> My 60 year old dad uses linux. He
> doesn't know the difference between it
> and windows, and he doesn't have to
> care. It just works for him.
Did he install it? I think not. And the average computer user notices a distinct different between windows and Linux.
> The killer app thing is a total crock.
You're right. Apple? What's that? Microsoft? Are they a shoe manufacturer or something?
With no killer app, there is no incentive to switch platforms.
> Open office. Let's be honest... who
> actually uses an office suite for
> anything?
Everybody I know that uses a computer. Mom, dad, brother, other brother, the people at work, me...
> It might be important in the
> business world, but 90+% of the users
> out there could care less.
90+% of Linux users perhaps, but joe average uses MS Word. PS: Staroffice sucks. Maybe when version 6 comes out this'll change...
> While we're standardizing on one api
> layer, why don't we also standardize
> on one programming language as well? I
> pick forth, since it's clearly the
> best choice for all tasks.
We have standardized on one language for Linux development. Oh wait, my bad. Half of it is in Perl, the other half is in HTML.
Darnit guys. Find an average computer user and start talking to the guy. Every time there's a Linux vs Windows debate, everyone on the Linux team tends to start talking about how good the kernel is or whatever.
Who cares how good the kernel is if the UI blows? Or if you can never install the darn thing? Linux has great potential, the only problem is that nobody cares about tweaking a version so that people other than the coders can enjoy it.
"Nobody uses Linux because MS has a monopoly." BS on a stick buddy. People install programs and games on their computers. If Linux didn't blow for home use by average people, more people would be installing it on their computers the same way they install other programs.
> Do you honestly think Linux is any harder to
> use than Windows? You really musn't know a lot
> about Linux. Much simpler and easier to use
> than Windows.
Manually mounting your drives before you use them is easier than automounting. Yep. Oh wait, that problem got fixed...years after it was fixed in windows.
It only took me six hours to install my copy of Linux! Ohayo!
Oh look, the GUI doesn't work...
Cool! By default it's butt ugly!
Oh boy! Oh boy! I have to drop to the command line to do anything remotely usefull!
> But the opposite is not true. Can you name me
> one decent closed-source typesetting engine to
> rival LaTeX? How about a closed-source browser
> to rival Galeon? How about a closed-source
> mailer to rival mutt? Can't be done.
Er...name an open source Photoshop. Open source Word. Open source Excel. Open source Quake3.
And if you say "Staroffice" or "Gimp" I hope a business user or graphics designer smacks you.
> What difference would it make? Linux is good
> enough as it is.
Except that it sucks, of course.
> All that needs to be done is to make transition
> easier, i.e. removing barriers such as MS-
> Office document formats, Ms-only hardware, MS-
> only software etc. The only reason MS is more
> succesful is because it was here first.
All that needs to be done is to find out why Linux sucks and fix the frizzgikin problems.
MS is partially successful because they were there first, but they also find out what the customer wants and gives it to them. The Linux team could learn a lot from them.
> Sorry to disappoint you, but Open Source is
> irrelevent to communism or capitalism.
Except that it's relevant. Capitalism is forced to give the consumer what they want (sort of...). Communism can sit on it's @$$ and wait in bread lines. Microsoft must give the customer more or less what they want, or they will die out. Linux is not bound by that restriction. Also, M$ has enough money to pay it's programmers. If there was open competition in the OS industry we'd see some real innovation.
> I think for absolutely ignorant computer users
> there will be no problems with Unix/KDE. These
> users couldn't install Unix, or Windows, or any
> software. They can click on their webbrowser
> and click OK and read their email and use a
> word processor. Hardware support isn't an issue
> as they can't install hardware anyway. IMO Most
> users are like this and Linux is perfectly
> suited.
Darnit freakin darnit. Find a computer user different than you and TALK TO THE DAM GUY! Not all people who don't want to install Linux are complete idiots. They just don't want to deal with the hassle. Think of it this way: Imaging you buy a car and it stalls as you drive it out. In order to start it up again, you have to press twenty levers in a certain manner. Because of this you're late to work and you get fired. Then the engine explodes. This is what Linux looks like to many normal computer users. Normal computer users don't use the computer because they like fixing problems. They use it to accomplish a goal. The computer is a tool. They don't want the tool to sit there and break, they want it to be transparent so they can do their work.
Suggestion: Talk to:
-a computer newbie.
-a business computer user.
-a graphics designer.
-a gamer.
Find out what they're like. Linux could meet their needs if only the Linux community realized that the needs existed.
> For expert computer users a Unix wins over
> windows for remote administration and
> stability. Windows may win in the future but I
> doubt it.
Unix: better as server/programming.
Windows: better at gaming/newbies/home use.
Macintosh: better at graphics.
With a few changes, Linux could rock at home use.
> What kind of problems are you having with GIMP
> 1.2 for Win32?
The user-interface was designed by either a sadist or a masochist. Or both. Aside from that it's a pretty good program, despite the occaisional glitch and crash.
Note:
The reason why I'm so pissed with Linux is, ironically, because it's so good. It IS an excellent operating system...the only problem is that the people designing it either don't know or don't care about what normal computer users want. Microsoft does. That's why they're kicking Linux's @$$ on the desktop. Having a monopoly doesn't hurt too.
Aside from that, I've been trying to get the GUI working properly for the past two freaking years. I installed mandrake n.n and everything seemed ok...until I saw that by default it couldn't read windows drives. At this point I was just so disgusted at the shortsightedness of whoever designed the darn thing that I installed cygwin under windows and used that to do most of the work. Bleah. At one point in my life I was a Linux zealot...but then I found out what Linux was really like. Now I try to admit it's good points and point out it's flaws. At the current point in time, Linux truly does suck for the average user.
Hint to Linux designers: talk to people who are NOT computer programmers. Talk to newbies. Talk to graphics designers. Talk to gamers. Find out what they want in an operating system. Don't assume that everyone who doesn't use Linux does so because they are at fault. They aren't - Linux is. Don't assume that everyone who hates Linux because they can't get it to work or because it doesn't work they way they expect it to is an idiot. They're not. Whoever designed the thing is an idiot for not designing it properly. And the sooner people admit that, the sooner they'll start fixing the problems. And the sooner Linux will stop sucking.
> > The reason why nobody uses Linux...
> Except, of course, that a metric fuckload of people do use
> Linux, and other free or open source software, every day.
You literally can't give it away for free, but there's nothing wrong with it? Someone's in denial.
Linux is good for what it does, but it sucks for the AVERAGE USER. You are not probably not an average user. Find one and try to get them to use Linux.
> Hell,
> you used Slashcode to send your message, and
> you're using it to read this one now.
Did I say all Open Source sucks? No. I use the Gimp for windows and...well, it sucks. But there are Open Source projects out there that are good.
What I'm saying is that with proper funds the programs would be better because companies or organizations could actually pay the people who work on it.
> And free/open source software has nothing to do with communism.
Comparing Open Source to the business model is remarkably similar to comparing communism to capitalism.
One huge problem with open source is that there just aren't enough funds to pay the coders.
The GPL needs just a little bit of capitalism in order to raise some capital to pay for vital projects. The reason why nobody uses Linux is not because MS has them brainwashed, or because they just haven't tried it or whatnot.
It's because in real life, Linux just plain sucks for the average computer user. Maybe with a little funding, Linux could suck less.
-Why does everyone think in terms of pennies when talking about online currency? Use 1/1000th of a cent. I wouldn't pay 1 cent per page, but what about 0.1 cents? 0.01 cents? 0.001 cents?
-People use different currencies on the internet. A micropayment system should use only one currency at it's core. At the present time the best currency to use would be the US dollar. CGI/etc could be used to adjust rates to a viewers native currency.
-If it's difficult, nobody will do it. A micropayment system must be easy for a user to sign up for, and easy for vendors to sign up for.
-If it doesn't work, it doesn't work. A micropayment system should not require the vendor to use CGI/etc. Some vendors can't. It should not require that the user download a plugin/etc. Some users can't (example: on a library or school or work computer).
-You need people to sell things with it before it catches on. Use keenspace.com for this. I'm on the mailing list there, if you think up any good micropayment system, lemme know and I'll pass the idea along.
-Proprietary stuff sucks. A micropayment system should allow new companies to compete using the same protocols. Example: doesn't matter whether you use yahoo or ms or company x's banking services, you can still buy stuff using micropayments.
A mandatory penny per page? Bad idea. If google.com went up and started forcing you to pay, would you? Or would you get pissed and go to a competitor? And the idea of companies on the internet banding together and forcing users to pay money...baaaaad idea.
Also, just how much would these solutions cost to implement? Would they work on, say, the computers at a school. If you're on a school computer, who pays for you to surf the web?
Contrast this to a system where users have the option of paying very small ammounts to any site they want, and the website designers can simply sign up for a micropayment account, type in their pricing info, and copy n paste a URL over to their website to allow users to pay for access. Simple, easy, inexpensive.
I'm working on a micropayment system I called "millibank". You basically move $2 or so into the account using credit card or ATM transfer, then use the 'online cash' to buy things of very small value (it would be possible to have arbitrary accuracy).
Some millibank concepts:
-users generally do not pay to access a site. They pay to increase speed, remove ad banners, and support the sites that they like. Example: you pay 5 cents a month to support a webcomic.
-credit card numbers/etc are NOT stored on the server, for security purposes. Normal accounts have a $10 cap on them by default.
-Everything can be done using regular HTML. The user clicks on a link which redirects them to the millibank server. It checks their identity and either grants them access to the other site, or denies access. Raw HTML can be used for this, or CGI can be used to prevent one person from gaining access and then giving the URL out to everybody.
-Objects are priced so low that nobody cares about paying them. This helps to reduce fraud.
-Vendors can set up their accounts so that when any specific thing happens to their account (ex: a person buys something), a cgi script is called. Or an email is sent to a certain address. Or data is sent to a certain IP. Data sent to the IP / CGI can include such information as username, ammount, etc. (but no password;)
-You can buy things, transfer funds, donate funds to a charity ('buy'), transfer funds in/out of bank accounts, and allow servers access to your funds (with a maximum cap. Example: $1 out). Imagine being able to play a game of Quake where every time you die you lose a penny, and every time you get a kill you gain a penny (with a 50 cent or so loss cap, of course).
If anyone is interested in hearing more or helping out, email me.
darkphotn@yahoo.com
Anything CAN be art. The question is IS it art.
on
Are Videogames Art?
·
· Score: 0
Anything not directly related to survival can be art. The question is IS it art.
Likewise, video games CAN be art, the question is whether or not a particular game IS art. It's one heck of a tough question to answer, and in the end everyone will have their own opinion and there will be no right answer.
Half of the $100 american bills in the world are OUTSIDE of the US. The reason why is that americans don't use physical money for larger purchases - they use checks/visa/etc.
In effect, we already are a cashless society on the high-end (when was the last time you paid for a $10,000 car using bills?), it's just taking some time for us to become cashless on the low-end.
The masses want to ban something they don't understand?
Defenders of freedom being portrayed as terrorists?
I thought that eventually the first amendment would come under fire the same way the second has, but I never thought it would happen this quickly, or this severely.
Mark my words, the attacks on electronic rights WILL grow greater unless people manage to get the facts out to the masses.
In time there WILL be people who want to put a video camera one every street, and in every house.
There WILL be people talking about banning the first amendment.
Take a lesson from the gun folks: you can defend your rights, or they can be taken away. One or the other. There are no other options.
Get involved. Start a petition. Get on CNN or Fox News and let the public know how rediculous and unconstitutional certain laws are.
-DarkPhotn Ashatar
This guy sucks. Slap 'im upside the head.
on
RIAA To Target CD-R
·
· Score: 1
I burned my mouth on hot coffee. I'm going to sue McDonald's!
A gang banger shot me after I stole his crack. I'm going to sue the cigarette manufacturers!
We should admit the fact that at the present time Windows is officially wiping the floor with Linux, as far as the average computer user is concerned. Only then will we fix the serious problems that Linux has.
Slashdot Mirror
> My 60 year old dad uses linux. He
> doesn't know the difference between it
> and windows, and he doesn't have to
> care. It just works for him.
Did he install it? I think not. And the average computer user notices a distinct different between windows and Linux.
> The killer app thing is a total crock.
You're right. Apple? What's that? Microsoft? Are they a shoe manufacturer or something?
With no killer app, there is no incentive to switch platforms.
> Open office. Let's be honest... who
> actually uses an office suite for
> anything?
Everybody I know that uses a computer. Mom, dad, brother, other brother, the people at work, me...
> It might be important in the
> business world, but 90+% of the users
> out there could care less.
90+% of Linux users perhaps, but joe average uses MS Word. PS: Staroffice sucks. Maybe when version 6 comes out this'll change...
> While we're standardizing on one api
> layer, why don't we also standardize
> on one programming language as well? I
> pick forth, since it's clearly the
> best choice for all tasks.
We have standardized on one language for Linux development. Oh wait, my bad. Half of it is in Perl, the other half is in HTML.
Eventually I gave up my attempts to get the GUI to work and started using Cygwin.
Hope this doesn't turn out to be a double-post.
I used to be a linux zealot. Running around screaming about how Linux would change the world, it's way better than anything else, blah, blah.
But then I started using it.
Linux sucks for the desktop. It's time we admitted it and started to fix the problems.
They don't want to spend lots of money doing tech support for people trying to use Linux.
Darnit guys. Find an average computer user and start talking to the guy. Every time there's a Linux vs Windows debate, everyone on the Linux team tends to start talking about how good the kernel is or whatever.
Who cares how good the kernel is if the UI blows? Or if you can never install the darn thing? Linux has great potential, the only problem is that nobody cares about tweaking a version so that people other than the coders can enjoy it.
"Nobody uses Linux because MS has a monopoly." BS on a stick buddy. People install programs and games on their computers. If Linux didn't blow for home use by average people, more people would be installing it on their computers the same way they install other programs.
> Do you honestly think Linux is any harder to
> use than Windows? You really musn't know a lot
> about Linux. Much simpler and easier to use
> than Windows.
Manually mounting your drives before you use them is easier than automounting. Yep. Oh wait, that problem got fixed...years after it was fixed in windows.
It only took me six hours to install my copy of Linux! Ohayo!
Oh look, the GUI doesn't work...
Cool! By default it's butt ugly!
Oh boy! Oh boy! I have to drop to the command line to do anything remotely usefull!
> But the opposite is not true. Can you name me
> one decent closed-source typesetting engine to
> rival LaTeX? How about a closed-source browser
> to rival Galeon? How about a closed-source
> mailer to rival mutt? Can't be done.
Er...name an open source Photoshop. Open source Word. Open source Excel. Open source Quake3.
And if you say "Staroffice" or "Gimp" I hope a business user or graphics designer smacks you.
> What difference would it make? Linux is good
> enough as it is.
Except that it sucks, of course.
> All that needs to be done is to make transition
> easier, i.e. removing barriers such as MS-
> Office document formats, Ms-only hardware, MS-
> only software etc. The only reason MS is more
> succesful is because it was here first.
All that needs to be done is to find out why Linux sucks and fix the frizzgikin problems.
MS is partially successful because they were there first, but they also find out what the customer wants and gives it to them. The Linux team could learn a lot from them.
> Sorry to disappoint you, but Open Source is
> irrelevent to communism or capitalism.
Except that it's relevant. Capitalism is forced to give the consumer what they want (sort of...). Communism can sit on it's @$$ and wait in bread lines. Microsoft must give the customer more or less what they want, or they will die out. Linux is not bound by that restriction. Also, M$ has enough money to pay it's programmers. If there was open competition in the OS industry we'd see some real innovation.
> I think for absolutely ignorant computer users
> there will be no problems with Unix/KDE. These
> users couldn't install Unix, or Windows, or any
> software. They can click on their webbrowser
> and click OK and read their email and use a
> word processor. Hardware support isn't an issue
> as they can't install hardware anyway. IMO Most
> users are like this and Linux is perfectly
> suited.
Darnit freakin darnit. Find a computer user different than you and TALK TO THE DAM GUY! Not all people who don't want to install Linux are complete idiots. They just don't want to deal with the hassle. Think of it this way: Imaging you buy a car and it stalls as you drive it out. In order to start it up again, you have to press twenty levers in a certain manner. Because of this you're late to work and you get fired. Then the engine explodes. This is what Linux looks like to many normal computer users. Normal computer users don't use the computer because they like fixing problems. They use it to accomplish a goal. The computer is a tool. They don't want the tool to sit there and break, they want it to be transparent so they can do their work.
Suggestion: Talk to:
-a computer newbie.
-a business computer user.
-a graphics designer.
-a gamer.
Find out what they're like. Linux could meet their needs if only the Linux community realized that the needs existed.
> For expert computer users a Unix wins over
> windows for remote administration and
> stability. Windows may win in the future but I
> doubt it.
Unix: better as server/programming.
Windows: better at gaming/newbies/home use.
Macintosh: better at graphics.
With a few changes, Linux could rock at home use.
> What kind of problems are you having with GIMP
> 1.2 for Win32?
The user-interface was designed by either a sadist or a masochist. Or both. Aside from that it's a pretty good program, despite the occaisional glitch and crash.
Note:
The reason why I'm so pissed with Linux is, ironically, because it's so good. It IS an excellent operating system...the only problem is that the people designing it either don't know or don't care about what normal computer users want. Microsoft does. That's why they're kicking Linux's @$$ on the desktop. Having a monopoly doesn't hurt too.
Aside from that, I've been trying to get the GUI working properly for the past two freaking years. I installed mandrake n.n and everything seemed ok...until I saw that by default it couldn't read windows drives. At this point I was just so disgusted at the shortsightedness of whoever designed the darn thing that I installed cygwin under windows and used that to do most of the work. Bleah. At one point in my life I was a Linux zealot...but then I found out what Linux was really like. Now I try to admit it's good points and point out it's flaws. At the current point in time, Linux truly does suck for the average user.
Hint to Linux designers: talk to people who are NOT computer programmers. Talk to newbies. Talk to graphics designers. Talk to gamers. Find out what they want in an operating system. Don't assume that everyone who doesn't use Linux does so because they are at fault. They aren't - Linux is. Don't assume that everyone who hates Linux because they can't get it to work or because it doesn't work they way they expect it to is an idiot. They're not. Whoever designed the thing is an idiot for not designing it properly. And the sooner people admit that, the sooner they'll start fixing the problems. And the sooner Linux will stop sucking.
Hooboy. Look at that karma plummet.
> > The reason why nobody uses Linux...
> Except, of course, that a metric fuckload of people do use
> Linux, and other free or open source software, every day.
You literally can't give it away for free, but there's nothing wrong with it? Someone's in denial.
Linux is good for what it does, but it sucks for the AVERAGE USER. You are not probably not an average user. Find one and try to get them to use Linux.
> Hell,
> you used Slashcode to send your message, and
> you're using it to read this one now.
Did I say all Open Source sucks? No. I use the Gimp for windows and...well, it sucks. But there are Open Source projects out there that are good.
What I'm saying is that with proper funds the programs would be better because companies or organizations could actually pay the people who work on it.
> And free/open source software has nothing to do with communism.
Comparing Open Source to the business model is remarkably similar to comparing communism to capitalism.
One huge problem with open source is that there just aren't enough funds to pay the coders.
The GPL needs just a little bit of capitalism in order to raise some capital to pay for vital projects. The reason why nobody uses Linux is not because MS has them brainwashed, or because they just haven't tried it or whatnot.
It's because in real life, Linux just plain sucks for the average computer user. Maybe with a little funding, Linux could suck less.
-Why does everyone think in terms of pennies when talking about online currency? Use 1/1000th of a cent. I wouldn't pay 1 cent per page, but what about 0.1 cents? 0.01 cents? 0.001 cents?
-People use different currencies on the internet. A micropayment system should use only one currency at it's core. At the present time the best currency to use would be the US dollar. CGI/etc could be used to adjust rates to a viewers native currency.
-If it's difficult, nobody will do it. A micropayment system must be easy for a user to sign up for, and easy for vendors to sign up for.
-If it doesn't work, it doesn't work. A micropayment system should not require the vendor to use CGI/etc. Some vendors can't. It should not require that the user download a plugin/etc. Some users can't (example: on a library or school or work computer).
-You need people to sell things with it before it catches on. Use keenspace.com for this. I'm on the mailing list there, if you think up any good micropayment system, lemme know and I'll pass the idea along.
-Proprietary stuff sucks. A micropayment system should allow new companies to compete using the same protocols. Example: doesn't matter whether you use yahoo or ms or company x's banking services, you can still buy stuff using micropayments.
A mandatory penny per page? Bad idea. If google.com went up and started forcing you to pay, would you? Or would you get pissed and go to a competitor? And the idea of companies on the internet banding together and forcing users to pay money...baaaaad idea.
Also, just how much would these solutions cost to implement? Would they work on, say, the computers at a school. If you're on a school computer, who pays for you to surf the web?
Contrast this to a system where users have the option of paying very small ammounts to any site they want, and the website designers can simply sign up for a micropayment account, type in their pricing info, and copy n paste a URL over to their website to allow users to pay for access. Simple, easy, inexpensive.
I'm working on a micropayment system I called "millibank". You basically move $2 or so into the account using credit card or ATM transfer, then use the 'online cash' to buy things of very small value (it would be possible to have arbitrary accuracy).
;)
Some millibank concepts:
-users generally do not pay to access a site. They pay to increase speed, remove ad banners, and support the sites that they like. Example: you pay 5 cents a month to support a webcomic.
-credit card numbers/etc are NOT stored on the server, for security purposes. Normal accounts have a $10 cap on them by default.
-Everything can be done using regular HTML. The user clicks on a link which redirects them to the millibank server. It checks their identity and either grants them access to the other site, or denies access. Raw HTML can be used for this, or CGI can be used to prevent one person from gaining access and then giving the URL out to everybody.
-Objects are priced so low that nobody cares about paying them. This helps to reduce fraud.
-Vendors can set up their accounts so that when any specific thing happens to their account (ex: a person buys something), a cgi script is called. Or an email is sent to a certain address. Or data is sent to a certain IP. Data sent to the IP / CGI can include such information as username, ammount, etc. (but no password
-You can buy things, transfer funds, donate funds to a charity ('buy'), transfer funds in/out of bank accounts, and allow servers access to your funds (with a maximum cap. Example: $1 out). Imagine being able to play a game of Quake where every time you die you lose a penny, and every time you get a kill you gain a penny (with a 50 cent or so loss cap, of course).
If anyone is interested in hearing more or helping out, email me.
darkphotn@yahoo.com
Anything not directly related to survival can be art. The question is IS it art.
Likewise, video games CAN be art, the question is whether or not a particular game IS art. It's one heck of a tough question to answer, and in the end everyone will have their own opinion and there will be no right answer.
Track down an artist and ask their opinion.
If he attempts to violate the constitution?
Half of the $100 american bills in the world are OUTSIDE of the US. The reason why is that americans don't use physical money for larger purchases - they use checks/visa/etc.
In effect, we already are a cashless society on the high-end (when was the last time you paid for a $10,000 car using bills?), it's just taking some time for us to become cashless on the low-end.
Constitutional rights being limited?
The masses want to ban something they don't understand?
Defenders of freedom being portrayed as terrorists?
I thought that eventually the first amendment would come under fire the same way the second has, but I never thought it would happen this quickly, or this severely.
Mark my words, the attacks on electronic rights WILL grow greater unless people manage to get the facts out to the masses.
In time there WILL be people who want to put a video camera one every street, and in every house. There WILL be people talking about banning the first amendment.
Take a lesson from the gun folks: you can defend your rights, or they can be taken away. One or the other. There are no other options.
Get involved. Start a petition. Get on CNN or Fox News and let the public know how rediculous and unconstitutional certain laws are.
-DarkPhotn Ashatar
I burned my mouth on hot coffee. I'm going to sue McDonald's!
A gang banger shot me after I stole his crack. I'm going to sue the cigarette manufacturers!
Bah.
We should admit the fact that at the present time Windows is officially wiping the floor with Linux, as far as the average computer user is concerned. Only then will we fix the serious problems that Linux has.