Do you really trust the political system to fund a network of paid musicians, movie studios, and writers (plus whatever other forms of entertainment you lump in there)?
I trust it as much or as little as I trust the very same political system to fund the road network.
Yes, there would be corruption. Yes millions.
But it still beats the current system which is by a long shot less effective.
Currently, only a tiny fraction of the cost of music go to the music, the far largest part is markup of the reseller, profit for the label, production cost of plastic, cost for shipping and handling, etc.
Even if you assume that a public system would be only 10% effective (thus 90% corruption) it would still beat the current one.
Wrong, human nature is that as long as you don't interfere with somebody else.
Copying information doesn't interfere with anybody, it doesn't destroy anything, it doesn't take anything away from anything.
That's why [/me puts asbestos suit on ] capitalism is the best system for most "normal" goods and communism is the best system for most types of information.
Yeah, I said it, the "c"-word.
BTW, there are many things that are public or "communistic" in almost any country. Take the road net for instance - those goddamn communists allow just anybody to use them and they use taxes to build and maintain them. Wouldn't it be much better to have private road owners collect fees for using roads?
Or take police or military. Also public or "communistic".
There is no one-size-fits-all economic system. For most entities, the capitalistic system fits best, but there are a couple of entities where puplic just works better than private.
The Soviet Union failed because they tried to force the communistic system on everything. The USA better watch out that they don't make the same mistake in reverse.
Ideologists are morons. No matter if they are blind communists or blind capitalists.
Is everybody suffering from amnesia when it comes to Microsoft?
Did you forget how Microsoft (plus their following) touted how Sony has to be afraid of the XBox before it's release?
Did you forget that XBox sold less than half of Microsoft's own goal in the first year?
Did you forget that XBox was supposed to become market leader?
Sheesh.
They used off the shelf parts to give XBox short time to market in exchange for their own fab facilities and eventually being able to break even on hardware
Yeah, and 3 years and 3 billion dollars lost they decided that they better try again with another architecture for XBox2.
And if the rumors are true and XBox2 won't be backwards-compatible, they are just shooting themselves into the other foot.
XBox didn't see a major product-launch from Sony yet. The PS2-launch and all the hype and FUD around it killed the Dreamcast and I wouldn't be surprised if the PS3-launch will kill the XBox2.
Alienating them works quite well when you have a dominating position in the market: Breaking your wordprocessing format will force your users to upgrade, breaking SMB compatibility will temporarily make life harder for Samba and - you got it - will force some users to upgrade, too.
I think the higher-ups at Microsoft have completely lost the sense of how to do business in a healthy market.
That's why everything Microsoft does fails or produces massive losses when not being pushed by the PC domination.
Just look at Hailstorm. Or XBox. Or Windows/Alpha.
Yeah, notebooks are often made of "special" ultra-proprietary parts that make them (and replacement parts) expensive. That's true for most vendors.
With "normal" computers it's a little bit different, though. I just upgraded my motherboard/CPU for about 200 Euros - try that with a Mac.
Isn't it ironic that Macs are "throwaway and buy a new one" computers while in the real world it's exactly the opposite and expensive stuff is made to last?
Without user agent grouping your statistics are pretty worthless because there are just so many different user agents around.
Your top 15 browser strings just show around 45% (added in head, please allow a +/- 5% error margin) of your hits, you have no idea what the majority of your users are using!
First it offers a safe investment. If it's a good standard that is supported by several programs, even if your preferred program might not work or not be available or is discontinued, you can just use another.
One of the biggest problems with MS Office is the changing of formats. People are sick of it. When it's a standard, it will stay the same, maybe not forever, but a lot longer than if it were no standard
If for some reason or the other your favorite office program can't open a file, you can try another one.
[..] before anyone says this is Microsoft/MSNBC bias against Linux [..]
There are a lot of reasons why viruses and worms will never be such a huge problem in Linux as they are in Windows now:
When you install a new Linux box, you usually take the latest version (because it's (almost) free), while a lot of people tend to stick to outdated (and therefore security-prone) Windows-versions. That's why a lot of viruses/worms often celebrate a nice comeback in Windows: After the initial scare, the vulernable machines increase again. This actually happened with the Code Red worm. On Linux this is pretty unlikely as new versions will be used for new installs.
Microsoft's patchwork (pun intended) is hard to maintain and hard to follow. On Linux everything is modular: If some program (or the kernel) has a problem, usually versions = are safe. You don't need to upgrade any other programs either. Simple. Easy. Not so on Windows. On Windows you have to deal with service packs which are risky because they change so much that companies even have to test them on test-machines because they can break anything or with patches which are pretty complicated to track (which machine has been patched and which wasn't is pretty challenging.) Therefore Windows-machines are not as often updated as Linux machines.
And of course Microsoft's philosophy. While the open-source project Mozilla offered money for found vulernabilities, Microsoft offers money to get virus authors after the damage has been done. And Microsoft (and their following) always plays the blame-game: It's not their fault, it's the user's fault, it's the admin's fault, it's the virus-writer's fault... This doesn't help solve the problem at all.
And of course the track record speaks for itself. Apache always run more websites than IIS at any time, still IIS was infected more ofen at any time. MS SQL only has 12% of the market, yet it was the only SQL-database being mass-infected so far (even MS itself got infected - if Microsoft can't secure Windows, who can?)
Will we see Linux desktop viruses? Almost certainly yes. But they will be pretty rare and not an epidemy like those on Windows today.
...or they use Mozilla from their Linux distribution (like me), or several computers are being loaded with just one downloaded Firefox (like anybody administering a group fo computers would do)
Of course it doesn't represent exactly 1 million new users.
However: Downloads are increasing, hits from Mozilla at various websites are increasing (For example c-net with now 18% Mozilla) so there is definitely a trend here.
Mozilla no longer can be ignored which will mean the few IE-only sites that still exist will disappear and we all (but especially web developers) will be enjoy a return of advancements in browsers. (Even IE users will benefit because Microsoft can no longer ignore Mozilla either)
They can't tell today, but in a few months, they may well have enough data to say "these ones *must* have been leaked".
The problem is that when they start blocking these IDs, they also block the legitimate owners (just because one (ex-)employee copied the company CDs, doesn't void the license.) and they no longer can get their updates.
Actually if it did void the license it's even worse. Imagine you have just spent a few hundred thousand on MS-software and it's void just because some employee put it on a P2P-network.
It's funny that these things never turn up in TCO-studies...
Win2K/XP is prone to a lot of worms which don't work in Win98, most importantly MS blaster.
My girlfriend's Win2K installation got "slow" within 2 days after she got Internet access (I neither know nor care what worm that is, probably not blaster), while a Win98 installation of a friend of mine (it was installed in 2001 IIRC) is still usable without a single patch installed.
Both use the same Internet provider (which is offering "real" access to the Internet without firewall, etc), BTW.
So essentially you say that Microsoft is lying when they say that Windows is ready for the unsuspecting user's home desktop?
Actually I have installed a dual-boot setup for my girlfriend and even though she never used KDE/Linux before, she now uses it exclusively, because "Linux works, Windows doesn't" (her words, not mine)
Yes, it's all my fault. I'm willing to install an OS, yes. (In case of SuSE9.1 that works very well, even OpenOffice and everything comes with it) But I'm really too lazy to install service packs, patches, virus scanners, regular virus scanner updates, etc.
Windows is only 199$ if your time is worthless and you pirate a virusscanner.
And actually, once hi-def dvd's start showing up, today's dvd's will be a thing of the past.
I don't think so. The DVD is certainly "good enough" for movies. It's a major step compared to VHS (much better quality, but more important: no more rewinding, better scene selection, multiple language tracks, extras and better archievability) but a hi-def dvd is just "like DVD, only better" which is not really going to fly.
There are just too many DVD-players out there, it will take at least 10 years, probably more like 20 of selling backwards-compatible hi-def players until conventional DVDs will disappear.
On a completely non-technical site I manage (f1-facts.com), Gecko has increased from 3.482% in February to 9.274% last month (August), that's pretty impressing.
Actually 9.274 or 10% (like in your case) isn't very far off from 15%.
So, while I'm dragging my truly transparent Terminal across my desktop, the CPU can still work on the DVD encode it was working on without worrying about my window drag.
This is exactly what I was talking about: Useless eye-candy. Who wants transparency anyway?
If they didn't release a product until 2008, the market (mostly linux) would have time to catch-up.
What is so great about Longhorn?
Seriously.
The only thing useful about it is WinFS, which sounds nice but even that is just a nice-to-have feature most people can and will do without.
"Avalon" is a buzzword just like Apple's "graphics-engine" (whoa, it's an engine, whoa!) with no real use. (At least no Apple user could explain the real-world advantages to me so far, also the Winlots failed to explain what *exactly* makes Avalon so great)
Actually, I think the sooner MS releases Longhorn the better it is for Linux. The incompatibilities, the headaches, the problems that come with each Windows-release (sometimes even with a servicepack) will push Linux. When support contracts run out and Microsoft stops supporting older versions of Windows, that will push Linux. When Microsoft stops to support MS-Office for older versions of Windows that will push OpenOffice.
The problem is that MacOSX and Gnome is optimized for "usability studies", i.e. they put a beginner in front of the computer and test it for half an hour.
That way you get a desktop that's great for the first half-hour of use but sucks in day-to-day operation for the rest of your computer-using life.
KDE on the other hand offers defaults targetted at the beginner (which is good) but still allows the advanced user to configure (which is great).
Yes I've tried MacOSX, too. And yes, the first half-hour was indeed impressing. I've no doubst that MacOSX/Gnome will beat KDE in "usability studies", in day-to-day work, however KDE is miles ahead of both.
Re:'Flaws' Not that big of a deal
on
Latest SP2 News
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Telling people to open a command line and run a command with several arguments is much more complex than simply telling them "click yes on the security dialog to run the program".
Is it really?
On the phone it's great to be able to say "Press Alt-F2 and then P-R-O-G-R-A-M", it's much more efficient and straightforward than "Press Start, then go to that submenu, then go to that submenu, then search for PROGRAM, then click it"
In this case, however, it's pretty obvious that it's complete alarmist nonsense.
Leukemia and brain tumors are such rare diseases, that any statistic is not going to be representative (I've once read about a study that "proved" that churches cause brain tumors.) Even a single case can skew the whole study into one direction.
Why don't they look at lung cancer? Prostate cancer? Breast cancer? Those are much more common.
Of course I can tell you why: Because with not-so-rare diseases, it all evens out and there is no statistical link between disease and radio emitter any more.
This kind of cut down OS would appear to me to be perfect for OEM distributers, supply this cut down MS "product" and pay less M$ tax without losing buddy status.
Actually exactly that could be very dangerous for MS: If OEMs ship Windows "Light", they will sooner or later realize that (almost) all customers immediately wipe it and run something else - so the OEM might realize that they might as well ship the PCs naked or with Linux.
Windows Light could be very dangerous if it demonstrates that preinstalled Windows isn't as important as everybody seems to think.
Slashdot Mirror
Well it prevents Micrsoft from setting Windows-only standards for the web.
I trust it as much or as little as I trust the very same political system to fund the road network.
Yes, there would be corruption. Yes millions.
But it still beats the current system which is by a long shot less effective.
Currently, only a tiny fraction of the cost of music go to the music, the far largest part is markup of the reseller, profit for the label, production cost of plastic, cost for shipping and handling, etc.
Even if you assume that a public system would be only 10% effective (thus 90% corruption) it would still beat the current one.
Copying information doesn't interfere with anybody, it doesn't destroy anything, it doesn't take anything away from anything.
That's why [ /me puts asbestos suit on ] capitalism is the best system for most "normal" goods and communism is the best system for most types of information.
Yeah, I said it, the "c"-word.
BTW, there are many things that are public or "communistic" in almost any country. Take the road net for instance - those goddamn communists allow just anybody to use them and they use taxes to build and maintain them. Wouldn't it be much better to have private road owners collect fees for using roads?
Or take police or military. Also public or "communistic".
There is no one-size-fits-all economic system. For most entities, the capitalistic system fits best, but there are a couple of entities where puplic just works better than private.
The Soviet Union failed because they tried to force the communistic system on everything. The USA better watch out that they don't make the same mistake in reverse.
Ideologists are morons. No matter if they are blind communists or blind capitalists.
No company would get away with something like this in Europe.
Did you forget how Microsoft (plus their following) touted how Sony has to be afraid of the XBox before it's release?
Did you forget that XBox sold less than half of Microsoft's own goal in the first year?
Did you forget that XBox was supposed to become market leader?
Sheesh.
They used off the shelf parts to give XBox short time to market in exchange for their own fab facilities and eventually being able to break even on hardware
Yeah, and 3 years and 3 billion dollars lost they decided that they better try again with another architecture for XBox2.
And if the rumors are true and XBox2 won't be backwards-compatible, they are just shooting themselves into the other foot.
XBox didn't see a major product-launch from Sony yet. The PS2-launch and all the hype and FUD around it killed the Dreamcast and I wouldn't be surprised if the PS3-launch will kill the XBox2.
I think the higher-ups at Microsoft have completely lost the sense of how to do business in a healthy market.
That's why everything Microsoft does fails or produces massive losses when not being pushed by the PC domination.
Just look at Hailstorm. Or XBox. Or Windows/Alpha.
I guess that will be done by developers, developers, developers, developers...
With "normal" computers it's a little bit different, though. I just upgraded my motherboard/CPU for about 200 Euros - try that with a Mac.
Isn't it ironic that Macs are "throwaway and buy a new one" computers while in the real world it's exactly the opposite and expensive stuff is made to last?
Your top 15 browser strings just show around 45% (added in head, please allow a +/- 5% error margin) of your hits, you have no idea what the majority of your users are using!
There are a lot of reasons why viruses and worms will never be such a huge problem in Linux as they are in Windows now:
Will we see Linux desktop viruses? Almost certainly yes. But they will be pretty rare and not an epidemy like those on Windows today.
Of course it doesn't represent exactly 1 million new users.
However: Downloads are increasing, hits from Mozilla at various websites are increasing (For example c-net with now 18% Mozilla) so there is definitely a trend here.
Mozilla no longer can be ignored which will mean the few IE-only sites that still exist will disappear and we all (but especially web developers) will be enjoy a return of advancements in browsers. (Even IE users will benefit because Microsoft can no longer ignore Mozilla either)
The problem is that when they start blocking these IDs, they also block the legitimate owners (just because one (ex-)employee copied the company CDs, doesn't void the license.) and they no longer can get their updates.
Actually if it did void the license it's even worse. Imagine you have just spent a few hundred thousand on MS-software and it's void just because some employee put it on a P2P-network.
It's funny that these things never turn up in TCO-studies...
Win2K/XP is prone to a lot of worms which don't work in Win98, most importantly MS blaster.
My girlfriend's Win2K installation got "slow" within 2 days after she got Internet access (I neither know nor care what worm that is, probably not blaster), while a Win98 installation of a friend of mine (it was installed in 2001 IIRC) is still usable without a single patch installed.
Both use the same Internet provider (which is offering "real" access to the Internet without firewall, etc), BTW.
Actually I have installed a dual-boot setup for my girlfriend and even though she never used KDE/Linux before, she now uses it exclusively, because "Linux works, Windows doesn't" (her words, not mine)
Yes, it's all my fault. I'm willing to install an OS, yes. (In case of SuSE9.1 that works very well, even OpenOffice and everything comes with it) But I'm really too lazy to install service packs, patches, virus scanners, regular virus scanner updates, etc.
Windows is only 199$ if your time is worthless and you pirate a virusscanner.
I don't think so. The DVD is certainly "good enough" for movies. It's a major step compared to VHS (much better quality, but more important: no more rewinding, better scene selection, multiple language tracks, extras and better archievability) but a hi-def dvd is just "like DVD, only better" which is not really going to fly.
There are just too many DVD-players out there, it will take at least 10 years, probably more like 20 of selling backwards-compatible hi-def players until conventional DVDs will disappear.
According to your own link, India is worse at corruption than Ghana, Mali and Colombia and only marginally better than Mozambique and Ethiopia.
Actually 9.274 or 10% (like in your case) isn't very far off from 15%.
This is exactly what I was talking about: Useless eye-candy. Who wants transparency anyway?
This isn't anything worth upgrading.
What is so great about Longhorn?
Seriously.
The only thing useful about it is WinFS, which sounds nice but even that is just a nice-to-have feature most people can and will do without.
"Avalon" is a buzzword just like Apple's "graphics-engine" (whoa, it's an engine, whoa!) with no real use. (At least no Apple user could explain the real-world advantages to me so far, also the Winlots failed to explain what *exactly* makes Avalon so great)
Actually, I think the sooner MS releases Longhorn the better it is for Linux. The incompatibilities, the headaches, the problems that come with each Windows-release (sometimes even with a servicepack) will push Linux. When support contracts run out and Microsoft stops supporting older versions of Windows, that will push Linux. When Microsoft stops to support MS-Office for older versions of Windows that will push OpenOffice.
So please Microsoft, ship it quick.
The problem is that MacOSX and Gnome is optimized for "usability studies", i.e. they put a beginner in front of the computer and test it for half an hour.
That way you get a desktop that's great for the first half-hour of use but sucks in day-to-day operation for the rest of your computer-using life.
KDE on the other hand offers defaults targetted at the beginner (which is good) but still allows the advanced user to configure (which is great).
Yes I've tried MacOSX, too. And yes, the first half-hour was indeed impressing. I've no doubst that MacOSX/Gnome will beat KDE in "usability studies", in day-to-day work, however KDE is miles ahead of both.
Is it really?
On the phone it's great to be able to say "Press Alt-F2 and then P-R-O-G-R-A-M", it's much more efficient and straightforward than "Press Start, then go to that submenu, then go to that submenu, then search for PROGRAM, then click it"
In this case, however, it's pretty obvious that it's complete alarmist nonsense.
Leukemia and brain tumors are such rare diseases, that any statistic is not going to be representative (I've once read about a study that "proved" that churches cause brain tumors.) Even a single case can skew the whole study into one direction.
Why don't they look at lung cancer? Prostate cancer? Breast cancer? Those are much more common.
Of course I can tell you why: Because with not-so-rare diseases, it all evens out and there is no statistical link between disease and radio emitter any more.
Actually exactly that could be very dangerous for MS: If OEMs ship Windows "Light", they will sooner or later realize that (almost) all customers immediately wipe it and run something else - so the OEM might realize that they might as well ship the PCs naked or with Linux.
Windows Light could be very dangerous if it demonstrates that preinstalled Windows isn't as important as everybody seems to think.