But I think this is really not a good name. Lindows may be a combination of names, but it sounds like a knockoff of Windows. If you saw brand of foam toys called "Norf", would you think it was trying to succeed on its own or that it was a knockoff of Nerf?
Likewise, this name on the shelves makes Lindows, and in turn Linux, sound like a knockoff of Windows, because it is directly comparing itself to Windows. Some people already have trouble grasping that the Mac OS and Linux (if they've heard of it) aren't kinds of Windows.
I wonder if this product being on the shelves in Wal-Mart (among lots of non-techies) will do good or harm. Hopefully it won't damage the Linux name.
Much less time with a point of sale PC (not necessarily Linux though) than on a Mac. You could probably go to a nearby store and get most of the software to do this stuff and install it all taking a couple of hours.
Suddenly we're not talking about a POS $400 box then, are we? You start getting into the range of brand new low end Macs if you go much higher at all.
And you may say that theoretically this is possible, but in practice getting any of this stuff to work is going to be easier on a Mac 9 times out of 10.
"I would rather hire a lawyer. Most importantly, 95% of the general public would do the same."
What is the point of the analogy. How does it fit the close to 95% who get PCs instead of Macs?
You are comparing different things than me. You are comparing all PCs to all Macs, which is like comparing a cheaper lawyer to a high quality lawyer (or something). I was responding to someone saying they could do all these things with a POS $400 self-assembled PC. And I figured that since it was only $400, this was going to have to be a Linux machine. So now we have the situation of making all the hardware work, and the software, and compatibility of software, etc. And a very small percentage of people are interested in doing this.
With the Mac, chances are you will drive much farther, or give up on that and have to wait days for mail order.
As opposed to spending days making the PC work right? And then spending time throughout the life of the computer to keep things working?
Do you know how much time it would take for a non-techie to get all this stuff to work on a POS $400 Linux machine? A very long time, and for most, it would *never* be accomplished. The extra $300 for a bottom of the line Mac that could do all of this, without breaking, and with higher quality hardware and software is WORTH IT.
Here's an analogy: If I needed to sue somebody, the cheapest route would be to act as my own lawyer. There's pretty much nothing important that the lawyer could do that I technically could not do. But I don't want to spend time trying to understand the whole legal system, and then reading through documents and presenting my case. I would rather hire a lawyer. Most importantly, 95% of the general public would do the same.
Personally I think PCs will always be cheaper than Macs (especially for the hobbyist).
Yes, if tinkering with your computer is the point of the computer, then a PC is much better for you. But for the other 90% of people who use the computer as a tool for something else, and who don't want to build their computer from scratch, the Mac is a better option.
Think about things like oil changes and car tune-ups. It might be cheaper to do it yourself, but a good number of people will take their car in to the shop because it is faster, easier, and will be done right.
the defense is arguing that P2P doesn't even have the potential to cost them anything
Well, maybe some foolish folks are, but certainly I never said that. Sure P2P has the potential to cost them. It also may very well not.
There are a lot of things that could potentially happen, or not.
So all I'm saying is, let's see what the heck happens before we react to it!
What the music industry is really doing IMO, is trying to have control over the situation, it has little to do with keeping their "fair" revenues. By getting a stranglehold on the whole process, then if MP3s have a big effect that is bad, they can squeeze a little tighter and try to choke it. But if MP3s have a beneficial effect on the market, they can get the maximum benefits from this new aspect to the industry.
I don't want them to have control over this, because I don't feel they play fair when they have the upper hand.
Maybe. Or maybe it's just like NYC traffic. You have to try to cut off the car in front of the car you actually want to get behind.
That's an interesting point. But I think some of the other things that they do indicate they really are trying to cut off both cars, if that makes sense. Hard to ever really know for sure, though.
Yes, but if all the RIAA wanted was that, then they should be happy now, right? I mean, we agree it currently is an inconvenience. So... why are they still raving just as much or more? It's because they want to go beyond that, beyond what I think is fair.
My examples were not meant as direct counter-arguments, they were only ideas that show how there are a lot of factors involved.
Yes, normally the entertainment industry doesn't get hurt in a recession like other industries. But don't forget that there had not been this kind of attack on American soil since the civil war in the mid 1800s. Don't forget that CD prices are actually continuing to rise.
My point was there are a bunch of factors, and there are a bunch more that I didn't mention.
So saying that there was a 5% drop in music sales, or however much, doesn't mean anything. It is not even an argument in favor of the idea that MP3s are hurting the industry. Perhaps, with everything else going on, the fact that there is only a 5% drop is an argument that this isn't the case (like what was stated in the article).
I'm not saying my ideas prove things, I'm saying that the record sales data really aren't that simple, whether they are intended to prove anything or not.
CD-Rs are much cheaper than CDs, and if you use an audio-CD-R then it's legal for you to burn the copy.
And building your own computer is much cheaper than just buying a standard model from Gateway... yet most people don't bother. You may say that creating a CD from downloaded MP3s from start to finish is much easier, but remember that you are posting to Slashdot.
but there is a different type of evidence: in 1999, Music sales were up 10% in the us, and there wasn't WIDESPREAD piracy. In 2001, for the first time ever, CD sales were down, (by 5%) and the reduction in growth rate only dates to 2000, as pirating began to gain popularity. ... Of course, in reality, piracy increases music sales, industry is good for the environment, and smoking is good for your health, so this is all irrelevant.
Of course, everything is black and white and nothing is complicated. So when the music sales went down in 2001, of course the first recession in years after a long economic boom and a drop in the quality of music, as well as people getting increasingly pissed at the music industry couldn't have had anything to do with any of this. It's obvious what was the real cause. No reason to even consider the possibility of anything else.
I'm really curious, because to me it seems completely irrational to donate your money to the company who makes the plasticware when you don't want the plasticware to begin with.
There's your flaw. Isn't it obvious? Some people want the CD. Why? You can hold the CD. It has cover art and liner notes. It has the whole album as the artist (theoretically) wants it. It is in full quality, and can be copied to MP3s if desired. A person can build their CD collection (people enjoy this). You can just go out and buy the CD and listen to it, you don't have to search for it and wait to download it and burn it.
Nobody is donating anything. Many people find these reasons good enough to buy music from their favorite artists. I doubt that even 1% of people who buy CDs based on MP3s they downloaded are doing so for any sort of "moral" or guilt reasons.
I'm sick and tired of people arguing that this doesn't hurt sales. But while I believe it hurts sales, I don't believe it hurts them as much as the Record companies have been saying.
I haven't bought more than 2 or 3 CD's in the last 3 years. I have downloaded probably 1000 or more mp3 files in that same time period. But this does NOT mean that I would have bought those files had I not downloaded them. I may have bought 10 or 12, but not all of them.
Well, then that proves it!
What if I said that the time when I was buying the most CDs was during and right up until the end of Napster? I used to download songs from all sorts of different artists... songs I had heard at one time and liked, people I was always meaning to get into but never got around to it, etc. And I ended up having a constant flow of new CDs coming in from CDNow. When Napster died then I didn't feel like finding a new service, and then I went down to 56k. I didn't buy any CDs up until a couple weeks ago. And I just got broadband a month ago. Whaddya know?
What the heck is going on? My story is totally different. We have some sort of paradox!
Or...
Maybe a single person's anecdote is worth absolutely nothing as far as proving or disproving the MP3 situation. Maybe you really don't know whether music sales are really hurting or not. Yes, there might be certain instances where you would have bought a CD, but downloaded an MP3. Then there is another instance where the MP3 leads to a download. Nobody knows if this evens out, or perhaps even causes more CD sales. You just don't know, ok?
What we do know is that the music industry execs are currently still filthy rich, and if they remain filthy rich, then I'm not really interested in finding out if they could have possibly been 5% richer and filthier if only there weren't MP3s.
I bet they just won't mention them. Hmmm, on second thought, maybe they'll follow Episode II's tactic.
Preview of Episode III:
"I killed them... every last one of them! And not just the male Jedi... but the women... and the children too! They're animals and I slaughtered them like animals!"
Yoda being diplomatic to Queen Amidala when she shows up for the first time. I don't know what, exactly, the line he said was, but it was lame, and didn't deserve screen time. What they should've done, instead, was have him hit on her.... Yeah, you heard me, hit on her. This is the same Yoda who stole Luke's flashlight, and couldn't help but tease him repeatedly when he first met him, after all..
Think about how different the circumstances were in the two scenes you are comparing. In Ep. II, Yoda is a top member of the Jedi council. In Ep. V, all the Jedi have been killed and the few that weren't had to hide in the corners of the galaxy. No other sentient creatures around. How much of a chance does he get to enjoy himself or laugh? So when Luke comes he wants him to stay around and whatnot. Makes perfect sense. It doesn't make much sense, however, if he acted that way as a top member of the Jedi council. How the hell did he get there? By being really good at the force? What about Qui-Gon? Didn't his behavior keep him from getting a place on the council?
the scene with Yoda and the little kids was insanely embarrassing. It had one purpose, and one purpose only; to relate to the audience that Obiwan got permission from Yoda to visit the cloner's planet.
To me, it had other purposes, like showing early Jedi training. We know that at some point in the teen years a Jedi is taken as a Padawan learner. What about before then? How does Jedi instruction work? It shows how Yoda taught Jedi in classes. Maybe this wasn't the most crucial moment on which the entire plot hinged. It was showing a character, and fleshing out the universe, and frankly, putting in touches like that is what makes a movie like Episode II, with an epic universe and tons of back stories, really enjoyable.
Yoda's fight scene sucked. This is definitely not the same Yoda that we see later on in eps. 5&6. Sure, he hops around in the later movies, but seriously... athletic prowess is not Yoda's strong suit.
Yoda never even fights at all in Episodes V and VI so we don't know how he fights until now. In any case, do you think Yoda's athletic prowess made him able to jump like that, or was it perhaps... the Force? The fact that he hobbles away on his cane directly after the fight was to make it very clear that Yoda's abilities come from the Force, and not because of his race or athleticism or anything like that.
he should've just been able to stand there and defend against attacks like a kendo master.
But he's not a kendo master, or an Aikido master, or a fencing master, etc. He's a Jedi master. All bets are off.
Yoda's "average" expression, and the rest of the jedi council's' too, never changed once through the entire movie.
What about the Jedi teachings about how your emotions betray you and whatnot. This was a crucial time and they needed to not let their emotions get in the way. Contrast that with Anakin's super-emotional behavior, and we can see how he started the path to the dark side. Later, when Yoda lives on Dagobah, he's a changed Yoda. He is a bit jaded about some things. He didn't even want to train Luke and bring about another Jedi.
However, the fruit scene? Stupid! It had a purpose-- to show that Anakin used the Force for frivolous things. But this could have been done so much better by using real pieces of fruit instead of CG ones. Why couldn't they have used the magic of cutting to a closeup of Padme when she actually takes a bite, so that she didn't have to bite CG fruit? Who knows. Plus, the point with the fruit was already shown when he made that ball levitate while Padme was packing.
Just because they can build a city on computer, it doesn't mean they should.
How about: just because some people (like you) think a CGI city looks fake, doesn't mean these guys should instead shut down a major city.
The movie industry people need to get over themselves. Besides, one big thing that shows creativity and talent is working with what you have to make something amazing. Not throwing enough money at people that you get to borrow a whole city.
Slashdot Mirror
Ha! Good point!
mark
Yeah, but the "walking" part is what keeps him from winning one.
mark
Why don't they just alleviate the confusion by calling it by its real name, "Doku Doku Panic"?
mark
But I think this is really not a good name. Lindows may be a combination of names, but it sounds like a knockoff of Windows. If you saw brand of foam toys called "Norf", would you think it was trying to succeed on its own or that it was a knockoff of Nerf?
Likewise, this name on the shelves makes Lindows, and in turn Linux, sound like a knockoff of Windows, because it is directly comparing itself to Windows. Some people already have trouble grasping that the Mac OS and Linux (if they've heard of it) aren't kinds of Windows.
I wonder if this product being on the shelves in Wal-Mart (among lots of non-techies) will do good or harm. Hopefully it won't damage the Linux name.
mark
Oh yes, how foolish of me. I didn't remember that study. Everybody's set.
mark
Suddenly we're not talking about a POS $400 box then, are we? You start getting into the range of brand new low end Macs if you go much higher at all.
And you may say that theoretically this is possible, but in practice getting any of this stuff to work is going to be easier on a Mac 9 times out of 10.
You are comparing different things than me. You are comparing all PCs to all Macs, which is like comparing a cheaper lawyer to a high quality lawyer (or something). I was responding to someone saying they could do all these things with a POS $400 self-assembled PC. And I figured that since it was only $400, this was going to have to be a Linux machine. So now we have the situation of making all the hardware work, and the software, and compatibility of software, etc. And a very small percentage of people are interested in doing this.
As opposed to spending days making the PC work right? And then spending time throughout the life of the computer to keep things working?
mark
Do you know how much time it would take for a non-techie to get all this stuff to work on a POS $400 Linux machine? A very long time, and for most, it would *never* be accomplished. The extra $300 for a bottom of the line Mac that could do all of this, without breaking, and with higher quality hardware and software is WORTH IT.
Here's an analogy: If I needed to sue somebody, the cheapest route would be to act as my own lawyer. There's pretty much nothing important that the lawyer could do that I technically could not do. But I don't want to spend time trying to understand the whole legal system, and then reading through documents and presenting my case. I would rather hire a lawyer. Most importantly, 95% of the general public would do the same.
Do you follow me?
mark
Yes, if tinkering with your computer is the point of the computer, then a PC is much better for you. But for the other 90% of people who use the computer as a tool for something else, and who don't want to build their computer from scratch, the Mac is a better option.
Think about things like oil changes and car tune-ups. It might be cheaper to do it yourself, but a good number of people will take their car in to the shop because it is faster, easier, and will be done right.
mark
Well, maybe some foolish folks are, but certainly I never said that. Sure P2P has the potential to cost them. It also may very well not.
There are a lot of things that could potentially happen, or not.
So all I'm saying is, let's see what the heck happens before we react to it!
What the music industry is really doing IMO, is trying to have control over the situation, it has little to do with keeping their "fair" revenues. By getting a stranglehold on the whole process, then if MP3s have a big effect that is bad, they can squeeze a little tighter and try to choke it. But if MP3s have a beneficial effect on the market, they can get the maximum benefits from this new aspect to the industry.
I don't want them to have control over this, because I don't feel they play fair when they have the upper hand.
mark
That's an interesting point. But I think some of the other things that they do indicate they really are trying to cut off both cars, if that makes sense. Hard to ever really know for sure, though.
mark
I was also saying that most people don't bother building their own machines. Don't we agree here?
mark
Yes, but if all the RIAA wanted was that, then they should be happy now, right? I mean, we agree it currently is an inconvenience. So... why are they still raving just as much or more? It's because they want to go beyond that, beyond what I think is fair.
mark
My examples were not meant as direct counter-arguments, they were only ideas that show how there are a lot of factors involved.
Yes, normally the entertainment industry doesn't get hurt in a recession like other industries. But don't forget that there had not been this kind of attack on American soil since the civil war in the mid 1800s. Don't forget that CD prices are actually continuing to rise.
My point was there are a bunch of factors, and there are a bunch more that I didn't mention.
So saying that there was a 5% drop in music sales, or however much, doesn't mean anything. It is not even an argument in favor of the idea that MP3s are hurting the industry. Perhaps, with everything else going on, the fact that there is only a 5% drop is an argument that this isn't the case (like what was stated in the article).
I'm not saying my ideas prove things, I'm saying that the record sales data really aren't that simple, whether they are intended to prove anything or not.
mark
And building your own computer is much cheaper than just buying a standard model from Gateway... yet most people don't bother. You may say that creating a CD from downloaded MP3s from start to finish is much easier, but remember that you are posting to Slashdot.
mark
I guess he meant stability rather than balance?
Of course, everything is black and white and nothing is complicated. So when the music sales went down in 2001, of course the first recession in years after a long economic boom and a drop in the quality of music, as well as people getting increasingly pissed at the music industry couldn't have had anything to do with any of this. It's obvious what was the real cause. No reason to even consider the possibility of anything else.
mark
There's your flaw. Isn't it obvious? Some people want the CD. Why? You can hold the CD. It has cover art and liner notes. It has the whole album as the artist (theoretically) wants it. It is in full quality, and can be copied to MP3s if desired. A person can build their CD collection (people enjoy this). You can just go out and buy the CD and listen to it, you don't have to search for it and wait to download it and burn it.
Nobody is donating anything. Many people find these reasons good enough to buy music from their favorite artists. I doubt that even 1% of people who buy CDs based on MP3s they downloaded are doing so for any sort of "moral" or guilt reasons.
mark
Well, then that proves it!
What if I said that the time when I was buying the most CDs was during and right up until the end of Napster? I used to download songs from all sorts of different artists... songs I had heard at one time and liked, people I was always meaning to get into but never got around to it, etc. And I ended up having a constant flow of new CDs coming in from CDNow. When Napster died then I didn't feel like finding a new service, and then I went down to 56k. I didn't buy any CDs up until a couple weeks ago. And I just got broadband a month ago. Whaddya know?
What the heck is going on? My story is totally different. We have some sort of paradox!
Or...
Maybe a single person's anecdote is worth absolutely nothing as far as proving or disproving the MP3 situation. Maybe you really don't know whether music sales are really hurting or not. Yes, there might be certain instances where you would have bought a CD, but downloaded an MP3. Then there is another instance where the MP3 leads to a download. Nobody knows if this evens out, or perhaps even causes more CD sales. You just don't know, ok?
What we do know is that the music industry execs are currently still filthy rich, and if they remain filthy rich, then I'm not really interested in finding out if they could have possibly been 5% richer and filthier if only there weren't MP3s.
mark
I bet they just won't mention them. Hmmm, on second thought, maybe they'll follow Episode II's tactic.
Preview of Episode III:
"I killed them... every last one of them! And not just the male Jedi... but the women... and the children too! They're animals and I slaughtered them like animals!"
mark
You rule. Thank you for saying that.
And especially excellent was throwing in "butt-munch". You made my day.
mark
Think about how different the circumstances were in the two scenes you are comparing. In Ep. II, Yoda is a top member of the Jedi council. In Ep. V, all the Jedi have been killed and the few that weren't had to hide in the corners of the galaxy. No other sentient creatures around. How much of a chance does he get to enjoy himself or laugh? So when Luke comes he wants him to stay around and whatnot. Makes perfect sense. It doesn't make much sense, however, if he acted that way as a top member of the Jedi council. How the hell did he get there? By being really good at the force? What about Qui-Gon? Didn't his behavior keep him from getting a place on the council?
To me, it had other purposes, like showing early Jedi training. We know that at some point in the teen years a Jedi is taken as a Padawan learner. What about before then? How does Jedi instruction work? It shows how Yoda taught Jedi in classes. Maybe this wasn't the most crucial moment on which the entire plot hinged. It was showing a character, and fleshing out the universe, and frankly, putting in touches like that is what makes a movie like Episode II, with an epic universe and tons of back stories, really enjoyable.
Yoda never even fights at all in Episodes V and VI so we don't know how he fights until now. In any case, do you think Yoda's athletic prowess made him able to jump like that, or was it perhaps... the Force? The fact that he hobbles away on his cane directly after the fight was to make it very clear that Yoda's abilities come from the Force, and not because of his race or athleticism or anything like that.
But he's not a kendo master, or an Aikido master, or a fencing master, etc. He's a Jedi master. All bets are off.
What about the Jedi teachings about how your emotions betray you and whatnot. This was a crucial time and they needed to not let their emotions get in the way. Contrast that with Anakin's super-emotional behavior, and we can see how he started the path to the dark side. Later, when Yoda lives on Dagobah, he's a changed Yoda. He is a bit jaded about some things. He didn't even want to train Luke and bring about another Jedi.
However, the fruit scene? Stupid! It had a purpose-- to show that Anakin used the Force for frivolous things. But this could have been done so much better by using real pieces of fruit instead of CG ones. Why couldn't they have used the magic of cutting to a closeup of Padme when she actually takes a bite, so that she didn't have to bite CG fruit? Who knows. Plus, the point with the fruit was already shown when he made that ball levitate while Padme was packing.
Oh well.
mark
Spoken like a true anonymous coward.
He's probably also wondering when Apple is going to port OS X to Intel hardware.
mark
How about: just because some people (like you) think a CGI city looks fake, doesn't mean these guys should instead shut down a major city.
The movie industry people need to get over themselves. Besides, one big thing that shows creativity and talent is working with what you have to make something amazing. Not throwing enough money at people that you get to borrow a whole city.
mark
Isn't that what computers are for?
Did the Star Wars crew not create entire cities?
mark