Instead of wasting your time and effort sending faxes begginng them not to pass the bill. Consider this, 80 million people used napster in 2000-2001. Thats 80 percent of internet users who DONT want this bill to pass.
Face it, they KNOW we are against it and they dont care. The only way to battle these people, is to battle them on their level.
Go to these sites, give donations, if you dont have the money, host a rally at your local campus to gain money, follow these intructions.
I promise you, a petition will get you NO WHERE! People petitioned against DMCA, people petitioned against the Patriot Act, you think petitions will stop this? You have to have massive rallys, protests with hundreds of thousands of people, donations in the millions of dollars to lobbying groups on our side, and people like the EFF.
Windows is dead. Theres no way more than 60% will choose windows.
Most people dont like windows but werent given a choice, given a choice, alot of people wont choose windows, and windows will fail as more and more people begin to switch to better OS's
Alot of people, didnt get involved with thhe net over 5 years ago like us, alot of people are new to it.
People new to the internet, they are just exploring it, alot of them arent as intelligent as we were, the net is easier to use now.
When we first were introduced to the net, the net was diffrent, sites were made by people like us, usually smart people who werent tryinng to sell us stuff, every other link did not link to a porn site. There were porn sites and always will be but back then there werent alot of advertisements.
Back then Email was actually useful, before instant messaging, I remember NEEDING email.
Also everyone on the net seemed closer, it was as if there was a community, similar to the Open Source Community
Now look at the net, everythingn is tryingn to sell you something, ads everywhere, theres no more web based chatrooms so theres no real way to meet people, all the sites are about making money so theres no community.
The net was fun for a while, now its just a tool. I hope freenet is successful, maybe we will have our own internet again
The net was only fun, when i was new to it. Actually, It was fun until about 1999. It was the net going commercial that ruined the net.
There was an actual culture or cultures to the net, you had chat culture, you had the hacking scene, you had the cracking scene, the gaming scene, and these wernet ordinary people, these were people who were obessessed with this stuff.
Now however, everythings about making money, sure you still have gamers but now its grandma playing quake, or your annoying boss from work, its just not the same anymore.
You still have hacking, but all of the sites are gone, or on places like freenet due to the DMCA.
You still have places like slashdot, but slashdot is one of the last places you can go, to find an intelligent conversation, without slashdot, i wouldnt talk on the net much at all.
Which means more advertising dollars, and more ads. Sure they arent as organized or as planned, but everyone has heard of linux even if they dont know exactly what it is yet. Thats all you really need.
Back when i got my first PC, a Mac was over $2000 and the PC was hundreds of dollars less. Still even now, Macs are more expensive. Sure theres some cheap Macs now, but its too late, the Imac should have been around in 1996, not 1999.
Linux ads were all over cars, sidewalks, billboards, all around the city, People who dont even know what linux is know about the pengiun
Linux's problem isnt marketing at this point, not only is there a league of linux users willing to market it via word of month, theres also hackers who market it, IBM Markets it, Sun, etc etc, Marketing is not the issue with Linux.
Maybe IBM didnt market itself, that is true, but Linux has very good marketin
IF IBMs OS2 was packed with every PC sold Windows would have beat OS2?
You are saying every PC owner would burn their OS2 backup CD, format their harddrive, and run to the store to spend $200 extra to buy Microsoft Windows?
if the tables were turned, the result would be OS2 is the winner.
Thats because no one was even given a choice if they wanted to buy it or not. Why would they need commercials when everyone who buys a PC buys Windows automatically?
How was IBM supposed to compete with a product which comes with every PC?
You all act like people purchased Windows?!
on
The Sad Parable of OS/2
·
· Score: 3, Redundant
No one went to a store and saw a box with OS2 on one side, and a box with Windows on the other.
No, you went to buy a PC and Windows was on it, you had NO OPTION to buy OS2 at all.
You had no option to buy BeOS.
The only way to compete with Windows is from your own platform, because Microsoft has a monopoly on OEM contracts.
How can any OS no matter how good it ever becomes, compete with an inferior OS thats packed in on every machine?
Face it, if a person buys a computer and it works, theres no reason to ever buy a new OS.
Sales of Windows95-98-2000 werent from people going to stores and buyingg boxes or the upgrades, most of the sales came from people buying PCs which came with Windows included.
Perhaps there should be a law, no more OEM contracts period.
Then let the user actually choose their OS, I guarentee that Windows95 wouldnt have beaten OS2.
I didnt want Windows95 when i got a computer, I thought OS2 was cooler in every way, but when I got a computer, it already had Windows95, there was no reason to get OS2 because Windows95 worked.
If IBM had the exclusive OEM contracts, then Windows95 would have been destroyed.
Why do people always ignore the illegal practices of Microsoft? IE is on top because it came with Windows. Windows is on top because it comes with every PC.
Its IMPOSSIBLE to compete with a product which comes with the OS itself, and its IMPOSSIBLE to compete with a product which comes with the PC itself.
A user is not going to spend money on something they already have. Thats why OS2 didnt sell, why buy OS2 when you already have Windows?
Now, if Linux can manage to get OEM contracts, Linux can actually compete.
Apple couldnt / cant get OEM contracts so they sell their own Machines, Linux may have to sell their own box's to be successful, Sun did it, SGI did it, Apple does it, Linux may have to do this if they cant get OEM contracts.
Theres only one reason why OS2 failed, it failed because Microsoft had an illegal monopoly, exclusive OEM contracts never gave OS2 a chance.
When I wanted to buy my first computer i tried to get OS2 warp, i even wanted mac. However to get OS2 warp I'd have to spend an extra $200, to get mac I'd have to spend an extra $1000.
Because Windows came with the PC itself, to buy or use anything else would be a waste of money, after all windows works, and it comes with the machine so why use anything else?
Face it, you could have had OSX out back when Windows95 was around and Windows95 would still have won because people never even had the OPTION to choose what OS came with their system, it was Windows95 or Windows95.
This is why Windows95 won.
I'm sick of people saying MacOS did this wrong and OS2 did that wrong.
No, thats not it, Its Microsoft had exclusive contracts and backroom deals.
Period, thats all it came down to.
OS2 can be better, it doesnt matter if no machines came with OS2, even IBMs own machines didnt come with OS2!!!
wow thats a selfish self centered way of thinking yeah let all the poor people die and suffer, just worry about myself, to hell with everyone else.
Thats your way of thinking. While life isnt fair, that doesnt mean life SHOULDNT be fair.
Life should be as fair as possible while still giving people individual freedom.
Thats why we have minimum wage.
Not everyone can be rich. Yes there is a caste system, people who are rich are born into it. People who have rich family members, or say the kennedy family, are like royalty.
People ARE defined by their race and or gender, not so much their last name. Either way dont act like everyone is starting out on the same level because thats BS, people are born into upper class alot of the time.
You say all poor people are uneducated, thats BS, you can be educated as hell, with a degree, and dropout bill gates is still making more money than you.
Being rich has nothing to do with education at all, its more to do with timing, luck, who you know, etc.
So you are saying my options are, be rich and selfish, or be poor and unselfish, I think I'd be happy being middle class and having social security, than being rich when i know that I 'm only rich because I stepped over all these other people, and how can a person whos rich sleep at night in their mansion when they know all these people who may work for them are barely surviving?
Rich people should pay taxes, and they should pay most of the taxes because they have most of the money, they take the money from the poor, or the have nots who do all of the hard work (being a CEO is not as hard as being a programmer, or construction worker, even a scientist)
You see the problem is, people dont get paid based on how hard they work.
Capitalism isnt even close to being fair and in order for people to not complain and ask for the government to help, Capitalism has to be 100 percent fair. By fair it means everyone has equal chances of starting a successful company, when you have big monopoly companies it HARMS the Capitalist economy because less companies can be started.
Putting 90 percent of the US money into the hands of the top 1% (bill gates having 70 billion etc) is not as good as spreading that money out so everyone can start their own businesses. More businesses = more innovation.
I'm saying the money should be spread out, when you have people who are so rich they cant spend their money in their lifetime.
Sorry but i dont agree with any one group of people dominating over anyone else.
You tell me to stop complaining and take whats mine, you just dont get it, not everyone can spend their life taking and i certainly disagree with someone like bill gates whos done nothing all their life but take from other people, yes they should pay most of the taxes.
You are saying, Survival of the fittest, anyone whos unfit can die.
I dont agree with Survival of the fittest I believe in Survival of all, that includes the rich and the poor.
The rich who happen to run the country along with the benifits of being rich, they should also have increased responsbility, meaning higher taxes.
It makes no sense to tax a person who cant even afford to pay their bills then theres a guy living in a mansion with more money than he can spend.
I guess we have very diffrent life philosophies.
Its ok you can believe what you want. You can call me pathetic and say that I'm whining all you want, If i ever do end up rich, I plan to donate alot of my money from my own free will, I donate now and I'm poor as hell.
Its a shame rich people also happen to be the most greedy, but i guess thats why they are rich.
Slashdot Mirror
Instead of wasting your time and effort sending faxes begginng them not to pass the bill. Consider this, 80 million people used napster in 2000-2001. Thats 80 percent of internet users who DONT want this bill to pass.
Face it, they KNOW we are against it and they dont care. The only way to battle these people, is to battle them on their level.
Go to these sites, give donations, if you dont have the money, host a rally at your local campus to gain money, follow these intructions.
http://digitalspeech.org/
http://www.digitalconsumer.org/bill.html
Donate to
http://eff.org/
Support the lobbying groups on OUR side.
I promise you, a petition will get you NO WHERE! People petitioned against DMCA, people petitioned against the Patriot Act, you think petitions will stop this? You have to have massive rallys, protests with hundreds of thousands of people, donations in the millions of dollars to lobbying groups on our side, and people like the EFF.
Censorship is bad in all its forms, and for us to be hypocrites and get mad about China censoring the net then do it ourselves, its pathetic.
Windows is dead.
Theres no way more than 60% will choose windows.
Most people dont like windows but werent given a choice, given a choice, alot of people wont choose windows, and windows will fail as more and more people begin to switch to better OS's
Mandrake is the easiest distro there is, if you think Mandrake is hard, you need to upgrade your brain!!!
I mean Mandrake is point and click, if you want to learn a command, man command
If you cant use KDE you most likely cant use Windows therefore you shouldnt be using Linux.
The internet however was fun back in 1996, each year after 96 it became more and more commercial.
Now its junk.
I mean all these ads, and everythings about money, even slashdot.
Alot of people, didnt get involved with thhe net over 5 years ago like us, alot of people are new to it.
People new to the internet, they are just exploring it, alot of them arent as intelligent as we were, the net is easier to use now.
When we first were introduced to the net, the net was diffrent, sites were made by people like us, usually smart people who werent tryinng to sell us stuff, every other link did not link to a porn site.
There were porn sites and always will be but back then there werent alot of advertisements.
Back then Email was actually useful, before instant messaging, I remember NEEDING email.
Also everyone on the net seemed closer, it was as if there was a community, similar to the Open Source Community
Now look at the net, everythingn is tryingn to sell you something, ads everywhere, theres no more web based chatrooms so theres no real way to meet people, all the sites are about making money so theres no community.
The net was fun for a while, now its just a tool.
I hope freenet is successful, maybe we will have our own internet again
The net was only fun, when i was new to it. Actually, It was fun until about 1999. It was the net going commercial that ruined the net.
There was an actual culture or cultures to the net, you had chat culture, you had the hacking scene, you had the cracking scene, the gaming scene, and these wernet ordinary people, these were people who were obessessed with this stuff.
Now however, everythings about making money, sure you still have gamers but now its grandma playing quake, or your annoying boss from work, its just not the same anymore.
You still have hacking, but all of the sites are gone, or on places like freenet due to the DMCA.
You still have places like slashdot, but slashdot is one of the last places you can go, to find an intelligent conversation, without slashdot, i wouldnt talk on the net much at all.
Ive been on the net since 96, it stopped being fun in about 99.
Basically, when the big internet expansion happened, and it went from being a community of computer genius types, into a commercial business.
The whole fun of the internet was ruined, the same people i used the net to escape from, were now on the net with me.
Now the net is just a tool, like a calculator or telephone.
I dont see how this is much diffrent
Whats Linux have to do with this?
No, Linux is actually free, you can download it for free. Try downloading Windows.
No, OS2 would be the guarenteed winner if
A IBM were the only PC maker on the market
B IBM actually packed OS2 in with their own machines
Even IBM was packing windows with their machines.
Which means more advertising dollars, and more ads. Sure they arent as organized or as planned, but everyone has heard of linux even if they dont know exactly what it is yet. Thats all you really need.
Back when i got my first PC, a Mac was over $2000 and the PC was hundreds of dollars less.
Still even now, Macs are more expensive. Sure theres some cheap Macs now, but its too late, the Imac should have been around in 1996, not 1999.
Linux ads were all over cars, sidewalks, billboards, all around the city, People who dont even know what linux is know about the pengiun
Linux's problem isnt marketing at this point, not only is there a league of linux users willing to market it via word of month, theres also hackers who market it, IBM Markets it, Sun, etc etc, Marketing is not the issue with Linux.
Maybe IBM didnt market itself, that is true, but Linux has very good marketin
Most people think Microsoft Windows comes "FREE" with their PC.
Microsofts tricky Marketing has made Windows as free as Linux.
IF IBMs OS2 was packed with every PC sold Windows would have beat OS2?
You are saying every PC owner would burn their OS2 backup CD, format their harddrive, and run to the store to spend $200 extra to buy Microsoft Windows?
if the tables were turned, the result would be OS2 is the winner.
It was the OEM contracts.
Thats because no one was even given a choice if they wanted to buy it or not. Why would they need commercials when everyone who buys a PC buys Windows automatically?
How was IBM supposed to compete with a product which comes with every PC?
No one went to a store and saw a box with OS2 on one side, and a box with Windows on the other.
No, you went to buy a PC and Windows was on it, you had NO OPTION to buy OS2 at all.
You had no option to buy BeOS.
The only way to compete with Windows is from your own platform, because Microsoft has a monopoly on OEM contracts.
How can any OS no matter how good it ever becomes, compete with an inferior OS thats packed in on every machine?
Face it, if a person buys a computer and it works, theres no reason to ever buy a new OS.
Sales of Windows95-98-2000 werent from people going to stores and buyingg boxes or the upgrades, most of the sales came from people buying PCs which came with Windows included.
Perhaps there should be a law, no more OEM contracts period.
Then let the user actually choose their OS, I guarentee that Windows95 wouldnt have beaten OS2.
I didnt want Windows95 when i got a computer, I thought OS2 was cooler in every way, but when I got a computer, it already had Windows95, there was no reason to get OS2 because Windows95 worked.
If IBM had the exclusive OEM contracts, then Windows95 would have been destroyed.
Why do people always ignore the illegal practices of Microsoft? IE is on top because it came with Windows.
Windows is on top because it comes with every PC.
Its IMPOSSIBLE to compete with a product which comes with the OS itself, and its IMPOSSIBLE to compete with a product which comes with the PC itself.
A user is not going to spend money on something they already have. Thats why OS2 didnt sell, why buy OS2 when you already have Windows?
Now, if Linux can manage to get OEM contracts, Linux can actually compete.
Apple couldnt / cant get OEM contracts so they sell their own Machines, Linux may have to sell their own box's to be successful, Sun did it, SGI did it, Apple does it, Linux may have to do this if they cant get OEM contracts.
The key is OEM contracts, thats the key.
Theres only one reason why OS2 failed, it failed because Microsoft had an illegal monopoly, exclusive OEM contracts never gave OS2 a chance.
When I wanted to buy my first computer i tried to get OS2 warp, i even wanted mac. However to get OS2 warp I'd have to spend an extra $200, to get mac I'd have to spend an extra $1000.
Because Windows came with the PC itself, to buy or use anything else would be a waste of money, after all windows works, and it comes with the machine so why use anything else?
Face it, you could have had OSX out back when Windows95 was around and Windows95 would still have won because people never even had the OPTION to choose what OS came with their system, it was Windows95 or Windows95.
This is why Windows95 won.
I'm sick of people saying MacOS did this wrong and OS2 did that wrong.
No, thats not it, Its Microsoft had exclusive contracts and backroom deals.
Period, thats all it came down to.
OS2 can be better, it doesnt matter if no machines came with OS2, even IBMs own machines didnt come with OS2!!!
Buying the box means mandrake makes less money
if all you want is a free manual and a nice looking box, maybe you can find a printer
Suse wouldnt boot? Or you couldnt boot Suse?
Mozilla has alot of features that peoplee actually use, both are bloat but Mozilla is useful bloat.
wow thats a selfish self centered way of thinking
yeah let all the poor people die and suffer, just worry about myself, to hell with everyone else.
Thats your way of thinking. While life isnt fair, that doesnt mean life SHOULDNT be fair.
Life should be as fair as possible while still giving people individual freedom.
Thats why we have minimum wage.
Not everyone can be rich. Yes there is a caste system, people who are rich are born into it. People who have rich family members, or say the kennedy family, are like royalty.
People ARE defined by their race and or gender, not so much their last name. Either way dont act like everyone is starting out on the same level because thats BS, people are born into upper class alot of the time.
You say all poor people are uneducated, thats BS, you can be educated as hell, with a degree, and dropout bill gates is still making more money than you.
Being rich has nothing to do with education at all, its more to do with timing, luck, who you know, etc.
So you are saying my options are, be rich and selfish, or be poor and unselfish, I think I'd be happy being middle class and having social security, than being rich when i know that I 'm only rich because I stepped over all these other people, and how can a person whos rich sleep at night in their mansion when they know all these people who may work for them are barely surviving?
Rich people should pay taxes, and they should pay most of the taxes because they have most of the money, they take the money from the poor, or the have nots who do all of the hard work (being a CEO is not as hard as being a programmer, or construction worker, even a scientist)
You see the problem is, people dont get paid based on how hard they work.
Capitalism isnt even close to being fair and in order for people to not complain and ask for the government to help, Capitalism has to be 100 percent fair. By fair it means everyone has equal chances of starting a successful company, when you have big monopoly companies it HARMS the Capitalist economy because less companies can be started.
Putting 90 percent of the US money into the hands of the top 1% (bill gates having 70 billion etc) is not as good as spreading that money out so everyone can start their own businesses. More businesses = more innovation.
I'm saying the money should be spread out, when you have people who are so rich they cant spend their money in their lifetime.
Sorry but i dont agree with any one group of people dominating over anyone else.
You tell me to stop complaining and take whats mine, you just dont get it, not everyone can spend their life taking and i certainly disagree with someone like bill gates whos done nothing all their life but take from other people, yes they should pay most of the taxes.
You are saying, Survival of the fittest, anyone whos unfit can die.
I dont agree with Survival of the fittest I believe in Survival of all, that includes the rich and the poor.
The rich who happen to run the country along with the benifits of being rich, they should also have increased responsbility, meaning higher taxes.
It makes no sense to tax a person who cant even afford to pay their bills then theres a guy living in a mansion with more money than he can spend.
I guess we have very diffrent life philosophies.
Its ok you can believe what you want. You can call me pathetic and say that I'm whining all you want, If i ever do end up rich, I plan to donate alot of my money from my own free will, I donate now and I'm poor as hell.
Its a shame rich people also happen to be the most greedy, but i guess thats why they are rich.
Netscape was the company who originally made Mosiac if i remember right, before they were called netscape.