I would agree, but what makes you think there's no ground (with current IP law) to say there's not already freeloading?
Looking at the inserts for the latest Disney DVD release, I see that Snow White was first released in 1937. That means they will have copyright on it until 2032 (Thank you Mickey Mouse Protection Act). I am not arguing that Snow White (barring market saturation) won't still have value in 2032, but instead: how many other movies from 1937 are now "worthless"?
Let's perform a thought experiment. Assume a constant print expiration rate for a given media (i.e. one year after publishing x amount of all materials are still in print; two years after x^2, etc). What percentage retention is required for 1% of all 95-year old (current copyright length) material to be in print? According to my calculator, an approximate 95.25% rate is required. 1% lower than than and the 95-year rate drops to.36%; at 90% retention the rate is a mere.004 percent. Is that small a possible percentage reason enough to grant the remaining 99+% protection to that age as well?
Okay, I can't tell clearly if you're arguing about two warring open source apps or about closed source taking from open. I will respond to each possiblity separately.
First, if Charlie is writing a closed source app, then (IHNSHO) they deserve not to sell their product. They cheated on the GPL in order to finish it (making it plain they can't do their own work); if they did sell well, I would expect to see Bob- as soon as he learned of this- go some lawers to put Charlie's company in a legal headlock. (Or at least try; just walking away is tacit approval.)
Secondly, if Charlie is writing an open sourced app (i.e. also under the GPL) then there are two flaws in your argument. Firstly Charlie's app could have also been included in major distros. How then is the field of competion imbalanced? Secondly I don't see open source applications being all that likely to sell massive numbers (unless what they sell is really technical service, like RedHat. That's a scheme I understand, PHBs can appreciate, and that will pull in revenue.) Futhermore, I cannot think of a single open sourced application that doesn't have a single competitor- everywhere I've looked there's duplication of effort. And none of these projects manage to kill the other. (Despite how much the proponents may want: *hint*hint* KDE/Gnome.)
I will state my opinion again, more clearly and in depth. When I write for an open source project, I want to ensure that knowledge is not used for another person's private profit. That is (IMO) unjust. Putting the same code in another open source app is just fine; that sort of sharing is implicit to the open source movement. The best license for that purpose, as far as I can tell, is the GPL. I will be glad to use apps written under other licences, but won't contribute to them.
Okay, so Wine is the perfect case example of why I think the GPL is, perhaps, the best open source licence (certainly the best for Linux itself).
Before you flame me, note I conditionalized the above as my opinion, not fact. And then read below for my explanation of that opinion.
Hypothetical case 1: Abel writes 'the killer open source app' and releases it under the GPL. Doug's company has been working on the same concept, but because their product will be closed source they can't use Abel's code in it.
Hypothetical case 2: Bob comes up with a 'killer open source app' and releases it under the BSD licence- but his idea isn't completed yet. The company Charlie works at has been struggling to write a similar app, and Bob's source will fit the bill. Charlie uses it to finish his company's app, which then goes to market as a closed source app. Bob can't do anything, because the BSD licence doesn't require source to remain open.
Which is fairer? To me, the answer is clear. When I contribute code to an open source project, I am trying to produce a benefit for the whole world, not just a few people who want to get cheap code. By not forcing the code to remain free, you devalue that difference.
Perhaps Microsoft just wants to avoid egg on their face. After all, when your CEO gets on the stand and (apparently) repeatedly perjures himself, you tend to lose a lot of customer trust.
This is a fairly understandable motive to exclude the public.
OTOH, this is just a natural extention of the 'security through obscurity' concept. Tells you what the real root thought is- to wit, the silencing of dissenting opinion (rather than to maintain so-called security). When the media won't be your lapdog, just muzzle them.
Okay, okay so I simplified a little. I didn't want to lose anyone with my arguments- though you sure have added a few things I hadn't thought about.
What the argument really comes down to though is that the content companies (MPAA, RIAA) want the access to their materials to be controlled, so that eventually I make a micropayment each time I listen to a CD, watch a movie, and so forth. And to do this, they need to control the access and to do that they need to make it illegal for alternatives to exist.
I don't like this vision of the future. That's why I use Linux- I want my freedoms. The case against Johansen boils down to seeing if intelectual ideas behind laws written to exclude people from breaking & entering computer networks are extendible to exclude people from breaking access controls and getting at your IP (never mind that you want them to do that anyway; "straining at gnats and swallowing camels are required courses at any law school" (R.A. Heinlien).
If this thinly veiled lawsuit wins, I'm chucking my computer into the nearest river and going total Luddite. I'd much rather face a daily stuggle for survival than a daily struggle for my basic freedoms.
With the recent announcement of no x86 Solaris 9, do you forsee aditional problems within Sun as more projects (potentially) move to 64-bit chip archetectures? (I mean to exclude external factors such as the potential that the consumer chip market may to fail to transit toward 64 bit chips.)
I'm not associated with the MPAA, but after some thought on this I came up with the only reasonable explanation for their behavior.
They (of course) don't want to ever lose control of their works. Their ideal world would be one with no public domain at all, no fair use, and every time you sang "Happy Birthday" you made a mircopayment.
So here's what they do. First they need to get total control of their current works, so they create a "copy control scheme"- yes, CSS. But wait, CSS doesn't stop copying- pirates can copy a DVD and the CSS layer (with the right equipment; almost certainly possible with the same used by the studios to make the DVDs to start with, or such with small modifications). So CSS won't effectivly stop copying, just "unauthorized" access.
Step two in this nefarious scheme is to make it illegal to break this protection scheme (vis a vis the DMCA). And now, the perpetrators rest assured that (barring any bumps) they can now gain income on their works forever. Why? Because I can't try to de-CSS (or if you prefer DeCSS) a DVD movie (even one that has passed into public domain) without doing something illegal. So whoever CSS'd the movie in the first place becomes the only legal distributor, even though the content may (technically) be in the public domain.
Yes, even I recognize this as being overtly paranoid, but I challenge you to come up with a better alternative explanation of recent events.
Well right now I'm still getting all the little pieces config'd (migrating hardware so this is in flux, mind you). Final setup will (probably) be my old Pentium 2 with a Haupauge card in it. Running Linux (of course); drivers for their chipsets are built into the kernel now (with v4l) so I won't waste processor cycles trying to display the video.
Playback will probably be either on the same system (already clocked- for high quality video no speed loss) or on my new system where since all the hardware (sans video input card of course) is newer (playback therefore isn't a problem).
This is not a surefire recipe; as with all things YMWV.
It's one thing to say online polls are rigged. It's another to have proof.
It's one thing to catch a big business (in a fair market) with their hand in the cookie jar. It's another when it's Mircrosoft with their hand in the cookie jar.
If you could pay just a little extra for broadband over telephone, is there any reason why NOT to pay that little extra for faster downloads / etc..?
Sure. And I'll explain it clearly. I don't get faster downloads when using broadband. Sure, I have a 300 Kbps pipe (optimal as it's the shared cable deal) but there's no chance at all that I'll fill that pipe just downloading web pages, no matter how Flash/Shockwave/Java intensive they are.
You see, the really big web page sites have a D/L limiter... so do a lot of FTP sites. So having that pipe only gives me the chance to have 10 30 Kbps streams, not 1 300K stream.
I'll say it again. Broadband is all about me being able to put up the sounds of my (hypothetical) garage band, offer for download the (as yet unreleased) GNU software I wrote, and release myself from the leash of Geocities for my homepage. It's not about downloading content; it's about making mine available to the world. That's something that is stopped by the "big bad evils" that plague the hacker. And the average user does understand (well, somewhat). They see it's all about Goliath putting David in a choke hold. And thus, won't go anywhere near it.
These experiments in innovation [refering to Napster and MP3.com] are now over. They have been stopped by lawyers working for the recording industry. Every form of innovation that they disapproved of they sued. And every suit they brought, they won. Innovation outside the control of the "majors" has stopped.
This is a subtle clue as to why broadband isn't being bought. Broadband is all about my having the resources to run my own web pages or FTP site or MP3 stream. If I can't do that without the fear of the RIAA (gotta pay royalties!), FBI (think Linux is warez) or whoever patented hyperlinks (whatever happened to "non-obvious"?)breaking down my bedroom door, then I sure don't have any reason to invest in that big a connection.
Come on, broadband isn't about how much I can suck down at once, it's about being able to produce my own content.
IMHO it does come down to trust. Once I trust your integrity, the rest is just details
Agreed. So what is different about the corner bookstore and local butcher that BigMegacorp doesn't have? Is is {gasp} the fact that BigMegacorp only sees you as a walking wallet, whereas the hole-in-the-wall stores rely on customer loyalty to garner sales?
'Faking' that intimite relationship that comes after you've gained my trust will just scare me away faster. After all, if I go to a mega-chain PC dealer and ask "I'm thinking of getting a new computer and putting Linux on it, what do you know about compatability with hardware?" they'll give you a blank stare. I did that at the hole-in-the-wall store not two blocks from my apartment and the guy said "Well there's a new sound card driver out you'll have to download but other than that I've not heard any complaints".
This sort of data mining won't ever replace real customer srevice.
Simple. You're doing binary counting. To decompress using this algorythm you need to know the number of cycles performed, for which the smallest (uncompressed) form is the original imput data.
I didn't use it myself, but I sat next to a coworker who did. Coupled with a few other minor applications (like SMB filesharing) it let them use all the software we had in our (otherwise) exclusively Windows network. Basically, it emulated the CPU and hardware of a x86 system and called the Mac functions where applicable.
Best as I can remember, the only issue was a very slight hit in speed.
And all we need now to complete the picture
on
Dave Barry Does Windows
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Reading the suggested situations in the article reminds me of a science-fiction short story I read. Some poor peon had his computer break and it started telling him to goof off, not work. Chilling story if you read it as everyone did what the machines told them to; and since they were wearable/implants, you couldn't get away from them at all. Reading the use cases they suggest in the article reminds me of that story far too much. (It also reminds me of the Office Assistant, but for different reasons. "Hi I noticed you're writing a letter. Would you like help?")
Whatever happened to the idea of getting away from it all?
You're confused, and it's because of the classical left wing/right wing political view. Politics aren't one dimensional. If you take the classical view, it's Communist - Liberal - Neutral - Conservative - Facist. Where are the anarchists? the Libertarians? It doesn't match the real world. See The World's Smallest Political Quiz for more information- they phrase it much better than I do.
Sure, email is speech. Commercial email is speech. Heck, even bulk unsolicited email is speech.
However... it might not be protected speech. Just as you can't shout "fire" in a crowded theater under the guise of first amendment free speech, this law makes it illegal to send an unsolicited bulk email and lie about how you get removed from the mailing list.
Of course, now spammers just have to have more lists... remove yourself from list A and you are subscribed to lists B, C, and D. (Not like I don't think they did that before, anyway).
The most interesting thing about this article is the problem of linux competing with pirated Microsoft software in third world countries and southeast asia. In these places Windows is effectively as "free" as Linux in monetary terms. When all you care about is price parity, why not choose the more popular of the free solutions?
How about... becasuse with the 'free' Windows you don't get support and the same crappy documentation, but with the free Linux you get all the documentation and all the support the web has to offer?
Just as with commercial UNIX, it isn't the initial cost that will break you, it is the ongoing support contracts from the vendor that are the most expensive over time.
I compliment you on your attempt to properly catalogue all of the ongoing costs in running both operating systems. But it seems that you forgot the million-dollar lawsuit again the l33t script kiddies who just cracked your IIS server (the one that your MCSE monkey never installed the patches on) for the umpteeth time stealing all of your customers credit card #s.
It might be more expensive to have the UNIX guru or a support contract, but at least they know what they're doing. The MCSE (which as every one knows really stands for Must Consult Someone Else) just follows instructions, like any other good lemming... and anyone who things Microsoft expects more of users or admins obviously haven't seen XP.
You fail to realize: Microsoft is not just a monopoly, but also convicted of illegally strong-arming their customers into buying more of their produts. If someone else comes along and offers customers a choice, then M$ bites the big one. Their products are generally shoddy pieces of bloatware that got pushed out the door too quickly. (just look at that XP bug again- root any XP box using a modified DoS attack. No user interaction required; heck you could do this to "that web server running in the back office nobody ever uses". Nasty.) [I realize the previous is exaggeration. Little poetic lisence taken.] Any other alternative to that level of gross incompetence is a threat. You also ignore that the quarter of a percent market share is a whacked statistic anyhow; go back to that article and look again- its' based on broswers and thusly ignores all the servers (which is what this email targets). Server-side is probably much higher.
Haven't read the book, but I think you've hit the nail on the head. I've got no fears on taclking most problems- from fixing my computer (hardware or software) to acting grease monkey on a car to rewiring a house or fixing a leaking pipe.
My zeal comes twofold: first, I either know how to fix the problem beforehand or do the research. Second, I know the signs that I've gotten in over my head and it's time to call a professional. Not that I've never had the pro tell me I totally destroyed something before, but any bad experience can be a learning experience.
Well anyways, back to the usability myth. I propose that it is just that, a myth.
Look here, let's get something straight. When the marketing people talk usability, what they're talking about is the learning curve. And there are several ways to turn a learning curve into usability 'statistics'.
One is the very bottom of the curve: with the most idiotic of users. How easily is it to sit down at a strange system and understand it? No one will argue that new users understand a GUI metaphor far better than the command line-- it takes a brand new user training in understanding the CLI metaphor. For most intents and purposes, then, a UI can't be considered 'usable' until it's graphical.
The next two criteria seem to be at odds with themselves most of the time. The first is how error-friendly the system is: for example, can the system tolerate an error in case? For the Linux CLI (Bash most likely) the answer is no (And yes I know there's an option in Bash to change that but it's not enabled by default- which is what matters to a new user)- compare to DOS, which doesn't care at all. In this particular instance, DOS is more usable. But to turn the tables, Linux/Bash has command line completion, which helps prevent typing errors. However, you can't have your UI out-guess the user-- never let it push the user in the wrong direction.
Complimenting error tolerance is how much power is available- how many options the user can select from at once. This is again a balancing act: give the user too few options and you give them no power, and yet if you give them too many at once they will not be able to determine the ones they want to choose. Nesting options helps, but may add to user confusion (that is, it only helps if done in a logical manner And I don't consider the way Windows does its' menus logical. Why is the dialog for changing file associations nested under the View menu? (This is from memory, I'm in Linux)).
There are other things to consider, I will pass them over for the sake of brevity and to mention the way I would measure usability- being a programmer and not a marketroid. My measure is height of the first learning plateau. On any learning curve, there are plateaus- level-- or nearly so-- periods with little to no learning. Having a low first plateau on your curve means that the user will feel comfortable with some very limited parts of the system, yet have far more to learn to be able to manage it all at once. The "best" (most usable) system would employ a UI metaphor that enabled the first plateau to be as high as possible. This is more true with GUIs than a CLI (compare launching a new program-- from a brand new users' point of view) as well as more true of Windows than Linux (compare program installation- with Linux I still hunt dependencies often).
People think something is easy to use because they feel familiar with it
Without a doubt, the portion of usability that most lay persons bandy about is indeed familiarity, but that isn't too limiting a factor. Sit an aveerage Windows user down at a Mac and let them browse the web- you won't get that many questions. (Probably just "Why does this mouse only have one button?") Sit them down at the Mac and give them a reference book- they'll be able to use it quickly. (I assume, knowing the converse is true, that they will read the book.) The problem with the transition is that in each system the baseline skills are the same-- beginning users have no problem transitioning-- but the power users would flounder. Keyboard shortcuts differ. Mouse command keys differ. The control panel on each system works differently. And so on.
What I'm saying here is simple. Usability is not a myth. Having differed with your introdcution, I agree entirely with your conclusion. ...it's[usability] not the driving force for the public when it comes to using one operating environment over another.
Nope. It's marketing. Joe Sixpack drinks the beer his favorite sports star does, wears the same brand name clothes his favorite TV/film star does, and uses the Operating System he is told to on his favorite TV channel. Once Linux registers on his radar at all, then it has a hope of really making it onto the desktop (getting a "respectable" percentage like Mac- as a Linux advocate I'd settle for 10% in a heartbeat! At least the Mac registers on the major software developer's radar). From there, who knows? And I won't prognosticate about that day at all- because I can't even tell if it will come in a year or in a hundred years. I just hope that the revolution comes before computers get outlawed.
Slashdot Mirror
Corporations will try harder to freeload.
.36%; at 90% retention the rate is a mere .004 percent. Is that small a possible percentage reason enough to grant the remaining 99+% protection to that age as well?
I would agree, but what makes you think there's no ground (with current IP law) to say there's not already freeloading?
Looking at the inserts for the latest Disney DVD release, I see that Snow White was first released in 1937. That means they will have copyright on it until 2032 (Thank you Mickey Mouse Protection Act). I am not arguing that Snow White (barring market saturation) won't still have value in 2032, but instead: how many other movies from 1937 are now "worthless"?
Let's perform a thought experiment. Assume a constant print expiration rate for a given media (i.e. one year after publishing x amount of all materials are still in print; two years after x^2, etc). What percentage retention is required for 1% of all 95-year old (current copyright length) material to be in print? According to my calculator, an approximate 95.25% rate is required. 1% lower than than and the 95-year rate drops to
Okay, I can't tell clearly if you're arguing about two warring open source apps or about closed source taking from open. I will respond to each possiblity separately.
First, if Charlie is writing a closed source app, then (IHNSHO) they deserve not to sell their product. They cheated on the GPL in order to finish it (making it plain they can't do their own work); if they did sell well, I would expect to see Bob- as soon as he learned of this- go some lawers to put Charlie's company in a legal headlock. (Or at least try; just walking away is tacit approval.)
Secondly, if Charlie is writing an open sourced app (i.e. also under the GPL) then there are two flaws in your argument. Firstly Charlie's app could have also been included in major distros. How then is the field of competion imbalanced? Secondly I don't see open source applications being all that likely to sell massive numbers (unless what they sell is really technical service, like RedHat. That's a scheme I understand, PHBs can appreciate, and that will pull in revenue.) Futhermore, I cannot think of a single open sourced application that doesn't have a single competitor- everywhere I've looked there's duplication of effort. And none of these projects manage to kill the other. (Despite how much the proponents may want: *hint*hint* KDE/Gnome.)
I will state my opinion again, more clearly and in depth. When I write for an open source project, I want to ensure that knowledge is not used for another person's private profit. That is (IMO) unjust. Putting the same code in another open source app is just fine; that sort of sharing is implicit to the open source movement. The best license for that purpose, as far as I can tell, is the GPL. I will be glad to use apps written under other licences, but won't contribute to them.
Okay, so Wine is the perfect case example of why I think the GPL is, perhaps, the best open source licence (certainly the best for Linux itself).
Before you flame me, note I conditionalized the above as my opinion, not fact. And then read below for my explanation of that opinion.
Hypothetical case 1: Abel writes 'the killer open source app' and releases it under the GPL. Doug's company has been working on the same concept, but because their product will be closed source they can't use Abel's code in it.
Hypothetical case 2: Bob comes up with a 'killer open source app' and releases it under the BSD licence- but his idea isn't completed yet. The company Charlie works at has been struggling to write a similar app, and Bob's source will fit the bill. Charlie uses it to finish his company's app, which then goes to market as a closed source app. Bob can't do anything, because the BSD licence doesn't require source to remain open.
Which is fairer? To me, the answer is clear. When I contribute code to an open source project, I am trying to produce a benefit for the whole world, not just a few people who want to get cheap code. By not forcing the code to remain free, you devalue that difference.
Perhaps Microsoft just wants to avoid egg on their face. After all, when your CEO gets on the stand and (apparently) repeatedly perjures himself, you tend to lose a lot of customer trust. This is a fairly understandable motive to exclude the public.
OTOH, this is just a natural extention of the 'security through obscurity' concept. Tells you what the real root thought is- to wit, the silencing of dissenting opinion (rather than to maintain so-called security). When the media won't be your lapdog, just muzzle them.
Okay, okay so I simplified a little. I didn't want to lose anyone with my arguments- though you sure have added a few things I hadn't thought about.
What the argument really comes down to though is that the content companies (MPAA, RIAA) want the access to their materials to be controlled, so that eventually I make a micropayment each time I listen to a CD, watch a movie, and so forth. And to do this, they need to control the access and to do that they need to make it illegal for alternatives to exist.
I don't like this vision of the future. That's why I use Linux- I want my freedoms. The case against Johansen boils down to seeing if intelectual ideas behind laws written to exclude people from breaking & entering computer networks are extendible to exclude people from breaking access controls and getting at your IP (never mind that you want them to do that anyway; "straining at gnats and swallowing camels are required courses at any law school" (R.A. Heinlien).
If this thinly veiled lawsuit wins, I'm chucking my computer into the nearest river and going total Luddite. I'd much rather face a daily stuggle for survival than a daily struggle for my basic freedoms.
With the recent announcement of no x86 Solaris 9, do you forsee aditional problems within Sun as more projects (potentially) move to 64-bit chip archetectures? (I mean to exclude external factors such as the potential that the consumer chip market may to fail to transit toward 64 bit chips.)
I'm not associated with the MPAA, but after some thought on this I came up with the only reasonable explanation for their behavior.
They (of course) don't want to ever lose control of their works. Their ideal world would be one with no public domain at all, no fair use, and every time you sang "Happy Birthday" you made a mircopayment.
So here's what they do. First they need to get total control of their current works, so they create a "copy control scheme"- yes, CSS. But wait, CSS doesn't stop copying- pirates can copy a DVD and the CSS layer (with the right equipment; almost certainly possible with the same used by the studios to make the DVDs to start with, or such with small modifications). So CSS won't effectivly stop copying, just "unauthorized" access.
Step two in this nefarious scheme is to make it illegal to break this protection scheme (vis a vis the DMCA). And now, the perpetrators rest assured that (barring any bumps) they can now gain income on their works forever. Why? Because I can't try to de-CSS (or if you prefer DeCSS) a DVD movie (even one that has passed into public domain) without doing something illegal. So whoever CSS'd the movie in the first place becomes the only legal distributor, even though the content may (technically) be in the public domain.
Yes, even I recognize this as being overtly paranoid, but I challenge you to come up with a better alternative explanation of recent events.
They don't need a ZDNet poll to convince people to use .Net, or any of their other products.
Say that again, with a straight face, after the sentence "Microsoft's latest operating system has the biggest security flaw ever."
Well right now I'm still getting all the little pieces config'd (migrating hardware so this is in flux, mind you). Final setup will (probably) be my old Pentium 2 with a Haupauge card in it. Running Linux (of course); drivers for their chipsets are built into the kernel now (with v4l) so I won't waste processor cycles trying to display the video. Playback will probably be either on the same system (already clocked- for high quality video no speed loss) or on my new system where since all the hardware (sans video input card of course) is newer (playback therefore isn't a problem).
This is not a surefire recipe; as with all things YMWV.
It's one thing to say online polls are rigged.
It's another to have proof.
It's one thing to catch a big business (in a fair market) with their hand in the cookie jar.
It's another when it's Mircrosoft with their hand in the cookie jar.
As a Tivo owner, I've come to the conclusion that anybody who does any TV watching is an idiot not to have a Tivo.
Or, like me, converted one of their Linux boxen to a Tivo work-alike with a video input card.
That old PC works well for streaming MP3s and Video....
If you could pay just a little extra for broadband over telephone, is there any reason why NOT to pay that little extra for faster downloads / etc..?
Sure. And I'll explain it clearly. I don't get faster downloads when using broadband. Sure, I have a 300 Kbps pipe (optimal as it's the shared cable deal) but there's no chance at all that I'll fill that pipe just downloading web pages, no matter how Flash/Shockwave/Java intensive they are.
You see, the really big web page sites have a D/L limiter... so do a lot of FTP sites. So having that pipe only gives me the chance to have 10 30 Kbps streams, not 1 300K stream.
I'll say it again. Broadband is all about me being able to put up the sounds of my (hypothetical) garage band, offer for download the (as yet unreleased) GNU software I wrote, and release myself from the leash of Geocities for my homepage. It's not about downloading content; it's about making mine available to the world. That's something that is stopped by the "big bad evils" that plague the hacker. And the average user does understand (well, somewhat). They see it's all about Goliath putting David in a choke hold. And thus, won't go anywhere near it.
These experiments in innovation [refering to Napster and MP3.com] are now over. They have been stopped by lawyers working for the recording industry. Every form of innovation that they disapproved of they sued. And every suit they brought, they won. Innovation outside the control of the "majors" has stopped.
This is a subtle clue as to why broadband isn't being bought. Broadband is all about my having the resources to run my own web pages or FTP site or MP3 stream. If I can't do that without the fear of the RIAA (gotta pay royalties!), FBI (think Linux is warez) or whoever patented hyperlinks (whatever happened to "non-obvious"?)breaking down my bedroom door, then I sure don't have any reason to invest in that big a connection.
Come on, broadband isn't about how much I can suck down at once, it's about being able to produce my own content.
No- this is not just like old times.
IMHO it does come down to trust. Once I trust your integrity, the rest is just details
Agreed. So what is different about the corner bookstore and local butcher that BigMegacorp doesn't have? Is is {gasp} the fact that BigMegacorp only sees you as a walking wallet, whereas the hole-in-the-wall stores rely on customer loyalty to garner sales?
'Faking' that intimite relationship that comes after you've gained my trust will just scare me away faster. After all, if I go to a mega-chain PC dealer and ask "I'm thinking of getting a new computer and putting Linux on it, what do you know about compatability with hardware?" they'll give you a blank stare. I did that at the hole-in-the-wall store not two blocks from my apartment and the guy said "Well there's a new sound card driver out you'll have to download but other than that I've not heard any complaints".
This sort of data mining won't ever replace real customer srevice.
Simple. You're doing binary counting. To decompress using this algorythm you need to know the number of cycles performed, for which the smallest (uncompressed) form is the original imput data.
I didn't use it myself, but I sat next to a coworker who did. Coupled with a few other minor applications (like SMB filesharing) it let them use all the software we had in our (otherwise) exclusively Windows network. Basically, it emulated the CPU and hardware of a x86 system and called the Mac functions where applicable. Best as I can remember, the only issue was a very slight hit in speed.
...is sending Dave Barry a copy of linux!
Reading the suggested situations in the article reminds me of a science-fiction short story I read. Some poor peon had his computer break and it started telling him to goof off, not work. Chilling story if you read it as everyone did what the machines told them to; and since they were wearable/implants, you couldn't get away from them at all. Reading the use cases they suggest in the article reminds me of that story far too much. (It also reminds me of the Office Assistant, but for different reasons. "Hi I noticed you're writing a letter. Would you like help?")
Whatever happened to the idea of getting away from it all?
You're confused, and it's because of the classical left wing/right wing political view. Politics aren't one dimensional. If you take the classical view, it's Communist - Liberal - Neutral - Conservative - Facist. Where are the anarchists? the Libertarians? It doesn't match the real world. See The World's Smallest Political Quiz for more information- they phrase it much better than I do.
Sure, email is speech. Commercial email is speech. Heck, even bulk unsolicited email is speech.
However... it might not be protected speech. Just as you can't shout "fire" in a crowded theater under the guise of first amendment free speech, this law makes it illegal to send an unsolicited bulk email and lie about how you get removed from the mailing list.
Of course, now spammers just have to have more lists... remove yourself from list A and you are subscribed to lists B, C, and D. (Not like I don't think they did that before, anyway).
The most interesting thing about this article is the problem of linux competing with pirated Microsoft software in third world countries and southeast asia. In these places Windows is effectively as "free" as Linux in monetary terms. When all you care about is price parity, why not choose the more popular of the free solutions?
How about... becasuse with the 'free' Windows you don't get support and the same crappy documentation, but with the free Linux you get all the documentation and all the support the web has to offer?
Just as with commercial UNIX, it isn't the initial cost that will break you, it is the ongoing support contracts from the vendor that are the most expensive over time.
I compliment you on your attempt to properly catalogue all of the ongoing costs in running both operating systems. But it seems that you forgot the million-dollar lawsuit again the l33t script kiddies who just cracked your IIS server (the one that your MCSE monkey never installed the patches on) for the umpteeth time stealing all of your customers credit card #s.
It might be more expensive to have the UNIX guru or a support contract, but at least they know what they're doing. The MCSE (which as every one knows really stands for Must Consult Someone Else) just follows instructions, like any other good lemming... and anyone who things Microsoft expects more of users or admins obviously haven't seen XP.
Come on. A market share of 0.24% is a threat?
You fail to realize: Microsoft is not just a monopoly, but also convicted of illegally strong-arming their customers into buying more of their produts. If someone else comes along and offers customers a choice, then M$ bites the big one. Their products are generally shoddy pieces of bloatware that got pushed out the door too quickly. (just look at that XP bug again- root any XP box using a modified DoS attack. No user interaction required; heck you could do this to "that web server running in the back office nobody ever uses". Nasty.) [I realize the previous is exaggeration. Little poetic lisence taken.] Any other alternative to that level of gross incompetence is a threat. You also ignore that the quarter of a percent market share is a whacked statistic anyhow; go back to that article and look again- its' based on broswers and thusly ignores all the servers (which is what this email targets). Server-side is probably much higher.
Haven't read the book, but I think you've hit the nail on the head. I've got no fears on taclking most problems- from fixing my computer (hardware or software) to acting grease monkey on a car to rewiring a house or fixing a leaking pipe.
My zeal comes twofold: first, I either know how to fix the problem beforehand or do the research. Second, I know the signs that I've gotten in over my head and it's time to call a professional. Not that I've never had the pro tell me I totally destroyed something before, but any bad experience can be a learning experience.
Well anyways, back to the usability myth. I propose that it is just that, a myth.
...it's[usability] not the driving force for the public when it comes to using one operating environment over another.
Look here, let's get something straight. When the marketing people talk usability, what they're talking about is the learning curve. And there are several ways to turn a learning curve into usability 'statistics'.
One is the very bottom of the curve: with the most idiotic of users. How easily is it to sit down at a strange system and understand it? No one will argue that new users understand a GUI metaphor far better than the command line-- it takes a brand new user training in understanding the CLI metaphor. For most intents and purposes, then, a UI can't be considered 'usable' until it's graphical.
The next two criteria seem to be at odds with themselves most of the time. The first is how error-friendly the system is: for example, can the system tolerate an error in case? For the Linux CLI (Bash most likely) the answer is no (And yes I know there's an option in Bash to change that but it's not enabled by default- which is what matters to a new user)- compare to DOS, which doesn't care at all. In this particular instance, DOS is more usable. But to turn the tables, Linux/Bash has command line completion, which helps prevent typing errors. However, you can't have your UI out-guess the user-- never let it push the user in the wrong direction.
Complimenting error tolerance is how much power is available- how many options the user can select from at once. This is again a balancing act: give the user too few options and you give them no power, and yet if you give them too many at once they will not be able to determine the ones they want to choose. Nesting options helps, but may add to user confusion (that is, it only helps if done in a logical manner And I don't consider the way Windows does its' menus logical. Why is the dialog for changing file associations nested under the View menu? (This is from memory, I'm in Linux)).
There are other things to consider, I will pass them over for the sake of brevity and to mention the way I would measure usability- being a programmer and not a marketroid. My measure is height of the first learning plateau. On any learning curve, there are plateaus- level-- or nearly so-- periods with little to no learning. Having a low first plateau on your curve means that the user will feel comfortable with some very limited parts of the system, yet have far more to learn to be able to manage it all at once. The "best" (most usable) system would employ a UI metaphor that enabled the first plateau to be as high as possible. This is more true with GUIs than a CLI (compare launching a new program-- from a brand new users' point of view) as well as more true of Windows than Linux (compare program installation- with Linux I still hunt dependencies often).
People think something is easy to use because they feel familiar with it
Without a doubt, the portion of usability that most lay persons bandy about is indeed familiarity, but that isn't too limiting a factor. Sit an aveerage Windows user down at a Mac and let them browse the web- you won't get that many questions. (Probably just "Why does this mouse only have one button?") Sit them down at the Mac and give them a reference book- they'll be able to use it quickly. (I assume, knowing the converse is true, that they will read the book.) The problem with the transition is that in each system the baseline skills are the same-- beginning users have no problem transitioning-- but the power users would flounder. Keyboard shortcuts differ. Mouse command keys differ. The control panel on each system works differently. And so on.
What I'm saying here is simple. Usability is not a myth. Having differed with your introdcution, I agree entirely with your conclusion.
Nope. It's marketing. Joe Sixpack drinks the beer his favorite sports star does, wears the same brand name clothes his favorite TV/film star does, and uses the Operating System he is told to on his favorite TV channel. Once Linux registers on his radar at all, then it has a hope of really making it onto the desktop (getting a "respectable" percentage like Mac- as a Linux advocate I'd settle for 10% in a heartbeat! At least the Mac registers on the major software developer's radar). From there, who knows? And I won't prognosticate about that day at all- because I can't even tell if it will come in a year or in a hundred years. I just hope that the revolution comes before computers get outlawed.