Why? Reliability, longevity, speed, security, the usual boatload of reasons. You already know what they are, if that's not compelling enough for you then no, don't switch.
And yeah, I also never got a virus on Windows when I still used it (also never? is that right?). But whether or not you've ever actually had lung cancer, quitting smoking is still good for you.
Totally. But once you get money and imaginary property involved, it ain't gonna happen, cap'n. This is one of many examples of things we can do with Linux that Windows will never be able to match.
Listening to music on the desktop and/or a portable device is a fairly large part of many home users' computer experience. Amarok kicks the piss out of iTunes. So does Banshee. No, Rhythmbox sucks.
It's just one example, but it's the most glaring one I can think of on the desktop.
I use Linux on the desktop in large part because for the things I use a desktop for (music listening, desktop publishing, managing other people's desktops, really light database/text shuffling work), the Linux offerings are IMNSHO above and beyond anything I've seen on Windows. I use it because "the programs are the best out there" for what I use it for. That's certainly not true for all use cases. We're getting there.
I have heard this weak car analogy every time this topic comes up. No, of course you don't need to "know the name of every part in the engine," and you damn well know it. You do however have to know that there is an engine, and it is different from the steering wheel and the battery. You have to be able to not put coolant in the gas tank or hit the brake instead of the gas. See, in America, you have to take a test before they let you use one of the things. Why do you think that is?
As I was reading this, I was marshaling my arguments, but now that I've gotten to the end, you know what? All you said there was that you fucking suck at support and should stick to selling things that you know shit about, because it's obviously not Linux.
I sell Linux boxes. People love them. If you can't find a way to make it work, that's your failure.
Actually, as far as imaging goes, it's very different. Linux is notoriously finicky when it comes to hardware, windows has always been more forgiving, and even Vista at release had fewer hardware issues than Linux has always been stuck with.
That's absurd. I can take a Linux installation and move it to an entirely new system just by copying the filesystem, or even simply taking the hard drive and putting it in the new machine and pressing the power button. I've done this with production servers, I've done this with laptops. My current desktop installation is older than the hardware it's running on. As long as the drivers you need are in the kernel, there's no problem whatsoever.
Tell me again how easy it is with Windows. That was a riot the first time.
Let's remember that in the 1990s American policy towards Islam was continually conciliatory in hopes of reaching out. We swept a bunch of terrorist attacks under the rug, pushed for a Palestinian state, looked the other way when Saddam cheated the sanctions...
Not true at all. Camp David (and the Clinton policy as a whole) wasn't about "pushing for a Palestinian state" by any means, far from it. And by "looked the other way," I can only assume you mean "bombed the shit out of the country that we had already devastated."
Pink is just a colour but we have attached all sorts of stereotypes to it. Stereotypes many slashdotters might not feel comfortable with.
I don't know, from reading most of the replies here it just sounds like you have attached all sorts of stereotypes to it. I like baseball, girl-on-girl porn, acetylene torches, and ice fishing, and I can see two pink, one yellow, one cream, and one sort of apricot-ish shirt hanging up in my closet right now. That doesn't necessarily invalidate your original point, I'm just saying it's a crappy example.
As to your original point about marketing to stereotypes, yeah, I agree, but:
1. This certainly isn't the only or the most egregious example of that. From a certain standpoint, that's what marketing is. Hell, that's what mass media is. I don't like it much either, but there you go. As a late-twenties white male originally from rural Minnesota, it's not hard for me to turn on a TV and find something that offends the shit out of me. I'm sick and fucking tired of being told I'm an inbred ignorant good ol' boy and I should just STFU and go buy a truck.
But because this is about something marketed toward women, a group that it is no longer considered socially acceptable to pigeonhole, We Must All Now Be Very Offended. Well, I won't play ball.
2. I think everyone's making a pretty huge assumption here that this marketing scheme was perpetuated by men. I can find nothing in the article to support this unspoken assumption.
Re:DRM for DVD is bad... DRM from network is evil.
on
Why Bother With DRM?
·
· Score: 1
Their own "online" registration of game architecture, remove the first sale law for every American.
You should look shit up before you start running your mouth. Let's learn, shall we?
The first-sale doctrine is a limitation on copyright that was recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1908 and subsequently codified in the Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C. Â 109. The doctrine allows the purchaser to transfer (i.e., sell or give away) a particular lawfully made copy of the copyrighted work without permission once it has been obtained. This means that the copyright holder's rights to control the change of ownership of a particular copy end once that copy is sold, as long as no additional copies are made.
So there you have some legal rights. So as long as Stardock doesn't try to sue you or file criminal charges against you for trying to resell the game, first sale doctrine is satisfied. You have the legal right to sell the game.
What they are not obligated to do is make it easy, profitable, or desirable for you to do so.
That said, I'm as staunchly anti-DRM as anyone you'll ever meet. I think it's stupid business and I refuse to play ball with companies that treat their customers like that. But idiots like you are the reason people like me don't get taken seriously. So STFU.
Of course, you have to realize that they all come from people who: 1) Haven't even tried Office 2007 and, 2) Are generally programmers who don't use Office apps in the first place.
Well, I have tried Office '07. I do use office applications in my work (not as much as a lot of people do, but some). And '07 is an utter abomination. For the first time in my memory, Microsoft Office has a less intuitive, less discoverable, less consistent, and just overall lesser interface than OpenOffice (and that is not a complement to OO).
The question wasn't about their prerogative; it's surely their right to do whatever they wish with their creation. The question was "Why do you tolerate it?"
It was kind of an "interactive storytelling" sort of game, you were a cowboy, all I remember about it was walking around the town and the extremely simplistic gunfights. Haven't played it since I was like 10. WTF was the name of this game?
(Also, it's cool to see this make the front page. I've actually been rocking DOSBox real hard these last two weeks, replaying Roadwar 2000.)
What's needed are commercial software developers porting and seelling top applications for Ubuntu
I'm not sure whether or not I agree with this. As I replied to someone elsewhere in this discussion, I just don't see people switching operating systems to run the same application set. You hear it all the time, "only Slashdot geeks care about which OS they use."
I think ultimately the only way we "win" here is by having superior offerings. In some areas, we're already there (see Scribus and Amarok), in others we're definitely not (see OOo and Gimp), but I think that's got to be the way forward.
(no, Linux in all distros is too expensive to support for typical software shops, sorry.)
This is false. There is nothing stopping you from distributing a precompiled binary with included libraries that's run damn near anywhere. Lots of people do it. Yes, optimizing for N different distros is hard, and not everyone can do it, but you don't, strictly speaking, have to.
That's well and good and I'm not trying to dispute it. But in the long haul, it's still suicide. It's certainly not just the usual Slashdot pissing and moaning. Lots of people are angry and looking to jump ship, at a time when the competition is beating down the door. Microsoft is losing the battle for hearts and minds, and whether it shows up on the books this year or not, that's a disaster.
I have no opinion on whether Windows 7 will salvage that situation. But from Microsoft's point of view, it had damn well better.
Slashdot Mirror
Why? Reliability, longevity, speed, security, the usual boatload of reasons. You already know what they are, if that's not compelling enough for you then no, don't switch.
And yeah, I also never got a virus on Windows when I still used it (also never? is that right?). But whether or not you've ever actually had lung cancer, quitting smoking is still good for you.
So I take it you have no rebuttal to the content of their post, so took it upon yourself to piss and moan about the way they said it?
STFU.
Totally. But once you get money and imaginary property involved, it ain't gonna happen, cap'n. This is one of many examples of things we can do with Linux that Windows will never be able to match.
And if you don't trust the people you get your OS from then... ... you must be a Windows user! (Sorry, I couldn't help it.)
I see no such implication.
Listening to music on the desktop and/or a portable device is a fairly large part of many home users' computer experience. Amarok kicks the piss out of iTunes. So does Banshee. No, Rhythmbox sucks.
It's just one example, but it's the most glaring one I can think of on the desktop.
I use Linux on the desktop in large part because for the things I use a desktop for (music listening, desktop publishing, managing other people's desktops, really light database/text shuffling work), the Linux offerings are IMNSHO above and beyond anything I've seen on Windows. I use it because "the programs are the best out there" for what I use it for. That's certainly not true for all use cases. We're getting there.
I have heard this weak car analogy every time this topic comes up. No, of course you don't need to "know the name of every part in the engine," and you damn well know it. You do however have to know that there is an engine, and it is different from the steering wheel and the battery. You have to be able to not put coolant in the gas tank or hit the brake instead of the gas. See, in America, you have to take a test before they let you use one of the things. Why do you think that is?
As I was reading this, I was marshaling my arguments, but now that I've gotten to the end, you know what? All you said there was that you fucking suck at support and should stick to selling things that you know shit about, because it's obviously not Linux.
I sell Linux boxes. People love them. If you can't find a way to make it work, that's your failure.
Actually, as far as imaging goes, it's very different. Linux is notoriously finicky when it comes to hardware, windows has always been more forgiving, and even Vista at release had fewer hardware issues than Linux has always been stuck with.
That's absurd. I can take a Linux installation and move it to an entirely new system just by copying the filesystem, or even simply taking the hard drive and putting it in the new machine and pressing the power button. I've done this with production servers, I've done this with laptops. My current desktop installation is older than the hardware it's running on. As long as the drivers you need are in the kernel, there's no problem whatsoever.
Tell me again how easy it is with Windows. That was a riot the first time.
Wait a minute, I thought you didn't like religion. Or is just that you don't like brown people's religion?
Oh, I'm sorry. I replied to your original post, but now that I read down a little further, I see you're just a bigot. Never mind my earlier message.
Let's remember that in the 1990s American policy towards Islam was continually conciliatory in hopes of reaching out. We swept a bunch of terrorist attacks under the rug, pushed for a Palestinian state, looked the other way when Saddam cheated the sanctions...
Not true at all. Camp David (and the Clinton policy as a whole) wasn't about "pushing for a Palestinian state" by any means, far from it. And by "looked the other way," I can only assume you mean "bombed the shit out of the country that we had already devastated."
Pink is just a colour but we have attached all sorts of stereotypes to it. Stereotypes many slashdotters might not feel comfortable with.
I don't know, from reading most of the replies here it just sounds like you have attached all sorts of stereotypes to it. I like baseball, girl-on-girl porn, acetylene torches, and ice fishing, and I can see two pink, one yellow, one cream, and one sort of apricot-ish shirt hanging up in my closet right now. That doesn't necessarily invalidate your original point, I'm just saying it's a crappy example.
As to your original point about marketing to stereotypes, yeah, I agree, but:
1. This certainly isn't the only or the most egregious example of that. From a certain standpoint, that's what marketing is. Hell, that's what mass media is. I don't like it much either, but there you go. As a late-twenties white male originally from rural Minnesota, it's not hard for me to turn on a TV and find something that offends the shit out of me. I'm sick and fucking tired of being told I'm an inbred ignorant good ol' boy and I should just STFU and go buy a truck.
But because this is about something marketed toward women, a group that it is no longer considered socially acceptable to pigeonhole, We Must All Now Be Very Offended. Well, I won't play ball.
2. I think everyone's making a pretty huge assumption here that this marketing scheme was perpetuated by men. I can find nothing in the article to support this unspoken assumption.
Their own "online" registration of game architecture, remove the first sale law for every American.
You should look shit up before you start running your mouth. Let's learn, shall we?
From ye old Wikipedia:
The first-sale doctrine is a limitation on copyright that was recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1908 and subsequently codified in the Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C. Â 109. The doctrine allows the purchaser to transfer (i.e., sell or give away) a particular lawfully made copy of the copyrighted work without permission once it has been obtained. This means that the copyright holder's rights to control the change of ownership of a particular copy end once that copy is sold, as long as no additional copies are made.
So there you have some legal rights. So as long as Stardock doesn't try to sue you or file criminal charges against you for trying to resell the game, first sale doctrine is satisfied. You have the legal right to sell the game.
What they are not obligated to do is make it easy, profitable, or desirable for you to do so.
That said, I'm as staunchly anti-DRM as anyone you'll ever meet. I think it's stupid business and I refuse to play ball with companies that treat their customers like that. But idiots like you are the reason people like me don't get taken seriously. So STFU.
Fair Use. Not just a good idea. It's the law.
If you like vi then I'd have to ask for you to just sit quitely in the back. To each his own and this conversation is for the GUI lovers :)
There is no goddamn reason a GUI can't be keyboard-friendly, even an office suite GUI. See WordPerfect.
And no, I'm not a vi guy. I'm an emacs guy ;)
Of course, you have to realize that they all come from people who:
1) Haven't even tried Office 2007 and,
2) Are generally programmers who don't use Office apps in the first place.
Well, I have tried Office '07. I do use office applications in my work (not as much as a lot of people do, but some). And '07 is an utter abomination. For the first time in my memory, Microsoft Office has a less intuitive, less discoverable, less consistent, and just overall lesser interface than OpenOffice (and that is not a complement to OO).
Funny you should say that but mouse clicking a calculator on a PC (assuming you are on a laptop and haven't a number pad) is an awful experience.
Spread the gospel, brother! I have a numberpad and use it, and on-screen graphical calculators are still just a monumental pain in the ass.
I'm a big fan of CLI calculators though. It's helpful to be able to see the entire calculation before I hit enter.
The question wasn't about their prerogative; it's surely their right to do whatever they wish with their creation. The question was "Why do you tolerate it?"
I get the concept, thanks. I don't think you get what I'm getting at. Here's an example:
I had an RC version of my operating system running last month. It updated itself to the final version and didn't give me a bunch of bullshit about it.
Do you see it now?
It was kind of an "interactive storytelling" sort of game, you were a cowboy, all I remember about it was walking around the town and the extremely simplistic gunfights. Haven't played it since I was like 10. WTF was the name of this game?
(Also, it's cool to see this make the front page. I've actually been rocking DOSBox real hard these last two weeks, replaying Roadwar 2000.)
Dear Windows users,
Why do you put up with this shit?
Sincerely,
Linux users
What's needed are commercial software developers porting and seelling top applications for Ubuntu
I'm not sure whether or not I agree with this. As I replied to someone elsewhere in this discussion, I just don't see people switching operating systems to run the same application set. You hear it all the time, "only Slashdot geeks care about which OS they use."
I think ultimately the only way we "win" here is by having superior offerings. In some areas, we're already there (see Scribus and Amarok), in others we're definitely not (see OOo and Gimp), but I think that's got to be the way forward.
(no, Linux in all distros is too expensive to support for typical software shops, sorry.)
This is false. There is nothing stopping you from distributing a precompiled binary with included libraries that's run damn near anywhere. Lots of people do it. Yes, optimizing for N different distros is hard, and not everyone can do it, but you don't, strictly speaking, have to.
That's well and good and I'm not trying to dispute it. But in the long haul, it's still suicide. It's certainly not just the usual Slashdot pissing and moaning. Lots of people are angry and looking to jump ship, at a time when the competition is beating down the door. Microsoft is losing the battle for hearts and minds, and whether it shows up on the books this year or not, that's a disaster.
I have no opinion on whether Windows 7 will salvage that situation. But from Microsoft's point of view, it had damn well better.