Polish biggest newspaper, Gazeta Wyborcza, has been offering its own RSS aggregator for a few months. And they've been marketising it outside the Internet, which surprised me -- I've seen ads placed on city buses, for example.
1) Some people like configuring and building things from scratch, Linux gives them that power.
On the "news for geeks" site that's not a surprising answer, but, get real, how many people like to do it in an everyday life? 1%? 0,5%? Moreover, how many of you uses build-from-scratch distro, like Gentoo?
2) No artificially forced hardware upgrades. Linux can still run on a 486 with 32MB of Ram and make it usefull again, will XP?
No, it won't, naturally. But will you be able to do on this Linux all the things I'm on my XP? For a router or a small server such configuration is great, and I agree with that. But I was talking 'bout desktops.
3) Linux is being constantly improved on a daily basis. The next version of Windows won't be out till 2006. Maybe.
Not that I care. If it ain't broken, don't fix it.
5) Linux is being developed by people who love computers and programming, always eager to find new solutions to your problems. Windows is being developed by people who love your money and want to find new ways to seperate you from it.
As far as I'm content with the price per value factor -- I don't care about it.
6) Linux is packaged and sold by dozens of companies willing to cater to any market and customize their software as necessary. Windows is sold by one corporation unwilling to change except for its largest customers. Your needs are immaterial to them.
OK, that's true, but it also has it's pros and cons. Windows is uniform everywhere. It's GUI is rather fixed and you won't be willing to completely change it (I'm not talking about colours, I'm talking about general behaviour), unless you have a small geek inside of you. Linux, on the other hand, constantly changes. Owner of every major project has his own view on how GUI should work, what should it look like, etc.
You can go to shop and pick up a "Windows XP for dummies" book. But you won't rather go for "Linux for Dummies" but "Fedora for Dummies" or "Mandrake for Dummies".
7) When you develop software for Linux the market is open to competition. When you develop software for Windows you're constantly looking over your shoulder for Microsoft to decide your enough of a threat that they need to crush you.
D. e. s. k. t. o. p. How many desktop users develop software?
9) Linux adheres to open, published standards whenever possible ensuring that your data is easily transportable to other programs or operating systems. Microsoft 'improves' published standards with proprietary unpublished changes that lock you into their software and make moving to other vendors or OSes a logistics nightmare.
OK, but as far as I can share my documents with the rest of the world -- that's not my problem if they can do the same.
Make a self-folding origami paper! Why should anyone need a robot to make an origami, when he can just buy a sheet of paper which will change to a swan or anything else?
Well, apart from license and money reasons, are there any grounds for using Linux on desktops? I know I sound trollish, but I'm writing it honestly -- I've just thrown away my Debian machine, since I had to spend too much time with it. For me -- who uses a word processor, IM, mail and web client -- Windows (in XP flavour) is just better. When properly set up, it simply works. I don't have to mess with setting up Java, I don't have any problems with unstable drivers, my system never ever hangs up, has not been reinstalled since the first installation... What do I need more? It, well, just works.
...because it's clearly written in the BBC article, that it's the CD *singles* sales which have been surpassed by downloads. No one here compares *total* sales. And it's still far ahead when it will happen (meaning, total downloads vs total cd sales), IMHO.
"And to answer the poster below, maybe Lem didn't like the film, but I bet he wouldn't like some brash American remake either. I'm sorry, but at least Tarkovsky turned the novel (or ideas contained therein) into something worth watching and learning from, rather than a sloppy piece of entertainment-action."
Well, he actually ignores it. As it is written here:
Interviewer: This (new "Solaris") movie is going to be produced by James Cameron, the director of "Titanic".
Lem: I don't know, although it's quite possible that Cameron will make it. You know, I don't care about it a lot. The more the Americans are engaged in any project, the less the author has to say. Still, the idea that now some forty scriptwriters work over my novel doesn't bring me a lot of satisfaction. For the time being I am not even allowed to look into the scenario. But I wouldn't like to do it, as I am afraid that after reading it I'd be really angry.
Also, what can you find interesting:
I: Solaris by Tarkowski is the most famous adaptation of any of your novels, although it's quite far from the original novel. Philosophical debates became more stressed than the dialogue between astronauts and the ocean.
Lem: Situation is very delicate. Although I have a lot of respect for Tarkowski's movies I hate this one. I tried to presuade Tarkowski from his odd ideas for exactly six weeks. The scenario missed the novel too much. Tarkowski created Kelvin's family, he added some terrible aunts and uncles, which were removed after my rant.
Hope it helps. And feel free to correct my English.;)
Naah, I wouldn't be so pesimistic. To be honest, I like the way "Starship Troopers" were made. They were good satire about war propaganda movies, war propaganda itself, and although I agree it's different from the book, I wouldn't disregard this movie.
Back to the topic; there's a non-zero chance that ACh will be a good movie. Sci-fi has some experience with making TV series and although ACh budget may not be as high as LoTR's one, it doesn't have to mean that the movie will suck. Remember the Dune? If Amber will be only as good as it, it'll be good.
It's a little bit of surpise to me, because at least some time ago, domain nineprincesinamber.com was owned by Warner Bros (and redirected to their site). So, the concept has changed? Or will WB make the series for Sci-Fi? We'll see.
Still, I hope they'll make a good movie. The book's worth it.
...but who will buy them? As far as I know, space shuttles are pretty expensive in use and conservation. I'm curious whether there is anyone, for whom it would be profitable to buy one. According to BBC, one launch costs 400$ million. Does anybody know how expensive one shuttle may be?
And the risk of hijacking one and crashing into ISS... yikes.
Slashdot Mirror
How many times you clicked on some AdWord * g, also known as google constant.
Polish biggest newspaper, Gazeta Wyborcza, has been offering its own RSS aggregator for a few months. And they've been marketising it outside the Internet, which surprised me -- I've seen ads placed on city buses, for example.
Use a better browser. You will have the context menu. ;-)
They'll just block everything that's no iTunes.
On the "news for geeks" site that's not a surprising answer, but, get real, how many people like to do it in an everyday life? 1%? 0,5%? Moreover, how many of you uses build-from-scratch distro, like Gentoo?
2) No artificially forced hardware upgrades. Linux can still run on a 486 with 32MB of Ram and make it usefull again, will XP?
No, it won't, naturally. But will you be able to do on this Linux all the things I'm on my XP? For a router or a small server such configuration is great, and I agree with that. But I was talking 'bout desktops.
3) Linux is being constantly improved on a daily basis. The next version of Windows won't be out till 2006. Maybe.
Not that I care. If it ain't broken, don't fix it.
5) Linux is being developed by people who love computers and programming, always eager to find new solutions to your problems. Windows is being developed by people who love your money and want to find new ways to seperate you from it.
As far as I'm content with the price per value factor -- I don't care about it.
6) Linux is packaged and sold by dozens of companies willing to cater to any market and customize their software as necessary. Windows is sold by one corporation unwilling to change except for its largest customers. Your needs are immaterial to them.
OK, that's true, but it also has it's pros and cons. Windows is uniform everywhere. It's GUI is rather fixed and you won't be willing to completely change it (I'm not talking about colours, I'm talking about general behaviour), unless you have a small geek inside of you. Linux, on the other hand, constantly changes. Owner of every major project has his own view on how GUI should work, what should it look like, etc.
You can go to shop and pick up a "Windows XP for dummies" book. But you won't rather go for "Linux for Dummies" but "Fedora for Dummies" or "Mandrake for Dummies".
7) When you develop software for Linux the market is open to competition. When you develop software for Windows you're constantly looking over your shoulder for Microsoft to decide your enough of a threat that they need to crush you.
D. e. s. k. t. o. p. How many desktop users develop software?
9) Linux adheres to open, published standards whenever possible ensuring that your data is easily transportable to other programs or operating systems. Microsoft 'improves' published standards with proprietary unpublished changes that lock you into their software and make moving to other vendors or OSes a logistics nightmare.
OK, but as far as I can share my documents with the rest of the world -- that's not my problem if they can do the same.
Cheers, Jarek.
Make a self-folding origami paper! Why should anyone need a robot to make an origami, when he can just buy a sheet of paper which will change to a swan or anything else?
Well, apart from license and money reasons, are there any grounds for using Linux on desktops? I know I sound trollish, but I'm writing it honestly -- I've just thrown away my Debian machine, since I had to spend too much time with it. For me -- who uses a word processor, IM, mail and web client -- Windows (in XP flavour) is just better. When properly set up, it simply works. I don't have to mess with setting up Java, I don't have any problems with unstable drivers, my system never ever hangs up, has not been reinstalled since the first installation... What do I need more? It, well, just works.
Since when? 1Tera is 1,000 Giga and 1Peta is 1,000 Tera.
Maybe someone should try to sell these boxes to GMail? They will surely need a lot of storage space.
...but it's the same game which I most adored one year, two and three years ago -- ADoM :)
Just wondering -- I dislike Nethack. Is it because I played ADoM before trying NH? What are your experiences?
...because it's clearly written in the BBC article, that it's the CD *singles* sales which have been surpassed by downloads. No one here compares *total* sales. And it's still far ahead when it will happen (meaning, total downloads vs total cd sales), IMHO.
"And to answer the poster below, maybe Lem didn't like the film, but I bet he wouldn't like some brash American remake either. I'm sorry, but at least Tarkovsky turned the novel (or ideas contained therein) into something worth watching and learning from, rather than a sloppy piece of entertainment-action."
Well, he actually ignores it. As it is written here:
Interviewer: This (new "Solaris") movie is going to be produced by James Cameron, the director of "Titanic".
Lem: I don't know, although it's quite possible that Cameron will make it. You know, I don't care about it a lot. The more the Americans are engaged in any project, the less the author has to say. Still, the idea that now some forty scriptwriters work over my novel doesn't bring me a lot of satisfaction. For the time being I am not even allowed to look into the scenario. But I wouldn't like to do it, as I am afraid that after reading it I'd be really angry. Also, what can you find interesting:
I: Solaris by Tarkowski is the most famous adaptation of any of your novels, although it's quite far from the original novel. Philosophical debates became more stressed than the dialogue between astronauts and the ocean.
Lem: Situation is very delicate. Although I have a lot of respect for Tarkowski's movies I hate this one. I tried to presuade Tarkowski from his odd ideas for exactly six weeks. The scenario missed the novel too much. Tarkowski created Kelvin's family, he added some terrible aunts and uncles, which were removed after my rant.
Hope it helps. And feel free to correct my English. ;)
Naah, I wouldn't be so pesimistic. To be honest, I like the way "Starship Troopers" were made. They were good satire about war propaganda movies, war propaganda itself, and although I agree it's different from the book, I wouldn't disregard this movie.
Back to the topic; there's a non-zero chance that ACh will be a good movie. Sci-fi has some experience with making TV series and although ACh budget may not be as high as LoTR's one, it doesn't have to mean that the movie will suck. Remember the Dune? If Amber will be only as good as it, it'll be good.
It's a little bit of surpise to me, because at least some time ago, domain nineprincesinamber.com was owned by Warner Bros (and redirected to their site). So, the concept has changed? Or will WB make the series for Sci-Fi? We'll see.
Still, I hope they'll make a good movie. The book's worth it.
...but who will buy them? As far as I know, space shuttles are pretty expensive in use and conservation. I'm curious whether there is anyone, for whom it would be profitable to buy one. According to BBC, one launch costs 400$ million. Does anybody know how expensive one shuttle may be?
And the risk of hijacking one and crashing into ISS... yikes.