Re:You know, every time I an article about the RIA
on
Web Radio and the RIAA
·
· Score: 1
Maybe he's got multiple personalities and spends his days rotating between the Beatles. Next, he'll post as George and then Ringo. Who cares? get over it.
Sure. But the record companies aren't the ones paying the radio stations for advertising, unless they are advertising a particular record. The record companies do pay the radio stations to play particular songs, so in effect they are paying for advertisement of that album with a roughly 3 minute advertising spot in which a song off of the album is played (y'know, a single). The RIAA is trying to turn this system upside down, because it's not in their financial best interest, though this system could easily be adapted to webradio stations. The problem being that it's difficult to police the stations.
Instead, the RIAA is trying to add themselves to the list of organizations that receive performance royalties, like ASCAP and BMI, though they have no traditional legal right to this compensation. Under new law, however, they have successfully lobbied congress to take the position that a webcast, unlike radio broadcast, is actually a form of copying, which it is not. This gives them legal ground to stand on from which they can extort extravagant fees from webcasters. Ultimately, this will likely lead to the next generation of webcasting, where the RIAA or the people who make up the RIAA, but under a different name, start a subscription based webcasting service. This company or group of companies will likely negotiate a sweetheart deal with the RIAA (legal under the CARP policies) that allows them to pay extremely low or no royalties. This is fine, because they are making the real money off of the subscriptions and don't have to pay the musicians anything, because they aren't paying the RIAA any royalties to begin with.
"> As far as I understand it, the radio is more or > less one long commercial for music.
That's a big load of horse-shit... That's like saying TV is just a big commercial for television shows. If that were the case, why would you bother watching/listening? Maybe actors should be paying us for watching TV, since we then go out and buy their posters and magazines? "
Possibly, your mod is based off of the same logic that got the above post a (Score:2). I'm finding more and more often that idiots get modded up more than people with something to say. And then there's the "Not New" post that got modded to 3, Informative. The only way I can take his post seriously is if he was making a joke by saying that the topic was not new by making his post intrinsically redundant. We all know that this subject is not new. But what IS new are the further developments regarding this subject.
Oh well. I'll quit ranting. I just wanted to let you know that you are not crazy. I think the trolls have taken over/. moderation and are fucking with you.
I'm sorry. I was really just joking, but it didn't come off that way now that I read it again. My apologies. I've been through the same type of thing so many times it's ridiculous. The first time I installed debian I probably did it 4 times in a row before I got it right.
Well, I see your point. There's really nothing wrong with having an autodetect routine in the installer, at least on the ISO distribution. I don't install that way, I use the root and rescue floppies along with the base and driver.tgz's. My 3Com 3c905C, didn't used to be supported by default, either. However, the driver was included in the driver.tgz. So, I using that I was able to install the base system and connect to the debian mirrors to grab any other packages I wanted. I believe it used that driver automagically, but it's been awhile. It's possible that I had to do a kernel recompile before I was able to get on the net. Or maybe the installer had a screen that allowed me to choose it.
Either way, it works just fine.
However, I can understand how it would be a problem if you don't know which driver you need. I've been in that position before, and I just had to open up the box, find out what chipset I had on the card and pick the right driver (or google for the answer if it's still not obvious).
I guess it just boils down to this: Most people that are going to install debian are going to know that stuff or figure it out and move on. Next time, they'll know what drivers work for their card. So, it's hard, being a fairly non-commercial distro to get a group of developers motivated enough to code an autodetect routine that works for everyone. RedHat and Mandrake have done it, because they are trying to meet the needs of their market. The debian people aren't aiming for the same things. They likely feel that their time is better spent fixing stability issues and making package management and the rest of the distro work flawlessly. They are not really aiming for the average user market. I think their attitude is that it'd be nice, but they have more important things to worry about.
I understand what you mean and I think it's a good point. I just don't agree that the RedHat installer is "easier". From my experience it's much more difficult do deal with, it's package selection utility is horrible, and I don't have the option of installing over the net. Besides which, I can't boot it without major hassle because I don't have a bootable CD-ROM. I'm sure the CD-ROM contains some bootdisk images, but I'm not going to d/l a full ISO distribution when I can d/l a rescue+root floppy set and a set of base and driver packages, like debian allows.
I guess "ease of use" is all relative. For my money, it's much easier for me to have plenty of options and no fancy graphical crap-staller. But, ncurses-based console GUI's don't scare me like they scare some people.
Exactly! It's not difficult at all. I find RedHat's installer to be much more cumbersome. But, the myth lives on. I think people just get scared when they don't have a GUI. It's not like the installer doesn't have a menu-based interface. The most difficult part is dealing with partitions. Which you'll have to do anyway, if you want to dual-boot, or run more than one distro, or leave a partition aside to hold your/home directory in case you reinstall or switch distros. All this ease of use bullshit is really just shortsighted whining. I remember when people used to get upset that Windows 98 HAD to be installed on the first partition of the first hard drive and that it automatically overwrites the MBR. Now people generally understand that they have to install Windows first, and Linux second. And that they probably want to make a boot disk if they subsequently reinstall Windows. How is it possible to make this easy? It used to trip up everybody. Now it seems to be common knowledge.
People are scared of the Debian installer for the same reason Windows users are scared of Linux. It's unfamiliar territory. But, it's not that hard, you just have to have a general idea of what's going on. This is true with any linux installer that isn't setup to just wax your system automatically.
"The problem is that Debian doesn't autodetect. Your solution, apparently, is that people who want autodetection shouldn't use Debian. I would humbly submit that adding autodetection to Debian is a better solution."
So add autodetection to Debian already! What are you waiting for? It's open-source.
"What the hell are you talking about? I thought computers were supposed to automate things."
Who told you that? I've never found computers to be that useful at automating much of anything that I needed to do. It doesn't do my laundry, pay my bills or wipe my ass. All things I'd like to have taken care of automatically. It seems that most of the time, unless I tell it to do something it just sits there idle.
I make a living off of telling people how to use their computers. So, I'm not too concerned with making them "user-friendly", not because I'm an elitist bastard, but because it's been my experience that no matter how "easy" you try to make things, people are still going to fuck it up.
"Take a good, hard look at what you have written and tell me again, with a straight face, that autodetection is not a good idea."
I'm not really trying to say that it's not a good idea. But, for me it's irrelevant and annoying. I'm going to recompile my kernel and set it up how I want anyway, so it doesn't help me any. On the other hand it gets on my nerves that the autodetect routine is going to try to redetect my hardware all the time, so then I'd have to go hunt down the init script and disable it. Then I'm taking the chance that someone made something depend on that for some stupid reason, so it fucks something else up. It's just so much simpler FOR ME not to be coddled in the first place.
"I'd rather spend my time using my computer than trying to configure it to work properly. I just spend my whole damn weekend doing just that, and if I never have to do it again it will be too soon."
Not to be an ass, but that's why every Windows user I know uses Windows. My experience has been that Linux is going to take an investment of time to setup and configure correctly. But, if you're really trying to get it to do something, like run Apache or ftpd or whatever, then it's worth the effort, because once you're done, you don't have to mess with it.
Essentially, my point still stands. If you knew what hardware you had (the chipset), you would have had a much easier time configuring your system and could have spent your weekend USING your computer. Do you think autodetection is foolproof? What do you do when the autodetect fails?
The 10 different ICQ clients likely use their own code, because other peoples code can be a pain in the ass to work with. Many of the developers may just want to do the whole thing themself anyway. I for one, think it would be nice if developers made more of an effort to do things differently. For instance, had the first guy packaged up a library for working with the ICQ protocol and distributed that independently from his application code, other developers might have joined in on the project, making the implentation work properly and export useful functions for dealing with the protocol. Then you could have 10 different applications that use common bulletproof library code, but that contain different features. Unfortunately, many people don't think ahead about that kind of stuff and they just whip up a monolithic application and toss it onto the net. So, I gotta agree with you, but code reuse takes planning ahead.
The package manager is a non-issue. The package format on the other hand is an issue if you want to have all of the distros use the same one. The Linux Standard Base has settled on RPM, which sucks big donkey dicks. Deb packages are much better. So see, now that people have decided, they have to make people co-operate. I for one am NOT going to get stuck with RPM. I'd rather install Gentoo and compile everything from source. Ohh wait, I already do that. Nevermind.
To answer your question: The Linux distros can't cooperate, because they have different goals. They also tend to do things like start installer and package manager utilities in house. So, they end up coming up with their own different implementations. Once they have them, they don't want to switch to the other guy's solution. Despite the fact that they probably like their own solution the best, it could be a matter of pride that they won't use the other distro's utilities.
Anyway, once you try to make all of the Linux distros the same, then you negate the reason for having different distros in the first place. One of the cool things about Linux is that anyone can start their own distro. And, technically, you could switch over from one distro to another without even using an installer, but it'd be a bitch. Linux is a hackers' OS, made by hackers, for hackers. You can't get everyone to do the same thing if everyone is doing their own thing, get it?
Argh! The LAST thing I want is a graphical installer that installs KDE, Gnome, Apache, and Office Apps. What are you trying to do to me? I don't want any of that stuff. And, if you're not going to ask me any questions about what I want installed, then why does it need to be a graphical installer? Couldn't it just be one simple text string that said: Hit to wax all of your partitions and install a bunch of crap you don't need?
I find Debian's install to be very easy compared to that of other distros. I don't have to download an iso. I can boot from 2 floppies and have a working system installed in less than an hour. Yet, with RedHat, I either have to take what they give me as far as packages go, or I have to scour through a list of tons of packages to enable what I want and disable what I don't. THAT is not user-friendly. But, I guess it depends on what you want and what kind of user you are. I'm a user and Debian is friendlier to me. If you don't find it friendly, then there are other distros that will give you what you want. I don't think its good or necessary for Debian to try to be the same distro as all the rest. That's why Linux has many distros, so that each distro can tailor itself to users that want what it has. Don't you get it?
Dselect can definitely be a pain. But, IMO, it's very easy to get a working install using dselect. All you have to do is hit Enter on the package selection. If I remember correctly, you then run it again, because it doesn't install everything it wants the first time. So you just run it again and hit Enter at the package selection screen. It installs a few things and you have a working base system.
Beyond that, you give no justification for why Debian needs to change focus from being a totally free distro suited to sysadmin types to one that's chasing after the mythical market of Windows refugees and Linux newbies. They should look for a distro that is suited to their needs. Wouldn't that be better than taking one of the few distros that seems to know what they are after and having them try to do what every other linux distro is trying to do? I don't get it. You've got quite a lot of explaining to do before I'll even think about buying this:
"If your user base is educated professionals who have done hundreds of debian installs and can compile their own kernel without assistance, then the current installer is probably okay, but it's not where Debian needs to go."
If anything, Debian should focus on ways to make sysadmins' jobs easier, because that is Debians market. Maybe they should focus on tools to facilitate network wide installs and automatic updates. Maybe they already have this type of thing, I don't know. But they sure as hell don't need a crappy gui-installer that requires a bootable CD-ROM to run. It'd be fine if they had one as an option on the CD, but IMO, their root and rescue 2 floppy install combo should NEVER have a graphical installer.
Dumbass!! Why didn't you just run dselect again? Or at least check to see what services you were running before trapsing your happy ass of to work?
There's no amount of "user-friendliness" that's going to predict just how much of an idiot you are. You are going to have to start thinking about how to do shit, before you hit random keys and fuck everything up.
BTW, you can usually just hit Enter during the first dselect package selection at the end of the install. I can't remember whether it installs the basic stuff at this point or not. But, then you can run dselect again, hit enter on package selection and it will get you up and running with a nice simple base system. You can then add anything you like with apt-get. It's really very easy.
The Debian GNU/Linux distro is NOT targetted at Joe SixPack. It's targetted at professional sysadmins who want to run ultra-stable servers on all free software. The fact that they have testing and unstable releases and that a lot of users like Debian does not mean that those people are Debians target. If you and Joe want a pretty, stupid-friendly distro that doesn't ask you any questions, then use something like RedHat or Mandrake. Or you can go buy a Mac. I can't figure out any reason why the Linux community (the Debian people, in particular) should give a shit whether Joe SixPack, or you for that matter, remain in ignorance. If you think that Linux only exists as an effort to kill Microsoft, then you've got a lot to learn. If Linux does end up taking massive market share from Windows, it won't be anytime soon. If that is YOUR goal, then start coding your own distro or help out one of the many that is trying to reproduce a Windows-like experience on Linux. Why bother the Debian people? They already HAVE a goal.
1. If you are installing on a number of different boxes, then you're probably doing it from work right? If so, and you'll be running debian on those boxes, deal with it. That's your job. If not, then deal with it, or pick a distro that works how you like it to work.
2. If these are your home boxes, you should know what's in them or you should find out and make yourself a notebook that contains a list of all of your systems and all of their relevant chipsets (mainboard chipset, processor, network, video, sound, etc)
If you still can't figure it out, you should go with a Mandrake or stick with Windows. On Linux, if you ever need to recompile your kernel, you can save yourself a bit of time by knowing your system even if the installer autodetects your devices. Linux is not supposed to be Windows. Do you want control of your system or not?
Uhh. This is open source. The developers are users as well, and I don't think you're going to get a fuck of a lot done if you decide to ignore what the developers want. I can't tell that Debian even needs an installer, per se. I just download the root and rescue disks and put the base and driver.tgz's on an extra fat32 partition. Then I reboot with the disks, mount the fat32 and it installs from the tars. When it's done, I reboot, login, switch my apt sources to sid, and run dselect. I hit enter on the package selection page and it downloads and installs the basic utilities that everyone needs. Then I can install X if I choose and configure any services I need. It's really easy and it's one of the very few Linux distro's that lets me get away with not being able to boot from CD. I'd be really pissed if they fscked up the installer so that I could no longer install from a couple of floppies, but I guess nobody else cares about that.
Either way, it doesn't make much difference to me, because I'm running Gentoo anyway. The last thing I want is a stupid graphical auto-installer that sticks me with all kinds of crap that I don't need or want. The way I install Gentoo, I end up with a tight efficient system that contains only the packages I actually want and has NO open ports. I don't think I've ever run another distro that installs by default without opening up a single listen port for some service I don't need.
I'm not a developer, though. So, I guess you can ask me what I'd like in an installer. My answer is control. If you want to run Windows and let Bill Gates decide how your computer is going to be setup, then go right ahead. If you want to run Linux, and have some control over what's going on, then quit whining and take control. Make up your fucking mind!
Yeah right. The DMCA was coming before Napster ever appeared on the scene. The content industry has been talking about this shit for years. They've feared the digital marketplace since Jon Katz worked for Wired, and likely before then. The content industry did not need Napster to run this shit through Congress, all they needed was deep pockets. They are in fact getting the amount of public exposure that they are because of the Napster phenomenon. So, it could actually be safe to say that all of this garbage legislation would never have been challenged were it not for Napster. Now people are much more aware of what's going on, and that's a good thing. The problem now is showing people what the real issues are and why allowing the content industries absolute control over their "IP" is a very bad thing.
Exactly. The investors, employees and officers of a corporation are generally not legally responsible for the generalized "actions" of the corporation. The corporation itself is recognized under current law as a legal entity in and of itself, with many of the rights of a normal person. However, since it is an IMAGINARY entity, it cannot be held liable for its actions in the same way that a real person can. This allows smart business people to shield themselves from liability for their actions in the course of doing business.
If you take a real good look around, you will probably find that it is not the regular people that are in general getting over on the corporations (or their investors and employees). Rather, you will likely find that the investors and employees of corporations are using the imaginary legal construct called a corporation to get over on everyone else. Y'know, by dumping toxic waste, pimping out Britney Spears, creating genetically modified crops that force growers to repurchase seed they have already paid for, etc, etc, etc, etc... And how are the regular people getting over on corporations? Uhm, infringing some copyrights? Sniffle, sniffle.. Poor, poor corporate slave-owners..
It will. As soon as digital content contains standardized copy-protection watermarks, new cameras will be required by law to obey the no-copy, copy-once, and copy-forever tags. Then, modifying your camera to ignore those tags will be circumvention, telling someone how to mod their camera will also be punishable, and the copyright hoarders will be sitting on the biggest pile of cash man has ever seen.
Well, you're right to an extent. The telephone has been around for most of the last century, so it's not like it's new technology. However, DSL is not rocket science. Although there are many physical line quality factors that can get in the way of good service, from my experience as a tech support rep for a large Bell DSL ISP, I'd have to say that the lack of quality service is more due to the greed of providers rather than the technical hurdles that have to be crossed. They provide access really only because they have to. If it were up to them, they'd roll back the technological clock and make DSL disappear. It's an expensive business to start. And, they don't want to pay for it, because they are a for-profit business. Wiring the country, out to the boonies, with fat pipe is an expensive endeavor. It doesn't pay for itself. So, are we going to wait for the fat cats to take it upon themselves to do it when they feel generous? Or, are we going to do it the sensible way? Pay for it ourselves?
Our government could fund nationwide broadband rollout for a fraction of the cost of a private corporation. It is something that we will all need in the future, so it's not a good competitive market. Telecomm companies are dragging their feet, because they know it will benefit them more to be forced to provide service than to lay down the necessary infrustructure on their own dime. If they don't do it, the government will force them to do it and subsidize it. So, in the end it will be much cheaper for the companies involved and then they will get to reap the profits from the newly installed infrastructure.
At least, that's what I figure. Money motivates corps. Or maybe I'm just a wacko. Either way, I'm sticking to what makes sense until someone shows me that I'm wrong.
"I AM NOT A CONSUMER. If you think that my only reason for existence, is to buy your crud, and fill the coporate coffers, fuck off. If the goverment, which I pay for in taxes, happens to have a clue, and want to build infrastructure (one of its main purposes), then what right do they have to complain? They had their chance. My god, if you can't move faster than our goverment (which is ALWAYS 20 years too slow), then you DESERVE to go broke. I have no sympathies for any of these companies, that are still trying to do business as if its 1975. "
My God!! People on/. are finally starting to get it!! I hope the 13 yr olds are paying attention. The same people that these corporate assholes classify as consumers are the same people that make their master-slave business models turn ungodly profits. If one of those bastard CEOs actually walked up to me and called me a CONSUMER, I'd rape his ass right there on the spot! We are not consumers. WE ARE THE PRODUCERS! They consume our lives. They turn our only valuable resource, our time, into a cheap commodity, while they reap the benefits of our labor.
I doubt you can find one executive of a large corporation that feels he is underpaid for his services. In fact, I think you'll find that the people who have worked, slept or been born into those positions are more likely to feel like they're doing the company a favor by not taking a better paying position as a corporate whore for another company. In other words, they are looking at how they could take more, consume more, get more, for themselves. Consumers. Get it? They have turned the meaning of these words around. They would have you think that they are the producers. They are wrong.
Sign me up!! I'm CmdrTaco, and I want me some o' them fly ass shoes! Do you have any of those those 80's style fat-ass neon laces? I gotta be stylin'!!!
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe he's got multiple personalities and spends his days rotating between the Beatles. Next, he'll post as George and then Ringo. Who cares? get over it.
.
Sure. But the record companies aren't the ones paying the radio stations for advertising, unless they are advertising a particular record. The record companies do pay the radio stations to play particular songs, so in effect they are paying for advertisement of that album with a roughly 3 minute advertising spot in which a song off of the album is played (y'know, a single). The RIAA is trying to turn this system upside down, because it's not in their financial best interest, though this system could easily be adapted to webradio stations. The problem being that it's difficult to police the stations.
Instead, the RIAA is trying to add themselves to the list of organizations that receive performance royalties, like ASCAP and BMI, though they have no traditional legal right to this compensation. Under new law, however, they have successfully lobbied congress to take the position that a webcast, unlike radio broadcast, is actually a form of copying, which it is not. This gives them legal ground to stand on from which they can extort extravagant fees from webcasters. Ultimately, this will likely lead to the next generation of webcasting, where the RIAA or the people who make up the RIAA, but under a different name, start a subscription based webcasting service. This company or group of companies will likely negotiate a sweetheart deal with the RIAA (legal under the CARP policies) that allows them to pay extremely low or no royalties. This is fine, because they are making the real money off of the subscriptions and don't have to pay the musicians anything, because they aren't paying the RIAA any royalties to begin with.
That's the scam.
.
"> As far as I understand it, the radio is more or > less one long commercial for music.
/. moderation and are fucking with you.
That's a big load of horse-shit...
That's like saying TV is just a big commercial for television shows.
If that were the case, why would you bother watching/listening? Maybe actors should be paying us for watching TV, since we then go out and buy their posters and magazines? "
Possibly, your mod is based off of the same logic that got the above post a (Score:2). I'm finding more and more often that idiots get modded up more than people with something to say. And then there's the "Not New" post that got modded to 3, Informative. The only way I can take his post seriously is if he was making a joke by saying that the topic was not new by making his post intrinsically redundant. We all know that this subject is not new. But what IS new are the further developments regarding this subject.
Oh well. I'll quit ranting. I just wanted to let you know that you are not crazy. I think the trolls have taken over
.
I'm sorry. I was really just joking, but it didn't come off that way now that I read it again. My apologies. I've been through the same type of thing so many times it's ridiculous. The first time I installed debian I probably did it 4 times in a row before I got it right.
.
Well, I see your point. There's really nothing wrong with having an autodetect routine in the installer, at least on the ISO distribution. I don't install that way, I use the root and rescue floppies along with the base and driver
Either way, it works just fine.
However, I can understand how it would be a problem if you don't know which driver you need. I've been in that position before, and I just had to open up the box, find out what chipset I had on the card and pick the right driver (or google for the answer if it's still not obvious).
I guess it just boils down to this: Most people that are going to install debian are going to know that stuff or figure it out and move on. Next time, they'll know what drivers work for their card. So, it's hard, being a fairly non-commercial distro to get a group of developers motivated enough to code an autodetect routine that works for everyone. RedHat and Mandrake have done it, because they are trying to meet the needs of their market. The debian people aren't aiming for the same things. They likely feel that their time is better spent fixing stability issues and making package management and the rest of the distro work flawlessly. They are not really aiming for the average user market. I think their attitude is that it'd be nice, but they have more important things to worry about.
.
I understand what you mean and I think it's a good point. I just don't agree that the RedHat installer is "easier". From my experience it's much more difficult do deal with, it's package selection utility is horrible, and I don't have the option of installing over the net. Besides which, I can't boot it without major hassle because I don't have a bootable CD-ROM. I'm sure the CD-ROM contains some bootdisk images, but I'm not going to d/l a full ISO distribution when I can d/l a rescue+root floppy set and a set of base and driver packages, like debian allows.
I guess "ease of use" is all relative. For my money, it's much easier for me to have plenty of options and no fancy graphical crap-staller. But, ncurses-based console GUI's don't scare me like they scare some people.
.
Exactly! It's not difficult at all. I find RedHat's installer to be much more cumbersome. But, the myth lives on. I think people just get scared when they don't have a GUI. It's not like the installer doesn't have a menu-based interface. The most difficult part is dealing with partitions. Which you'll have to do anyway, if you want to dual-boot, or run more than one distro, or leave a partition aside to hold your /home directory in case you reinstall or switch distros. All this ease of use bullshit is really just shortsighted whining. I remember when people used to get upset that Windows 98 HAD to be installed on the first partition of the first hard drive and that it automatically overwrites the MBR. Now people generally understand that they have to install Windows first, and Linux second. And that they probably want to make a boot disk if they subsequently reinstall Windows. How is it possible to make this easy? It used to trip up everybody. Now it seems to be common knowledge.
People are scared of the Debian installer for the same reason Windows users are scared of Linux. It's unfamiliar territory. But, it's not that hard, you just have to have a general idea of what's going on. This is true with any linux installer that isn't setup to just wax your system automatically.
.
"The problem is that Debian doesn't autodetect. Your solution, apparently, is that people who want autodetection shouldn't use Debian. I would humbly submit that adding autodetection to Debian is a better solution."
So add autodetection to Debian already! What are you waiting for? It's open-source.
"What the hell are you talking about? I thought computers were supposed to automate things."
Who told you that? I've never found computers to be that useful at automating much of anything that I needed to do. It doesn't do my laundry, pay my bills or wipe my ass. All things I'd like to have taken care of automatically. It seems that most of the time, unless I tell it to do something it just sits there idle.
I make a living off of telling people how to use their computers. So, I'm not too concerned with making them "user-friendly", not because I'm an elitist bastard, but because it's been my experience that no matter how "easy" you try to make things, people are still going to fuck it up.
"Take a good, hard look at what you have written and tell me again, with a straight face, that autodetection is not a good idea."
I'm not really trying to say that it's not a good idea. But, for me it's irrelevant and annoying. I'm going to recompile my kernel and set it up how I want anyway, so it doesn't help me any. On the other hand it gets on my nerves that the autodetect routine is going to try to redetect my hardware all the time, so then I'd have to go hunt down the init script and disable it. Then I'm taking the chance that someone made something depend on that for some stupid reason, so it fucks something else up. It's just so much simpler FOR ME not to be coddled in the first place.
"I'd rather spend my time using my computer than trying to configure it to work properly. I just spend my whole damn weekend doing just that, and if I never have to do it again it will be too soon."
Not to be an ass, but that's why every Windows user I know uses Windows. My experience has been that Linux is going to take an investment of time to setup and configure correctly. But, if you're really trying to get it to do something, like run Apache or ftpd or whatever, then it's worth the effort, because once you're done, you don't have to mess with it.
Essentially, my point still stands. If you knew what hardware you had (the chipset), you would have had a much easier time configuring your system and could have spent your weekend USING your computer. Do you think autodetection is foolproof? What do you do when the autodetect fails?
The 10 different ICQ clients likely use their own code, because other peoples code can be a pain in the ass to work with. Many of the developers may just want to do the whole thing themself anyway. I for one, think it would be nice if developers made more of an effort to do things differently. For instance, had the first guy packaged up a library for working with the ICQ protocol and distributed that independently from his application code, other developers might have joined in on the project, making the implentation work properly and export useful functions for dealing with the protocol. Then you could have 10 different applications that use common bulletproof library code, but that contain different features. Unfortunately, many people don't think ahead about that kind of stuff and they just whip up a monolithic application and toss it onto the net. So, I gotta agree with you, but code reuse takes planning ahead.
.
Then all of the Debian users will retreat further into the land of Gentoo.
.
Great idea! Do you have a release date in mind? I'd like to know when to expect that you'll be finished coding it.
.
The package manager is a non-issue. The package format on the other hand is an issue if you want to have all of the distros use the same one. The Linux Standard Base has settled on RPM, which sucks big donkey dicks. Deb packages are much better. So see, now that people have decided, they have to make people co-operate. I for one am NOT going to get stuck with RPM. I'd rather install Gentoo and compile everything from source. Ohh wait, I already do that. Nevermind.
To answer your question: The Linux distros can't cooperate, because they have different goals. They also tend to do things like start installer and package manager utilities in house. So, they end up coming up with their own different implementations. Once they have them, they don't want to switch to the other guy's solution. Despite the fact that they probably like their own solution the best, it could be a matter of pride that they won't use the other distro's utilities.
Anyway, once you try to make all of the Linux distros the same, then you negate the reason for having different distros in the first place. One of the cool things about Linux is that anyone can start their own distro. And, technically, you could switch over from one distro to another without even using an installer, but it'd be a bitch. Linux is a hackers' OS, made by hackers, for hackers. You can't get everyone to do the same thing if everyone is doing their own thing, get it?
.
.
Argh! The LAST thing I want is a graphical installer that installs KDE, Gnome, Apache, and Office Apps. What are you trying to do to me? I don't want any of that stuff. And, if you're not going to ask me any questions about what I want installed, then why does it need to be a graphical installer? Couldn't it just be one simple text string that said: Hit to wax all of your partitions and install a bunch of crap you don't need?
That would make things easy!!
.
I find Debian's install to be very easy compared to that of other distros. I don't have to download an iso. I can boot from 2 floppies and have a working system installed in less than an hour. Yet, with RedHat, I either have to take what they give me as far as packages go, or I have to scour through a list of tons of packages to enable what I want and disable what I don't. THAT is not user-friendly. But, I guess it depends on what you want and what kind of user you are. I'm a user and Debian is friendlier to me. If you don't find it friendly, then there are other distros that will give you what you want. I don't think its good or necessary for Debian to try to be the same distro as all the rest. That's why Linux has many distros, so that each distro can tailor itself to users that want what it has. Don't you get it?
.
Dselect can definitely be a pain. But, IMO, it's very easy to get a working install using dselect. All you have to do is hit Enter on the package selection. If I remember correctly, you then run it again, because it doesn't install everything it wants the first time. So you just run it again and hit Enter at the package selection screen. It installs a few things and you have a working base system.
Beyond that, you give no justification for why Debian needs to change focus from being a totally free distro suited to sysadmin types to one that's chasing after the mythical market of Windows refugees and Linux newbies. They should look for a distro that is suited to their needs. Wouldn't that be better than taking one of the few distros that seems to know what they are after and having them try to do what every other linux distro is trying to do? I don't get it. You've got quite a lot of explaining to do before I'll even think about buying this:
"If your user base is educated professionals who have done hundreds of debian installs and can compile their own kernel without assistance, then the current installer is probably okay, but it's not where Debian needs to go."
If anything, Debian should focus on ways to make sysadmins' jobs easier, because that is Debians market. Maybe they should focus on tools to facilitate network wide installs and automatic updates. Maybe they already have this type of thing, I don't know. But they sure as hell don't need a crappy gui-installer that requires a bootable CD-ROM to run. It'd be fine if they had one as an option on the CD, but IMO, their root and rescue 2 floppy install combo should NEVER have a graphical installer.
.
Dumbass!! Why didn't you just run dselect again? Or at least check to see what services you were running before trapsing your happy ass of to work?
There's no amount of "user-friendliness" that's going to predict just how much of an idiot you are. You are going to have to start thinking about how to do shit, before you hit random keys and fuck everything up.
BTW, you can usually just hit Enter during the first dselect package selection at the end of the install. I can't remember whether it installs the basic stuff at this point or not. But, then you can run dselect again, hit enter on package selection and it will get you up and running with a nice simple base system. You can then add anything you like with apt-get. It's really very easy.
.
The Debian GNU/Linux distro is NOT targetted at Joe SixPack. It's targetted at professional sysadmins who want to run ultra-stable servers on all free software. The fact that they have testing and unstable releases and that a lot of users like Debian does not mean that those people are Debians target. If you and Joe want a pretty, stupid-friendly distro that doesn't ask you any questions, then use something like RedHat or Mandrake. Or you can go buy a Mac. I can't figure out any reason why the Linux community (the Debian people, in particular) should give a shit whether Joe SixPack, or you for that matter, remain in ignorance. If you think that Linux only exists as an effort to kill Microsoft, then you've got a lot to learn. If Linux does end up taking massive market share from Windows, it won't be anytime soon. If that is YOUR goal, then start coding your own distro or help out one of the many that is trying to reproduce a Windows-like experience on Linux. Why bother the Debian people? They already HAVE a goal.
.
1. If you are installing on a number of different boxes, then you're probably doing it from work right? If so, and you'll be running debian on those boxes, deal with it. That's your job. If not, then deal with it, or pick a distro that works how you like it to work.
2. If these are your home boxes, you should know what's in them or you should find out and make yourself a notebook that contains a list of all of your systems and all of their relevant chipsets (mainboard chipset, processor, network, video, sound, etc)
If you still can't figure it out, you should go with a Mandrake or stick with Windows. On Linux, if you ever need to recompile your kernel, you can save yourself a bit of time by knowing your system even if the installer autodetects your devices. Linux is not supposed to be Windows. Do you want control of your system or not?
.
Uhh. This is open source. The developers are users as well, and I don't think you're going to get a fuck of a lot done if you decide to ignore what the developers want. I can't tell that Debian even needs an installer, per se. I just download the root and rescue disks and put the base and driver
Either way, it doesn't make much difference to me, because I'm running Gentoo anyway. The last thing I want is a stupid graphical auto-installer that sticks me with all kinds of crap that I don't need or want. The way I install Gentoo, I end up with a tight efficient system that contains only the packages I actually want and has NO open ports. I don't think I've ever run another distro that installs by default without opening up a single listen port for some service I don't need.
I'm not a developer, though. So, I guess you can ask me what I'd like in an installer. My answer is control. If you want to run Windows and let Bill Gates decide how your computer is going to be setup, then go right ahead. If you want to run Linux, and have some control over what's going on, then quit whining and take control. Make up your fucking mind!
Yeah right. The DMCA was coming before Napster ever appeared on the scene. The content industry has been talking about this shit for years. They've feared the digital marketplace since Jon Katz worked for Wired, and likely before then. The content industry did not need Napster to run this shit through Congress, all they needed was deep pockets. They are in fact getting the amount of public exposure that they are because of the Napster phenomenon. So, it could actually be safe to say that all of this garbage legislation would never have been challenged were it not for Napster. Now people are much more aware of what's going on, and that's a good thing. The problem now is showing people what the real issues are and why allowing the content industries absolute control over their "IP" is a very bad thing.
.
Exactly. The investors, employees and officers of a corporation are generally not legally responsible for the generalized "actions" of the corporation. The corporation itself is recognized under current law as a legal entity in and of itself, with many of the rights of a normal person. However, since it is an IMAGINARY entity, it cannot be held liable for its actions in the same way that a real person can. This allows smart business people to shield themselves from liability for their actions in the course of doing business.
If you take a real good look around, you will probably find that it is not the regular people that are in general getting over on the corporations (or their investors and employees). Rather, you will likely find that the investors and employees of corporations are using the imaginary legal construct called a corporation to get over on everyone else. Y'know, by dumping toxic waste, pimping out Britney Spears, creating genetically modified crops that force growers to repurchase seed they have already paid for, etc, etc, etc, etc... And how are the regular people getting over on corporations? Uhm, infringing some copyrights? Sniffle, sniffle.. Poor, poor corporate slave-owners..
It will. As soon as digital content contains standardized copy-protection watermarks, new cameras will be required by law to obey the no-copy, copy-once, and copy-forever tags. Then, modifying your camera to ignore those tags will be circumvention, telling someone how to mod their camera will also be punishable, and the copyright hoarders will be sitting on the biggest pile of cash man has ever seen.
Well, you're right to an extent. The telephone has been around for most of the last century, so it's not like it's new technology. However, DSL is not rocket science. Although there are many physical line quality factors that can get in the way of good service, from my experience as a tech support rep for a large Bell DSL ISP, I'd have to say that the lack of quality service is more due to the greed of providers rather than the technical hurdles that have to be crossed. They provide access really only because they have to. If it were up to them, they'd roll back the technological clock and make DSL disappear. It's an expensive business to start. And, they don't want to pay for it, because they are a for-profit business. Wiring the country, out to the boonies, with fat pipe is an expensive endeavor. It doesn't pay for itself. So, are we going to wait for the fat cats to take it upon themselves to do it when they feel generous? Or, are we going to do it the sensible way? Pay for it ourselves?
Our government could fund nationwide broadband rollout for a fraction of the cost of a private corporation. It is something that we will all need in the future, so it's not a good competitive market. Telecomm companies are dragging their feet, because they know it will benefit them more to be forced to provide service than to lay down the necessary infrustructure on their own dime. If they don't do it, the government will force them to do it and subsidize it. So, in the end it will be much cheaper for the companies involved and then they will get to reap the profits from the newly installed infrastructure.
At least, that's what I figure. Money motivates corps. Or maybe I'm just a wacko. Either way, I'm sticking to what makes sense until someone shows me that I'm wrong.
.
"I AM NOT A CONSUMER. If you think that my only reason for existence, is to buy your crud, and fill the coporate coffers, fuck off. If the goverment, which I pay for in taxes, happens to have a clue, and want to build infrastructure (one of its main purposes), then what right do they have to complain? They had their chance. My god, if you can't move faster than our goverment (which is ALWAYS 20 years too slow), then you DESERVE to go broke. I have no sympathies for any of these companies, that are still trying to do business as if its 1975. "
/. are finally starting to get it!! I hope the 13 yr olds are paying attention. The same people that these corporate assholes classify as consumers are the same people that make their master-slave business models turn ungodly profits. If one of those bastard CEOs actually walked up to me and called me a CONSUMER, I'd rape his ass right there on the spot! We are not consumers. WE ARE THE PRODUCERS! They consume our lives. They turn our only valuable resource, our time, into a cheap commodity, while they reap the benefits of our labor.
My God!! People on
I doubt you can find one executive of a large corporation that feels he is underpaid for his services. In fact, I think you'll find that the people who have worked, slept or been born into those positions are more likely to feel like they're doing the company a favor by not taking a better paying position as a corporate whore for another company. In other words, they are looking at how they could take more, consume more, get more, for themselves. Consumers. Get it? They have turned the meaning of these words around. They would have you think that they are the producers. They are wrong.
Of course, there are exceptions to every rule.
.
Sign me up!! I'm CmdrTaco, and I want me some o' them fly ass shoes! Do you have any of those those 80's style fat-ass neon laces? I gotta be stylin'!!!