I think the point he was trying to make is that stuff that he can run now will no longer run in a Palladium world. Consider the case of Open-Source programmers whose applications they may not be able to have signed (unless they pay premium fees or wait six months in a "validation" queue). Hey, let's say I write a Perl script to automate some tasks on my computer: will I be able to run it on Palladium hardware? Surely I won't be able to sign it...
I see Palladium as the content industry's Trojan horse. It's pretty clear that they want to shut out smaller, independent players from a market they already control. Fact is, Hollywood has been making more money, not less, since piracy has started. And if the record industry has been selling less CDs, it's mostly because of two things: a) they publish more crap than quality and b) people are buying lots more DVDs nowadays (with either the same amount of disposable income or less). Check the numbers and do the math, and whatever you do don't believe the hype that Palladium is "trustworthy computing".
I've never much thought of 1984 as denouncing technology as much as denouncing totalitarism and propaganda. Sometimes, when I see how Bush and co. have recuperated 9/11 to create this endless "war on terrorism" (which is just a mutation of the similarly endless "war on drugs"), I think he wasn't too far off the mark. Thank god he didn't get the technology part right, or we'd be in major trouble. Then again, Big Media can also be frightening, even if it's friendlier looking than Big Brother.
Yes, it's probably true that for the farmers (who still make up 80% of the population, IIRC) computers are not a basic necessity, and that they are only part of the infrastructure. My point was, however, that we cannot decide what indeed they do need or want. Likewise, VCRs and TVs are not essential commodities, and yet they are ubiquitous in India (though not every family owns one). I'm sure having half a dozen computers for each village would prove to be useful, if only to keep abreast of local and national news, as well as help stay in touch with expatriates through e-mail and generally serve as an educational tool for children. As a recent experiment showed, even Delhi slum kids can learn to use a computer by themselves...In the modern world, knowing how to use a computer is becoming as important as knowing how to read (notice the expression "computer-literate"). Would you say that these farmers don't need to know how to read? Certainly it is not necessary for their livelihood - but as human beings it can only help to widen their horizons.
I don't think the plan is to replace the hardware...also, compared to OS X, even Windows XP wouldn't be ready for the desktop. I think "ready for the desktop" has become the most meaningless sentence ever. I use Linux on my desktop, therefore it is ready for the desktop. Just because OS X has a nicer GUI (that's debatable) doesn't mean Linux cannot be used in a productivity environment.
Back in the 80's, end users were stuck with DOS, Lotus 1-2-3 and Wordperfect - and yet they were productive. They knew how to use their computers. Perhaps the learning curve was a bit steeper, but somehow they managed. Have we suddenly all become so stupid that if we don't get enough eye candy we can no longer use a computer? I had a crash course in Maya at my job: that program has so many menus and options and whatnot, it's the opposite of user-friendly - and yet it's still the market leader...I find the trend to "dumb down" computers as much as possible quite disturbing, to tell you the truth. At some point we have to accept that computers must have a minimum degree of complexity if we are to have a good control of how they behave. So the hypothetical grandma can't use it? Well, that's to bad: she can't program her VCR either. But a 12-year old can learn UNIX - for him it's just a game...so why do we care so much about "usability" when the next generation is adapting itself to technology faster than we ever did? To hear the UI fanatics, you'd think that it's impossible for an average user to use Linux (which is totally false, I have had the occasion of testing it more than once). It's as if we were trying to encourage the user to be as lazy as possible...
Oh well, I still think KDE3.02 with Crystal icons and Kermakik style looks nicer and is more usable than Aqua on OS X. Not that I care...;-)
If you just keep supplying them with the basic necessities, you're not giving them a way out of poverty. If you can provide them with the tools to participate in a booming digital market (in South-East Asia, anyway), then you've done more than help them survive: you've given them a future.
India is becoming a digital nation, with more and more Western companies outsourcing some of their coding needs there. If people in India feel like they need more computers, then we should believe them. Acting otherwise would be paternalistic, to say the least.
Not everyone in India is a farmer - in fact it is one of the booming IT market among poorer nations. I went to India 14 years ago, and when a friend of mine who went there recently sent me photos, I was astounded to see the number of "Internet" and "e-mail" signs in the streets. Things have evolved so fast over there! You see, India is trying to go from an agrarian/industrial society to a digital one. In fact, a lot of Western companies outsource some of their coding to India. It seems Indians have a cultural knack for programming and mathematics.
If they feel like they need computers, then they need computers. The first world trying to decide what the third world needs has rarely worked, like trying to sell heavy farming equipment to people used to work their fragile soil with animal-powered equipment. Since it cost so much to maintain and repair, these expensive agricultural machines often end up collecting dust. In this particular case, I think recycling older computers (i.e. Pentium I and II) and giving them away to poorer nations which want them is a great idea. After all, they are the ones most aware of what their needs are...
It's ready for the average business user, IMO...assuming the IT people set up the machine and remove unnecessary menu items, put in the appropriate shortcuts, etc. Hey, if people can learn how to use Lotus Notes, I don't see how they wouldn't be able to use Desktop Linux. It IS ready for business use - home use is a bit more problematic, but once it takes off in the office, it will make inroads in the home.
I'm not sure how relevant the comparison is...after all, Gnome 2 and KDE 3 havemost of the same usability features of recent Windows versions - a few more, actually. The added complexity comes with the increased control the user has on the machine. In order to make Linux as user-friendly as Windows, all one has to do is to "dumb it down" by removing certain features from easy desktop access. The biggest hurdle remains the concept of user and file ownership, but that is something that normal users should definitely get accustomed to if they want "trustworthy" computing...
The problem with irony is that sometimes you totally obfuscate the message you're trying to convey. Anyway. You are right in one thing: Linux should be able to handle winmodems - actually, as I understand it, it does handle some of them right now. But at the same time manufacturers should avoid playing MS's game by producing hardware that furthers the company's monopoly.
This is a joke, right? As if 15 more seconds to open the first time really makes a difference in a work environment! Plus, I fail to see what a slightly longer initial startup time has to do with ease of use...
FYI, I work with Win2K and office every day during business hours, and work with either StarOffice 6.0 or MSOffice 2000 on my Linux box in the evening. I therefore have extensive experience with both. And frankly, I don't see that much difference in ease of use between the two products. Not enough to warrant the illusory "usability gap" claimed over and over again by MS employees (and MS wannabes) lurking on Slashdot, anyway.
Well, it's not a movement...yet. I just come out with the catchy names, and do everybody else do the work!;-)
Seriously, though, a Manifesto would be cool...I can see it: Linux and Win2K fans, together against Microsoft - that would truly be an unstoppable force.
Ah, yes, the WinModem...of course when products are designed not to work with anything else than Windows, they become quite useful to those who would foster FUD. Now, I personally have been on broadband for two and a half years now, so I have never had to deal with that issue. Wonderful experience, really: Internet access was automatically configured by Mandrake 8.2 during the installation process - in fact, it even made a quick check on the Mandrake Update site to make sure I had the most up-to-date versions of critical software before concluding the installation. But you're right, some people do not have access to (or the financial means for) broadband. In that case, it seems to me that the easiest way is to make sure that you don't use a winmodem, but rather get a real one.
If that's the only argument you could come with, then I will simply rephrase may statement as such: as long as you don't have that shitty excuse for a communication device called a winmodem, then installation of (for example) Mandrake 8.2 is easier and faster than that of Win2k. (And BTW I did not want to insult you, I merely mimicked the argument proposed by the earlier poster - I must admit that this was directed at him, not at you. Sorry for the confusion.)
Configured correctly for a work environment, Linux is as easy to use as Windows. Heck, Star/OpenOffice is very close to MS Office (and you can always run MS Office 2k with Crossover Office anyway - it runs perfectly). Tell, me, how exactly is an e-mail program harder to use on Linux than it is on Windows?
I think you don't give enough credit to users - after all, they used to use DOS! Now, a Linux/KDE 3.02 can be configured to look and feel exactly like a Win2k one. Your argument is not based on fact, but rather on some old myths which have now become obsolete.
Microsoft has finally made a stable operating system that doesnt require months of reading man pages to setup.
Right on! The most difficult part of my Win2k install was getting the CD out of the case. That's the way it should be.
And that's the way it is now with new Linux distros. Mandrake 8.2 is easier to install than Win2k, and takes up a lot less time, too! You MS geeks need to get over the Linux is Hard to Install FUD.
In an (modest) effort to counter MS's Palladium coup, I've started convincing those around me who won't switch to Linux to stick to Windows 2000. I'm actually having a rather easy time doing this (much easier than converting Windows users to Linux, unfortunately): most people who have Windows 2000 are happy with it and don't see much incentive to move on, especially if you replace their icons with WinXP-like clones (ah, the power of icons...). The motto seems to be: "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" (something I must keep repeating myself every time I feel the urge to upgrade my Linux boxen).
I keep thinking this should be bigger though: we should all put MS in a tight spot and hail Win2k as their best offering so far...they can't say it sucks (after all it only came out, what, three years ago?), but at the same time their business plans hinge on the fact that people will naturally upgrade OS every two years or so. So we need to start a movement: I'd call it the Great Microsoft OS Freeze...basically, tell people to stick with their OS if it works (Win98 or Win2k) if they won't switch to Linux, *BSD or OS X...I think you'll find a lot of receptive ears...
Okay, it seems you can theme Webmin to make it look better. It's still not going to win any design awards, but it's a start! Oh, and it lets you do a remote SSH login through http (with the help of a java applet)...which can be fun if you're trying to log from work and you're behind a firewall.
Actually the hardware gap is closing very fast - like the rest of the Linux world, which evolves at about twice the speed as Windows. And then there's the fact that Linux works on a lot more platforms than any MS OS.
In any case this point is moot if you can sell PCs with Linux pre-installed (something which would be much more common if MS hadn't strong-armed OEMs about installing only Windows).
BTW, why not have a web-based interface to Linux settings? That way it can be configured without having to pick KDE or GNOME or whatever.
It exists, it's called Webmin and if it had cooler graphics and icons it would be the Best. Configuration. Program. Ever. As it is, it's kind of ugly and too advanced for newbies, but it seriously rocks. (And since it's a web interface, it also lets you administer things remotely.)
You mean, it doesn't install, or it doesn't run once installed? Because if you want to copy the required files for a subsequent Linux install, all you need is a successful installation, not to actually get NWN working under Wine. Also, did you try with Wine or with WineX (AFAIK, WineX has better support for InstallShield).
I haven't tried this yet (I'm waiting for the client to come out before buying the game), but it seems to me you could just install it using WineX or even Wine...you don't need to actually get it working with Wine/X, only install it! So it should work...if InstallShield doesn't crap out on you, that is.
I don't really care about being modded up - I've been at 50 karma for a couple of weeks now and I'm bored. I was merely replying to the previous poster's obviously false statement with an obviously true statement - to which you added your own truism. So...what's your point, exactly?
Moderators: please mod this down, so I can have the thrill of working my way up to 50 again!
Slashdot Mirror
Guys, if you don't like the site's editors, you can always hang somewhere else...no one's forcing you to come to Slashdot!
I think the point he was trying to make is that stuff that he can run now will no longer run in a Palladium world. Consider the case of Open-Source programmers whose applications they may not be able to have signed (unless they pay premium fees or wait six months in a "validation" queue). Hey, let's say I write a Perl script to automate some tasks on my computer: will I be able to run it on Palladium hardware? Surely I won't be able to sign it...
I see Palladium as the content industry's Trojan horse. It's pretty clear that they want to shut out smaller, independent players from a market they already control. Fact is, Hollywood has been making more money, not less, since piracy has started. And if the record industry has been selling less CDs, it's mostly because of two things: a) they publish more crap than quality and b) people are buying lots more DVDs nowadays (with either the same amount of disposable income or less). Check the numbers and do the math, and whatever you do don't believe the hype that Palladium is "trustworthy computing".
I've never much thought of 1984 as denouncing technology as much as denouncing totalitarism and propaganda. Sometimes, when I see how Bush and co. have recuperated 9/11 to create this endless "war on terrorism" (which is just a mutation of the similarly endless "war on drugs"), I think he wasn't too far off the mark. Thank god he didn't get the technology part right, or we'd be in major trouble. Then again, Big Media can also be frightening, even if it's friendlier looking than Big Brother.
Well, to be fair he did also try to exterminate gypsies, homosexuals, feminists and communists.
Yes, it's probably true that for the farmers (who still make up 80% of the population, IIRC) computers are not a basic necessity, and that they are only part of the infrastructure. My point was, however, that we cannot decide what indeed they do need or want. Likewise, VCRs and TVs are not essential commodities, and yet they are ubiquitous in India (though not every family owns one). I'm sure having half a dozen computers for each village would prove to be useful, if only to keep abreast of local and national news, as well as help stay in touch with expatriates through e-mail and generally serve as an educational tool for children. As a recent experiment showed, even Delhi slum kids can learn to use a computer by themselves...In the modern world, knowing how to use a computer is becoming as important as knowing how to read (notice the expression "computer-literate"). Would you say that these farmers don't need to know how to read? Certainly it is not necessary for their livelihood - but as human beings it can only help to widen their horizons.
I don't think the plan is to replace the hardware...also, compared to OS X, even Windows XP wouldn't be ready for the desktop. I think "ready for the desktop" has become the most meaningless sentence ever. I use Linux on my desktop, therefore it is ready for the desktop. Just because OS X has a nicer GUI (that's debatable) doesn't mean Linux cannot be used in a productivity environment.
;-)
Back in the 80's, end users were stuck with DOS, Lotus 1-2-3 and Wordperfect - and yet they were productive. They knew how to use their computers. Perhaps the learning curve was a bit steeper, but somehow they managed. Have we suddenly all become so stupid that if we don't get enough eye candy we can no longer use a computer? I had a crash course in Maya at my job: that program has so many menus and options and whatnot, it's the opposite of user-friendly - and yet it's still the market leader...I find the trend to "dumb down" computers as much as possible quite disturbing, to tell you the truth. At some point we have to accept that computers must have a minimum degree of complexity if we are to have a good control of how they behave. So the hypothetical grandma can't use it? Well, that's to bad: she can't program her VCR either. But a 12-year old can learn UNIX - for him it's just a game...so why do we care so much about "usability" when the next generation is adapting itself to technology faster than we ever did? To hear the UI fanatics, you'd think that it's impossible for an average user to use Linux (which is totally false, I have had the occasion of testing it more than once). It's as if we were trying to encourage the user to be as lazy as possible...
Oh well, I still think KDE3.02 with Crystal icons and Kermakik style looks nicer and is more usable than Aqua on OS X. Not that I care...
If you just keep supplying them with the basic necessities, you're not giving them a way out of poverty. If you can provide them with the tools to participate in a booming digital market (in South-East Asia, anyway), then you've done more than help them survive: you've given them a future.
India is becoming a digital nation, with more and more Western companies outsourcing some of their coding needs there. If people in India feel like they need more computers, then we should believe them. Acting otherwise would be paternalistic, to say the least.
Not everyone in India is a farmer - in fact it is one of the booming IT market among poorer nations. I went to India 14 years ago, and when a friend of mine who went there recently sent me photos, I was astounded to see the number of "Internet" and "e-mail" signs in the streets. Things have evolved so fast over there! You see, India is trying to go from an agrarian/industrial society to a digital one. In fact, a lot of Western companies outsource some of their coding to India. It seems Indians have a cultural knack for programming and mathematics.
If they feel like they need computers, then they need computers. The first world trying to decide what the third world needs has rarely worked, like trying to sell heavy farming equipment to people used to work their fragile soil with animal-powered equipment. Since it cost so much to maintain and repair, these expensive agricultural machines often end up collecting dust. In this particular case, I think recycling older computers (i.e. Pentium I and II) and giving them away to poorer nations which want them is a great idea. After all, they are the ones most aware of what their needs are...
To get fonts that look much better than Windows (and on par with those of Mac OSX) try David Chester's Xft Hack.
Mandrake 8.2 will automagically configure your IDE CD-RW drive upon install.
It's ready for the average business user, IMO...assuming the IT people set up the machine and remove unnecessary menu items, put in the appropriate shortcuts, etc. Hey, if people can learn how to use Lotus Notes, I don't see how they wouldn't be able to use Desktop Linux. It IS ready for business use - home use is a bit more problematic, but once it takes off in the office, it will make inroads in the home.
I'm not sure how relevant the comparison is...after all, Gnome 2 and KDE 3 havemost of the same usability features of recent Windows versions - a few more, actually. The added complexity comes with the increased control the user has on the machine. In order to make Linux as user-friendly as Windows, all one has to do is to "dumb it down" by removing certain features from easy desktop access. The biggest hurdle remains the concept of user and file ownership, but that is something that normal users should definitely get accustomed to if they want "trustworthy" computing...
Oh, and by the way, Cthulhu fthagn!
The problem with irony is that sometimes you totally obfuscate the message you're trying to convey. Anyway. You are right in one thing: Linux should be able to handle winmodems - actually, as I understand it, it does handle some of them right now. But at the same time manufacturers should avoid playing MS's game by producing hardware that furthers the company's monopoly.
This is a joke, right? As if 15 more seconds to open the first time really makes a difference in a work environment! Plus, I fail to see what a slightly longer initial startup time has to do with ease of use...
FYI, I work with Win2K and office every day during business hours, and work with either StarOffice 6.0 or MSOffice 2000 on my Linux box in the evening. I therefore have extensive experience with both. And frankly, I don't see that much difference in ease of use between the two products. Not enough to warrant the illusory "usability gap" claimed over and over again by MS employees (and MS wannabes) lurking on Slashdot, anyway.
I'm not wearing any blinders. Are you?
Well, it's not a movement...yet. I just come out with the catchy names, and do everybody else do the work! ;-)
Seriously, though, a Manifesto would be cool...I can see it: Linux and Win2K fans, together against Microsoft - that would truly be an unstoppable force.
Ah, yes, the WinModem...of course when products are designed not to work with anything else than Windows, they become quite useful to those who would foster FUD. Now, I personally have been on broadband for two and a half years now, so I have never had to deal with that issue. Wonderful experience, really: Internet access was automatically configured by Mandrake 8.2 during the installation process - in fact, it even made a quick check on the Mandrake Update site to make sure I had the most up-to-date versions of critical software before concluding the installation. But you're right, some people do not have access to (or the financial means for) broadband. In that case, it seems to me that the easiest way is to make sure that you don't use a winmodem, but rather get a real one.
If that's the only argument you could come with, then I will simply rephrase may statement as such: as long as you don't have that shitty excuse for a communication device called a winmodem, then installation of (for example) Mandrake 8.2 is easier and faster than that of Win2k. (And BTW I did not want to insult you, I merely mimicked the argument proposed by the earlier poster - I must admit that this was directed at him, not at you. Sorry for the confusion.)
Configured correctly for a work environment, Linux is as easy to use as Windows. Heck, Star/OpenOffice is very close to MS Office (and you can always run MS Office 2k with Crossover Office anyway - it runs perfectly). Tell, me, how exactly is an e-mail program harder to use on Linux than it is on Windows?
I think you don't give enough credit to users - after all, they used to use DOS! Now, a Linux/KDE 3.02 can be configured to look and feel exactly like a Win2k one. Your argument is not based on fact, but rather on some old myths which have now become obsolete.
Microsoft has finally made a stable operating system that doesnt require months of reading man pages to setup.
Right on! The most difficult part of my Win2k install was getting the CD out of the case. That's the way it should be.
And that's the way it is now with new Linux distros. Mandrake 8.2 is easier to install than Win2k, and takes up a lot less time, too! You MS geeks need to get over the Linux is Hard to Install FUD.
In an (modest) effort to counter MS's Palladium coup, I've started convincing those around me who won't switch to Linux to stick to Windows 2000. I'm actually having a rather easy time doing this (much easier than converting Windows users to Linux, unfortunately): most people who have Windows 2000 are happy with it and don't see much incentive to move on, especially if you replace their icons with WinXP-like clones (ah, the power of icons...). The motto seems to be: "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" (something I must keep repeating myself every time I feel the urge to upgrade my Linux boxen).
I keep thinking this should be bigger though: we should all put MS in a tight spot and hail Win2k as their best offering so far...they can't say it sucks (after all it only came out, what, three years ago?), but at the same time their business plans hinge on the fact that people will naturally upgrade OS every two years or so. So we need to start a movement: I'd call it the Great Microsoft OS Freeze...basically, tell people to stick with their OS if it works (Win98 or Win2k) if they won't switch to Linux, *BSD or OS X...I think you'll find a lot of receptive ears...
Okay, it seems you can theme Webmin to make it look better. It's still not going to win any design awards, but it's a start! Oh, and it lets you do a remote SSH login through http (with the help of a java applet)...which can be fun if you're trying to log from work and you're behind a firewall.
Actually the hardware gap is closing very fast - like the rest of the Linux world, which evolves at about twice the speed as Windows. And then there's the fact that Linux works on a lot more platforms than any MS OS.
In any case this point is moot if you can sell PCs with Linux pre-installed (something which would be much more common if MS hadn't strong-armed OEMs about installing only Windows).
BTW, why not have a web-based interface to Linux settings? That way it can be configured without having to pick KDE or GNOME or whatever.
It exists, it's called Webmin and if it had cooler graphics and icons it would be the Best. Configuration. Program. Ever. As it is, it's kind of ugly and too advanced for newbies, but it seriously rocks. (And since it's a web interface, it also lets you administer things remotely.)
You mean, it doesn't install, or it doesn't run once installed? Because if you want to copy the required files for a subsequent Linux install, all you need is a successful installation, not to actually get NWN working under Wine. Also, did you try with Wine or with WineX (AFAIK, WineX has better support for InstallShield).
I haven't tried this yet (I'm waiting for the client to come out before buying the game), but it seems to me you could just install it using WineX or even Wine...you don't need to actually get it working with Wine/X, only install it! So it should work...if InstallShield doesn't crap out on you, that is.
Has anyone tried this?
I don't really care about being modded up - I've been at 50 karma for a couple of weeks now and I'm bored. I was merely replying to the previous poster's obviously false statement with an obviously true statement - to which you added your own truism. So...what's your point, exactly?
Moderators: please mod this down, so I can have the thrill of working my way up to 50 again!