Although it's probably not beyond the realm of possibility, the opportunity to cheat would be increased significantly and the distribution of location information across of a loosly coupled p2p network would seem like a very difficult challenge to overcome. Seems like a big gamble for 150k euros.
Yeah but you can only kick a dead horse for so long....
Yes... I guess that's true if your intention is to motivate the horse... but if you just like kicking horses... well you can kick them for quite a long time, dead or otherwise.
Wow... it's been months since I found anything really useful on/. The article was good, if out of date, because it gave categories of comparison. The comments for the most part were also very helpful because they point out what has changed and bring a bit more real world experience to the debate.
The owner of the website is the person providing the service. They should not be required to cater to every possible choice that someone visiting their site may make. For example, if they choose to use flash, and I don't want to use flash then that's my problem, not theirs. If I choose to use lynx or only browse from my mobile phone... that's my problem not website owners. If they want my business enough they'll change... if not... they don't get my business or attention. It's really not all that complicated.
The PC market is fine. The OS market may be an issue, but it's not HP's job to go against what it's customers want (rightly or wrongly) in order to educate the market. If people want big powerful trucks it's not Ford's job to explain to them how big powerful trucks aren't as economical as Honda Civics or the Ford Focus. You give the customer what they want.
You look at products from a technical standpoint. You argue that a PC without and OS is a functioning product. For you yes, but for 99% of the population it's not. They want a PC to get on the Internet, play games, check their email, do their homework, etc. They want the OS, the expect the OS.
I think you're blinded by your view of the OS market.
Why stop with the OS. HP bundles a lot of products in a PC... a PC is really just a conglomeration fo products right? Why shouldn't HP offer all PCs without the video card or network card or motherboards without those components integrated. Should each piece of 3rd party software be offered as an option for the end users and discounts provided if they choose not to use the option. The processor is no required to make the PC function if you have another processor and it's extremely expensive... you shouldn't bundle processors with PCs. You shouldn't bundle memory with PCs. I have a hard disk... I don't need to pay for another one that I will not use.
If consumer understanding is the problem then you and others who believe consumers actually want PCs without OSes need to work to educate consumers. If Microsoft's practices are the problem then go after Microsoft. Using the government to bludgeon a company in order to further your own particular tiny viewpoint is deteremental to everyone.
I'm fine with an advertising campaign telling users to ask for PCs without and OS... and to ask why they're paying for it. If the consumers really wanted that HP and Dell and Gateway would probably provide that product (they have business class PCs w/o OSes)... but the fact is that the market right now is not that big. Build the market and the vendors will come.
Why the fuck should the website have to cater to every possible browser out there. If you choose to use a specific browser and the provider of the site chooses to not support that browser then you can CHOOSE to use another browser or not use the site. It's that simple... it's always that simple. Why the fuck do these idiots have to try and force other people to cater to their particular choices.
A few years ago I decided to purchase a new car... I tried out a Honda Civic and a Toyota Carolla. I'm over 6 feet tall and the Toyota was just a little too cramped for me. So I bought the Honda... I DID NOT BERATE TOYOTA and demand that they make the care more spacious.
On one of my boxes I run Gentoo for AMD64. Flash support is a pain to setup and use and you can't use the native 64-bit browser. This motherfucker woudl have written YouTube and bitched about how the should support those users without flas and they MUST change their site. Idiot.
We need to quit feeding these trolls and tell them instead to submit a nice request for Opera (or whatever) and then shut the fuck up.
CxOs will like Vista. It's more secure then XP and trusted computing works just fine for a CxO. They want to control documents internally, DRM can help provide that. They want to make sure they're running licensed copies of software. DRM can provide that. They want to make sure their employees aren't using their equipment to pirate content... DRM can help with that.
You've been modded down already... but I'd like to take a minute and point out your flaws.
The Bridgestone/Firestone issue was a flaw in the basic functioning of the product... as I said the strap issue "doesn't affect the basic functionality of the product." The replacement costs for Nintendo will be minimal. To avoid the issue people need to restrain themselves (meaning... wow this is so much fun you need to be careful not to get too into it). If the Wii broke after a month. If the controller didn't work right. If it shocked people... sure that's bad publicity. But this isn't one of those situations.
Bridgestone/Firestone does not proove that some publicity about a "failing" can't be good.
This kind of overhyped FUD campaign just makes the FSF look like a bunch of nutty hippies. People don't give a shit about losing a little bit of control over their PC. The care about features. So unless someone can offer a competitive OS that offers the features (not just technical features) that users want and on top of that offer more control over one's PC they're not going to care.
Region encoding on DVDs sucks... but does that keep people from buying DVDs... NO NO NO!
The PC industry is about as close to a free market as you can get... it's ultra competitive... ULTRA competitive. The profit margins are miniscule.
My $90 was just a #... it could be $3 for all I know.
The government does work for the people, but the people need to realize, one that using the government to meddle in systems that work without government intervention is detremental to the people. For example, if mandating that HP sell OS less PCs drives the cost of PC support up and adds an additional $10 per PC in cost to recover that added expense I'm completely and totally against it. You're basically suggsting that the 99.9% of the people that want a PC with an OS on should be punished and pay more for a small tiny segment of the market that doesn't want an OS.
Your assumption is that MS is to blame... fine... sue MS, not HP.
The more I think about it the more I like my suggestion... format the hard disk and instad of offering a refund for the license charge them an equivalent amount for expected support costs and the development and manufacturing effort to create the format disk. So the net cost to the consumer is the same.
We do definitely have differing opinions... and you've been by far one of the most civil people I've debated with on here. Thanks for the debate... I agree to disagree... and will not respond if you'd like the last word:)
Murder is a crime regardless whether a business is involved. Bundling an OS with a PC is not a crime...
I'm arguing that businesses know their business best and are incented to make the most money for their shareholders. That's what they do and that's what we want them to do because when they compete with each other (which they are in this case) the consumers get the best product for the lowest cost. Consumers know what they want and can bitch at businesses or take their money elsewhere... consumers vote with their wallets. There is competition in this market, PC manufacturers are aggressively pursuing customers, if their was a valid market her that would make a profit it would be served.
What... OEMs creating illusions about not being able to buy a PC without an OS? What are you talking about? Apparently business that sell PCs without OSes need to do a better job advertising or consumers who REALLY want this OSless PC need to do a little bit more research. Why is it HP's job to educate consumers on all of the possible options out there?
If you complain to HP and they still don't offer a product you like, then go buy it somewhere else... and if you can't find a PC without an OS for less than HP sells a PC with an OS for... then buy the stupid PC with the OS and format it.
Minor changes to even "simple" things can drive up support costs. Users don't read... they ignore. I don't know the details of HP's (or Dell's or any other companies support costs) but neither do you and neither does the government. There are a myriad of reasons why HP may not offer a PC with an OS, valid business reasons.
Toxic waste... what the hell are you talking about? You've gone off the deep end. Please provide facutal examples of how HP is participating in a vast conspiracy telling users that must purchase a PC with an OS in order for it to work?
Hey, guess what... if you buy a PC without and OS (car without tires) and try to use the PC (drive the car off the lot) it's NOT GOING TO WORK!!! You have to install an OS (install some tires).
I appreciate that YOU have 22 years of experience in computing, but most people do not. I assume, given your experince, you realize this. You relize that people, particularly users who are interested in a $350 computer may not be as experienced as you and may make many many stupid mistakes (the CD-ROM is a coffee tray support call comes to mind... or the 'any key'). So I would assume that you would realize that offering a PC w/o the OS on it MAY increase support costs.
Now you don't know anything about the detailed inner workings of Dell or HP's business model, their support costs, supply chain, etc. and you don't know that even if they could offer an OS-Free PC at a cost, including support costs, lower then the current PCs with Windows. You don't know.
But what you do know is that YOU want a PC without an OS AND you want to pay less then you would pay for a PC with an OS from Dell or HP. You want an HP product modified specifically for your tastes and you want the government to give it to you (hypothetically speaking... that's your argument... I have no idea if you're in France). You want your will forced on another group of a people, the shareholders of HP, you want them to make a product specifically for your tastes and the tastes of a market that apparently isn't big enough to warrant the costs of being serviced.
How much money are we talking about here really... $90?
In your line of thinking... would I be justified in suing HP (assuming I'm French) for bundling Nero Burning Rom and not giving me the choice of not having it and not giving me a discount?
Maybe HP should offer a PC without an OS, set at the exact same price as the current PC w/ an OS, but bundled with a "special" install disk that preps the PC by formatting the hard disk.
Anyways, there really isn't any point in trying to convince you. You're set on using a government bludgeon to force others to give you what you want.
The whole crux of my argument is that there's only a few major vendors left, and they're all as bad as each other.
You can purchase PCs without operating systems from local vendors and many computer stores. You can purchase components and build your own PC. The consumer has many options, although they probably aren't as cost competitive as just purchasing a box with Windows and then dumping Windows.
If Microsoft is using its power to force vendors to install its OS on every PC and pass the cost along to the customer then go after Microsoft. If HP, Dell, SystemMax, Gateway, etc. have found that it's much more cost effective to satisfy the vast majority of the market by pre-installing windows then that's they're decision. It's their business.
I'm saying that law shouldn't be about what features a company should provide. Governments have less information about the product and real needs then the consumers or the business. If there really is a market where money can be made selling a stripped down PC then one will emerge. The proper way to handle this is complain directly to HP, ask for the option, consider purchasing the hardware from another vendor, etc. not to take it to the courts to force a company to provide a product that they currently do not sell.
You seem to just dismiss support costs... support costs are huge... support issues are huge. If the costs of supporting an option outweigh the benefit for the business of offering the option they're most likely not going to offer the option (their shareholders will appreciate that type of focus).
I think a more accurate car analogy would be requiring car manufacturers to sell their cars without tires. Many car buyers purchase after market rims and tires to enhance the look and performance of their cars. They should not be burdened with the cost of a manufacturers rims/wheels and then a 3rd party's (Goodyear, Toyo, etc.) tires.
Does MS actually do that anymore? That was part of their whole monopoly problem. If this is the case though then MS should be the subject of the lawsuit, not HP.
This Wii issue is the best advertising money can buy. What's wrong with the product... it's so fun people of all ages (particularly adults, one of their target demographics) are actually breaking the strapp while playing. This doesn't affect the actual functionality of product... you have to be careful... but the games still play and the Wii itself doesn't break. So they'll send out some replacement straps, while the news media covers this story for days demonstrating how to use the Wii, how young and old are using it and having a great time. How you should excercise some restraint while you have all of that fun.
Makes sense. So maybe HP and other PC makers have done a bit of analysis and realized that it costs them less to manufacture a PC with Windows on it, since 99.9% of their customers are going to want that right now, then it does to offer the option to have a bare bones PC. So instead of offering both options at the same cost.
This consumer group's argument is actually rather silly. Why stop with the OS. Sure I want a PC with Windows, but I don't want Nero Burning Rom installed. So you must not install that software and I must get a discount on my purchase because I didn't want it. Please let me pick and choose exactly which pieces of software I want to pay for... and when I make choices that make some of the PC's functionality unuseable (end user consumers would never do that to save a buck) and please pay for the extra support staff to handle all of these calls and complaints and then please pass that cost on to us.
The free market actually works, particularly in this case where there is extreme competition. I wouldn't be surprised to find out that the true cost of selling a PC with Windows and selling a PC without Windows is actually very close to the same number. That may change over time, it may be that Linux or web-apps take such a hold that selling a PC without Windows is profitable, but let the market sort that out. Let individual consumers complain to the company or vote with their dollars, using the government to force companies to offer specific optons works against us all.
Slashdot Mirror
Your innocence and naiveite delights me. Even with forked code a MMORPG still requires big infrastructure to run.
Although it's probably not beyond the realm of possibility, the opportunity to cheat would be increased significantly and the distribution of location information across of a loosly coupled p2p network would seem like a very difficult challenge to overcome. Seems like a big gamble for 150k euros.
No. There are no benefits. This is a complete and total waste of money.
Cathedral & Bazaar... oh shit, does anyone still read that crap? Oooh... wait... I think I just disrespected someone's holy book.
Yeah but you can only kick a dead horse for so long ....
Yes... I guess that's true if your intention is to motivate the horse... but if you just like kicking horses... well you can kick them for quite a long time, dead or otherwise.
You can run your own server, but it wouldn't be the one that most people used (Unless you were awesome).
I am awesome. I'm also pretty rad.
Wow... it's been months since I found anything really useful on /. The article was good, if out of date, because it gave categories of comparison. The comments for the most part were also very helpful because they point out what has changed and bring a bit more real world experience to the debate.
:)
Thanks for the early Christmas present
The owner of the website is the person providing the service. They should not be required to cater to every possible choice that someone visiting their site may make. For example, if they choose to use flash, and I don't want to use flash then that's my problem, not theirs. If I choose to use lynx or only browse from my mobile phone... that's my problem not website owners. If they want my business enough they'll change... if not... they don't get my business or attention. It's really not all that complicated.
Then the person needs to bring that issue, the 508 compliance, up. Not just the fact that it doesn't work with Opera.
I do not believe Opera usability is the test for section 508 compliance.
Cool... justified mob mentality :D
:)
Happy Holidays. Thanks for the debate.
The PC market is fine. The OS market may be an issue, but it's not HP's job to go against what it's customers want (rightly or wrongly) in order to educate the market. If people want big powerful trucks it's not Ford's job to explain to them how big powerful trucks aren't as economical as Honda Civics or the Ford Focus. You give the customer what they want.
You look at products from a technical standpoint. You argue that a PC without and OS is a functioning product. For you yes, but for 99% of the population it's not. They want a PC to get on the Internet, play games, check their email, do their homework, etc. They want the OS, the expect the OS.
I think you're blinded by your view of the OS market.
Why stop with the OS. HP bundles a lot of products in a PC... a PC is really just a conglomeration fo products right? Why shouldn't HP offer all PCs without the video card or network card or motherboards without those components integrated. Should each piece of 3rd party software be offered as an option for the end users and discounts provided if they choose not to use the option. The processor is no required to make the PC function if you have another processor and it's extremely expensive... you shouldn't bundle processors with PCs. You shouldn't bundle memory with PCs. I have a hard disk... I don't need to pay for another one that I will not use.
If consumer understanding is the problem then you and others who believe consumers actually want PCs without OSes need to work to educate consumers. If Microsoft's practices are the problem then go after Microsoft. Using the government to bludgeon a company in order to further your own particular tiny viewpoint is deteremental to everyone.
I'm fine with an advertising campaign telling users to ask for PCs without and OS... and to ask why they're paying for it. If the consumers really wanted that HP and Dell and Gateway would probably provide that product (they have business class PCs w/o OSes)... but the fact is that the market right now is not that big. Build the market and the vendors will come.
Oh crap... you're one of those people who read books aren't you. :)
Why the fuck should the website have to cater to every possible browser out there. If you choose to use a specific browser and the provider of the site chooses to not support that browser then you can CHOOSE to use another browser or not use the site. It's that simple... it's always that simple. Why the fuck do these idiots have to try and force other people to cater to their particular choices.
A few years ago I decided to purchase a new car... I tried out a Honda Civic and a Toyota Carolla. I'm over 6 feet tall and the Toyota was just a little too cramped for me. So I bought the Honda... I DID NOT BERATE TOYOTA and demand that they make the care more spacious.
On one of my boxes I run Gentoo for AMD64. Flash support is a pain to setup and use and you can't use the native 64-bit browser. This motherfucker woudl have written YouTube and bitched about how the should support those users without flas and they MUST change their site. Idiot.
We need to quit feeding these trolls and tell them instead to submit a nice request for Opera (or whatever) and then shut the fuck up.
CxOs will like Vista. It's more secure then XP and trusted computing works just fine for a CxO. They want to control documents internally, DRM can help provide that. They want to make sure they're running licensed copies of software. DRM can provide that. They want to make sure their employees aren't using their equipment to pirate content... DRM can help with that.
Outstanding post. Microsoft gains and FSF looks like they're blinded by their bias.
You've been modded down already... but I'd like to take a minute and point out your flaws.
The Bridgestone/Firestone issue was a flaw in the basic functioning of the product... as I said the strap issue "doesn't affect the basic functionality of the product." The replacement costs for Nintendo will be minimal. To avoid the issue people need to restrain themselves (meaning... wow this is so much fun you need to be careful not to get too into it). If the Wii broke after a month. If the controller didn't work right. If it shocked people... sure that's bad publicity. But this isn't one of those situations.
Bridgestone/Firestone does not proove that some publicity about a "failing" can't be good.
This kind of overhyped FUD campaign just makes the FSF look like a bunch of nutty hippies. People don't give a shit about losing a little bit of control over their PC. The care about features. So unless someone can offer a competitive OS that offers the features (not just technical features) that users want and on top of that offer more control over one's PC they're not going to care.
Region encoding on DVDs sucks... but does that keep people from buying DVDs... NO NO NO!
The PC industry is about as close to a free market as you can get... it's ultra competitive... ULTRA competitive. The profit margins are miniscule.
:)
My $90 was just a #... it could be $3 for all I know.
The government does work for the people, but the people need to realize, one that using the government to meddle in systems that work without government intervention is detremental to the people. For example, if mandating that HP sell OS less PCs drives the cost of PC support up and adds an additional $10 per PC in cost to recover that added expense I'm completely and totally against it. You're basically suggsting that the 99.9% of the people that want a PC with an OS on should be punished and pay more for a small tiny segment of the market that doesn't want an OS.
Your assumption is that MS is to blame... fine... sue MS, not HP.
The more I think about it the more I like my suggestion... format the hard disk and instad of offering a refund for the license charge them an equivalent amount for expected support costs and the development and manufacturing effort to create the format disk. So the net cost to the consumer is the same.
We do definitely have differing opinions... and you've been by far one of the most civil people I've debated with on here. Thanks for the debate... I agree to disagree... and will not respond if you'd like the last word
Happy holidays.
Murder is a crime regardless whether a business is involved. Bundling an OS with a PC is not a crime...
I'm arguing that businesses know their business best and are incented to make the most money for their shareholders. That's what they do and that's what we want them to do because when they compete with each other (which they are in this case) the consumers get the best product for the lowest cost. Consumers know what they want and can bitch at businesses or take their money elsewhere... consumers vote with their wallets. There is competition in this market, PC manufacturers are aggressively pursuing customers, if their was a valid market her that would make a profit it would be served.
What... OEMs creating illusions about not being able to buy a PC without an OS? What are you talking about? Apparently business that sell PCs without OSes need to do a better job advertising or consumers who REALLY want this OSless PC need to do a little bit more research. Why is it HP's job to educate consumers on all of the possible options out there?
If you complain to HP and they still don't offer a product you like, then go buy it somewhere else... and if you can't find a PC without an OS for less than HP sells a PC with an OS for... then buy the stupid PC with the OS and format it.
Minor changes to even "simple" things can drive up support costs. Users don't read... they ignore. I don't know the details of HP's (or Dell's or any other companies support costs) but neither do you and neither does the government. There are a myriad of reasons why HP may not offer a PC with an OS, valid business reasons.
Toxic waste... what the hell are you talking about? You've gone off the deep end. Please provide facutal examples of how HP is participating in a vast conspiracy telling users that must purchase a PC with an OS in order for it to work?
Hey, guess what... if you buy a PC without and OS (car without tires) and try to use the PC (drive the car off the lot) it's NOT GOING TO WORK!!! You have to install an OS (install some tires).
I appreciate that YOU have 22 years of experience in computing, but most people do not. I assume, given your experince, you realize this. You relize that people, particularly users who are interested in a $350 computer may not be as experienced as you and may make many many stupid mistakes (the CD-ROM is a coffee tray support call comes to mind... or the 'any key'). So I would assume that you would realize that offering a PC w/o the OS on it MAY increase support costs.
Now you don't know anything about the detailed inner workings of Dell or HP's business model, their support costs, supply chain, etc. and you don't know that even if they could offer an OS-Free PC at a cost, including support costs, lower then the current PCs with Windows. You don't know.
But what you do know is that YOU want a PC without an OS AND you want to pay less then you would pay for a PC with an OS from Dell or HP. You want an HP product modified specifically for your tastes and you want the government to give it to you (hypothetically speaking... that's your argument... I have no idea if you're in France). You want your will forced on another group of a people, the shareholders of HP, you want them to make a product specifically for your tastes and the tastes of a market that apparently isn't big enough to warrant the costs of being serviced.
How much money are we talking about here really... $90?
In your line of thinking... would I be justified in suing HP (assuming I'm French) for bundling Nero Burning Rom and not giving me the choice of not having it and not giving me a discount?
Maybe HP should offer a PC without an OS, set at the exact same price as the current PC w/ an OS, but bundled with a "special" install disk that preps the PC by formatting the hard disk.
Anyways, there really isn't any point in trying to convince you. You're set on using a government bludgeon to force others to give you what you want.
The whole crux of my argument is that there's only a few major vendors left, and they're all as bad as each other.
You can purchase PCs without operating systems from local vendors and many computer stores. You can purchase components and build your own PC. The consumer has many options, although they probably aren't as cost competitive as just purchasing a box with Windows and then dumping Windows.
If Microsoft is using its power to force vendors to install its OS on every PC and pass the cost along to the customer then go after Microsoft. If HP, Dell, SystemMax, Gateway, etc. have found that it's much more cost effective to satisfy the vast majority of the market by pre-installing windows then that's they're decision. It's their business.
I'm saying that law shouldn't be about what features a company should provide. Governments have less information about the product and real needs then the consumers or the business. If there really is a market where money can be made selling a stripped down PC then one will emerge. The proper way to handle this is complain directly to HP, ask for the option, consider purchasing the hardware from another vendor, etc. not to take it to the courts to force a company to provide a product that they currently do not sell.
You seem to just dismiss support costs... support costs are huge... support issues are huge. If the costs of supporting an option outweigh the benefit for the business of offering the option they're most likely not going to offer the option (their shareholders will appreciate that type of focus).
I think a more accurate car analogy would be requiring car manufacturers to sell their cars without tires. Many car buyers purchase after market rims and tires to enhance the look and performance of their cars. They should not be burdened with the cost of a manufacturers rims/wheels and then a 3rd party's (Goodyear, Toyo, etc.) tires.
Does MS actually do that anymore? That was part of their whole monopoly problem. If this is the case though then MS should be the subject of the lawsuit, not HP.
This Wii issue is the best advertising money can buy. What's wrong with the product... it's so fun people of all ages (particularly adults, one of their target demographics) are actually breaking the strapp while playing. This doesn't affect the actual functionality of product... you have to be careful... but the games still play and the Wii itself doesn't break. So they'll send out some replacement straps, while the news media covers this story for days demonstrating how to use the Wii, how young and old are using it and having a great time. How you should excercise some restraint while you have all of that fun.
Makes sense. So maybe HP and other PC makers have done a bit of analysis and realized that it costs them less to manufacture a PC with Windows on it, since 99.9% of their customers are going to want that right now, then it does to offer the option to have a bare bones PC. So instead of offering both options at the same cost.
This consumer group's argument is actually rather silly. Why stop with the OS. Sure I want a PC with Windows, but I don't want Nero Burning Rom installed. So you must not install that software and I must get a discount on my purchase because I didn't want it. Please let me pick and choose exactly which pieces of software I want to pay for... and when I make choices that make some of the PC's functionality unuseable (end user consumers would never do that to save a buck) and please pay for the extra support staff to handle all of these calls and complaints and then please pass that cost on to us.
The free market actually works, particularly in this case where there is extreme competition. I wouldn't be surprised to find out that the true cost of selling a PC with Windows and selling a PC without Windows is actually very close to the same number. That may change over time, it may be that Linux or web-apps take such a hold that selling a PC without Windows is profitable, but let the market sort that out. Let individual consumers complain to the company or vote with their dollars, using the government to force companies to offer specific optons works against us all.