Seriously, say what you will about him, the President is a man who understands the approaching energy crisis.
Nah... there really wont be an energy crisis anywhere near as bad as in the 70s. That one was bought on deliberately by the members of OPEC, cutting output suddenly by a large proportion. The thing is, that as oil starts to run out (different parts of the world will start to reduce output to conserve what is left - a very gradual process) the price will start to rise. As the price rises the alternatives will become relatively cheaper, over the course of a few years our infrastructure will swap to something else. Demand for oil will fall as it's price is higher, and hence the remaining supplies will never run out. They'll only be used for very special things for which there is no alternative. If there is something, I can't think of it now.
It's basic economics. Those that decide to fight for the remaining oil will generally be left out, since they wont develop the technology to take advantage of the alternatives for oil, which will be very important once it actually has run out. Those who face facts and decide to try something different will do a hell of a lot better, as they will be better prepaired.
You have some good points, though some which aren't the fault of Linux as a desktop.
1) where is the linux desktop? What is it called? Where do I get it?
You get it on a computer with it preinstalled - the only way a non-technical user is likely to get any OS. The fact that this is difficult is not because of Linux as a desktop however. Armed with a cd of Mandrake or WinXP I think the difficulty in installation is tiny, and I'm not sure in whos favour.
2) When will cut/copy/and paste work?
I personally don't have problems with this, they do work for me, even between Gnome, KDE and OpenOffice. Depends how old the applications you are using are of course.
3) How do I install new software?
The average user wont know how to do this properly under windows. At least with a proper package management system (as is available in most modern distributions) all programs are installed in the same way, through the same interface. Once a user understands how it works (all of 10 minutes) then program installation is easy.
4) How do I install new hardware?
Good point, it can be difficult for a non-tech user. Most wont, but those who do under windows are able to use the standard drivers which come with the hardware. The hope is that your Linux distribution will have hardware detection support, and that the hardware is old enough that there is a kernel module to run it. This should be all done automatically, but a lot of the time doesn't.
there is research that has PROVEN the polygraph to have 50% accuracy rate.. ranking it right up there with the 'other' lie detector: A coin with the word 'truth' on one side and 'lie' on the other!
Does this mean that 50% of the time it will be right, and %50 of the time it will, basically, chose between 'truth' and 'lie' at random (with a 50% chance of each)? If so it should be more reliable than a coin (which has no reliability at all since it tells you nothing about the situation), although it is still far from perfect.
If you want to drag people away from the abomination that is windows, you have to offer something better instead of just copying the crap blindly.
So what do you think would be better? Most people find the Start button very easy and useful. I'm sure Microsoft did some usability study of it before including it in Windows, and when it did better than other options they considered then, well, they used it.
Just because the idea is old doesn't mean that other better ways of achieving the same thing have appeared.
Linux is not ready for the desktop. They are not even close.
Not now. Not ever.
Thanks for your comments. You could be even more helpful if you'd tell us what is wrong with the linux desktop (it must be pretty big if you think it'll never be fixed).
The complaint I hear from most people boils down to "it isn't windows". This is a fair point; we all enjoy what we're used to. This is why I'm pleased to see Lindows, lowering one entry barrier people have to using linux. Secondly I'm glad to see some OEMS selling Open Source apps with windows installations (one example I know of personally is some cheaper computers being shipped with OpenOffice).
Anyway, back on point... if Xandros is really "simple, easy and fast" as the review says, then Xandros has the upper hand over most other linux distributions. People will only become used to Linux when it is so transparent that they aren't even aware that there is a different OS, and these qualities in Xandros really help achieve that.
Why, if something is put into a LaGrange point (L2 in this case) would it be unserviceable?
The L2 point is about 1 1/2 million miles from earth, which is 6 times further away than the moon. To send a manned craft (as would be required for a repair mission) would be incredibly expensive - the shuttle doesn't have enough full and only goes 200 miles above the Earths surface, so a new system would have to be designed specifically for the task. It'd probably be easier if something failed just to send a replacement.
At the point where DRM against re-recording from analog could be implemented, we'd have far, FAR more to worry about from Big Brother than uncopyable songs.
I've seen this demonstrated, where an audio track was played by a computer through normal PC speakers. Another computer saved the sound (using a microphone to make it clear the "audio gap") and was able to extract various bits of information hidden within the signal, including the person for whom that copy of the music had been made.
Even if a new Fritz-ish law comes into effect that requires all new devices to have magic detector chips that make it impossible to dupe copyrighted content, and such chips can be designed, and they work, all existing computers would have to crumble to dust before this could work.
Also wrong, our current computers will only be able to play DRMed media if a crack is written for those computers, and if you then redistribute the copy you bought using your cracked software then your identity can be extracted from the file. Anyone caught redistributing media will be easily trackable, hence they will never do it in the first place.
Remember, freedom comes at a price, and we should all be very thankful to all those who have paid it
Althoug you are right, we must fight for freedom and defend it, we must always remember that war is a terrible thing for all involved, and that we shouldn't go to war for the sake of it.
Due to our lack of knowledge over exactly what goes on in wars I don't think we can ever properly appreciate sacrifices made by those fighting, since many soldiers on our side are just as bad as the enemy we try to defeat. Of course this if never reported - everyone knows how terrible the Red Army was to prisoners (including Russians they were freeing) as they advanced into Germany, but the crimes committed by Allied forces in France are simply never mentioned. We really don't know who paid that price for freedom.
Unfortunately this isn't the case. In future your computer will contain an additional chip (the "fritz" chip) which is able to regulate the flow of information only through "trusted" programs, OSes and hardware. It will recieve encrypted keys from the provider of the media which then allow it to decrypt the media itself. Assuming that you are unable to physically break into the chip, or to break the encrypted connection going from the chip to the media provider, then you will not be able to put the digital signal into a program which isn't trusted, such as a program to save the digital information into another file.
I also thought it was mathematically, computationally, logically _impossible_ but then I attended a talk explaining how the system would work, and I have to admit there is very little we can do about it. Even if you are able to break into the chip and copy some media you don't have the rights to copy, you will be caught because the version sent to you will have your identity recorded somewhere within it.
One of the more interesting things is that it is possible to get open source applications "trusted" so you can use DRM under Linux. However, if you modify a program, recompile it and attempt to use it, the fritz chip will notice and refuse to decrypt the media for you. Nasty
As well as having a copyright on the lyrics and the musical works there is usually also a copyright on the sound recording, which means that you aren't allowed to re-record the copy for either backup purposes or personal use
I think the point is that the different copyrights prevent you from doing different things. The copyright on the lyrics or the tune prevent me from going to a local recording studio and playing my own version of it. I haven't infringed the copyright the RIAA is concerned with, but it's still illegal. Making backup copies etc which although would seem to infringe the sound recording copyright, still comes under the terms of fair-use, and as such is not illegal.
This is exactly the point of GStreamer. Each "type" of program is designed around a different specification, where all input programs have one type of interface, each filter program another etc...
All these programs should be kept seperate, except for some limited GStreamer library functions. The beauty is that each application only needs the bare minimum to do its own job since the power of the system is multiple applications tied together, and each program deliberately limited in what is can do. Whatever that thing is, it'll focus on doing it very well.
Of course, for your average user, they will see the normal mp3/ogg/whatever player. The slightly more advanced user interested in music seriously can tie the seperate modules together, trying different "inputs", depending on how they feel like being creative that particular day (although they are normal programs running in a standard Unix environment), then experimenting with different filters methods (also seperate programs) and save their creation with whatever output filter they like which is available.
Flexability and freedom to experiment and expand are the greatest things about the project.
Gnome was started by a Mexican, who still lived in Mexico at the time.
That's nice. Of course, it doesn't really matter, because I will still use the best tool for the job, and regardless if it was started by a Mexican, an German or an Eskimo it really doesn't change the quality of the code.
Passing judgement on anothers coding skill, based entirely upon the nationality they happen to be is a waste of time and will only end up worse for you. The rest of us will just use whatever is best.
3 years ago Linux wouldn't detect most soundcards.
Strangely enough it had no problem detecting my sound card. And at the time it was top of the range... pity I still have to put up with it 3 years on:/
...as an alternative to a mature, stable commercial application is not my idea of "we have that"
The fact that another competing piece of software is commercial is irrelevant. The risk or a company going bankrupt and abandoning it's software are worse than the risk of an open source developer abandoning a project, because at least then someone else can pick it up and continue.
Anyway, back to gstreamer... having looked at the design, I personally think it has a lot of promise, simply because of the flexibility it gives to develop further programs above it. Although not yet "mature" it should, hopefully, lower the requirements for writing good quality media orientated programs for linux (not just gnome) in future. That can only be described as a good thing.
My figure was average income per person. The average government spending per person is about 8,000 pounds per person per year. Average income around 20,000 pounds. The welfare spending per person is around 3,000. That is why your figures are so far off. My figures are of course a little rough, but government spending per person in the uk is no where near 20grand or 3grand as you suggest
I suggest you check with figures from the Bank of England before you comment. Oh, and also check the definition of GDP.
Let's say 2 adults, 2 children that's GBP 12,000. The figure of approx GBP 23,000 you quote is before income tax, national insurance, council tax and all the other various taxes levied by various parts of the government. They can easily eat up half of your income.
UK GDP = slightly more than 1 trillion GBP.
Divide this by the population, about 50 million, gives you about 20000GBP for each man, woman and child. Of course, that's a little rough, but 3000 is miles off, unless you believe you are paying 85% in tax
Are you trying to suggest that poverty automatically leads to crime? That seems rather a shaky assertion to me.
Not automatically, but areas with higher poverty rates tend to have higher crime rates. Reducing proverty does help reduce crime.
Perhaps you would care to explain how paying people not to engage in productive economic activity results in the creation of a productive economy?
The welfare state simply moves money from one group of individuals to another group, in order to try to make the country better off. The money is still spent on something useful at the end of the day, just by a different person. The idea is to help reduce the income gap (but not remove it all together) and make ours a more equitable society. It isn't a dead loss, although you are right in that it doesn't result in an increase in output.
Having gone to the debate myself (being an Oxford union member) I can say that most of the students who went had already made up their minds when they arrived, hence the applauding of the opposition during their speaches (not normal). The write up given on Slashdot is very biased, since the "I have no figures and nor do you" answer from the proposition (anti-free music) was the best answer during the whole debate, leaving the opposition (free music) spokesperson utterly stuck for an reply.
It's also worth mentioning that each opposition spokesperson said "I strongly dissagree with pirating music" which is exactly how distributing copyrighted music for *free* works, seriously weakening their arguement.
Slashdot Mirror
Seriously, say what you will about him, the President is a man who understands the approaching energy crisis.
Nah... there really wont be an energy crisis anywhere near as bad as in the 70s. That one was bought on deliberately by the members of OPEC, cutting output suddenly by a large proportion. The thing is, that as oil starts to run out (different parts of the world will start to reduce output to conserve what is left - a very gradual process) the price will start to rise. As the price rises the alternatives will become relatively cheaper, over the course of a few years our infrastructure will swap to something else. Demand for oil will fall as it's price is higher, and hence the remaining supplies will never run out. They'll only be used for very special things for which there is no alternative. If there is something, I can't think of it now.
It's basic economics. Those that decide to fight for the remaining oil will generally be left out, since they wont develop the technology to take advantage of the alternatives for oil, which will be very important once it actually has run out. Those who face facts and decide to try something different will do a hell of a lot better, as they will be better prepaired.
You have some good points, though some which aren't the fault of Linux as a desktop.
1) where is the linux desktop? What is it called? Where do I get it?
You get it on a computer with it preinstalled - the only way a non-technical user is likely to get any OS. The fact that this is difficult is not because of Linux as a desktop however. Armed with a cd of Mandrake or WinXP I think the difficulty in installation is tiny, and I'm not sure in whos favour.
2) When will cut/copy/and paste work?
I personally don't have problems with this, they do work for me, even between Gnome, KDE and OpenOffice. Depends how old the applications you are using are of course.
3) How do I install new software?
The average user wont know how to do this properly under windows. At least with a proper package management system (as is available in most modern distributions) all programs are installed in the same way, through the same interface. Once a user understands how it works (all of 10 minutes) then program installation is easy.
4) How do I install new hardware?
Good point, it can be difficult for a non-tech user. Most wont, but those who do under windows are able to use the standard drivers which come with the hardware. The hope is that your Linux distribution will have hardware detection support, and that the hardware is old enough that there is a kernel module to run it. This should be all done automatically, but a lot of the time doesn't.
there is research that has PROVEN the polygraph to have 50% accuracy rate.. ranking it right up there with the 'other' lie detector: A coin with the word 'truth' on one side and 'lie' on the other!
Does this mean that 50% of the time it will be right, and %50 of the time it will, basically, chose between 'truth' and 'lie' at random (with a 50% chance of each)? If so it should be more reliable than a coin (which has no reliability at all since it tells you nothing about the situation), although it is still far from perfect.
If you want to drag people away from the abomination that is windows, you have to offer something better instead of just copying the crap blindly.
So what do you think would be better? Most people find the Start button very easy and useful. I'm sure Microsoft did some usability study of it before including it in Windows, and when it did better than other options they considered then, well, they used it.
Just because the idea is old doesn't mean that other better ways of achieving the same thing have appeared.
I thought linux is free? How are they charging for this?
It's pre-installed, and comes in the bundle with the computer. Also you can still charge for Opensource software (free beer != freedom).
Linux is not ready for the desktop. They are not even close. Not now. Not ever.
Thanks for your comments. You could be even more helpful if you'd tell us what is wrong with the linux desktop (it must be pretty big if you think it'll never be fixed).
The complaint I hear from most people boils down to "it isn't windows". This is a fair point; we all enjoy what we're used to. This is why I'm pleased to see Lindows, lowering one entry barrier people have to using linux. Secondly I'm glad to see some OEMS selling Open Source apps with windows installations (one example I know of personally is some cheaper computers being shipped with OpenOffice).
Anyway, back on point... if Xandros is really "simple, easy and fast" as the review says, then Xandros has the upper hand over most other linux distributions. People will only become used to Linux when it is so transparent that they aren't even aware that there is a different OS, and these qualities in Xandros really help achieve that.
Why, if something is put into a LaGrange point (L2 in this case) would it be unserviceable?
The L2 point is about 1 1/2 million miles from earth, which is 6 times further away than the moon. To send a manned craft (as would be required for a repair mission) would be incredibly expensive - the shuttle doesn't have enough full and only goes 200 miles above the Earths surface, so a new system would have to be designed specifically for the task. It'd probably be easier if something failed just to send a replacement.
At the point where DRM against re-recording from analog could be implemented, we'd have far, FAR more to worry about from Big Brother than uncopyable songs.
I've seen this demonstrated, where an audio track was played by a computer through normal PC speakers. Another computer saved the sound (using a microphone to make it clear the "audio gap") and was able to extract various bits of information hidden within the signal, including the person for whom that copy of the music had been made.
Even if a new Fritz-ish law comes into effect that requires all new devices to have magic detector chips that make it impossible to dupe copyrighted content, and such chips can be designed, and they work, all existing computers would have to crumble to dust before this could work.
Also wrong, our current computers will only be able to play DRMed media if a crack is written for those computers, and if you then redistribute the copy you bought using your cracked software then your identity can be extracted from the file. Anyone caught redistributing media will be easily trackable, hence they will never do it in the first place.
Remember, freedom comes at a price, and we should all be very thankful to all those who have paid it
Althoug you are right, we must fight for freedom and defend it, we must always remember that war is a terrible thing for all involved, and that we shouldn't go to war for the sake of it.
Due to our lack of knowledge over exactly what goes on in wars I don't think we can ever properly appreciate sacrifices made by those fighting, since many soldiers on our side are just as bad as the enemy we try to defeat. Of course this if never reported - everyone knows how terrible the Red Army was to prisoners (including Russians they were freeing) as they advanced into Germany, but the crimes committed by Allied forces in France are simply never mentioned. We really don't know who paid that price for freedom.
Unfortunately this isn't the case. In future your computer will contain an additional chip (the "fritz" chip) which is able to regulate the flow of information only through "trusted" programs, OSes and hardware. It will recieve encrypted keys from the provider of the media which then allow it to decrypt the media itself. Assuming that you are unable to physically break into the chip, or to break the encrypted connection going from the chip to the media provider, then you will not be able to put the digital signal into a program which isn't trusted, such as a program to save the digital information into another file.
I also thought it was mathematically, computationally, logically _impossible_ but then I attended a talk explaining how the system would work, and I have to admit there is very little we can do about it. Even if you are able to break into the chip and copy some media you don't have the rights to copy, you will be caught because the version sent to you will have your identity recorded somewhere within it.
One of the more interesting things is that it is possible to get open source applications "trusted" so you can use DRM under Linux. However, if you modify a program, recompile it and attempt to use it, the fritz chip will notice and refuse to decrypt the media for you. Nasty
As well as having a copyright on the lyrics and the musical works there is usually also a copyright on the sound recording, which means that you aren't allowed to re-record the copy for either backup purposes or personal use
I think the point is that the different copyrights prevent you from doing different things. The copyright on the lyrics or the tune prevent me from going to a local recording studio and playing my own version of it. I haven't infringed the copyright the RIAA is concerned with, but it's still illegal. Making backup copies etc which although would seem to infringe the sound recording copyright, still comes under the terms of fair-use, and as such is not illegal.
Then again, just like you, IANAL.
This is exactly the point of GStreamer. Each "type" of program is designed around a different specification, where all input programs have one type of interface, each filter program another etc...
All these programs should be kept seperate, except for some limited GStreamer library functions. The beauty is that each application only needs the bare minimum to do its own job since the power of the system is multiple applications tied together, and each program deliberately limited in what is can do. Whatever that thing is, it'll focus on doing it very well.
Of course, for your average user, they will see the normal mp3/ogg/whatever player. The slightly more advanced user interested in music seriously can tie the seperate modules together, trying different "inputs", depending on how they feel like being creative that particular day (although they are normal programs running in a standard Unix environment), then experimenting with different filters methods (also seperate programs) and save their creation with whatever output filter they like which is available.
Flexability and freedom to experiment and expand are the greatest things about the project.
Gnome was started by a Mexican, who still lived in Mexico at the time.
That's nice. Of course, it doesn't really matter, because I will still use the best tool for the job, and regardless if it was started by a Mexican, an German or an Eskimo it really doesn't change the quality of the code.
Passing judgement on anothers coding skill, based entirely upon the nationality they happen to be is a waste of time and will only end up worse for you. The rest of us will just use whatever is best.
3 years ago Linux wouldn't detect most soundcards.
:/
...as an alternative to a mature, stable commercial application is not my idea of "we have that"
Strangely enough it had no problem detecting my sound card. And at the time it was top of the range... pity I still have to put up with it 3 years on
The fact that another competing piece of software is commercial is irrelevant. The risk or a company going bankrupt and abandoning it's software are worse than the risk of an open source developer abandoning a project, because at least then someone else can pick it up and continue.
Anyway, back to gstreamer... having looked at the design, I personally think it has a lot of promise, simply because of the flexibility it gives to develop further programs above it. Although not yet "mature" it should, hopefully, lower the requirements for writing good quality media orientated programs for linux (not just gnome) in future. That can only be described as a good thing.
My figure was average income per person. The average government spending per person is about 8,000 pounds per person per year. Average income around 20,000 pounds. The welfare spending per person is around 3,000. That is why your figures are so far off. My figures are of course a little rough, but government spending per person in the uk is no where near 20grand or 3grand as you suggest
I suggest you check with figures from the Bank of England before you comment. Oh, and also check the definition of GDP.
Let's say 2 adults, 2 children that's GBP 12,000. The figure of approx GBP 23,000 you quote is before income tax, national insurance, council tax and all the other various taxes levied by various parts of the government. They can easily eat up half of your income.
UK GDP = slightly more than 1 trillion GBP. Divide this by the population, about 50 million, gives you about 20000GBP for each man, woman and child. Of course, that's a little rough, but 3000 is miles off, unless you believe you are paying 85% in tax
Are you trying to suggest that poverty automatically leads to crime? That seems rather a shaky assertion to me.
Not automatically, but areas with higher poverty rates tend to have higher crime rates. Reducing proverty does help reduce crime.
Perhaps you would care to explain how paying people not to engage in productive economic activity results in the creation of a productive economy?
The welfare state simply moves money from one group of individuals to another group, in order to try to make the country better off. The money is still spent on something useful at the end of the day, just by a different person. The idea is to help reduce the income gap (but not remove it all together) and make ours a more equitable society. It isn't a dead loss, although you are right in that it doesn't result in an increase in output.
Sorry, I'm an engineer.
Having gone to the debate myself (being an Oxford union member) I can say that most of the students who went had already made up their minds when they arrived, hence the applauding of the opposition during their speaches (not normal). The write up given on Slashdot is very biased, since the "I have no figures and nor do you" answer from the proposition (anti-free music) was the best answer during the whole debate, leaving the opposition (free music) spokesperson utterly stuck for an reply. It's also worth mentioning that each opposition spokesperson said "I strongly dissagree with pirating music" which is exactly how distributing copyrighted music for *free* works, seriously weakening their arguement.