It should be noted he was a famous physician and author; penning not only a number of important medical articles but poems as well (including "Old Ironsides.") His son Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr was a famous American jurist.
Oliver Wendell Holmes Sr appears to be another of those New Englanders whose interests spanned a variety of topics and who had the money to follow their interests. Thoreau springs to mind as another.
Newspapers used to be the main source of aggregated of information about current events; they were few alternatives. Now we have a wide variety of sources for the same information; and don't need a daily paper to satisfy our information needs. As a result, the business model will change
You'll still need services such as the AP; but how the information is used will change. I would expect to see the multi-channel news organizations who can combine television, radio, and internet (blogs, websites, streaming data) to be replace newspapers as the primary daily news source.
As a side note, I expect more DCMA take down notices as organizations seek to protect their IP from being redistributed by outlets that don't pay for it.
I'd also expect to see local papers thrive - they can cover stories of limited interest beyond their communities, and deliver targeted ads for businesses. In addition, I'd expect specialty papers that target specific audiences (such as sports fans) to thrive because they can do more in depth and broader coverage of a narrow topic than say the AP. And of course, USA Today because every major hotel in the US buys a ton of them.
It's simple - you don't like the price, don't buy it. Wait for the price to drop. Simply because you don't like the price doesn't mean you can copy the item for free and somehow think it's not stealing.
It's simple - sharing information isn't ethically wrong. If you have some software, your friend asks for a copy, and you refuse, you're being an asshole. Sharing may be illegal, but those laws infringe on real property rights and can't be enforced anyway.
You have no real property rights in the IP beyond those granted by the copyright owner; only the tangible medium becomes yours. I'd argue you have a doctrine of first sale to transfer it and the associated program; but even that is not a clear cut right in all cases.
As for the ethics; sharing someone's work without their permission is wrong. It's not sharing, it's theft.
Most importantly, the measures that would be needed to enforce restrictions on sharing would destroy any free society. Enforcing such laws would require either total surveillance or the complete abolition of the general purpose computer.
I agree the enforceability is tough and would require unacceptable draconian methods to make it work; unfortunately statistics show relying on honesty doesn't work well either. As a result, companies keep trying to come up with ways to at least keep a small window open where they can sell the product before pirated copies become easy to get.
. Simply because you don't like the price doesn't mean you can copy the item for free and somehow think it's not stealing.
You are completly correct. Not liking the price has nothing to do with copying not being stealing. Copying not being the same as taking is what makes them different.
You are taking the copyright owner's IP without there permission. You might like to rationalize the theft by saying it's not the same as taking a physical object; but in the end you're still a thief.
It's no different then someone taking GPL'd code and redistributing it without complying with the GPL.
I suggest that you read the goddamned article. The author goes into detail explaining why you and your ilk are wrong. Read it. It's a worthwhile way to spend a couple hours if you're actually interested in learning some of the facts about PC piracy, rather than blindly accepting the rationalizations and outright lies spread by those who either a) don't know any better and/or b) just want to keep infringing the copyrights of games because's it's fun and free.
From TFA:
"The argument is straightforward and both intuitively and logically sound: for every pirated copy of a product, there is some potential loss of income to the producer of that product. This is not the same as saying that every pirated copy is a lost sale."
I suggest you reread what I said and TFA and perhaps pickup a clue.
As for the people who claim that all pirated game are lost sales, they are wrong. Many of those "lost sales" would never have been made, just as Microsoft can't count me as a lost sale since I use a different OS. I'm simply not their customer, just as many of those "lost sales" would never have taken place if piracy prevention were 100% effective. This is similar to their problem with people selling used games. People sell their used games mostly so that they can buy new games, so it's not like the money doesn't get to them anyway, and the used games "grow the market", same as selling a used car.
I agree - most of the pirated software would not be bought; so saying we loss xx billions/year to piracy is simply wrong. All their seeing is there is a large demand at a free price point - demand that goes away as price rises.
People will pirate when it's overpriced. When it's right-priced, most people will gladly pay for it.
It's simple - you don't like the price, don't buy it. Wait for the price to drop. Simply because you don't like the price doesn't mean you can copy the item for free and somehow think it's not stealing.
The real problem for Gov Huckabee is that if he plans to run again for President this will become an issue - an IPGate that he wants to avoid so it can't be used against him.
Of course, the press will start to look for other ways to get the information.
Of course, the real problem is the coverup - did the Gov order the information not to be released? Did he know someone in government was using official computers for political purposes?
this guy has come back with "you should have notified me earlier of abnormal usage on my phone lines".
The customer equipment that got compromised was a goddamn PBX. He should have been watching it himself for signs of abnormal usage.
I agree fully with that statement. I worked for a small company (400 people) and our telecom folks watched the usage patterns like a hawk, and stopped several hack attempts cold.
The only one I know of that they didn't stop was one where a calling card number was shoulder surfed; and they kept getting either no answer or VM at the phone company's fraud desk. The phone company ate that bill.
Remember, guys, for doctors, your symptoms are a matter of trial and error. The usual way to treat people is to go through every medication until you find one that helps. If you have one of the better doctors, they'll be starting with the medicine that is most likely to help. I've you've got one of the many bad ones, they're going to start with the most expensive concoction.
General Practitioners, who treat the symptoms with the concept that if the symptoms go away the underlying cause does. They look for the most common and reasonable causes and treat that. As the saying goes, "If you hear thundering hooves, think horses, not zebras." It is a reasonable approach that generally works.
Specialists, who run tests to determine the actual cause and then treat it. they generally come in when the GP can't solve a problem. Running tests for common aliments is neither cost effect nor would result in better outcomes so the GP/ Specialist approach makes sense.
But I will state this: I am going to treat simple infections by means of personal hygiene and natural products and see how that works out. If the problem gets worse, I can still go and see a doctor.
Many things will get better all by themselves; even without natural or unnatural cures. While it makes sense to not run to the doctor for every scrape or infection; at some point the decision needs to be made did it go away or do I need real help.
A few years ago I took a tourist photo of the Pentagon in D.C. from just outside the metro stop, which is pretty far away from the building. A security officer came and asked me to delete the photo from my camera. I explained that it wasn't a digital camera, but rather a disposable film camera. He said that officially he should make me throw it away, but instead allowed me to go on condition that I didn't take any more photos.
You're right that the law allows people to take tourist photos. But where "security" is concerned, it apparently doesn't matter what the law says.
-Gonz
Actually, depending on where you took the photo you may have been in a no photo zone (which includes the Metro exit area - there are signs there pointing that out).
OTOH, the Pentagon security folks want to balance security with being reasonable. They have no desire to rigidly enforce photo restrictions and ruin tourist visits to DC; more then likely he or she decided you were not a security threat and made a reasonable decision on the spot.
; there are signs specifying two things: It is a US Govermnent property site... Photogrophy is prohibited
Sure, if you go on the base property. But I think by "public" land the GP meant more along the lines of the public road that goes by the base. There may not be a gate preventing access to the base property, but it's no longer public land.
Doesn't matter if you are not on base property; you can still be prosecuted for photographing restricted installations.
Actually, no, you can legally photograph nearly everything you can see from public land in the US. There are a few places where they're known to lack a sense of humor about it, but almost everything is fair game. (That said, there are a few rare restrictions on such things.)
Actually, no you can't. You can be charged with a federal crime for photographing certain US defense installations or equipment; no matter where you take the pictures of for what reason. In that respect US law is no different than Indian.
Oops. I actually read the first linked article and jumped the gun (at that point they'd been held 3 days and not charged). TFS clearly indicates that they're facing charges for photographing the Air Force base.
Of course, you can be detained for doing that in the US too. Not sure what exactly they charge you with.
Violation of laws prohibiting the unauthorized photography of certain types of US defense installations. The reason you are taking the photographs is irrelevant to whether or not you can be charged with a crime.
I disagree with you. Apple is synonymous with smartphones. At least in the eyes of consumers. Look at it, iPhone brought in the first touch screen, and now everybody and I mean everybody is coming out with touch screens. If a manufacturer did not have touchscreen they would seem out of touch (no pun intended).
I think Handspring, Kyocera and others would disagree with you on the newness of touch screen phones. Apple uses a different technological approach; but the concept is not new at all.
What is making the iPhone a success is its touchscreen, UI and apps. Nobody else has managed to pull off this combination this well. And Apple did one thing well with the AppStore, they made it financially attractive for developers. This is a new one for Apple. Typically OSX has not been a cash cow for third party developers. For the iPhone it definitely is.
Apple has put together a nice combination of UI/screen/apps to make the iPhone a good product (I own one); but others are close enough or getting better that Apple's ability to stay #1 will be severely challenged.
The cellphone market is fundamentally different than other markets where Apple competes. Phones are easily replaceable with a new phone, from a different manufacturer, every year or two. There is not a steep learning curve; and most smartphones already have the basic functionality most users want built it; so you aren't locked into an expensive apps suite like you are with music or the need to convert all you music to a new format to load it on your non-Apple MP3 player.
While the app store has been a boon for developers; low prices means that the individual user doesn't have a large investment in Apps that makes it harder to switch.
This lack of lock-in makes it easier for RIM/NOKIA/Palm to come out with the next hot phone; especially since phones seem to be as much a fashion statement as a tool.
the only revolution apple has ever pulled off is a marketing revolution. the ipod, macbook and iphone do nothing other gadgets haven't before. indeed on many technical levels they are inferior, especially the ipod.
A very wise person once pointed out to me that it doesn't matter how cool or great a product you have; if you can't convince someone to buy it it's useless.
Never underestimate the importance of marketing (and sales) to success. People buy something because it fills a perceived need; convincing them that they have that need is an important part of the sales process.
Having a good product helps; but being a better product than others is not enough, by itself, to ensure you win. Technical superiority is nice; but unless you can convince people it has value then it's just something the extreme fanboys will argue over (wether is a computer, car, camera, stereo, etc.)
True. Still, I think the setup I'm building soon will look like what most people can best use. Step 1: A high-powered gaming and work machine dual-booting Linux and Windows XP (most people will only need XP). Step 2: A nice little Ubuntu netbook for portable browsing, email, and emulated gaming.
That sounds like a very good way to go. Add in software to synch files on both (such as docs and spreadsheets), and a good DVD converter such as DVD Catalyst. With a DVD converter you can store enough video on a 4g flash card to last a long flight and then some; plus 4g cards are cheap enough that you can carry a couple if you need more storage and as a backup device.
The only reason I don't have that type of rig is even a 10" screen is too small for me to use PowerPoint or its OO equivalent for any length of time.
The sad thing is that this is not entirely a win for Linux. Yes, it means increased market share. But it only succeeds because there's a basic set of Internet tools that everybody uses and that can be implemented on any widely-used OS. That being the case, vendors might as well use an OS that doesn't come with license fees.
But that means nobody will be able to make a living writing applications for these netbooks — they already have all the software their users need.
An added concern for developers is that increased adoption of Linux will further the understanding of FOSS and lead people to believe that software should be free; so why should we pay for applications for our netbooks?
While that is good for furthering FOSS community ideals; it is an additional hurdle in front of developers that would like to sell to the netbook market.
Indeed, what a shame Microsoft has no interest in further sales of XP Home.
I'm not sure they don't; they probably just want to get past the XP name as it keeps the legacy OS alive as they try to migrate users to Vista / 7 / whatever.
A likely scenario is a slimmed down version of their next OS (it could even be XP with a fancier shell) called 7/Netbook. That way, they can play in the netbook market while ending all discussion of XP.
In fact, as long as netbooks are viewed as notebooks-lite that don't have the horsepower to run a full fledged MS OS well then keeping XP alive under a new name works just fine; since people will become used to netbooks containing a stripped down version of *real* PC applications and OS's.
Well netbooks are also great for old console and portable emulation in a small, energy-efficient form factor. I like the idea of carrying around a digitized library of NES, Genesis, Game Boy, Neo-Geo, arcade, SNES, Game Gear, GBC, Nintendo 64, and GBA games in the form factor of a large paperback novel.
Yes, but you and others of that ilk )myself included) represent probably 1% of the netbook market.
In order to make money they have to charge something for their software. Linux will always be cheaper than a Windows machine.
Not necessarily - a company has to build up a test and support infrastructure for Linux; so there are very real costs associated with offering Linux. Unless there is sufficient demands for Linux machines, the cost per machine for Linux can be higher than for Windows. As a result; Linux machines either have a smaller margin, making them unattractive for companies; or cost more, making them unattractive for buyers.
While Linux can break MS' hold in low cost machines; it's not as easy at it seems and there are real challenges in getting enough machine sou there with Linux to create a viable, self sustaining consumer base that makes Linux machines economically attractive to build.
Economics is a force more powerful than any individual company. Microsoft is not above this.
True, but right now economics of scale and being the standard are high barriers for new entrants to overcome. It can be done; but it will not be easy nor is it impossible for MS to adapt and create a profitable business model for netbooks that involves there software and gives companies and consumers what they want from a netbook.
Linux is generally not "snappy" as you call it because things aren't programmed that way.
Linux is very "snappy", do not mistake the Linux OS to complete software system. It is not Linux OS fault if there is preinstalled application on system what slows things down, or the application itselfs are slow. OS can be damn fast and powerfull but applications slow and terrible. Still unwise persons believe that OS is slow then. I dont blame Windows NT from being slow if the Crysis does not work as fast on my computer as on highend computer of my friend!
The reality is that an OS is useless without applications, so people naturally think of the entire setup when using words like slow, unstable, unreliable, Vista (-1 redundant).
An OS can be the fastest, most reliable and stable one out there but unless it has applications that preserve those features than it has no inherent advantage over other OS's; at least not from a users point of view.
Technical arguments and benchmarks are nice; but what counts is how it performs in the user environment. Users don't care about the underlying beauty of the OS; they only want their computer to do what they need to do without frustrating them.
Slashdot Mirror
It should be noted he was a famous physician and author; penning not only a number of important medical articles but poems as well (including "Old Ironsides.") His son Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr was a famous American jurist.
Oliver Wendell Holmes Sr appears to be another of those New Englanders whose interests spanned a variety of topics and who had the money to follow their interests. Thoreau springs to mind as another.
Newspapers used to be the main source of aggregated of information about current events; they were few alternatives. Now we have a wide variety of sources for the same information; and don't need a daily paper to satisfy our information needs. As a result, the business model will change
You'll still need services such as the AP; but how the information is used will change. I would expect to see the multi-channel news organizations who can combine television, radio, and internet (blogs, websites, streaming data) to be replace newspapers as the primary daily news source.
As a side note, I expect more DCMA take down notices as organizations seek to protect their IP from being redistributed by outlets that don't pay for it.
I'd also expect to see local papers thrive - they can cover stories of limited interest beyond their communities, and deliver targeted ads for businesses. In addition, I'd expect specialty papers that target specific audiences (such as sports fans) to thrive because they can do more in depth and broader coverage of a narrow topic than say the AP. And of course, USA Today because every major hotel in the US buys a ton of them.
It's simple - sharing information isn't ethically wrong. If you have some software, your friend asks for a copy, and you refuse, you're being an asshole. Sharing may be illegal, but those laws infringe on real property rights and can't be enforced anyway.
You have no real property rights in the IP beyond those granted by the copyright owner; only the tangible medium becomes yours. I'd argue you have a doctrine of first sale to transfer it and the associated program; but even that is not a clear cut right in all cases.
As for the ethics; sharing someone's work without their permission is wrong. It's not sharing, it's theft.
Most importantly, the measures that would be needed to enforce restrictions on sharing would destroy any free society. Enforcing such laws would require either total surveillance or the complete abolition of the general purpose computer.
I agree the enforceability is tough and would require unacceptable draconian methods to make it work; unfortunately statistics show relying on honesty doesn't work well either. As a result, companies keep trying to come up with ways to at least keep a small window open where they can sell the product before pirated copies become easy to get.
. Simply because you don't like the price doesn't mean you can copy the item for free and somehow think it's not stealing.
You are completly correct. Not liking the price has nothing to do with copying not being stealing. Copying not being the same as taking is what makes them different.
You are taking the copyright owner's IP without there permission. You might like to rationalize the theft by saying it's not the same as taking a physical object; but in the end you're still a thief.
It's no different then someone taking GPL'd code and redistributing it without complying with the GPL.
I suggest that you read the goddamned article. The author goes into detail explaining why you and your ilk are wrong. Read it. It's a worthwhile way to spend a couple hours if you're actually interested in learning some of the facts about PC piracy, rather than blindly accepting the rationalizations and outright lies spread by those who either a) don't know any better and/or b) just want to keep infringing the copyrights of games because's it's fun and free.
From TFA: "The argument is straightforward and both intuitively and logically sound: for every pirated copy of a product, there is some potential loss of income to the producer of that product. This is not the same as saying that every pirated copy is a lost sale."
I suggest you reread what I said and TFA and perhaps pickup a clue.
As for the people who claim that all pirated game are lost sales, they are wrong. Many of those "lost sales" would never have been made, just as Microsoft can't count me as a lost sale since I use a different OS. I'm simply not their customer, just as many of those "lost sales" would never have taken place if piracy prevention were 100% effective. This is similar to their problem with people selling used games. People sell their used games mostly so that they can buy new games, so it's not like the money doesn't get to them anyway, and the used games "grow the market", same as selling a used car.
I agree - most of the pirated software would not be bought; so saying we loss xx billions/year to piracy is simply wrong. All their seeing is there is a large demand at a free price point - demand that goes away as price rises.
I'm already there, you ignorant clod!
People will pirate when it's overpriced. When it's right-priced, most people will gladly pay for it.
It's simple - you don't like the price, don't buy it. Wait for the price to drop. Simply because you don't like the price doesn't mean you can copy the item for free and somehow think it's not stealing.
The real problem for Gov Huckabee is that if he plans to run again for President this will become an issue - an IPGate that he wants to avoid so it can't be used against him. Of course, the press will start to look for other ways to get the information. Of course, the real problem is the coverup - did the Gov order the information not to be released? Did he know someone in government was using official computers for political purposes?
this guy has come back with "you should have notified me earlier of abnormal usage on my phone lines".
The customer equipment that got compromised was a goddamn PBX. He should have been watching it himself for signs of abnormal usage.
I agree fully with that statement. I worked for a small company (400 people) and our telecom folks watched the usage patterns like a hawk, and stopped several hack attempts cold. The only one I know of that they didn't stop was one where a calling card number was shoulder surfed; and they kept getting either no answer or VM at the phone company's fraud desk. The phone company ate that bill.
Some womens' magazines are so chock full of drug ads that the color scheme of the magazine will often match some of the ads inside.
that's because the drug companies want to create demand from the patient; rather than rely on a doctor to write a script for their drug.
Remember, guys, for doctors, your symptoms are a matter of trial and error. The usual way to treat people is to go through every medication until you find one that helps. If you have one of the better doctors, they'll be starting with the medicine that is most likely to help. I've you've got one of the many bad ones, they're going to start with the most expensive concoction.
General Practitioners, who treat the symptoms with the concept that if the symptoms go away the underlying cause does. They look for the most common and reasonable causes and treat that. As the saying goes, "If you hear thundering hooves, think horses, not zebras." It is a reasonable approach that generally works. Specialists, who run tests to determine the actual cause and then treat it. they generally come in when the GP can't solve a problem. Running tests for common aliments is neither cost effect nor would result in better outcomes so the GP/ Specialist approach makes sense.
But I will state this: I am going to treat simple infections by means of personal hygiene and natural products and see how that works out. If the problem gets worse, I can still go and see a doctor.
Many things will get better all by themselves; even without natural or unnatural cures. While it makes sense to not run to the doctor for every scrape or infection; at some point the decision needs to be made did it go away or do I need real help.
A few years ago I took a tourist photo of the Pentagon in D.C. from just outside the metro stop, which is pretty far away from the building. A security officer came and asked me to delete the photo from my camera. I explained that it wasn't a digital camera, but rather a disposable film camera. He said that officially he should make me throw it away, but instead allowed me to go on condition that I didn't take any more photos.
You're right that the law allows people to take tourist photos. But where "security" is concerned, it apparently doesn't matter what the law says.
-Gonz
Actually, depending on where you took the photo you may have been in a no photo zone (which includes the Metro exit area - there are signs there pointing that out).
OTOH, the Pentagon security folks want to balance security with being reasonable. They have no desire to rigidly enforce photo restrictions and ruin tourist visits to DC; more then likely he or she decided you were not a security threat and made a reasonable decision on the spot.
; there are signs specifying two things: It is a US Govermnent property site... Photogrophy is prohibited
Sure, if you go on the base property. But I think by "public" land the GP meant more along the lines of the public road that goes by the base. There may not be a gate preventing access to the base property, but it's no longer public land.
Doesn't matter if you are not on base property; you can still be prosecuted for photographing restricted installations.
Actually, no, you can legally photograph nearly everything you can see from public land in the US. There are a few places where they're known to lack a sense of humor about it, but almost everything is fair game. (That said, there are a few rare restrictions on such things.)
Actually, no you can't. You can be charged with a federal crime for photographing certain US defense installations or equipment; no matter where you take the pictures of for what reason. In that respect US law is no different than Indian.
Oops. I actually read the first linked article and jumped the gun (at that point they'd been held 3 days and not charged). TFS clearly indicates that they're facing charges for photographing the Air Force base.
Of course, you can be detained for doing that in the US too. Not sure what exactly they charge you with.
Violation of laws prohibiting the unauthorized photography of certain types of US defense installations. The reason you are taking the photographs is irrelevant to whether or not you can be charged with a crime.
Every important engagement always takes place at the junction of two or more map sheets.
and in the dark, with bad weather
Actually I know of two things more dangerous:
1) A programmer with a screwdriver 2) A salesman with an install disc
Add to that a copilot who says "I've been thinking..."
I disagree with you. Apple is synonymous with smartphones. At least in the eyes of consumers. Look at it, iPhone brought in the first touch screen, and now everybody and I mean everybody is coming out with touch screens. If a manufacturer did not have touchscreen they would seem out of touch (no pun intended).
I think Handspring, Kyocera and others would disagree with you on the newness of touch screen phones. Apple uses a different technological approach; but the concept is not new at all.
What is making the iPhone a success is its touchscreen, UI and apps. Nobody else has managed to pull off this combination this well. And Apple did one thing well with the AppStore, they made it financially attractive for developers. This is a new one for Apple. Typically OSX has not been a cash cow for third party developers. For the iPhone it definitely is.
Apple has put together a nice combination of UI/screen/apps to make the iPhone a good product (I own one); but others are close enough or getting better that Apple's ability to stay #1 will be severely challenged.
The cellphone market is fundamentally different than other markets where Apple competes. Phones are easily replaceable with a new phone, from a different manufacturer, every year or two. There is not a steep learning curve; and most smartphones already have the basic functionality most users want built it; so you aren't locked into an expensive apps suite like you are with music or the need to convert all you music to a new format to load it on your non-Apple MP3 player.
While the app store has been a boon for developers; low prices means that the individual user doesn't have a large investment in Apps that makes it harder to switch.
This lack of lock-in makes it easier for RIM/NOKIA/Palm to come out with the next hot phone; especially since phones seem to be as much a fashion statement as a tool.
the only revolution apple has ever pulled off is a marketing revolution. the ipod, macbook and iphone do nothing other gadgets haven't before. indeed on many technical levels they are inferior, especially the ipod.
A very wise person once pointed out to me that it doesn't matter how cool or great a product you have; if you can't convince someone to buy it it's useless.
Never underestimate the importance of marketing (and sales) to success. People buy something because it fills a perceived need; convincing them that they have that need is an important part of the sales process.
Having a good product helps; but being a better product than others is not enough, by itself, to ensure you win. Technical superiority is nice; but unless you can convince people it has value then it's just something the extreme fanboys will argue over (wether is a computer, car, camera, stereo, etc.)
True. Still, I think the setup I'm building soon will look like what most people can best use. Step 1: A high-powered gaming and work machine dual-booting Linux and Windows XP (most people will only need XP). Step 2: A nice little Ubuntu netbook for portable browsing, email, and emulated gaming.
That sounds like a very good way to go. Add in software to synch files on both (such as docs and spreadsheets), and a good DVD converter such as DVD Catalyst. With a DVD converter you can store enough video on a 4g flash card to last a long flight and then some; plus 4g cards are cheap enough that you can carry a couple if you need more storage and as a backup device.
The only reason I don't have that type of rig is even a 10" screen is too small for me to use PowerPoint or its OO equivalent for any length of time.
The sad thing is that this is not entirely a win for Linux. Yes, it means increased market share. But it only succeeds because there's a basic set of Internet tools that everybody uses and that can be implemented on any widely-used OS. That being the case, vendors might as well use an OS that doesn't come with license fees.
But that means nobody will be able to make a living writing applications for these netbooks — they already have all the software their users need.
An added concern for developers is that increased adoption of Linux will further the understanding of FOSS and lead people to believe that software should be free; so why should we pay for applications for our netbooks?
While that is good for furthering FOSS community ideals; it is an additional hurdle in front of developers that would like to sell to the netbook market.
Freedom, in the end, does have a price.
Indeed, what a shame Microsoft has no interest in further sales of XP Home.
I'm not sure they don't; they probably just want to get past the XP name as it keeps the legacy OS alive as they try to migrate users to Vista / 7 / whatever.
A likely scenario is a slimmed down version of their next OS (it could even be XP with a fancier shell) called 7/Netbook. That way, they can play in the netbook market while ending all discussion of XP.
In fact, as long as netbooks are viewed as notebooks-lite that don't have the horsepower to run a full fledged MS OS well then keeping XP alive under a new name works just fine; since people will become used to netbooks containing a stripped down version of *real* PC applications and OS's.
Well netbooks are also great for old console and portable emulation in a small, energy-efficient form factor. I like the idea of carrying around a digitized library of NES, Genesis, Game Boy, Neo-Geo, arcade, SNES, Game Gear, GBC, Nintendo 64, and GBA games in the form factor of a large paperback novel.
Yes, but you and others of that ilk )myself included) represent probably 1% of the netbook market.
In order to make money they have to charge something for their software. Linux will always be cheaper than a Windows machine.
Not necessarily - a company has to build up a test and support infrastructure for Linux; so there are very real costs associated with offering Linux. Unless there is sufficient demands for Linux machines, the cost per machine for Linux can be higher than for Windows. As a result; Linux machines either have a smaller margin, making them unattractive for companies; or cost more, making them unattractive for buyers.
While Linux can break MS' hold in low cost machines; it's not as easy at it seems and there are real challenges in getting enough machine sou there with Linux to create a viable, self sustaining consumer base that makes Linux machines economically attractive to build.
Economics is a force more powerful than any individual company. Microsoft is not above this.
True, but right now economics of scale and being the standard are high barriers for new entrants to overcome. It can be done; but it will not be easy nor is it impossible for MS to adapt and create a profitable business model for netbooks that involves there software and gives companies and consumers what they want from a netbook.
Linux is generally not "snappy" as you call it because things aren't programmed that way.
Linux is very "snappy", do not mistake the Linux OS to complete software system. It is not Linux OS fault if there is preinstalled application on system what slows things down, or the application itselfs are slow. OS can be damn fast and powerfull but applications slow and terrible. Still unwise persons believe that OS is slow then. I dont blame Windows NT from being slow if the Crysis does not work as fast on my computer as on highend computer of my friend!
The reality is that an OS is useless without applications, so people naturally think of the entire setup when using words like slow, unstable, unreliable, Vista (-1 redundant).
An OS can be the fastest, most reliable and stable one out there but unless it has applications that preserve those features than it has no inherent advantage over other OS's; at least not from a users point of view.
Technical arguments and benchmarks are nice; but what counts is how it performs in the user environment. Users don't care about the underlying beauty of the OS; they only want their computer to do what they need to do without frustrating them.