If you buy a perpherial that doesn't work with windows, you have every right to take it back. Not so with Linux becasue so few products are supposed to work with Linux.
"And by the way, by Gardner, Linux desktop has 5% at least in marketshare. Nothing big, but hey, it is not 1%"
I think you mean Gartner, and I was discussing *desktop* market share. Linux is much strong in the server market.
"Not true. Linux has very good hardware support for PC hardware. Most of the hardware I've ever tried to use works fine under Linux."
My experience:
- My very standard HP Laserjet Series II has never worked with Linux. No problem with any version of windows, or MS-DOS.
- Even getting a DVD to really work can be a pain with Linux. Hate to even think about a DVD-RW.
- Scanners are a pain. Those multi-function printer/copier/scanners, almost never work.
- About 50% of the USA population still uses dial-up, and you can't count on linux to work with a win-modems. Sorry to say, win-modems are the stardard.
- A lot of drivers that you can find for Linux are crappy, like ATI.
"Not sure what Linux distro you have been using, but mine under KDE will kick Windows ASS. "
I have installed several version of Linux side-by-side with several different versions of Windows. In every case, windows has a snappy crisp feel, while the Linux GUI seems a bit sluggish by comparison. Here is a test I often do: open a browser to some web-page, open another window on top the browser, grab the window by the taskbar, shake the window and look for tracing. I usually get some tracing in Linux, but not Windows. Anyway, that's been my experience.
My version of Linux: Debian 3.1 unstable with IceWM. And please don't recomend another distro. 1) I'm sick to death of Linux advocates giving that as the answer to everything. 2) I've tried several versions of Linux, they all have their different problems. My system AMD 1600+ with 512MB of RAM.
I dunno maybe, but I can tell you this:
- My very standard HP Laserjet Series II has never worked with Linux. No problem with any version of windows, or MS-DOS.
- Even getting a DVD to really work can be a pain with Linux. Hate to even think about a DVD-RW.
- Scanners are a pain. Those multi-function printer/copier/scanners, almost never work.
- About 50% of the USA population still uses dial-up, and you can't count on linux to work with a win-modems. Sorry to say, win-modems are the stardard.
- A lot of drivers that you can find for Linux are crappy, like ATI.
1) Software. By far the biggest reason not to use Linux on the desktop. It seems that there are always a few MS applications that many users feel they must have. Dual boot systems, running two computers, or using emulators; are all inadequate solutions. I know lots of people who say they would like to use Linux, but then they wouldn't be able to this particular game, or that particular application. I know there are Linux alternatives to a lot of standard PC software, but it only takes one "must have" app to kill the deal.
2) Hardware. Since Linux only commands about one quarter of 1% of the desktop market, it stands to reason that hardware manufacturers are not overly concerned with making Linux compatible products. Linux will always lag MS in this area. I don't think I have seen Linux drivers included with any PC hardware. It is possible to put together a Linux box that runs all the hardware you need, but it takes a lot of careful planning. With windows, hardware is not an issue, the OS is typically pre-installed, and any PC hardware comes with windows drivers. You can read right on the box which windows versions will work with the peripheral. With Linux you have to look it up, or guess. Even if a driver does exist, you may have to go all the web to find it, you may also have to compile the driver - which most average users don't want to do.
3) Cost. Practically all PCs come with MS operating systems installed. PC buyers will never get their money back for those operating systems. Which mean Linux is just an additional expense. You may also have to buy an emulator if you want to run your windows apps, or partition magic if you want to dual boot. Yes, OS-less systems do exist, but none of the majors sell them (Dell, Gateway, Compaq/HP, Apple). Most people don't feel comfortable buying Wal-Mart or no-name PCs.
4) Performance. Without a GUI, Linux is very fast, and will run with minimum hardware. But, once you run KDE or GNOME, Linux performance is much worse than windows. I know there are other trimmed down GUIs, but they don't generally have the functionality of GNOME or KDE, and certainly don't approach the functionality of Windows or MacOS.
5) Lack of standards. No standard distribution, no standard interface, no standard way to upgrade, no standard installation for OS, or applications, or drivers. Frankly, no standard anything. Those who like to tinker endlessly consider this an advantage. But, the vast majority of desktop users don't want to endlessly tinker.
6) Support. Your ISP many allow you to use Linux, but don't expect the level of support a windows user would get - not even close. If a peripheral isn't working correctly, don't expect the hardware manufacturer to you if you are running Linux.
7) Convenience. With MS, the user can purchase a PC, with OS installed at any department store or electronics store. Applications are also easy to find and install. You never have to wonder if a particular peripheral will work with windows. You don't to search all over the web for drivers. You don't even have to install the OS. With windows you just go to CompUSA and pick up what you need.
8) Relative reliability. Linux advocates like to say that MS systems are too unreliable. That may have been true, with Windows 9x, but 2000 and XP seem reliable enough.
9) Available free software. Linux advocates also like to point out all the free applications that come with Linux, but there is tons of free software for Windows, including a lot of the same free applications that Linux advocates are so happy about, like OpenOffice.
10) Ease of use and installation. Linux is getting better, but still lags MS.
That is over-flowing with IP related litigous bastards.
This must be the international full employment act for lawyers. Lawyers, of course, are *always* the big winners in these senseless squables.
Maybe excessive litigation will send the UK right down the sh!ter, along with the USA. At least the USA won't have to go alone.
Wait a minute, let's compare apples to apples here.
NT4 w/sp6 has a fairly complete GUI. And Office97 isn't a bad office suit.
Yes ancient stripped linux will basically "run" on a 120 with 32mb of RAM, but do you really have a practical system with a full-featured GUI?
I figure OpenOffice would take about 20 minutes to open on such a system. Again, Office-97 on NT4, is fairly snappy, even an such an old system.
I have run Vector Linux on a 100mhz system with 64mb of RAM. It was okay, not great.
I have always found Vector to be buggy. To me, Vector is a novalty. Also, a niche Linux, it's tougher to get support. It's neato that Vector works on low-end hardware, but for a real day-to-day system, I wouldn't touch it.
I agree with the poster about NT4.
I ran NT4 w/SP6 on a 120mhz with 64mb of RAM and it was very snappy. Even cutting down to 32mb of RAM didn't slow it down all that much. Office-97 ran very snappy on this system also.
Linux with X-Window, and similar features would be ridiculously slow on the same hardware.
I've know a linux zealot to claims that linux ran very well on a 386, with X-Window and a complete GUI. He claimed the GUI was just a little sluggish.
When advocates overstate their case, they make the F/OSS community look like a bunch of loons. Which plays right into msft's FUD campaign.
BTW: I recently bought a 1ghz system, with 512mb ram, on craigslist for $65. It's runs either windows, or linux, plenty fast. So the "leveraging old hardward" isn't much of an arguement anyway. Maybe when Vista comes out.
Scox requested, and got, complete code to every revision of AIX, released in the last 20 years.
The request makes no sense. Scox doesn't own AIX, in fact scox doesn't own sysV. And even if scox did, the AIX code has nothing to do with scox's accusations. These accusations are nothing but assertions on scox's part, after three years, and three court orders, scox has not provided a shread of evidence.
When scox first requested the AIX revisions, Wells only gave scox five years worth. Scox whined and whined; and finally after a 5 month "under advisement" period, scox was granted all the discovery they requested. Billions of lines of code. Of course, scox also had to be given time to sort though all the discovery.
Scox is still requested more irrelevant discovery, even though the discovery period is over.
Becasue the the judge did not fully grant scox's request, the cheerleaders on groklaw are having a party about scox got their asses handed to them.
Go figure.