I *AM* a hobbyist. Starting with a Color Computer over 20 years ago (Radio Shacks version of the Commode Door 64) my "hobby" now includes the biggest and fastest hardware available -- not some crap that was outdated 15 years ago.
Maybe for a small company, there's no significant cost difference between Linux and Windows. But in big companies the cost is enormous. My company, for example has over 7000 people. Do the math. You can easily spend half a million dollars just putting a copy of Windows on every desktop.
The stupidest state in the country starts to show some intelligence. Bicycles are banned from sidewalks in virtually every city in the US and with good reason -- a hunk of metal travelling at 12-15mph can inflict a lot of damage on human flesh.
This is not a matter of liberal vs conservative or rich vs poor. It's purely a matter of common sense. The Segway is not only a stupid idea, it has no place on sidewalks.
Mandrake is one of the better Linux distributions for the non-Geek, but their business model makes no sense. (This applies to all Linux distributions, but I'll use Mandrake as an example since that's what the story is about). What exactly do they sell? What is their business?
You get a CD full of programs (Linux Kernel, KDE, Gnome, Mozilla, etc., etc., etc.) -- 99.9% of which Mandrake didn't create!
In other words, Mandrake's entire business model revolves around putting together a collection of software written by other people, creating a nifty install program, and then trying to sell it.
Not only does this NOT sound like a business that people would want to invest in, but more importantly, their bankruptcy calls into question their business sense.
How much does it cost them to obtain the software they distribute? (not much, it's mostly free)
How many people does it take to write an install program and design a CD package? (not many)
How can you have thousands (tens of thousands?) of subscribers, paying $xx per year, and go bankrupt?
Mandrake is just another manifestation of the dot-bomb mentality -- trying to make money out of nothing and employing way too many people to do it.
When someone starts out by claiming "the information you provided misled your readers" there's little hope of getting any honest answers. Rather than offer himself as a "Slashdot interview victim", Mr. AMI Sales Engineer should have simply presented us with an explanation of:
What are AMI's plans and intentions
Why do they think we need or want this
How many consumers who use AMI products are actually asking for this "feature".
This movie was posted to some usenet binaries groups a few weeks ago as "an un-aired Star Trek pilot". Some comments:
>>>Actually doing something is hard.
No, doing something *GOOD* is hard. Doing something that blows is easy.
>>>More than once I've heard people say something like "wouldn't it be cool to build some cheap sets and make our own episode of (Star Trek, Star Wars, X-Files, My Mother the Car)
You hang around with some very wierd people. No sane person would say that and really mean it.
>>>The people who made it have a lot of love for their subject matter, and put a lot of work into the little details
This is Star Trek, not Shakespeare. A "love for the subject matter" is not something to be proud of.
>>>and as special effects go, still beats the heck out of that "lava monster"
Yes, the original Trek sucked and had cheezy sets and crappy special effects. Duplicating stuff that sucks is not a great feat.
This place is always full of posts about how greedy and evil the MPAA/RIAA are. And you're right -- the MPAA/RIAA are quite possibly the greediest, evilest scumbags in history.
So why is it that every time Hollywood turns out some more lame crap (LoTR, Back to the Future DVD set, etc) everybody here can't wait to rush right out and pump more $$ into the pockets of the MPAA.
I've been trying to escape from The Evil Empire since 1995. While Microsoft was in the midst of a $200 million ad campaign for Windows 95, I went out and bought OS/2. Then I tried BeOs and then Linux. The result has always been the same:
If you are regular person, and not a computer geek, then Windows is far superior in every area except cost. I've tried to convert to Linux a couple of times but keep running into the same problem -- Using Linux means having to settle for less than what I currently have with Windows.
Lack of software: Linux fails the "Best Buy" test. When you need a specific piece of software, you can't walk into Best Buy and buy it. Spending hours searching the Internet for software and then downloading and installing dozens of packages to see which one (if any) do what you need is strictly for uber-geeks with way too much free time on their hands.
The Gimp is good but it's not Photoshop. Open Office is good, but it's not Microsoft Office. I've tried both and they are 80-90% as good as their well known commercial counterparts. The problem is that missing 10-20% contains some features I really need.
Poor hardware support: There are no Linux drivers for my scanner and video card. (The video card works under Linux but there is no Linux driver that supports the TV-Out function - a feature that I need.) Switching to Linux means settling for less than what I already have -- or chucking perfectly good hardware and buying new.
Hardware support under Linux has gotten better over the years but is still greatly lacking. Very few mainstream hardware vendors provide Linux drivers and so you have to hope and pray that somewhere out there a Linux Geek will write a driver for your hardware.
Functionality and Ease of use: Linux has made great strides in this area over the past couple of years but is still inferior to Windows for the average non-geek.
Right click on the desktop and change your screen resoution. Linux? Nope - you have to jump thru hoops. Ever notice how people are always complaining that a particular Linux program has really ugly fonts? Ever notice that you never hear that complaint from Windows users? That's because the WIndows GUI is actually part of the OS, not a third part application.
I have a small home network (2 computers) that need to share files and printers. With Linux I could never find anyone who could give me a clear, easy to understand explanation how to share files and printers between a Linux machine and a Windows machine. With Windows 2000 and XP, sharing files and printers is easy and virtually automatic, no help needed.
Which brings me to the biggest reasons why Linux is inferior to Windows for the average person:
1. The basic architecture of Linux.
Linux was never intended to be a mass-market consumer OS. It was designed by geeks, for geeks. You can slap a third party GUI on top of the linux kernel and make if fairly "windows-like" but it does nothing to changes the underlying problems with Linux.
Compare your typical Linux installation with directories called "bin", "dev", "etc", "user" to your typical Windows installation where your operating system's files are in a directory called "Windows", critical system files are in a directory called "system" and applications are typically in a directory call "program files". This may seem trivial, but it says a lot the mindset of the Linux Geek.
2. The Linux Geeks don't get it. All Windows programs use a standard method of installing software. Click on a program called "setup.exe" and off you go. The software is installed and all the necessary system configuration is taken care of automagically.
Linux Geeks refuse to acknowlege the logic and simplicity of this method and refuse to develope soemthing similar for Linux. Instead, when you bring this up they always say the same exact thing:
Installing software on Linux couldn't be easier -- all you have to do is: Become root (huh? more geek speak that the average person can't relate to) Type blarg blarg blarg -x/z27 0=n/e=mc2 Then edit all your blarg files and include this line: blarg blarg blah blah/x/y/z/Linus is god
The average person wants simplicity and they want stuff that works without a lot of messing around. Open Souce advocates often say "buying propietary software is like buying a car with the hood welded shut". This is a classic example that the Linux Geeks just don't get it. As far as I'm concerned, the hood of my car might as well be welded shut because there's nothing in there that I want to mess with.
If you like to compile kernels and mess with source code, that's great. But don't tell me that I'm lazy and stupid because I have no desire to be an auto mechanic.
Joe Barr is an all-too-typical example of the Linux Zealot. When I wrote a rebuttal to his biased piece of crap he merely dismissed every point as "wrong" or "insane" without a single fact to refute my statements.
is a total dickwad. I have never seen such a biased and unfair piece of crap.
I dislike Microsoft as much as the next guy, but Windows 2000 and Windows XP Pro are fast and easy to install. Unless of course you deliberately choose some bizaare installation scheme that you know with be slower than shit in january.
Slashdot Mirror
I *AM* a hobbyist. Starting with a Color Computer over 20 years ago (Radio Shacks version of the Commode Door 64) my "hobby" now includes the biggest and fastest hardware available -- not some crap that was outdated 15 years ago.
The only reason the Scud hit the army barracks was because it was "shot down" by a US Patriot missle.
32 kg of water is approx 1.75 gallons (U.S.). A small amount.
Maybe for a small company, there's no significant cost difference between Linux and Windows. But in big companies the cost is enormous. My company, for example has over 7000 people. Do the math. You can easily spend half a million dollars just putting a copy of Windows on every desktop.
Where can I buy one of these handheld things and will the peephole function work when I want to watch my hot female neighbor getting dressed?
The stupidest state in the country starts to show some intelligence. Bicycles are banned from sidewalks in virtually every city in the US and with good reason -- a hunk of metal travelling at 12-15mph can inflict a lot of damage on human flesh.
This is not a matter of liberal vs conservative or rich vs poor. It's purely a matter of common sense.
The Segway is not only a stupid idea, it has no place on sidewalks.
Mandrake is one of the better Linux distributions for the non-Geek, but their business model makes no sense. (This applies to all Linux distributions, but I'll use Mandrake as an example since that's what the story is about). What exactly do they sell? What is their business?
You get a CD full of programs (Linux Kernel, KDE, Gnome, Mozilla, etc., etc., etc.) -- 99.9% of which Mandrake didn't create!
In other words, Mandrake's entire business model revolves around putting together a collection of software written by other people, creating a nifty install program, and then trying to sell it.
Not only does this NOT sound like a business that people would want to invest in, but more importantly, their bankruptcy calls into question their business sense.
How much does it cost them to obtain the software they distribute? (not much, it's mostly free)
How many people does it take to write an install program and design a CD package? (not many)
How can you have thousands (tens of thousands?) of subscribers, paying $xx per year, and go bankrupt?
Mandrake is just another manifestation of the dot-bomb mentality -- trying to make money out of nothing and employing way too many people to do it.
When someone starts out by claiming "the information you provided misled your readers" there's little hope of getting any honest answers. Rather than offer himself as a "Slashdot interview victim", Mr. AMI Sales Engineer should have simply presented us with an explanation of:
What are AMI's plans and intentions
Why do they think we need or want this
How many consumers who use AMI products are actually asking for this "feature".
This movie was posted to some usenet binaries groups a few weeks ago as "an un-aired Star Trek pilot". Some comments:
>>>Actually doing something is hard.
No, doing something *GOOD* is hard. Doing something that blows is easy.
>>>More than once I've heard people say something like "wouldn't it be cool to build some cheap sets and make our own episode of (Star Trek, Star Wars, X-Files, My Mother the Car)
You hang around with some very wierd people. No sane person would say that and really mean it.
>>>The people who made it have a lot of love for their subject matter, and put a lot of work into the little details
This is Star Trek, not Shakespeare. A "love for the subject matter" is not something to be proud of.
>>>and as special effects go, still beats the heck out of that "lava monster"
Yes, the original Trek sucked and had cheezy sets and crappy special effects. Duplicating stuff that sucks is not a great feat.
I loved the original Star Trek --- when I was 12.
30 years later, I'm old enough to know better.
And still selling half the performance at twice the price.
This place is always full of posts about how greedy and evil the MPAA/RIAA are. And you're right -- the MPAA/RIAA are quite possibly the greediest, evilest scumbags in history.
So why is it that every time Hollywood turns out some more lame crap (LoTR, Back to the Future DVD set, etc) everybody here can't wait to rush right out and pump more $$ into the pockets of the MPAA.
"I tend to like shows more intelligent then 'Survivor' "
But not intelligent enough to know the difference between 'then' and 'than'.
Yes. I was born in this country. That makes me a Native American.
If you were not, then kindly leave and do not come back. Problem solved.
I've been trying to escape from The Evil Empire since 1995. While Microsoft was in the midst of a $200 million ad campaign for Windows 95, I went out and bought OS/2. Then I tried BeOs and then Linux. The result has always been the same:
/z27 0=n /e=mc2 /x /y /z /Linus is god
If you are regular person, and not a computer geek, then Windows is far superior in every area except cost. I've tried to convert to Linux a couple of times but keep running into the same problem -- Using Linux means having to settle for less than what I currently have with Windows.
Lack of software: Linux fails the "Best Buy" test. When you need a specific piece of software, you can't walk into Best Buy and buy it. Spending hours searching the Internet for software and then downloading and installing dozens of packages to see which one (if any) do what you need is strictly for uber-geeks with way too much free time on their hands.
The Gimp is good but it's not Photoshop. Open Office is good, but it's not Microsoft Office. I've tried both and they are 80-90% as good as their well known commercial counterparts. The problem is that missing 10-20% contains some features I really need.
Poor hardware support: There are no Linux drivers for my scanner and video card. (The video card works under Linux but there is no Linux driver that supports the TV-Out function - a feature that I need.) Switching to Linux means settling for less than what I already have -- or chucking perfectly good hardware and buying new.
Hardware support under Linux has gotten better over the years but is still greatly lacking. Very few mainstream hardware vendors provide Linux drivers and so you have to hope and pray that somewhere out there a Linux Geek will write a driver for your hardware.
Functionality and Ease of use: Linux has made great strides in this area over the past couple of years but is still inferior to Windows for the average non-geek.
Right click on the desktop and change your screen resoution. Linux? Nope - you have to jump thru hoops. Ever notice how people are always complaining that a particular Linux program has really ugly fonts? Ever notice that you never hear that complaint from Windows users? That's because the WIndows GUI is actually part of the OS, not a third part application.
I have a small home network (2 computers) that need to share files and printers. With Linux I could never find anyone who could give me a clear, easy to understand explanation how to share files and printers between a Linux machine and a Windows machine. With Windows 2000 and XP, sharing files and printers is easy and virtually automatic, no help needed.
Which brings me to the biggest reasons why Linux is inferior to Windows for the average person:
1. The basic architecture of Linux.
Linux was never intended to be a mass-market consumer OS. It was designed by geeks, for geeks.
You can slap a third party GUI on top of the linux kernel and make if fairly "windows-like" but it does nothing to changes the underlying problems with Linux.
Compare your typical Linux installation with directories called "bin", "dev", "etc", "user" to your typical Windows installation where your operating system's files are in a directory called "Windows", critical system files are in a directory called "system" and applications are typically in a directory call "program files". This may seem trivial, but it says a lot the mindset of the Linux Geek.
2. The Linux Geeks don't get it.
All Windows programs use a standard method of installing software. Click on a program called "setup.exe" and off you go. The software is installed and all the necessary system configuration is taken care of automagically.
Linux Geeks refuse to acknowlege the logic and simplicity of this method and refuse to develope soemthing similar for Linux. Instead, when you bring this up they always say the same exact thing:
Installing software on Linux couldn't be easier -- all you have to do is:
Become root (huh? more geek speak that the average person can't relate to)
Type blarg blarg blarg -x
Then edit all your blarg files and include this line: blarg blarg blah blah
The average person wants simplicity and they want stuff that works without a lot of messing around. Open Souce advocates often say "buying propietary software is like buying a car with the hood welded shut". This is a classic example that the Linux Geeks just don't get it. As far as I'm concerned, the hood of my car might as well be welded shut because there's nothing in there that I want to mess with.
If you like to compile kernels and mess with source code, that's great. But don't tell me that I'm lazy and stupid because I have no desire to be an auto mechanic.
"this sets a very bad precident for protecting consumers from crap like popups and excessive adverts"
Wrong. You can "protect" yourself very easily. Don't visit the offending website.
(must be used within 30 days of signing up)
Isn't Vint Cerf the head of ICANN, the corrupt bunch of scumbags in charge of domain names?
PrintShop isn't free, but you use it. Why must a Linux program be free?
This attitude explains why there are so few Linux versions of software.
1. Release obscure OS that nobody cares about
2. ?????
3. Profit!!
1. Make your computers do less for a higher price
2. ????
3. Profit!!!
1. Water
2. Salt
3. Energy
4. ??????
5. Profit!!!!
1. Spend $100,000 on software
2. ?????
3. Profit!
that all 6 people who use Macs really like "Jaguar"
Joe Barr is an all-too-typical example of the Linux Zealot. When I wrote a rebuttal to his biased piece of crap he merely dismissed every point as "wrong" or "insane" without a single fact to refute my statements.
is a total dickwad. I have never seen such a biased and unfair piece of crap.
I dislike Microsoft as much as the next guy, but Windows 2000 and Windows XP Pro are fast and easy to install. Unless of course you deliberately choose some bizaare installation scheme that you know with be slower than shit in january.