That's how much space is on my harddrive after installing Windows 2000 Professional, Office 2000, Visual Studio 6.0, about a half dozen full installs of games off CD, etc.
I highly doubt that Linux on a PDA will do anything but follow the same mistakes that Microsoft made with CE 1-2.
Further, the iPaq uses a Intel StrongARM running at like 200 Mhz. The previous Compaq Aero uses a MIPS R4000 at about 70Mhz.
Oh and CE 3.0 is doing rather well in the market, especially on the iPaq. I don't understand why Linux advocates like to claim Microsoft products wihch are successful are not... wishful thinking I guess.
We do not have any systems in our company running MS-DOS. Nowhere, not one. There has not been any signifigant use of DOS since 1997, and if there were any remnants they were wiped out in the great Year 2000 sweep.
And it's not like installing MS-DOS was particularly trivial. Especially on new pentium machines, with networking components.
So I disagree... In the past 3-4 years I would consider it a bizarre request to install DOS.
I think you were doing really really well in your analysis until you came up with this tired old cliche: "who do you sue when the bug loses you money?"
Believe me, that is not a factor in buying software from third party companies or buying support contracts.
It really just comes down to, who is going to help when something bad happens.
We're upgrading from Oracle 7.3.4 to Oracle 8i here shortly because Oracle has said they are no longer supporting Rev 7 products. Now we are doing ok right now with 7 and could probably stumble along for a few more years with it.
But the risk is too great that we might encounter a huge issue. And it's kind of hard to go and upgrade your database so you can get some support when you are having a recovery problem.
I've seldom heard of any company being sued over a bug, usually the lawsuits only start flying when a company is subcontracted to provide a solution for $X in Y months and doesn't fulfill the contract.
I haven't noticed any incredible competence on the part of Unix admins working with NT.
The one thing working in NT's favor is the GUI administration tools. They are usually easy to use and even most Unix admins can figure that out. But once you get beyond the simple tools, the Unix admins are stuck, whereas a NT admin can dig in deeper.
There are also a few of us who started out as Unix admins and switched to the NT world, and as such I can deal with Unix but I prefer not to.
I actually probably know 10 highly competent persons with an MCSE compared to the ones who are incompetent. But then I work for a company with competitive hiring practices and incompetent employees generally don't last long.
I take issue with the notion that the MCSE is worthless, or that everybody who has one is incompetent. Yes, I agree that the boot camps and such are diluting the certification. Microsoft apparently recognizes this as well and have made the requirements for the 2000 certification to be more rigorous.
For the record I have an MCSE, and the tests were not incredibly difficult for someone who knows their stuff. I actually finished mine by walking in and taking the last 4 tests in one day.
I think I was competent before taking the tests, but actually studying for the networking and TCP/IP tests did teach me a number of new things.
Now as far as the business of the NT versus the Unix admins. This really depends more on what solution are people trying to support.
Operating an Oracle database on a Unix host supplying backend data to 20 applications used by 4,000 users takes far less work than trying to run a File & Print server for 4,000 users.
It's not because Unix is inherently better, it's because File & Print administration takes a lot more service requests for new users, permissions, new printers, new directories, etc. etc.
I don't know that I agree with trying to compare the efficiency of two groups within the same company unless they are both trying to support exact same solutions.
For instance, compare supporting a Samba server running off a Linux box serving 1,000 users to a Windows 2000 solution doing the same thing.
The only time I've ever seen "Can't find NTOSKRNL.EXE" is when the physical harddrive itself had failed. Generally this was on old Compaq Deskpro machines with Quantium Bigfoot 2.5 gig drives installed.
I guess I am still rather amazed at the number of Linux advocates who have no clue how to install and admin NT who then go on to attack the MCSE program.
Granted documentation is important, remembering how you installed and configured something is going to be vital no matter what system it is.
But I have heard horror stories from some of our older IT staff about similar issues alluded to which occured on the Mainframes from IBM.
IBM used to(maybe still does) ship the source code to the OS. IT allowed you to tweak things, and some enterprising programmers did just that. Perhaps in some cases the changes made their way back to IBM, but in other cases they did not.
What came to be an issue was that when it came time to do an OS upgrade, it wasn't trivial. Because some of these custom tweaks effected the way applications worked, they had to be reestablished against the new OS release before they could upgrade.
As time goes on, it becomes quite a maintenance nightmare, because the source to the base OS release would change and someone would need to identify exactly how to interface some tweak back into the system.
Anyway, this is what I've been told by the old men of our industry, and I suspect it's this lesson that this author is saying shouldn't be repeated.
So I really suspect he's talking about source code tweaks that don't make it back into the primary distributions, rather than installation configuration settings.
"do stupid things like put an NTFS C: drive on a print server. "
It's one thing to accuse paper MCSE's of being stupid, but it's quite another thing to come up with a really stupid lame example that is obviously wrong.
I just can't figure out for the life of me why you would think configuring the C: partition as NTFS is a bad idea.
If you want to know how to setup a print server, let me know. It's pretty trivial and just involves pointing the spool directory to a D: drive and sizing it correctly for usage patterns.
Sounds like you hire incompetent staff. Which isn't surprising if your going around arguing about NTFS on the C: drive of a print server your interview questions can't be all that intelligent.
I like how you start off saying I was wrong. I kept reading, hoping that somewhere in your post you would bring up a point somehow refuting what I said.
Yet I couldn't find it.
The Amiga was dead by 1991. The majority of the stores selling Amiga were out of business, Software Etc. which had been the only mass market store selling stuff had relegated it to the back shelf.
1995 was when the final nail was driven into the coffin, but the Amiga was dead before the release of the A600/1200/4000. Too little, too late.
Now given that you keep blabbering on about some strange currency called quid, perhaps you'd like to clarify your statements with "Well that may be how it is in the US, but in third world countries it was different."
Until then, I'll just have to take your anonymous coward babbling for what it is... uninformed bullshit.
I am a former Amiga zealot, from 1987-1991 the Amiga was the greatest computer in the world, at least in my world.
The Amiga was actually fairly popular as a game machine, and we had a number of titles available which were quite successful. Most of the Psygnosis stuff, a few crossover games from the Atari ST like DungeonMaster, etc.
But I'd also say that the reality was the Amiga had the highest percentage of software piracy of any platform available at the time.
It came from a couple of basic issues:
#1. Most Amiga users were college students, without much money.
#2. Most Amiga users were afraid to commit a lot of money to their system because it was fringe. That is, there was always this fear in the back of ones mind that next year you'd buy a new computer and it wouldn't use any of your current stuff.
Reason #2 also held true in later years when I turned to OS/2. I never once purchased an OS/2 specific version of software, in fact I knew few people who did. We'd rely strickly upon the Win-OS/2 and DOS compatibility.
What's worse with OS/2 was that reason #1 on the Amiga never even held. Corporations who had money also didn't buy OS/2 software.
Anyway. I think these issues that hurt the Amiga still hold true today, except that college students seem to have more money than we did back then. Working $10/hour jobs instead of $3/hour has an impact on the beer budget.:)
But on top of that Linux users in general have also taken on this attitude that not being able to afford software isn't the problem, it's those EVIL GREEDY corporations actually putting a price tag on software. Software should be free, and as such it is immoral for one to buy software.
It's a very strange paradox, and one which will never really put Linux in a position of encouraging development from commercial software companies.
Oh, one problem the Amiga also had. We went around telling all the software companies that if only they'd write software we would buy it. Of course they did write software, and instead we pirated it. After a few years of this, a large number of companies simply stopped supporting the Amiga.
Of course we said that was because their software was crap. Of course the fact that we pirated it and used it meant it was not realy crap, we were just hypocritical.
Basic lesson there is, don't tell companies there is a market for something unless there actually is a market.
This fairy tale that Napster is just a file sharing mechanism and they can't help it if people break the law is tiresome. Napster knows they are promoting theft, it says it all over their web site and their advertising.
It's kind of like arguing that the guy in the getaway car isn't responsible for robbing the bank.
On top of that, CD's are not $18, they are generally $13. In rare cases they are more than $15, and that is usually imports or boxed/double sets.
The musicians never asked Napster to help them out "testing out" different bands. Maybe Napster should have asked instead of promoting theft?
Again, how can there be intelligent discourse if people continuously misrepresent the facts.
Music production costs money. We all accept this as fact, the cost of the musicians, the studio time, the editing, hardware, and the donuts and coffee.
Most people seem to get this point. I think.
Ok, so how do they make money?
Well in the current system they make money through distribution. Whether that be selling CD's or going on tour.
You are claiming that distribution should be free. Why? Without making the money in the distribution channel there will be no incentive to produce the music to begin with.
Our financial system operates off of risk and reward. You put forth the money and risk it on some idea, and if it's successful you make money. If the idea's a flop, nobody pays for it and you lose money.
I have a hard time stomaching people who enjoy something, but are unwilling to compensate for their use of it.
I don't particularly like it when people dictate to me how and when I can make money.
As long as I'm not doing anything illegal, I have every right in this country to take my skills and package them in a way that people will pay me for.
If people won't pay me for my product, then fine I'll drop that idea and look for something else.
But you do *NOT* have the right to tell me that I should continue doing the same thing I have been doing, but instead I have to give my product away for free and hopefully make up the lost income on support business.
If you want to prove that your way is better, then why don't *YOU* go out and start a business where you give music away for free, and then make income by selling their image to commercials.
I don't see you jumping at the opportunity.
Face it, if you don't like paying for music then don't. Go out and buy a VooDoo 4000 graphics AGP card and play video games with your time.
Or maybe VooDoo should be giving their product away for free as well?
Ok, you're still in college and so you probably think that $40,000 a year is a *LOT* of money.
It isn't.
I haven't made that little for 4 years now as a computer programmer. Now if you were to tell me I'd have to travel 300 days a year on top of that, I'd tell ya to shove off.
I will also disagree that popularity and sales do not have any correlation with good music. While I don't like the backstreet boys there are 3 million young girls out there that do. If you like something, then chances are to you it is good.
Yeah, he probably could have make $50k/year, but that's not enough to run his business, much less his life.
His house, if he still even has it, set him back about $10mil and even then that was a bargain at the time because the previous owners were having financial problems.
Paisley park was also rather extravagent at the time.
He also sold out of most of his club interests downtown, although I think he might still own the Quest.
I don't think you fully grok just how much money it costs to keep a large scale music empire in business.
TiVo and ReplayTV are replacements for VCRs. They are designed to time shift the playing of television broadcasting. This process has been supported in courts 20 years ago as fair use. The reason is because you have been granted access to the video, you are simply time shifting your viewing of it.
Napster is a totally different thing, it is music broadcasting, without paying royalties. It's not time-shifting, it's not fair use, it's just plain out and out theft. Napster is a company which preys off the work of other people. If there is any company on this planet which deserves to be called immoral and unethical, it is Napster.
Until people understand the difference, which ain't exactly subtle, I don't see how you can intelligently debate these issues.
I'm from Minneapolis, and we hear about Prince a lot because he's local.
Personally I think that Prince is talented and I liked a lot of his work.
But after his split from the recording industry he went downhill. I think part of the problem was that he wasn't allowed to play his older stuff. But he also unfortunately didn't come out with any newer stuff that was near the quality of his earlier stuff.
Now it's possible he did have some good stuff, but that wasn't what I was hearing. He'd occasionally get played on local radio or TV and I didn't like it such that I'd buy the CD.
Anyway, as a result, his sales plummeted. As a result of that his income plummeted. There was a huge amount of speculation that Paisley Park was going to go bankrupt. I know he had trouble keeping his house in repair, etc.
Last year in honor of "1999" he came to some deal with the record company that let him use his old songs and his old name. Which was cool. He came out to the local music festival and wowed the crowd again, and of course this was all followed up with the Party of 1999 on Pay Per View for $75 or something like that.
He appears to be back in the black again, making some money... that's cool and I wish him luck.
But before going around touting him as the savior of Napster and the only one who just really gets it.... Prince isn't a very smart musician. While I certainly can agree with him that the recording industry was ripping him off, he missed a point that there is a symbiotic relationship there. That being, he never would have had any popularity if it had not been for the recording industries publicity machine.
Think about it. I'm waiting for the really really popular grassroots artists who has "made it" as a result of mp3.com, Napster and other alternatives who will tell the people "You don't want the Recording Industry"
Hasn't happened yet. Instead we have some washed up older artists whose popularity is waning... Hmm.
Slashdot Mirror
That's how much space is on my harddrive after installing Windows 2000 Professional, Office 2000, Visual Studio 6.0, about a half dozen full installs of games off CD, etc.
Disk space is cheap.
I highly doubt that Linux on a PDA will do anything but follow the same mistakes that Microsoft made with CE 1-2.
Further, the iPaq uses a Intel StrongARM running at like 200 Mhz. The previous Compaq Aero uses a MIPS R4000 at about 70Mhz.
Oh and CE 3.0 is doing rather well in the market, especially on the iPaq. I don't understand why Linux advocates like to claim Microsoft products wihch are successful are not... wishful thinking I guess.
Maybe you just better stick to bashing Bob.
We do not have any systems in our company running MS-DOS. Nowhere, not one. There has not been any signifigant use of DOS since 1997, and if there were any remnants they were wiped out in the great Year 2000 sweep.
And it's not like installing MS-DOS was particularly trivial. Especially on new pentium machines, with networking components.
So I disagree... In the past 3-4 years I would consider it a bizarre request to install DOS.
Does he carry?
Highly unlikely.
I think you were doing really really well in your analysis until you came up with this tired old cliche: "who do you sue when the bug loses you money?"
Believe me, that is not a factor in buying software from third party companies or buying support contracts.
It really just comes down to, who is going to help when something bad happens.
We're upgrading from Oracle 7.3.4 to Oracle 8i here shortly because Oracle has said they are no longer supporting Rev 7 products. Now we are doing ok right now with 7 and could probably stumble along for a few more years with it.
But the risk is too great that we might encounter a huge issue. And it's kind of hard to go and upgrade your database so you can get some support when you are having a recovery problem.
I've seldom heard of any company being sued over a bug, usually the lawsuits only start flying when a company is subcontracted to provide a solution for $X in Y months and doesn't fulfill the contract.
Ok, that's a nice little story. Of course someone who is new to the industry in the past 4 years likely has never had to deal with MS-DOS.
I have an MCSE, and I can assure you that the tests never ask about DOS, so I don't see the relevance.
But that doesn't mean I don't know some arcane computing crap. Let's take the wayback machine back in time to 1982, shall we?
Tell me what you know about CP/M-80?
Oh heck, start with something simple.
What company wrote CP/M-80? Specifically who was the main person involved in that?
How would you create a new bootable floppy disk?
How do you copy file.doc from A: to B:?
How do you tell how much free space is left on your floppy?
In version 2.2 on a 64K system, how much RAM did the OS take up?
At what memory address were programs typically loaded from disk?
If your program crashes on you before you have saved, is there a way you might be able to save your data? If so what would you do?
There's lot's of arcane knowledge in this world. Just because someone doesn't know it doesn't make them stupid.
I wonder if they even talk about ISAM, hash tables and B+ trees in Computer Science these days.
I haven't noticed any incredible competence on the part of Unix admins working with NT.
The one thing working in NT's favor is the GUI administration tools. They are usually easy to use and even most Unix admins can figure that out. But once you get beyond the simple tools, the Unix admins are stuck, whereas a NT admin can dig in deeper.
There are also a few of us who started out as Unix admins and switched to the NT world, and as such I can deal with Unix but I prefer not to.
Well that's certainly a more intelligent post. :)
I actually probably know 10 highly competent persons with an MCSE compared to the ones who are incompetent. But then I work for a company with competitive hiring practices and incompetent employees generally don't last long.
I take issue with the notion that the MCSE is worthless, or that everybody who has one is incompetent. Yes, I agree that the boot camps and such are diluting the certification. Microsoft apparently recognizes this as well and have made the requirements for the 2000 certification to be more rigorous.
For the record I have an MCSE, and the tests were not incredibly difficult for someone who knows their stuff. I actually finished mine by walking in and taking the last 4 tests in one day.
I think I was competent before taking the tests, but actually studying for the networking and TCP/IP tests did teach me a number of new things.
Now as far as the business of the NT versus the Unix admins. This really depends more on what solution are people trying to support.
Operating an Oracle database on a Unix host supplying backend data to 20 applications used by 4,000 users takes far less work than trying to run a File & Print server for 4,000 users.
It's not because Unix is inherently better, it's because File & Print administration takes a lot more service requests for new users, permissions, new printers, new directories, etc. etc.
I don't know that I agree with trying to compare the efficiency of two groups within the same company unless they are both trying to support exact same solutions.
For instance, compare supporting a Samba server running off a Linux box serving 1,000 users to a Windows 2000 solution doing the same thing.
I still have to say "Huh?"
The only time I've ever seen "Can't find NTOSKRNL.EXE" is when the physical harddrive itself had failed. Generally this was on old Compaq Deskpro machines with Quantium Bigfoot 2.5 gig drives installed.
I guess I am still rather amazed at the number of Linux advocates who have no clue how to install and admin NT who then go on to attack the MCSE program.
Granted documentation is important, remembering how you installed and configured something is going to be vital no matter what system it is.
But I have heard horror stories from some of our older IT staff about similar issues alluded to which occured on the Mainframes from IBM.
IBM used to(maybe still does) ship the source code to the OS. IT allowed you to tweak things, and some enterprising programmers did just that. Perhaps in some cases the changes made their way back to IBM, but in other cases they did not.
What came to be an issue was that when it came time to do an OS upgrade, it wasn't trivial. Because some of these custom tweaks effected the way applications worked, they had to be reestablished against the new OS release before they could upgrade.
As time goes on, it becomes quite a maintenance nightmare, because the source to the base OS release would change and someone would need to identify exactly how to interface some tweak back into the system.
Anyway, this is what I've been told by the old men of our industry, and I suspect it's this lesson that this author is saying shouldn't be repeated.
So I really suspect he's talking about source code tweaks that don't make it back into the primary distributions, rather than installation configuration settings.
"do stupid things like put an NTFS C: drive on a print server. "
It's one thing to accuse paper MCSE's of being stupid, but it's quite another thing to come up with a really stupid lame example that is obviously wrong.
I just can't figure out for the life of me why you would think configuring the C: partition as NTFS is a bad idea.
If you want to know how to setup a print server, let me know. It's pretty trivial and just involves pointing the spool directory to a D: drive and sizing it correctly for usage patterns.
Sounds like you hire incompetent staff. Which isn't surprising if your going around arguing about NTFS on the C: drive of a print server your interview questions can't be all that intelligent.
I like how you start off saying I was wrong. I kept reading, hoping that somewhere in your post you would bring up a point somehow refuting what I said.
Yet I couldn't find it.
The Amiga was dead by 1991. The majority of the stores selling Amiga were out of business, Software Etc. which had been the only mass market store selling stuff had relegated it to the back shelf.
1995 was when the final nail was driven into the coffin, but the Amiga was dead before the release of the A600/1200/4000. Too little, too late.
Now given that you keep blabbering on about some strange currency called quid, perhaps you'd like to clarify your statements with "Well that may be how it is in the US, but in third world countries it was different."
Until then, I'll just have to take your anonymous coward babbling for what it is... uninformed bullshit.
http://www.wininformant.com/display .asp?ID=2867
I am a former Amiga zealot, from 1987-1991 the Amiga was the greatest computer in the world, at least in my world.
:)
The Amiga was actually fairly popular as a game machine, and we had a number of titles available which were quite successful. Most of the Psygnosis stuff, a few crossover games from the Atari ST like DungeonMaster, etc.
But I'd also say that the reality was the Amiga had the highest percentage of software piracy of any platform available at the time.
It came from a couple of basic issues:
#1. Most Amiga users were college students, without much money.
#2. Most Amiga users were afraid to commit a lot of money to their system because it was fringe. That is, there was always this fear in the back of ones mind that next year you'd buy a new computer and it wouldn't use any of your current stuff.
Reason #2 also held true in later years when I turned to OS/2. I never once purchased an OS/2 specific version of software, in fact I knew few people who did. We'd rely strickly upon the Win-OS/2 and DOS compatibility.
What's worse with OS/2 was that reason #1 on the Amiga never even held. Corporations who had money also didn't buy OS/2 software.
Anyway. I think these issues that hurt the Amiga still hold true today, except that college students seem to have more money than we did back then. Working $10/hour jobs instead of $3/hour has an impact on the beer budget.
But on top of that Linux users in general have also taken on this attitude that not being able to afford software isn't the problem, it's those EVIL GREEDY corporations actually putting a price tag on software. Software should be free, and as such it is immoral for one to buy software.
It's a very strange paradox, and one which will never really put Linux in a position of encouraging development from commercial software companies.
Oh, one problem the Amiga also had. We went around telling all the software companies that if only they'd write software we would buy it. Of course they did write software, and instead we pirated it. After a few years of this, a large number of companies simply stopped supporting the Amiga.
Of course we said that was because their software was crap. Of course the fact that we pirated it and used it meant it was not realy crap, we were just hypocritical.
Basic lesson there is, don't tell companies there is a market for something unless there actually is a market.
Oh give me a break.
This fairy tale that Napster is just a file sharing mechanism and they can't help it if people break the law is tiresome. Napster knows they are promoting theft, it says it all over their web site and their advertising.
It's kind of like arguing that the guy in the getaway car isn't responsible for robbing the bank.
On top of that, CD's are not $18, they are generally $13. In rare cases they are more than $15, and that is usually imports or boxed/double sets.
The musicians never asked Napster to help them out "testing out" different bands. Maybe Napster should have asked instead of promoting theft?
Again, how can there be intelligent discourse if people continuously misrepresent the facts.
You don't seem to get it.
Music production costs money. We all accept this as fact, the cost of the musicians, the studio time, the editing, hardware, and the donuts and coffee.
Most people seem to get this point. I think.
Ok, so how do they make money?
Well in the current system they make money through distribution. Whether that be selling CD's or going on tour.
You are claiming that distribution should be free. Why? Without making the money in the distribution channel there will be no incentive to produce the music to begin with.
Our financial system operates off of risk and reward. You put forth the money and risk it on some idea, and if it's successful you make money. If the idea's a flop, nobody pays for it and you lose money.
I have a hard time stomaching people who enjoy something, but are unwilling to compensate for their use of it.
I suppose you could record an album with a pocket tape recorder in a garage.
But it wouldn't sound particularly good.
Are you going to pay for a recording of this quality? I know I wouldn't.
I don't particularly like it when people dictate to me how and when I can make money.
As long as I'm not doing anything illegal, I have every right in this country to take my skills and package them in a way that people will pay me for.
If people won't pay me for my product, then fine I'll drop that idea and look for something else.
But you do *NOT* have the right to tell me that I should continue doing the same thing I have been doing, but instead I have to give my product away for free and hopefully make up the lost income on support business.
If you want to prove that your way is better, then why don't *YOU* go out and start a business where you give music away for free, and then make income by selling their image to commercials.
I don't see you jumping at the opportunity.
Face it, if you don't like paying for music then don't. Go out and buy a VooDoo 4000 graphics AGP card and play video games with your time.
Or maybe VooDoo should be giving their product away for free as well?
Ok, you're still in college and so you probably think that $40,000 a year is a *LOT* of money.
It isn't.
I haven't made that little for 4 years now as a computer programmer. Now if you were to tell me I'd have to travel 300 days a year on top of that, I'd tell ya to shove off.
I will also disagree that popularity and sales do not have any correlation with good music. While I don't like the backstreet boys there are 3 million young girls out there that do. If you like something, then chances are to you it is good.
Yeah, he probably could have make $50k/year, but that's not enough to run his business, much less his life.
His house, if he still even has it, set him back about $10mil and even then that was a bargain at the time because the previous owners were having financial problems.
Paisley park was also rather extravagent at the time.
He also sold out of most of his club interests downtown, although I think he might still own the Quest.
I don't think you fully grok just how much money it costs to keep a large scale music empire in business.
At least not at this point.
TiVo and ReplayTV are replacements for VCRs. They are designed to time shift the playing of television broadcasting. This process has been supported in courts 20 years ago as fair use. The reason is because you have been granted access to the video, you are simply time shifting your viewing of it.
Napster is a totally different thing, it is music broadcasting, without paying royalties. It's not time-shifting, it's not fair use, it's just plain out and out theft. Napster is a company which preys off the work of other people. If there is any company on this planet which deserves to be called immoral and unethical, it is Napster.
Until people understand the difference, which ain't exactly subtle, I don't see how you can intelligently debate these issues.
Sheesh
Do you have any clue what you are talking about?
Metallica has been speaking out against the recording industry for years, even going so far as to sue for the rights of their music back, etc.
The difference is, Metallica is a band formed by mature, intelligent individuals. Prince on the other hand has the maturity and actions of a child.
Anybody who remembers his lollipop incident at the music awards show would realize that.
I'm from Minneapolis, and we hear about Prince a lot because he's local.
Personally I think that Prince is talented and I liked a lot of his work.
But after his split from the recording industry he went downhill. I think part of the problem was that he wasn't allowed to play his older stuff. But he also unfortunately didn't come out with any newer stuff that was near the quality of his earlier stuff.
Now it's possible he did have some good stuff, but that wasn't what I was hearing. He'd occasionally get played on local radio or TV and I didn't like it such that I'd buy the CD.
Anyway, as a result, his sales plummeted. As a result of that his income plummeted. There was a huge amount of speculation that Paisley Park was going to go bankrupt. I know he had trouble keeping his house in repair, etc.
Last year in honor of "1999" he came to some deal with the record company that let him use his old songs and his old name. Which was cool. He came out to the local music festival and wowed the crowd again, and of course this was all followed up with the Party of 1999 on Pay Per View for $75 or something like that.
He appears to be back in the black again, making some money... that's cool and I wish him luck.
But before going around touting him as the savior of Napster and the only one who just really gets it.... Prince isn't a very smart musician. While I certainly can agree with him that the recording industry was ripping him off, he missed a point that there is a symbiotic relationship there. That being, he never would have had any popularity if it had not been for the recording industries publicity machine.
Think about it. I'm waiting for the really really popular grassroots artists who has "made it" as a result of mp3.com, Napster and other alternatives who will tell the people "You don't want the Recording Industry"
Hasn't happened yet. Instead we have some washed up older artists whose popularity is waning... Hmm.
I don't know what the complaint is, because this is not censorship.