It's my understanding that Linux supports more hardware than any OS, but a lot of that hardware is pretty specific-use stuff that no consumer is interested in. Most consumer hardware has vendor-written drivers for windows at time of release and Linux gains support later.
Windows does have the edge in consumer hardware, but with the exception of high end 3D video acceleration, Linux has excellent support for at least one major player in each consumer hardware category (which is why Linux is now a real contender).
Whether or not *you* benefit from the technology is of little consequence to the person who's buying it.
If your job can be more economically done by someone or something else, you're going to lose your job one way or another (either you get fired and replaced, or your employer is driven out of business by someone more economically savvy).
Perhaps I used the wrong word. What I meant was that as long as you're speaking about standards compliance in a general way (not comparing specific standards or examining a specific set of standard elements), Firefox is probably the most standards compliant browser currently available.
I agree that once you start comparing specific standards or parts of standards, Firefox may, in fact, do worse compliance-wise than other browsers...that was kind of the point of my original post.
There is no browser out there that is 100% compliant with all the standards that describe web content.
One of the primary goals behind Firefox/Gecko is standards compliance and, as far as I know, Firefox is the most compliant browser out there, categorically speaking. The problem is that there are several standards (and several versions of each standard) and each standard is large enough that they have to be implemented piecemeal. Each browser team prioritizes what they think are the most important elements of each standard and implement them accordingly (presumably also implementing the easier elements as opportunity allows even if they're not important). Since each dev team has slightly different priorities (and each architecture has its own set of low hanging elements), a browser that is mostly compliant might not implement standard elements that a less compliant browser has.
If each dev team continues to work on standards compliance, eventually all browsers will be 100% compliant (that assumes that standards are not released faster than dev teams can catch up...sadly, this is not what history predicts). Realistically, some teams will never implement edge cases unless a big public relations fuss is made (like Acid 2 compliance).
So take heart that your beloved Firefox is doing better than most other browsers out there. However, make as much fuss about it as you can so that the dev teams stay focused.
Wow, that sucks. Is there some way to give store owners an incentive to send video feeds off-site so that they don't actually have access to the tapes?
Even if the tape isn't there to prosecute the offender, it is likely that it will still prevent some number of offenses (would you trust your boss to hide evidence for you?).
Could you please explain how you think GPL3 fails in the four goals? I don't see it.
DRM: GPL3 code is explicitly not covered by DMCA and therefore is legal to circumvent.
patents: already implicitly included in GPL2, now explicitly included in GPL3.
tivoization: did they remove this requirement?
trap deals: forbids new deals, but grandfathers in old deals that might have been made in "good faith". Always a good idea to avoid making people "criminals" after the fact.
Strategically, RMS has never wavered. However, he's very good at recognizing when tactical changes (which I believe this to be) are appropriate to achieving his strategic goal (which remains unchanged).
In the grand scheme of things, I don't think it matters one way or another whether the grandfather clause remains part of GPL3 or not. If RMS sees it the same way, then by allowing it, it disallows similar agreements in the future, but appears merciful to those who previously made agreements in "good faith" (we'll give them the benefit of the doubt here, just for argument's sake). Mercy is never a bad thing if it doesn't sabotage your strategic goals.
Yeah, it's pretty realistic. The hardware won't need to change, just the firmware. As long as the hardware vendor supplies compliant firmware, it should be easy to push out.
The latest statistics that I've seen is that google has slightly more than 50% of the market, google uk has about 9% and google canada has about 3%. All together, that's less than 70% of the market.
The thing your missing is that most people don't consider switching until they've already decided the replace their current machine. At that point, spending the $$$ for a Mac isn't really any different from spending the $$$ on a new Windows box except that with the Mac, there's the chance that they may not be as frustrated with the OS as they are with the current machine. If if doesn't work out, then they can simply load windows on their Mac and they're no worse off (except that they've explicitly paid for windows...but it seems to be a price they're willing to pay for the chance to get away from windows).
People who are savvy enough to know that they can migrate their current machine to Linux aren't really the people that MS is afraid of leaving (they've already lost them or kept them, depending).
What many commentators miss is that you're free to install your one copy of Vista in a VM, Microsoft can't stop you from doing that. The EULA (poorly worded as it is) only restricts (or permits) running multiple virtualized copies from the one license.
Can anyone corroborate this?
Or, even better, is the EULA available online somewhere where I could verify this statement for myself?
Wow. I wonder if there's a place around Memphis, TN that will do that. I'm going to need to get a laptop in the next couple of months, but haven't found any linux-targetted laptops that I've liked. I hadn't thought of getting one custom built.
Gentoo allows packages to have "slotted" versions. For example, I've got 3 different versions of python installed currently and seven different versions of automake. Many libraries have slots, but the slot resolution depends on the judgment of whomever wrote the ebuilds (I think).
Robert Anton Wilson wrote a short little thing in his Schoedinger's Cat trilogy about stenciling "Cocaine Importers, LTD" or something similar on the side of a delivery van and seeing how the cops respond. It was amusing.
Slashdot Mirror
It's my understanding that Linux supports more hardware than any OS, but a lot of that hardware is pretty specific-use stuff that no consumer is interested in. Most consumer hardware has vendor-written drivers for windows at time of release and Linux gains support later.
Windows does have the edge in consumer hardware, but with the exception of high end 3D video acceleration, Linux has excellent support for at least one major player in each consumer hardware category (which is why Linux is now a real contender).
Fnord.
(Sorry. I'm reading the book right now and it couldn't resist)
Regardless of the opinions they hold, most people simply don't think.
Whether or not *you* benefit from the technology is of little consequence to the person who's buying it.
If your job can be more economically done by someone or something else, you're going to lose your job one way or another (either you get fired and replaced, or your employer is driven out of business by someone more economically savvy).
Perhaps I used the wrong word. What I meant was that as long as you're speaking about standards compliance in a general way (not comparing specific standards or examining a specific set of standard elements), Firefox is probably the most standards compliant browser currently available.
I agree that once you start comparing specific standards or parts of standards, Firefox may, in fact, do worse compliance-wise than other browsers...that was kind of the point of my original post.
There is no browser out there that is 100% compliant with all the standards that describe web content.
One of the primary goals behind Firefox/Gecko is standards compliance and, as far as I know, Firefox is the most compliant browser out there, categorically speaking. The problem is that there are several standards (and several versions of each standard) and each standard is large enough that they have to be implemented piecemeal. Each browser team prioritizes what they think are the most important elements of each standard and implement them accordingly (presumably also implementing the easier elements as opportunity allows even if they're not important). Since each dev team has slightly different priorities (and each architecture has its own set of low hanging elements), a browser that is mostly compliant might not implement standard elements that a less compliant browser has.
If each dev team continues to work on standards compliance, eventually all browsers will be 100% compliant (that assumes that standards are not released faster than dev teams can catch up...sadly, this is not what history predicts). Realistically, some teams will never implement edge cases unless a big public relations fuss is made (like Acid 2 compliance).
So take heart that your beloved Firefox is doing better than most other browsers out there. However, make as much fuss about it as you can so that the dev teams stay focused.
County, not Country.
A county is a portion of a state.
Wow, that sucks. Is there some way to give store owners an incentive to send video feeds off-site so that they don't actually have access to the tapes?
Flush your buffers and it won't matter if the program seg faults.
Alternatively, load the core dump into gdb (I prefer the printf's though).
Even if the tape isn't there to prosecute the offender, it is likely that it will still prevent some number of offenses (would you trust your boss to hide evidence for you?).
That sounds like a win to me.
Could you please explain how you think GPL3 fails in the four goals? I don't see it.
DRM: GPL3 code is explicitly not covered by DMCA and therefore is legal to circumvent.
patents: already implicitly included in GPL2, now explicitly included in GPL3.
tivoization: did they remove this requirement?
trap deals: forbids new deals, but grandfathers in old deals that might have been made in "good faith". Always a good idea to avoid making people "criminals" after the fact.
Strategically, RMS has never wavered. However, he's very good at recognizing when tactical changes (which I believe this to be) are appropriate to achieving his strategic goal (which remains unchanged).
In the grand scheme of things, I don't think it matters one way or another whether the grandfather clause remains part of GPL3 or not. If RMS sees it the same way, then by allowing it, it disallows similar agreements in the future, but appears merciful to those who previously made agreements in "good faith" (we'll give them the benefit of the doubt here, just for argument's sake). Mercy is never a bad thing if it doesn't sabotage your strategic goals.
Yeah, it's pretty realistic. The hardware won't need to change, just the firmware. As long as the hardware vendor supplies compliant firmware, it should be easy to push out.
What is a virtual monopoly?
The latest statistics that I've seen is that google has slightly more than 50% of the market, google uk has about 9% and google canada has about 3%. All together, that's less than 70% of the market.
What the hell are people actually using a printer for these days?
Anytime I have a reference that I want to mark up (annotations, highlight passages, add postits, etc), I print it.
I'd love to save the trees, but I've never found electronic documentation to be as convenient as having a hardcopy version.
The thing your missing is that most people don't consider switching until they've already decided the replace their current machine. At that point, spending the $$$ for a Mac isn't really any different from spending the $$$ on a new Windows box except that with the Mac, there's the chance that they may not be as frustrated with the OS as they are with the current machine. If if doesn't work out, then they can simply load windows on their Mac and they're no worse off (except that they've explicitly paid for windows...but it seems to be a price they're willing to pay for the chance to get away from windows).
People who are savvy enough to know that they can migrate their current machine to Linux aren't really the people that MS is afraid of leaving (they've already lost them or kept them, depending).
What many commentators miss is that you're free to install your one copy of Vista in a VM, Microsoft can't stop you from doing that. The EULA (poorly worded as it is) only restricts (or permits) running multiple virtualized copies from the one license.
Can anyone corroborate this?
Or, even better, is the EULA available online somewhere where I could verify this statement for myself?
Google, at least as far as I'm aware, competes on merits.
Are there any counter examples that I should be aware of?
Wow. I wonder if there's a place around Memphis, TN that will do that. I'm going to need to get a laptop in the next couple of months, but haven't found any linux-targetted laptops that I've liked. I hadn't thought of getting one custom built.
Does your local shop sell "blank" laptops?
The submitter was trying to buy a laptop. Not a workstation.
The Ubuntu Dell machines have hardware selected with Linux support in mind.
Is that true of their "No OS" machines?
Will Dell ever release the sales figures for the Ubuntu models?
I'm guessing not.
system76 is affordable but too young to be considered bankable
Could you please elaborate on the above statement? I'm not sure what you're trying to say.
Gentoo allows packages to have "slotted" versions. For example, I've got 3 different versions of python installed currently and seven different versions of automake. Many libraries have slots, but the slot resolution depends on the judgment of whomever wrote the ebuilds (I think).
Robert Anton Wilson wrote a short little thing in his Schoedinger's Cat trilogy about stenciling "Cocaine Importers, LTD" or something similar on the side of a delivery van and seeing how the cops respond. It was amusing.