Are you implying that the CD version of the album is basically just the vinyl mastering put on a CD? Please. There is almost always additional mastering and production work put into the audio before the CD is pressed. Why do you feel entitled to a higher quality version of the recording simply because you bought a lower quality version years ago? There aren't many products that guarantee you free upgrades in quality until the end of time and music is no exception.
Here in the lab for instance, many of my colleagues have been releasing their scientific papers onto Kazaa instead of through more established journals such as 'new scientist'. Because p2p is such an efficient way of sharing information(hence why it is so good for pirating mp3s) this means that the work we are doing can be shared with scientists all over the world simultanously and for free. We can also get feedback on our theories from other kazaa users.
Couldn't you have just posted the papers on a web page? You'd have the ability to make a better searching/indexing system for the papers and I dare say it would be a bit more convenient than searching around on Kazaa. Sharing papers on Kazaa seems a bit pointless. What's that you say about bandwidth consumption if you use a web page? Would it really be that much (how big are these papers anyway)? Would it really waste more bandwidth than the usual large amount sucked down by simply connecting to the average P2P server?
The only problem is that some scientists have misused the system and are trading papers that have come from other scientists without their consent.
Nobody is really saying that. I'd be more than happy to be able to take my old LPs down to the store and trade them in for new media and pay ONLY for the new media, not re-pay for the content. What's the real cost of manufacturing a cd or dvd?
You're assuming that the CD version is the exact same as the vinyl version, that is, the masters used for the CD are the exact same as the masters used for the vinyl. In most (all?) cases the audio has been restored, remastered, etc. to get it up to the standards consumers expect given the advances in recording technology over the past 20 or 30 years. In that respect, the content is indeed different since it took additional work to bring it to the level of quality necessary for a remastering. Just because the media may have the same songs on it is irrelevant... they are two different versions of the same product.
I mean, if I recorded some music ten years ago and it sounds a little scratchy and the vocals sound kinda washed out and I sold a tape to you would you expect me to give you a brand new, digitally remastered and restored copy of the music on CD for little more than the cost of the CD itself if I happened to make one? True, they still contain the same music, but you bought a license to the original, low-quality version of the music and what I'm intending to sell is a higher quality version of the music that I've put additional work into.
The way I see it, when you buy music in any format, be it 8-track, record, CD, or cassette, you are buying not only the media, but a lifelong "license" per se to have in your possession a copy of that song in any media. You already gave a record label their cut for buying the song, so you shouldn't have to buy it over and over again. It's basically the same as copying your CDs so that you have a backup if the CD breaks/deteriorates. As long as you have the original container that held the media, you should be able to prove, basically, that you once paid for the right to have the songs.
Not necessarily. You bought the license to the (for instance), vinyl version of the music, not the CD version. There are likely quality differences between the two versions (most likely, the CD version is a remastered version of the vinyl). That's like saying "hey, I bought the VHS version of a movie, so I'm entitled to the DVD version now!" You're talking about having access to free upgrades in quality until you die simply because you paid for the music once. While that would be nice, I don't think they ever intended the business model to work that way... very few products work that way, in fact.
And, I think, the problem with downloading MP3s as your "backup" for your vinyl/tapes/etc. is that you can't be sure the MP3 was ripped from the particular media version of the music you own.
Brilliant idea! That'll make copying magazines even easier, no need to photograph the pages! I can't believe it, but someone has found a way to rip off yet another industry!
Uh, you're exactly the kind of person he was talking about. Normally, we browse to read an article or so, to get a feel for the magazine. You wanted to read the entire goddamn magazine without paying for it, hence the problem shopkeepers had with you.
Ah the timeless "but there's no choice in a standard!" argument. I'd say Java's standard library is very advantageous. The beauty of it is that you can take Java sources and provided you are working with a compatible SDK/compiler version, it'll "just work". if the library is available for all compliant implementations/platforms. With C++'s "competing libraries" on the other hand, you don't have any guarantees with respect to the abilities of the libraries or that the libraries will be available for the platform in the first place. Plus, it's not a given that you can compile some C++ sources because you have to download all extra libraries (provided they exist for your platform!), compile them (and make sure it actually succeeds) and THEN compile your sources. With Java, if your implementation is complete, you've got the standard libraries right there. No screwing around. And Java's standard library is not "tied tightly" to the language, it's just shipped with it, to give you a guarantee that at least you HAVE that library available to you. And you can always use third party libraries if you want.
There is, indeed, a standard library for C++, one which is widely supported - STL.
I don't think that's what he meant by a "standard library". He's thinking along the lines of Java's standard library -- a standard library that gives you graphics classes, networking classes, XML parser classes, GUI classes, etc. You know, the kind of stuff that would be convenient to have bundled with a language. STL is a standard library full of basic data types like linked lists and hash tables. Big whoop.
Closed source is driven by timeframes, customer requests and profitability. It's not done as a labour of love. Hence quality will always take second place to it-works-but-its-a-kludge
Generalize much? The fact of the matter is that closed source software is driven by the harsh realities of the real world: namely, that people like to be compensated for their work. If I were to create a webserver that worked exactly the same as Apache (but developed it independently of Apache and never looked at the source) but sold it for a profit, does that somehow make it an inferior product where quality has taken a back seat to "making it work"? You're drawing a line between "good" software and "bad" software solely based on whether or not the source is open.
I think what a lot of Slashdotters forget about closed vs. open source software is that in most open source projects the number of significant contributors (i.e., people who do more than submit fixes for typos or very minor tweaks -- you know, the people who really drive the development) is roughly the same size as the number of team members on the average closed source project, meaning that roughly the same amount of work gets accomplished by both kinds of projects. Also, who's to say that closed source developers don't take any pride in their work? They're doing what they love to do -- code -- and they have a vested interest in doing a good job so they can continue to do things like, I don't know, feed their families and put a roof over their heads.
I think, as usual, I'm hearing the words of someone who hasn't worked on a closed source project before.
That doesn't include those expensive sports packages, "adult channels", pay-per-view, etc. My theory is that if someone is ripping off the satellite company, they're gonna go all the way.
Well, it's not so far off. If you're descrambling stuff, are you going to descramble just the basic service or go ahead and descramble every single thing you possibly can since it would require minimal effort? Remember, if you get the basic service plus twenty HBOs plus thirteen Cinemaxes plus all those "season pass" sports channels etc. you're easily going to run a hefty bill whether or not you're actually watching the stuff.
Three million people, twelve months in a year. That makes for thirty-six million monthly payments. Roughly $100 per month per person descrambling. That's about right considering it's about $40-50 per month flat and if you add in premium channels, pay-per-view, etc. it could reach/exceed that $100/month figure (after all, are you just going to unscramble basic service or the whole damn thing while you're at it?).
No, I don't work for Microsoft. Did it ever occur to you that some people don't mindlessly bash operating systems, give them a chance, and come to realize their strengths and weaknesses? I wouldn't expect Windows to be able to function properly 100% of the time every single time one motherboard is swapped for an arbitrary one any more than I'd expect it to be able to handle hot-swapping two IDE hard drives. You couldn't make the same expectations of Linux either.
It's funny though. You think MS crashing when a mobo was swapped out is sad (mine did just fine, of course), and I think Linux not being able to support many popular pieces of hardware is sad.
That's a hardware issue, not a Windows issue. Perhaps you didn't uninstall old drivers for hardware that existed on the old motherboard first and when you booted up an invalid hardware access was made. Who knows? Would you be slamming Linux is Linux had a kernel panic and Windows booted up properly? Somehow I doubt it.
So, what exactly does Windows enable the Army to do that Linux cannot that justifies them spending a king's ransom on it?
New Windows machines running the same basic software that existing machines use can be effortlessly integrated into the existing set of Windows computers because all that Microsoft software, proprietary though it may be, can talk to each other. Also, there's no need to retrain anyone, hire new Linux admins, or worry about unexpected SNAFUs that may occur because the Linux equivalents of Microsoft software can't do everything the MS software can.
Also, there's the satisfaction of knowing that MS at the very least has experience handling big customers. Do you really think Redhat has the experience necessary to provide support for the US Army? Have they ever had a customer anywhere near that big?
Otherwise, you have given up hope on anything non-MS. How will proponents of an alternate, opposing viewpoint ever be heard?
If practicality is the bottom line and the "opposing viewpoint" does not offer the needed practicality, does it really matter if they're heard or not? If they can't meet the needs of the guy writing the check they're not going to get the contract, no matter how many times they yell "but Linux is superior!"
As for your experience with windows, I'd have to say that you haven't had enough experience.
I beg to differ. As someone who's been using Windows since the 3.1 days, I'd say I'm a pretty reasonable judge of how stable or secure Windows is since I've seen it through many iterations.
Regardless of the applied use of these desktops, call me an alarmist, but I would want it far more secure than anything I've seen on windows.
Windows can be just as secure as Linux, you just have to be selective about the software you're running and what you do with the machine. The same is true of Linux. What, you thought you could just take an out-of-the-box Linux install and be good to go? Come on.
First, as many other people have pointed out, these machines aren't being used in "life or death" situations, they're for normal desktop stuff. Did it ever occur to any of you that perhaps Windows does indeed provide a better desktop experience than your average Linux distro? Heresy, I know. Nothing could possibly be better than Linux. And BTW, for those of you repeating those tired "BSOD" jokes: have you used a version of Windows past 98 or what? Win2K and XP are pretty damn stable. A BSOD on either of them is about as likely as a kernel panic in Linux. Get over it, it's time to retire those BSOD jokes.
Second, unless any of you have any real experience with the costs associated with outfitting an entity as large as the US Army with computers, I don't think you're qualified to make assumptions about how Linux "obviously" would've saved 50-90% of the cost. There's a saying in business that when you have people bidding on a contract you throw away the top N% (because they're ripping you off) and the bottom N% (lowballers -- they're obviously underestimating the cost of the job and are under-experienced) and pick among the people in the middle. Hmm, where do you think someone like Redhat would show up relative to other bidders? Furthermore, what makes you think that the Army didn't rule out Redhat (or whatever other "Linux support" company) primarily because they have shown NO history of being able to handle customers with needs as large as the Army? When was Redhat's last $470 million contract, hmm? Don't assume that they'd be up to the job of support just because MS can do it and anything MS can do Linux can do better.
I mean really guys, come on. Don't let your seething hatred of MS blind you to realities of the situation. Maybe, just maybe, with all things considered MS was the better choice.
Wait, I'm confused. All I hear on Slashdot is that hardly ANYONE would pirate movies/music/software if they were just priced reasonably, you could try them before you buy, and they provided good entertainment value (because there will reach a point when it's less of a hassle to buy than download). It stands to reason then that a game like Doom would hardly be pirated at all because Slashdot downloader types are benevolent souls who will gladly fork over the money for a superior product. Oh I almost forgot, iD is/was an "indie" company and not a heartless mega corporation, so that means their stuff definitely shouldn't be pirated because all the money will go to the team, not some fat-cat CEO types.
Yet oddly, the game was still pirated. Stranger still, these same Slashdotters railing against the RIAA are pirating good, affordable music put out by indie labels. Makes you think.
I think what he means is that if shareware "worked", no one would pirate the full version of the software (after all, you got your wish -- try before you buy). However, history has shown us that just about EVERY shareware program has been pirated (excuse me, "shared") heavily. Take Doom, for instance. It was an undeniably great game (so there goes the "most music/movies/software are crap, that's why I download" argument), you got to play 1/3 of it for free (so there goes the "I can't try before I buy" argument), and the price was reasonable ($30? I can't remember). Despite all of this, Doom was pirated. Extensively. You can still find illegitimate copies of this ten year old game floating around. Doom was not an exception in shareware, it was the norm. Despite "try before you buy", reasonable pricing, and great entertainment value, numerous shareware games (and utilities) were/are pirated. From that angle, shareware did/does not work. This also backs up claims that downloaders do it not for "righteous" reasons but rather that they can get something for free that they'd otherwise have to pay for.
Re:Like it or not, managers default to commercial
on
What is Open Source?
·
· Score: 1
Yup, they'll probably be able to fix it. But they won't fix it immediately. Instead, they'll say that's a "known issue" which should be solved by the next version, which will be out in a month. In the meantime, you can work around it by doing something clunky which you had figured out already.
I see this misconception a lot from OSS advocates, this whole notion that the only support you'll get from commerical software is "wait until the next release". Either you work with very poor companies or you have no experience working in a professional environment. We rely on software from a large corporation and when we have a problem we talk to the team itself, and they have always been very prompt and responsive to our needs. It is not unheard of to get custom builds of another group's software that addresses your particular problem. If you have to settle for this "wait until the point release" crap, you're working with the wrong people.
It's far easier to get support, meaning, to get help solving your problems with most open source stuff than it is with closed stuff, period.
Ever had to call microsoft?
No, because generally any software contract worth its cost will give you a contact, usually the project lead himself. You don't call "big corporation XYZ" if you've got a problem, you talk to "John Smith", the guy who oversaw the development of the software you're shelling out for. I think this is one of the biggest misconceptions OSS advocates have about how closed source projects work.
If you read the article, you'll see that about two paragraphs are devoted to the "Mom Test" (which they conclude that she passed). Basically the "Mom Test" involved her watching a Lindows tutorial, clicking on the "start" menu, and launching OpenOffice. Color me unimpressed. Perhaps they should have extended the "Mom Test" to cover a week or two of normal usage. See how she reacts when she can't open those cute e-mail attachment programs (no, not VIRUSES) that her friends forward to each other. See how she reacts when she brings home the label-making software she bought that won't install under Linux. See how she reacts when the webcam she bought so she can send "video emails" to her family members won't work because Linux doesn't have drivers for it.
Somehow, I think the results of the "Mom Test" will be a little different under those circumstances.
Re:Like it or not, managers default to commercial
on
What is Open Source?
·
· Score: 1
This point does have merit, but I suppose you're talking about problems with small to mid sized companies. Big ones (Like Microsoft, IBM, Novell, etc.) aren't going to fix your problems any time soon; they have so many customers, unless you're a big-shot (who can spend the $$$ to fix it yourself), they won't care. Have you had the pleasure of paying money for an incident to report a bug to MS?:)
You're probably not familiar with how this normally works. If you license a product from IBM or MS it's not like all your communications go from the very top down to the bottom and they simply dump a product on your lap and leave you alone. You are generally (always?) given a contact with the team lead(s) and have a way to contact the people who coded the software itself. To say that licensing from a big corporation means your concerns won't be heard unless you are also a big corporation is pretty much dead wrong.
No, but truth be told, most OSS developers aren't working on their projects because they're told to or are being paid. They do it because their projects are their babies.
Typically, problems reported are fixed in relatively short order because: 1) you've likely, in the process of debugging your own software or tools, have isolated the problem to a specific area and pattern and 2) OSS folks almost always use the software they write themselves. That's usually why they write it in the first place.
Again, open source developers don't have a business relationship with you, so they don't have any real incentive to be attentive to your needs. They don't have to fix anything. There are many developers who may just flat out refuse to alter the way their program works, even if it's minor thing, because "it's their baby".
We're working with software from a big company and we've requested numerous times for changes in the behavior of their software that would allow it to better integrate with our software. You know what? They've been very receptive to it and have always gotten back to us concerning problems very quickly. Hell, we've even sent them changes we've made to their code at times. Sure, they don't have to let us do any of that, but then again, we don't have to continue to pay them either. That gives them incentive to provide the best service they can. With open source, you don't necessarily get that.
Re:Like it or not, managers default to commercial
on
What is Open Source?
·
· Score: 1
Employ "a" developer for "most" of the large projects? Buddy, if you're buying support for a software package you want the whole team at your disposal. After all, the money you're paying go towards ensuring that the development team as a whole is responsive to your needs, not just one guy.
Re:Like it or not, managers default to commercial
on
What is Open Source?
·
· Score: 1
Going to the maintainer or a major developer for the project and saying "hey, I have this problem and will pay you $x to fix it" would probably be plenty of leverage on an OS project, and would probably still be cheaper than the CS solution, and likely eliminates the need to be an asshole about it.
You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.
The "fix the damn thing" attitude is not meant to be taken literally. Project members don't speak to other project members like that. However, to the group whose services you're paying for, it is certainly weighing on their mind that sub-par performance will not result in renewed contracts in the future.
Slashdot Mirror
Are you implying that the CD version of the album is basically just the vinyl mastering put on a CD? Please. There is almost always additional mastering and production work put into the audio before the CD is pressed. Why do you feel entitled to a higher quality version of the recording simply because you bought a lower quality version years ago? There aren't many products that guarantee you free upgrades in quality until the end of time and music is no exception.
Here in the lab for instance, many of my colleagues have been releasing their scientific papers onto Kazaa instead of through more established journals such as 'new scientist'. Because p2p is such an efficient way of sharing information(hence why it is so good for pirating mp3s) this means that the work we are doing can be shared with scientists all over the world simultanously and for free. We can also get feedback on our theories from other kazaa users.
Couldn't you have just posted the papers on a web page? You'd have the ability to make a better searching/indexing system for the papers and I dare say it would be a bit more convenient than searching around on Kazaa. Sharing papers on Kazaa seems a bit pointless. What's that you say about bandwidth consumption if you use a web page? Would it really be that much (how big are these papers anyway)? Would it really waste more bandwidth than the usual large amount sucked down by simply connecting to the average P2P server?
The only problem is that some scientists have misused the system and are trading papers that have come from other scientists without their consent.
This speaks for itself.
Nobody is really saying that. I'd be more than happy to be able to take my old LPs down to the store and trade them in for new media and pay ONLY for the new media, not re-pay for the content. What's the real cost of manufacturing a cd or dvd?
You're assuming that the CD version is the exact same as the vinyl version, that is, the masters used for the CD are the exact same as the masters used for the vinyl. In most (all?) cases the audio has been restored, remastered, etc. to get it up to the standards consumers expect given the advances in recording technology over the past 20 or 30 years. In that respect, the content is indeed different since it took additional work to bring it to the level of quality necessary for a remastering. Just because the media may have the same songs on it is irrelevant... they are two different versions of the same product.
I mean, if I recorded some music ten years ago and it sounds a little scratchy and the vocals sound kinda washed out and I sold a tape to you would you expect me to give you a brand new, digitally remastered and restored copy of the music on CD for little more than the cost of the CD itself if I happened to make one? True, they still contain the same music, but you bought a license to the original, low-quality version of the music and what I'm intending to sell is a higher quality version of the music that I've put additional work into.
The way I see it, when you buy music in any format, be it 8-track, record, CD, or cassette, you are buying not only the media, but a lifelong "license" per se to have in your possession a copy of that song in any media. You already gave a record label their cut for buying the song, so you shouldn't have to buy it over and over again. It's basically the same as copying your CDs so that you have a backup if the CD breaks/deteriorates. As long as you have the original container that held the media, you should be able to prove, basically, that you once paid for the right to have the songs.
Not necessarily. You bought the license to the (for instance), vinyl version of the music, not the CD version. There are likely quality differences between the two versions (most likely, the CD version is a remastered version of the vinyl). That's like saying "hey, I bought the VHS version of a movie, so I'm entitled to the DVD version now!" You're talking about having access to free upgrades in quality until you die simply because you paid for the music once. While that would be nice, I don't think they ever intended the business model to work that way... very few products work that way, in fact.
And, I think, the problem with downloading MP3s as your "backup" for your vinyl/tapes/etc. is that you can't be sure the MP3 was ripped from the particular media version of the music you own.
Brilliant idea! That'll make copying magazines even easier, no need to photograph the pages! I can't believe it, but someone has found a way to rip off yet another industry!
Uh, you're exactly the kind of person he was talking about. Normally, we browse to read an article or so, to get a feel for the magazine. You wanted to read the entire goddamn magazine without paying for it, hence the problem shopkeepers had with you.
Ah the timeless "but there's no choice in a standard!" argument. I'd say Java's standard library is very advantageous. The beauty of it is that you can take Java sources and provided you are working with a compatible SDK/compiler version, it'll "just work". if the library is available for all compliant implementations/platforms. With C++'s "competing libraries" on the other hand, you don't have any guarantees with respect to the abilities of the libraries or that the libraries will be available for the platform in the first place. Plus, it's not a given that you can compile some C++ sources because you have to download all extra libraries (provided they exist for your platform!), compile them (and make sure it actually succeeds) and THEN compile your sources. With Java, if your implementation is complete, you've got the standard libraries right there. No screwing around. And Java's standard library is not "tied tightly" to the language, it's just shipped with it, to give you a guarantee that at least you HAVE that library available to you. And you can always use third party libraries if you want.
There is, indeed, a standard library for C++, one which is widely supported - STL.
I don't think that's what he meant by a "standard library". He's thinking along the lines of Java's standard library -- a standard library that gives you graphics classes, networking classes, XML parser classes, GUI classes, etc. You know, the kind of stuff that would be convenient to have bundled with a language. STL is a standard library full of basic data types like linked lists and hash tables. Big whoop.
Closed source is driven by timeframes, customer requests and profitability. It's not done as a labour of love. Hence quality will always take second place to it-works-but-its-a-kludge
Generalize much? The fact of the matter is that closed source software is driven by the harsh realities of the real world: namely, that people like to be compensated for their work. If I were to create a webserver that worked exactly the same as Apache (but developed it independently of Apache and never looked at the source) but sold it for a profit, does that somehow make it an inferior product where quality has taken a back seat to "making it work"? You're drawing a line between "good" software and "bad" software solely based on whether or not the source is open.
I think what a lot of Slashdotters forget about closed vs. open source software is that in most open source projects the number of significant contributors (i.e., people who do more than submit fixes for typos or very minor tweaks -- you know, the people who really drive the development) is roughly the same size as the number of team members on the average closed source project, meaning that roughly the same amount of work gets accomplished by both kinds of projects. Also, who's to say that closed source developers don't take any pride in their work? They're doing what they love to do -- code -- and they have a vested interest in doing a good job so they can continue to do things like, I don't know, feed their families and put a roof over their heads.
I think, as usual, I'm hearing the words of someone who hasn't worked on a closed source project before.
That doesn't include those expensive sports packages, "adult channels", pay-per-view, etc. My theory is that if someone is ripping off the satellite company, they're gonna go all the way.
Well, it's not so far off. If you're descrambling stuff, are you going to descramble just the basic service or go ahead and descramble every single thing you possibly can since it would require minimal effort? Remember, if you get the basic service plus twenty HBOs plus thirteen Cinemaxes plus all those "season pass" sports channels etc. you're easily going to run a hefty bill whether or not you're actually watching the stuff.
Three million people, twelve months in a year. That makes for thirty-six million monthly payments. Roughly $100 per month per person descrambling. That's about right considering it's about $40-50 per month flat and if you add in premium channels, pay-per-view, etc. it could reach/exceed that $100/month figure (after all, are you just going to unscramble basic service or the whole damn thing while you're at it?).
No, I don't work for Microsoft. Did it ever occur to you that some people don't mindlessly bash operating systems, give them a chance, and come to realize their strengths and weaknesses? I wouldn't expect Windows to be able to function properly 100% of the time every single time one motherboard is swapped for an arbitrary one any more than I'd expect it to be able to handle hot-swapping two IDE hard drives. You couldn't make the same expectations of Linux either.
It's funny though. You think MS crashing when a mobo was swapped out is sad (mine did just fine, of course), and I think Linux not being able to support many popular pieces of hardware is sad.
That's a hardware issue, not a Windows issue. Perhaps you didn't uninstall old drivers for hardware that existed on the old motherboard first and when you booted up an invalid hardware access was made. Who knows? Would you be slamming Linux is Linux had a kernel panic and Windows booted up properly? Somehow I doubt it.
So, what exactly does Windows enable the Army to do that Linux cannot that justifies them spending a king's ransom on it?
New Windows machines running the same basic software that existing machines use can be effortlessly integrated into the existing set of Windows computers because all that Microsoft software, proprietary though it may be, can talk to each other. Also, there's no need to retrain anyone, hire new Linux admins, or worry about unexpected SNAFUs that may occur because the Linux equivalents of Microsoft software can't do everything the MS software can.
Also, there's the satisfaction of knowing that MS at the very least has experience handling big customers. Do you really think Redhat has the experience necessary to provide support for the US Army? Have they ever had a customer anywhere near that big?
Otherwise, you have given up hope on anything non-MS. How will proponents of an alternate, opposing viewpoint ever be heard?
If practicality is the bottom line and the "opposing viewpoint" does not offer the needed practicality, does it really matter if they're heard or not? If they can't meet the needs of the guy writing the check they're not going to get the contract, no matter how many times they yell "but Linux is superior!"
As for your experience with windows, I'd have to say that you haven't had enough experience.
I beg to differ. As someone who's been using Windows since the 3.1 days, I'd say I'm a pretty reasonable judge of how stable or secure Windows is since I've seen it through many iterations.
Regardless of the applied use of these desktops, call me an alarmist, but I would want it far more secure than anything I've seen on windows.
Windows can be just as secure as Linux, you just have to be selective about the software you're running and what you do with the machine. The same is true of Linux. What, you thought you could just take an out-of-the-box Linux install and be good to go? Come on.
First, as many other people have pointed out, these machines aren't being used in "life or death" situations, they're for normal desktop stuff. Did it ever occur to any of you that perhaps Windows does indeed provide a better desktop experience than your average Linux distro? Heresy, I know. Nothing could possibly be better than Linux. And BTW, for those of you repeating those tired "BSOD" jokes: have you used a version of Windows past 98 or what? Win2K and XP are pretty damn stable. A BSOD on either of them is about as likely as a kernel panic in Linux. Get over it, it's time to retire those BSOD jokes.
Second, unless any of you have any real experience with the costs associated with outfitting an entity as large as the US Army with computers, I don't think you're qualified to make assumptions about how Linux "obviously" would've saved 50-90% of the cost. There's a saying in business that when you have people bidding on a contract you throw away the top N% (because they're ripping you off) and the bottom N% (lowballers -- they're obviously underestimating the cost of the job and are under-experienced) and pick among the people in the middle. Hmm, where do you think someone like Redhat would show up relative to other bidders? Furthermore, what makes you think that the Army didn't rule out Redhat (or whatever other "Linux support" company) primarily because they have shown NO history of being able to handle customers with needs as large as the Army? When was Redhat's last $470 million contract, hmm? Don't assume that they'd be up to the job of support just because MS can do it and anything MS can do Linux can do better.
I mean really guys, come on. Don't let your seething hatred of MS blind you to realities of the situation. Maybe, just maybe, with all things considered MS was the better choice.
If nobody wants it, nobody would pirate it.
Wait, I'm confused. All I hear on Slashdot is that hardly ANYONE would pirate movies/music/software if they were just priced reasonably, you could try them before you buy, and they provided good entertainment value (because there will reach a point when it's less of a hassle to buy than download). It stands to reason then that a game like Doom would hardly be pirated at all because Slashdot downloader types are benevolent souls who will gladly fork over the money for a superior product. Oh I almost forgot, iD is/was an "indie" company and not a heartless mega corporation, so that means their stuff definitely shouldn't be pirated because all the money will go to the team, not some fat-cat CEO types.
Yet oddly, the game was still pirated. Stranger still, these same Slashdotters railing against the RIAA are pirating good, affordable music put out by indie labels. Makes you think.
I think what he means is that if shareware "worked", no one would pirate the full version of the software (after all, you got your wish -- try before you buy). However, history has shown us that just about EVERY shareware program has been pirated (excuse me, "shared") heavily. Take Doom, for instance. It was an undeniably great game (so there goes the "most music/movies/software are crap, that's why I download" argument), you got to play 1/3 of it for free (so there goes the "I can't try before I buy" argument), and the price was reasonable ($30? I can't remember). Despite all of this, Doom was pirated. Extensively. You can still find illegitimate copies of this ten year old game floating around. Doom was not an exception in shareware, it was the norm. Despite "try before you buy", reasonable pricing, and great entertainment value, numerous shareware games (and utilities) were/are pirated. From that angle, shareware did/does not work. This also backs up claims that downloaders do it not for "righteous" reasons but rather that they can get something for free that they'd otherwise have to pay for.
Yup, they'll probably be able to fix it. But they won't fix it immediately. Instead, they'll say that's a "known issue" which should be solved by the next version, which will be out in a month. In the meantime, you can work around it by doing something clunky which you had figured out already.
I see this misconception a lot from OSS advocates, this whole notion that the only support you'll get from commerical software is "wait until the next release". Either you work with very poor companies or you have no experience working in a professional environment. We rely on software from a large corporation and when we have a problem we talk to the team itself, and they have always been very prompt and responsive to our needs. It is not unheard of to get custom builds of another group's software that addresses your particular problem. If you have to settle for this "wait until the point release" crap, you're working with the wrong people.
It's far easier to get support, meaning, to get help solving your problems with most open source stuff than it is with closed stuff, period.
Ever had to call microsoft?
No, because generally any software contract worth its cost will give you a contact, usually the project lead himself. You don't call "big corporation XYZ" if you've got a problem, you talk to "John Smith", the guy who oversaw the development of the software you're shelling out for. I think this is one of the biggest misconceptions OSS advocates have about how closed source projects work.
If you read the article, you'll see that about two paragraphs are devoted to the "Mom Test" (which they conclude that she passed). Basically the "Mom Test" involved her watching a Lindows tutorial, clicking on the "start" menu, and launching OpenOffice. Color me unimpressed. Perhaps they should have extended the "Mom Test" to cover a week or two of normal usage. See how she reacts when she can't open those cute e-mail attachment programs (no, not VIRUSES) that her friends forward to each other. See how she reacts when she brings home the label-making software she bought that won't install under Linux. See how she reacts when the webcam she bought so she can send "video emails" to her family members won't work because Linux doesn't have drivers for it.
Somehow, I think the results of the "Mom Test" will be a little different under those circumstances.
This point does have merit, but I suppose you're talking about problems with small to mid sized companies. Big ones (Like Microsoft, IBM, Novell, etc.) aren't going to fix your problems any time soon; they have so many customers, unless you're a big-shot (who can spend the $$$ to fix it yourself), they won't care. Have you had the pleasure of paying money for an incident to report a bug to MS? :)
You're probably not familiar with how this normally works. If you license a product from IBM or MS it's not like all your communications go from the very top down to the bottom and they simply dump a product on your lap and leave you alone. You are generally (always?) given a contact with the team lead(s) and have a way to contact the people who coded the software itself. To say that licensing from a big corporation means your concerns won't be heard unless you are also a big corporation is pretty much dead wrong.
No, but truth be told, most OSS developers aren't working on their projects because they're told to or are being paid. They do it because their projects are their babies.
Typically, problems reported are fixed in relatively short order because:
1) you've likely, in the process of debugging your own software or tools, have isolated the problem to a specific area and pattern and
2) OSS folks almost always use the software they write themselves. That's usually why they write it in the first place.
Again, open source developers don't have a business relationship with you, so they don't have any real incentive to be attentive to your needs. They don't have to fix anything. There are many developers who may just flat out refuse to alter the way their program works, even if it's minor thing, because "it's their baby".
We're working with software from a big company and we've requested numerous times for changes in the behavior of their software that would allow it to better integrate with our software. You know what? They've been very receptive to it and have always gotten back to us concerning problems very quickly. Hell, we've even sent them changes we've made to their code at times. Sure, they don't have to let us do any of that, but then again, we don't have to continue to pay them either. That gives them incentive to provide the best service they can. With open source, you don't necessarily get that.
Employ "a" developer for "most" of the large projects? Buddy, if you're buying support for a software package you want the whole team at your disposal. After all, the money you're paying go towards ensuring that the development team as a whole is responsive to your needs, not just one guy.
Going to the maintainer or a major developer for the project and saying "hey, I have this problem and will pay you $x to fix it" would probably be plenty of leverage on an OS project, and would probably still be cheaper than the CS solution, and likely eliminates the need to be an asshole about it.
You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.
The "fix the damn thing" attitude is not meant to be taken literally. Project members don't speak to other project members like that. However, to the group whose services you're paying for, it is certainly weighing on their mind that sub-par performance will not result in renewed contracts in the future.