And the idea of paying $20 a month for super-filtered content is not only reasonable, but it goes on all the time. There are electronic equivalents to old-style clipping services which do nothing but gather, vet, and sort by worth information on topics you want.
Some no-charge search engines employ some variant of this as well, with human experts on particular search categories.
"And the stubborn refusal of the technical communities to attempt to provide a good filter list will be to blame. It is perfectly possible to develop a filter list that will filter the really egregious cases without filtering political speech and the like. It's just not possible to do it in a commerical context."
Amphigory:
I think filtering companies have a right to exist and make money, so long as they don't interfere with the rights of others to enjoy a free flow of information. It's perfectly sensible to employ a vicarious decisionmaker for aspects of life. Some are formal, some aren't -- We read film reviews, we ask friends' advice on cars, we use tips on the radio, maybe we read Consumers' Digest to avoid a lemon television set.
I agree with you that most people would like to be able to avoid certain things -- let's say as a conservative baseline, most people don't want to see child pornography or depictions of bestiality. Most people would not want their children receiving invitations to pornographic Web sites.
But how do you see the "good filter list" you hope for working? You say it is technically possible, but not possible "in a commercial context," and I don't understand what you mean. It seems to me that, unless all Internet access (that is, both viewing and publishing) is subject to approval by some sort of panel, then it would *only* be possible in a commercial context. Filtered ISPs (like Mayberry USA are flourishing, because they provide a more palatable picture of the world, and their subscribers consider this added value. I'm happy with that; if I had children who were using the Internet, I might employ such a service.
But I would employ it, and if I found it to be a nuisance, or intrusive, I could either pick a new one or do all the supervision myself. In other words, I don't want the subjective, by-definition-impossible task of suppressing certain Internet content to be in the hands of the government. You can fire your accountant, you can stop associating with the friend who told you to invest in Laetrile, but generally the government keeps coming back with the same grin and same demand. Censureship, with my approval, vs. censorship without.
Even if it's repackaged iOpeners. Buy 'em for $99, pop in a small drive, sell em for $200. Even $250. That should cover a small drive, and with modest economies of scale, the labor too.
In that there are shelves full of games of Windows in CompUSA and similar, and in Walmart and target there are display cases for all the major console games in addition to a few boxed software packages.
The store I bought Q-Arena has about 2 feet of shelf for linux stuff, most of which was the OS itself, and just a few games.
Just the same, I bet Loki would *have* to sell far more than 1000 copies just to break even. 1000*$50 = less than the take-home salary of one programmer. Add in rent and utilities, computer, Social "Security" extortion, insurance, etc etc, and 50,000 doesn't seem like it would be anything near enough.
Did you just say that the saleswoman of a mall electronics store was excited about a game coming out for Linux ? *faints*
Heh:)
Well, yes, on all counts.
Women are half (or more) of the population, many humans in countries equipped with them enjoy shopping (or at least browsing) in malls, games are a univeral passtime, and heck -- everybody these days knows that Linux is more fun than Windows!
"What risk would that be? Loki gets paid by the publisher 5 to 6 figures of money. If the game doesn't sell, publisher loses money paid to Loki,
money for duplication, money for advertizing and money for distrubution. Loki wins whether or not the game sells.
Well, even if Loki gets money in advance from the publisher (I don't think that's true in all cases, but it might be in some), the risk I mean is larger -- Scott Draeker could be working in the traditional gaming world like he was a few years ago. So it's a big personal risk that he and any early higher-ups took that the business would succeed... individual programmers at Loki are probably all smart and cool individuals -- I dunno, but I'll give 'em the benefit of the doubt;) -- and could each be working at jobs more assured than working for a company porting existing games to a platform which for years has been derided as inferior for games (at least when it comes to low-level graphics stuff).
I hope for the sake of everyone there that they don't take on ueber-risky projects per se, since I'd like them to be around 5 years from now, but the company itself... those outside the linux community would probably have laughed at the concept a few years ago, but they jumped into the void, to our benefit.
The cool thing is that since Mac OS is based on BSD, and since BSD can generally run Linux apps with a mild amount of tweaking, companies like Loki could see a big jump in their market share by porting to BSD/Mac OS X, with little effort. Theoretically.
I wonder if the similarities would be so great that they'd be able to sell a single box that says "Enclosed is Loki's [GAME X] for Linux, BSD and Macintosh OS X." and enclose system-specific tweaks on the install CD so they can be selected at startup.
Meanwhile, someone buying the Windows version of any of the ported games gets to read "Requires Win9X or 2000. Does not support Windows NT... or any other platform not listed."
(besides the beautiful box!) is that it comes with a copy of SuSE 6.3. It's an "evaluation" version, but fully functional. Doesn't come with support or all the software / docs that the packaged SuSE does.
I bought it yesterday at the local mall's Electronics Botique. The saleswoman said that they don't sell a lot of Linux games, and when asked Why gave the usual (and undertandable) response that... well, there aren't many games, so not many people want to install linux, so not many companies make games, so there aren't many games (repeat). Scott gets into this in the interview. She seemed exciting about Heavy Armor, though.
Loki deserves great success for taking the huge risk of porting the games -- 16 this year?! Woo-hoo! But the Linux games market is really wide, wide open.
I want to see:
- a good submarine game, with bot subs to play against as well as networkable. I like submarine games because they can approach the reality of being in one (not having served in the sub corps myself, so that's mostly my imagination)
- more kids software... graphic alien decapitations would not be my choice for 7 or 8 year olds.
- more learning software, which arguably falls into the games category (at least the best learning software does)... how about a new LokiLearn division?!:)
- More and better driving games. Sounds like at least one is in the works, at least. I want to be able to plug in info from AAA and "test drive" routes to new places. Helpful at the rate I get lost. Again, this is one of the ways in which "games" can be extended into the "real world" in case anyone thinks games aren't part of real life anyhow.
- More abstract / dreamlike games of the MYST variety. MYST actually bugs me, never got into it -- but visually stunning, and doesn't bug me for the reason that many games do, which is the mental disconnect between the actions on screen and the controls. In MYST, of *course* it's disconnected. You pay extra for the confusion;)
One of the (interesting!) comments below is that in Nepal, there are, besides some surprizing dial-up access points, storefronts where email can be used for USD.30 / message.
Another one of the comments points out that only two African countries have more than a 1% penetration.
Combine those ideas... someone is going to make a billion or twelve when they create the McDonalds of Internet service. Cheap, high turnover, standard prices, consistent, no-frills, ubiquitous, requires no huge investment from customer, simple but popular offerings (browse, mail, print). Actually, let's hope it's at least the Subway of Internet service, since that would perhaps be healthier;)
Also, micro-entreprenuers is all it would really take to, say, serve e-mail to a neighborhood.
timothy
p.s. Yes, I read a lot of Horatio Alger, so that particular flame you can hold back;)
vor wrote: "Ha! Obiviously the author never used an iMac Mouse."
(The author humbly admits that the iMac mouse and keyboard have rolled back Apple's purported ergonomic access by several years.)
The first rounded Apple mice (the adb ones) were smooth and sweet, but the current iMac accessories are pretty atrocious.
In my previous job, I used an iMate adaptor to use a real keyboard on my iMac -- a Northgate, same key action as an IBM. If it was only less wide it would be perfect.
I also used a real mouse, at least as real as one-button mice get, through the ADB port on the Northgate.
Like this maybe-Poe cryptograph, though, the Beale has also never been solved, or at least not provably so. Some hunters have said that they located the destination (claiming this or that cave, well, hollow under West-Virginian bar, etc.).
The most convincing report I've heard says that the Beale cipher was intentionally broken. That is, the first two sheets *were* soluble, with some work, but that's only a tease to make the 3rd one that much more frustrating.
And since I haven't solved it, I'm inclined to bitterly agree.:)
I don't think that '.sucks' is a good idea. Using 'sucks' as the highest/lowest insult is juvenile, childish, vulgar and all the rest. I'm certainly guilty of using it myself, but as the old saying goes, "Profanity is the linguistic crutch of the inarticulate."
And ".isnotgreen" has its fullest impact only on those with particular political mindset. I'm sure someone would register Kermit the Frog under that:)
But there surely is a good reason for some new TLDs. For instance, the proposals (now aging in casks in France) to have a domain ".xxx" makes a lot of sense -- if sexually explicit content were categorized under.xxx, it would be easier to block for those who want to block it, and easier to find for those who *don't* want to block it.
".fam" looks like a good idea to me, too -- and I bet it would to the (millions?) of families who use e-mail to keep in contact and the Web to send photos to the distant relatives. I'm in line for "lord.fam":)
"No matter what the header says, in substance, Slashdot is a discussion forum," and a few lines later, "I'm saying what matters is not what is newsworthy, but what is discussion worthy, which development kernel releases are (IMHO)."
Agreed. There is a lot more going on in the world than could possibly be discussed on slashdot, even when you narrow your field with parameters like "must appeal to nerds" and "ought probably apply to technology and its effects." There are sites which better cater to this need. Slashdot tends to list 15-20 stories on the main page each day rather than, say, 115 to 120 stories.:)
Not everyone would agree on what the most important, discussion-worthy, news-worthy events or ideas of the day are -- that much is made brutally clear by slashdot comments, eh? But let's say that Rob and the other authors consider their own interests as well as those of readers and the collaboration generally results in the posting of stories which interest a pretty broad swath of the readership. That, and check-boxes make it hard to complain too much about the news that doesn't fit any particular denomination of nerd-dom.
But 2.4 promises to be a big step, and the steps that lead to dot-4 are interesting. Devfs alone seems to justify the news of the recent kernel changes.
And Win2000? Well, did you see much coverage on the local TV news? Do you know a lot of IT guys who are anxious to switch a middle-size (say, 50-person) business to it prior to the first service pack? It's news, but only in a pretty pre-digested, press-release way. A new Linux kernel is more newsworthy (imho) than win2k in part because the date of release is an MS marketing tool more than it is "news"... and yes, OEMs have had for a while, and beta testers both pro- and con- have had a while to play with it and reported their conclusions both here and elsewhere.
A beak-shaped yellow sticker would be a good match. I'm staring at (well, actually, staring *past*) an ice cream scooper colored and shaped to look like a penguin. I think I got it at Walmart, maybe target. Ridiculously expensive ($12?), but it's a good shape -- that is, it's a good scooper, and right now it's standing up as a little penguin sculpture next to my computer.
If I wasn't the laziest man alive, I would take a photo and link to it. But I am, so I don't.
Now what I need is an ice-cream scoop with a USB port.
Instead of worrying about whether someone will buy products for "the wrong reasons," it seems more sensible to help them see that there are *multiple* reasons to buy products that are flexible and have good licenses, and that price is just one of them.
For instance, if you have three computers at home (and there surely are quite a few of both the Free and non-free types who do), you can morally / legally install GPLed software on all of them. I'll put that in the "better" category.
If you can purchase it for less in the first place, so much the better -- that's what I'll put in the "good" category.
And in the "best" category in my view is that Free licenses (pick yor favorite) allow code to improve and evolve. Elements can be combined, value added, new uses found...
"It may well come off, but the objection seemed to be that people had to pay for Windows to read this data. Well, Rob appears to have a Windows license going spare so that's a non-issue."
Good point. On the other hand, people can / do decide not to do things that are easily possible, or to do things that are more difficult than necessary, for a variety of reasons. It seems a valid point to me if someone says "Even though I have a license, I want to remain pure of MS (or other company's) software because I object to their business practices."
Obviously, not everyone will feel the same way about such situations. We all pick our battles, from Bill Gates to... I dunno, professional athletes and cancer patients. Depends. I don't refuse to work on MS Word at work, though I have pointed out certain advantages of using non-propietary stuff for certain purposes.
But on that VAIO... well, if it has been wiped of Windows, he may just not feel the time to reinstall, twiddle with and deal with Windows generally is worth it, when Linux provides all kinds of twiddling opportunities:)
Actually, the other poster who also replies to this addresses this point with more knowlege than I have on it, and says that it doesn't work on the later (current) Macs, like G3s etc.
is that when this is available in your friendly neighborhood CompUSA, Best Buy, Fry's, or whatever the local equivalent is, a happy situation will have made itself manifest: a customer will be able to choose an operating sytem that works on both PowerMac and x86 hardware.
Remember when (real soon [then]), the Mac OS was going to run on Intel? Remember when Win NT was going to be everyone's multi-platform solution?
Despite announcements and promises by the above-named, a month from now guess which OS Joe Everyman will actually be able to purchase, in real time, in real life? Linux. Interesting that the non-UNIX workalike with dozens of semi-competitive / mostly-friendly distributors manages to pull off that feat of convergence, while centrally planned behemoths faltered in their own giant footsteps.
Someone may knock this down as overrated, since I'm taking advantage of my default-setting here, but I'll take that risk in the interest of interest:)
Anyhow, I followed the link helpfully inserted in this message's parent to blinkenlights and was amused, impressed, informed, delighted. I recommend that you go there for some interesting, thought-provoking trivia. I like the fact that in answering the question posed on this page ("What was the first personal computer?"), the underlying assumptions about what each of those words means are parsed, and the ambiguity inherent in the question is addressed forthrightly. I cannot guarantee that the answer given on this page is the absolute best one, but it seems well-justified. (And surprising, to me, since I'd never heard of their winner before.)
Many of them actually "feature";) big-time surcharges. Well, maybe not *so* big-time, but not fun if you don't realize that you're going to get a hefty bill (often $5-10 / hr.) after you've used it over the course of a month.
This reply makes me hopeful that the original post which started the thread was not actually flamebait.
Perhaps it would more accurate to use the term "free market" rather than "capitalism" -- Linux *is* free market. "Capitalism" is Marx's term for it, and not an entirely accurate one. It implies a worshipful attitude toward money which is possible (but not necessary) in a free economy.
I think the term is often confusing because "Capitalists" can include monks who sell fruitcakes on the internet, speakers whose money comes from remaining popular and in-demand, and anyone else who trades Stuff They Have Or Do for Other People's Stuff, without coercion.
Linus might / might not call himself a "capitalist," and may or may not share your conception of it, but Linux the operating system is the result of a great deal of voluntary, decentralized transactions. Not all monetary, true, but then people can find value in a great variety of things.
However,
The industry of which Gates has been the titular head of [redundant] for years has historically exhibited scant generosity, empathy, or social vision, although recently having discovered the need for better public relations, has begun making some gestures towards charity. [run-on] is clearly a run-on. He uses "has" twice; read it again.
Actually, no, it isn't. The first "has" refers to Gates ("he has been head"), the second to the industry ("the industry has discovered the need").
The phrasing may be awkward, but it's not a run-on sentence. Can't you just uncheck Katz-written articles?:)
(Note: this is not a flame. I agree that editing on/. is a valid concern, I just disagree with what you said here about this piece.)
Slashdot Mirror
Lexis-Nexis.
:)
And the idea of paying $20 a month for super-filtered content is not only reasonable, but it goes on all the time. There are electronic equivalents to old-style clipping services which do nothing but gather, vet, and sort by worth information on topics you want.
Some no-charge search engines employ some variant of this as well, with human experts on particular search categories.
timothy
Amphigory:
I think filtering companies have a right to exist and make money, so long as they don't interfere with the rights of others to enjoy a free flow of information. It's perfectly sensible to employ a vicarious decisionmaker for aspects of life. Some are formal, some aren't -- We read film reviews, we ask friends' advice on cars, we use tips on the radio, maybe we read Consumers' Digest to avoid a lemon television set.
I agree with you that most people would like to be able to avoid certain things -- let's say as a conservative baseline, most people don't want to see child pornography or depictions of bestiality. Most people would not want their children receiving invitations to pornographic Web sites.
But how do you see the "good filter list" you hope for working? You say it is technically possible, but not possible "in a commercial context," and I don't understand what you mean. It seems to me that, unless all Internet access (that is, both viewing and publishing) is subject to approval by some sort of panel, then it would *only* be possible in a commercial context. Filtered ISPs (like Mayberry USA are flourishing, because they provide a more palatable picture of the world, and their subscribers consider this added value. I'm happy with that; if I had children who were using the Internet, I might employ such a service.
But I would employ it, and if I found it to be a nuisance, or intrusive, I could either pick a new one or do all the supervision myself. In other words, I don't want the subjective, by-definition-impossible task of suppressing certain Internet content to be in the hands of the government. You can fire your accountant, you can stop associating with the friend who told you to invest in Laetrile, but generally the government keeps coming back with the same grin and same demand. Censureship, with my approval, vs. censorship without.
Just thoughts,
timothy
Even if it's repackaged iOpeners. Buy 'em for $99, pop in a small drive, sell em for $200. Even $250. That should cover a small drive, and with modest economies of scale, the labor too.
timothy
In that there are shelves full of games of Windows in CompUSA and similar, and in Walmart and target there are display cases for all the major console games in addition to a few boxed software packages.
The store I bought Q-Arena has about 2 feet of shelf for linux stuff, most of which was the OS itself, and just a few games.
Just the same, I bet Loki would *have* to sell far more than 1000 copies just to break even. 1000*$50 = less than the take-home salary of one programmer. Add in rent and utilities, computer, Social "Security" extortion, insurance, etc etc, and 50,000 doesn't seem like it would be anything near enough.
timothy
Did you just say that the saleswoman of a mall electronics store was excited about a game coming out for Linux ? *faints*
Heh:)
Well, yes, on all counts.
Women are half (or more) of the population, many humans in countries equipped with them enjoy shopping (or at least browsing) in malls, games are a univeral passtime, and heck -- everybody these days knows that Linux is more fun than Windows!
timothy
Well, even if Loki gets money in advance from the publisher (I don't think that's true in all cases, but it might be in some), the risk I mean is larger -- Scott Draeker could be working in the traditional gaming world like he was a few years ago. So it's a big personal risk that he and any early higher-ups took that the business would succeed
I hope for the sake of everyone there that they don't take on ueber-risky projects per se, since I'd like them to be around 5 years from now, but the company itself
That's all I meant
timothy
I wonder if the similarities would be so great that they'd be able to sell a single box that says "Enclosed is Loki's [GAME X] for Linux, BSD and Macintosh OS X." and enclose system-specific tweaks on the install CD so they can be selected at startup.
Meanwhile, someone buying the Windows version of any of the ported games gets to read "Requires Win9X or 2000. Does not support Windows NT
Is that a pipe dream?
timothy
(besides the beautiful box!) is that it comes with a copy of SuSE 6.3. It's an "evaluation" version, but fully functional. Doesn't come with support or all the software / docs that the packaged SuSE does.
... well, there aren't many games, so not many people want to install linux, so not many companies make games, so there aren't many games (repeat). Scott gets into this in the interview. She seemed exciting about Heavy Armor, though.
... graphic alien decapitations would not be my choice for 7 or 8 year olds.
... how about a new LokiLearn division?! :)
;)
I bought it yesterday at the local mall's Electronics Botique. The saleswoman said that they don't sell a lot of Linux games, and when asked Why gave the usual (and undertandable) response that
Loki deserves great success for taking the huge risk of porting the games -- 16 this year?! Woo-hoo! But the Linux games market is really wide, wide open.
I want to see:
- a good submarine game, with bot subs to play against as well as networkable. I like submarine games because they can approach the reality of being in one (not having served in the sub corps myself, so that's mostly my imagination)
- more kids software
- more learning software, which arguably falls into the games category (at least the best learning software does)
- More and better driving games. Sounds like at least one is in the works, at least. I want to be able to plug in info from AAA and "test drive" routes to new places. Helpful at the rate I get lost. Again, this is one of the ways in which "games" can be extended into the "real world" in case anyone thinks games aren't part of real life anyhow.
- More abstract / dreamlike games of the MYST variety. MYST actually bugs me, never got into it -- but visually stunning, and doesn't bug me for the reason that many games do, which is the mental disconnect between the actions on screen and the controls. In MYST, of *course* it's disconnected. You pay extra for the confusion
Thanks for the answers, Scott - great read!
just thoughts,
timothy
One of the (interesting!) comments below is that in Nepal, there are, besides some surprizing dial-up access points, storefronts where email can be used for USD.30 / message.
... someone is going to make a billion or twelve when they create the McDonalds of Internet service. Cheap, high turnover, standard prices, consistent, no-frills, ubiquitous, requires no huge investment from customer, simple but popular offerings (browse, mail, print). Actually, let's hope it's at least the Subway of Internet service, since that would perhaps be healthier ;)
Another one of the comments points out that only two African countries have more than a 1% penetration.
Combine those ideas
Also, micro-entreprenuers is all it would really take to, say, serve e-mail to a neighborhood.
timothy
p.s. Yes, I read a lot of Horatio Alger, so that particular flame you can hold back;)
vor wrote: "Ha! Obiviously the author never used an iMac Mouse."
(The author humbly admits that the iMac mouse and keyboard have rolled back Apple's purported ergonomic access by several years.)
The first rounded Apple mice (the adb ones) were smooth and sweet, but the current iMac accessories are pretty atrocious.
In my previous job, I used an iMate adaptor to use a real keyboard on my iMac -- a Northgate, same key action as an IBM. If it was only less wide it would be perfect.
I also used a real mouse, at least as real as one-button mice get, through the ADB port on the Northgate.
timothy
Like this maybe-Poe cryptograph, though, the Beale has also never been solved, or at least not provably so. Some hunters have said that they located the destination (claiming this or that cave, well, hollow under West-Virginian bar, etc.).
The most convincing report I've heard says that the Beale cipher was intentionally broken. That is, the first two sheets *were* soluble, with some work, but that's only a tease to make the 3rd one that much more frustrating.
And since I haven't solved it, I'm inclined to bitterly agree.:)
The Blizzard site says you can get it straight from them, though I don't think it shows up yet on their order page. timothy
... if you can't choose your sysop.
I don't mind terms of service that say "The sysop can read your mail," at least not necessarily. What I'd object to is this as legislative fiat.
timothy
I don't think that '.sucks' is a good idea. Using 'sucks' as the highest/lowest insult is juvenile, childish, vulgar and all the rest. I'm certainly guilty of using it myself, but as the old saying goes, "Profanity is the linguistic crutch of the inarticulate."
:)
.xxx, it would be easier to block for those who want to block it, and easier to find for those who *don't* want to block it.
:)
And ".isnotgreen" has its fullest impact only on those with particular political mindset. I'm sure someone would register Kermit the Frog under that
But there surely is a good reason for some new TLDs. For instance, the proposals (now aging in casks in France) to have a domain ".xxx" makes a lot of sense -- if sexually explicit content were categorized under
".fam" looks like a good idea to me, too -- and I bet it would to the (millions?) of families who use e-mail to keep in contact and the Web to send photos to the distant relatives. I'm in line for "lord.fam"
Just thoughts,
timothy
Agreed. There is a lot more going on in the world than could possibly be discussed on slashdot, even when you narrow your field with parameters like "must appeal to nerds" and "ought probably apply to technology and its effects." There are sites which better cater to this need. Slashdot tends to list 15-20 stories on the main page each day rather than, say, 115 to 120 stories.
Not everyone would agree on what the most important, discussion-worthy, news-worthy events or ideas of the day are -- that much is made brutally clear by slashdot comments, eh? But let's say that Rob and the other authors consider their own interests as well as those of readers and the collaboration generally results in the posting of stories which interest a pretty broad swath of the readership. That, and check-boxes make it hard to complain too much about the news that doesn't fit any particular denomination of nerd-dom.
But 2.4 promises to be a big step, and the steps that lead to dot-4 are interesting. Devfs alone seems to justify the news of the recent kernel changes.
And Win2000? Well, did you see much coverage on the local TV news? Do you know a lot of IT guys who are anxious to switch a middle-size (say, 50-person) business to it prior to the first service pack? It's news, but only in a pretty pre-digested, press-release way. A new Linux kernel is more newsworthy (imho) than win2k in part because the date of release is an MS marketing tool more than it is "news"
just thoughts,
timothy
A beak-shaped yellow sticker would be a good match. I'm staring at (well, actually, staring *past*) an ice cream scooper colored and shaped to look like a penguin. I think I got it at Walmart, maybe target. Ridiculously expensive ($12?), but it's a good shape -- that is, it's a good scooper, and right now it's standing up as a little penguin sculpture next to my computer.
If I wasn't the laziest man alive, I would take a photo and link to it. But I am, so I don't.
Now what I need is an ice-cream scoop with a USB port.
Sorry, my mind is mush.
timothy
Instead of worrying about whether someone will buy products for "the wrong reasons," it seems more sensible to help them see that there are *multiple* reasons to buy products that are flexible and have good licenses, and that price is just one of them.
...
:)
For instance, if you have three computers at home (and there surely are quite a few of both the Free and non-free types who do), you can morally / legally install GPLed software on all of them. I'll put that in the "better" category.
If you can purchase it for less in the first place, so much the better -- that's what I'll put in the "good" category.
And in the "best" category in my view is that Free licenses (pick yor favorite) allow code to improve and evolve. Elements can be combined, value added, new uses found
None are bad, all are good.
Tim
"It may well come off, but the objection seemed to be that people had to pay for Windows to read this data. Well, Rob appears to have a Windows license going spare so that's a non-issue."
... I dunno, professional athletes and cancer patients. Depends. I don't refuse to work on MS Word at work, though I have pointed out certain advantages of using non-propietary stuff for certain purposes.
... well, if it has been wiped of Windows, he may just not feel the time to reinstall, twiddle with and deal with Windows generally is worth it, when Linux provides all kinds of twiddling opportunities:)
Good point. On the other hand, people can / do decide not to do things that are easily possible, or to do things that are more difficult than necessary, for a variety of reasons. It seems a valid point to me if someone says "Even though I have a license, I want to remain pure of MS (or other company's) software because I object to their business practices."
Obviously, not everyone will feel the same way about such situations. We all pick our battles, from Bill Gates to
But on that VAIO
Just thoughts,
timothy
(because Mr. Taco runs Linux on it.)
For all I know, it may *be* just that (set up for dual-boot), but not necessarily. VAIOs may not be sold without windows, but it does come off them;)
timothy
Actually, the other poster who also replies to this addresses this point with more knowlege than I have on it, and says that it doesn't work on the later (current) Macs, like G3s etc.
But in truth, I had forgotten about that.
timothy
is that when this is available in your friendly neighborhood CompUSA, Best Buy, Fry's, or whatever the local equivalent is, a happy situation will have made itself manifest: a customer will be able to choose an operating sytem that works on both PowerMac and x86 hardware.
Remember when (real soon [then]), the Mac OS was going to run on Intel? Remember when Win NT was going to be everyone's multi-platform solution?
Despite announcements and promises by the above-named, a month from now guess which OS Joe Everyman will actually be able to purchase, in real time, in real life? Linux. Interesting that the non-UNIX workalike with dozens of semi-competitive / mostly-friendly distributors manages to pull off that feat of convergence, while centrally planned behemoths faltered in their own giant footsteps.
Just thoughts,
timothy
Someone may knock this down as overrated, since I'm taking advantage of my default-setting here, but I'll take that risk in the interest of interest :)
Anyhow, I followed the link helpfully inserted in this message's parent to blinkenlights and was amused, impressed, informed, delighted. I recommend that you go there for some interesting, thought-provoking trivia. I like the fact that in answering the question posed on this page ("What was the first personal computer?"), the underlying assumptions about what each of those words means are parsed, and the ambiguity inherent in the question is addressed forthrightly. I cannot guarantee that the answer given on this page is the absolute best one, but it seems well-justified. (And surprising, to me, since I'd never heard of their winner before.)
Hope someone else enjoys reading it like I did!
timothy
Many of them actually "feature" ;) big-time surcharges. Well, maybe not *so* big-time, but not fun if you don't realize that you're going to get a hefty bill (often $5-10 / hr.) after you've used it over the course of a month.
timothy
This reply makes me hopeful that the original post which started the thread was not actually flamebait.
Perhaps it would more accurate to use the term "free market" rather than "capitalism" -- Linux *is* free market. "Capitalism" is Marx's term for it, and not an entirely accurate one. It implies a worshipful attitude toward money which is possible (but not necessary) in a free economy.
I think the term is often confusing because "Capitalists" can include monks who sell fruitcakes on the internet, speakers whose money comes from remaining popular and in-demand, and anyone else who trades Stuff They Have Or Do for Other People's Stuff, without coercion.
Linus might / might not call himself a "capitalist," and may or may not share your conception of it, but Linux the operating system is the result of a great deal of voluntary, decentralized transactions. Not all monetary, true, but then people can find value in a great variety of things.
Just thoughts,
timothy
Actually, no, it isn't. The first "has" refers to Gates ("he has been head"), the second to the industry ("the industry has discovered the need").
The phrasing may be awkward, but it's not a run-on sentence. Can't you just uncheck Katz-written articles?
(Note: this is not a flame. I agree that editing on
timothy