Re:Because humans assume they are more advanced th
on
Build Your Own UFO
·
· Score: 2
Well most of what you say is unfortunately not based on scientific fact but rather wild speculation. Yes, there could be matter-bending aliens who control enery with a thought. There could also be a god (who'd be even more powerful). There may be universes within universes. The thing is, when there are infinite possibilities, it doesn't make any sense to try to guess what we don't know (like you do). In fact, it is a complete waste of time, because when there are an infinite number of possibilities, chances are that the one you'll pick will turn out to be wrong.
You also make numerous assumptions that could turn out to be false. First, there's the fact that I've already mentioned. Given that the age of the universe is about 15-20 billion years (which we can calculate with increasing precision - there's no reason to believe we're way off mark here), and that it takes 10-15 billion years to get third-generation stars (we need that Carbon, remember) and that evolution - in our case - took about 5 billion years until we got intelligent life, there is a very good case to be made about the fact that there are probably no such "extremely advanced" race as you mention. Well, perhaps not a very good case, but at least as good as that of telepathic, teleporting aliens. You also assume that technology will keep on developing at the same rapid pace...well, again, there's no proof that this will always be the case. There always the possibility that development will go through plateaus, and who knows how long these can take...theoretically, it's impossible to bring a physical object to the speed of light. Perhaps you'd like to imagine that it's possible, but again there is no proof that it is. Now, to go faster than light...Even if it was possible, it could take use thousands of years before we'd achieve it.
There is also another assumption that you make which, unfortunately, could be false as well: that civilization can both advance technologically and survive. I believe that the development of nuclear energy (which, like the discovery of fire, is on the roadmap of every intelligent species' development) is an important test of intelligent species - one that we have yet to pass, even though we seem to be doing better these days (Bush notwithstanding). But there might be other species-threatening discoveries that await...now, these other advanced species you speak of would have had to go through these scientific "ordeals"...since they probably weren't much more advanced than us when they did, there is always a chance that they did not actually make it!
As far as "teleportation" is concerned, I think that perhaps you read a little too much science fiction. Even though there are theoretical advances, we are still far from the day when you can just teleport to the corner store to get a quart of milk...
Of course, perhaps you are right. Like matters of religion, it is mosly a question of faith, and not logical debate. But remember: in spite of our technological "primitiveness", we have discovered the basic tenets of rational thought: logic, the empirical method of scientific research, euclidian geometry, the basic principles of mathematics, physics, chemistry...these principles are universal: natural laws are the same here as they are on the sixth planet of Epsilon Eridani (nice place, too). We can already figure that out...it always makes me smile to see that those who expound on how primitive we must be compared to imagined alien races usually don't know too much about the current state of human scientific knowledge. I'll grant you: it's not as romantic, but it's a lot closer to the truth (as far as we can tell).
Perhaps incorporeal aliens exist - though you'd have to wonder how evolution would get them to that state - and perhaps God looks down upon us from heaven. The two beliefs are identical in nature. We'll probably never know who is right, so in the end this discussion is rather pointless and sterile. Meanwhile, I'll keep on giving computing cycles to SETI, just because it's the best thing to do with the information we have today...and because the speculative road leads everywhere and thus nowhere, that's the only alternative we've got.
Why to you assume that aliens are too advanced for us to find them? Why assume that aliens are technologically more advanced than us right now? If the universe is teeming with life, there is likely to be races more advanced and others that are less advanced than us. Maybe some are a little bit more advanced than we are...maybe some are nearly-omniscient, nearly-omnipotent beings (I hope they're not too cranky)...On the other hand, we could basically be among the most technologically advanced species around - if that's the case we won't know about alien species for a while...:-(
Now, as well as we can figure out organic chemistry, all life is probably based on carbon (or perhaps silicon, but that's very speculative). Like all other elements except for Hydrogen, Carbon is produced inside stars as gravity forces protons and neutrons to merge into
heavier elements. However, Carbon is only produced when second- or third-generation stars die (thus releasing the heavier elements into space). First-generation stars produce only lighter elements (like helium and lithium). That means that life as we know it could only have started after the formation of third generation stars (like our sun). If the universe is about as old as we think, that means that not too many races should have gotten a billion-year headstart on us.
Now, while civilization and technology may develop at a relatively rapid pace, evolution itself is very, very slow - especially when you start at the unicellular level. As it is, it is not that clear that there would actully be those "ancient races" so prevalent in cosmic sci-fi. But as I said, we can only speculate. And every theory is about as valid as the other. But we shouldn't assume anything.
There is no way for us to know of these things. The most we can do is make an educated guess. That's why - unless some kind of "manager" alien race (or council of races, if they're all suffiently advanced and not too xenophobic) is actively blocking electromagnetic transmissions around Earth - there's no reason to think that SETI would not at some point catch an alien signal, a distant proof that, at some point, an alien race was using radio waves to communicate...
Theres life on earth, perhaps they are curious and want to study us.
If aliens want to study us, they don't need to actually come to earth. We broadcast plenty enough material into space using those same electromagnetic wave. Perhaps they're even fans of Gilligan's Island.
Oh and I'm sure if Aliens do see us, and how brutal we are,
As far as us being too brutal, I don't know...if such aliens are indeed watching us they're the dominant species on their home planet, they very probably have had a violent, often brutal past. There's no reason to think that the darwinian concept of "survival of the fittest" would work any differently in an alien setting. But definitely they might think we are overtly greedy, materialistic, and live in a world where great social and economical inequalities persist.
Actually, I think it is possible to access Win from X, but it requires an expensive proprietary server app (whose names eludes me for the moment, but I did find it on google...)
The freedom of software has absolutely nothing to do with free speech. Nothing.
I wasn't implying that. I was referring to the freedom I have in advocating Free Software, Open Source Software, proprietary Software, sleeping in the nude, nuking three-legged llamas, etc. The point I'm trying to make (I'll spell it out so that you can understand) is that I can advocate whatever I want to whomever I want. If I convince people, it's not because I have some secret mind-control powers, it is because my arguments resonate with those who receive them. What you're saying is that I should shut up because I am not a programmer and therefore am not deeply involved with the subject. To which I reply that freedom of speech (not software) gives me the right to say what I want, and dammit I will! Try to pay attention.
>And don't you DARE second-guess what I want!!
Just like you are second guessing what I want?
Well, you started it. You somehow figured that I want all software to be free software (as in gratis). I never said such a thing, so you must have assumed it, so therefore you are assuming wrong. So stop assuming you know in advance what I think (or that I'm an American, for that matter -- I'm not) and I'll stop saying that you're a MS employee... (which you haven't denied, BTW).
You are staddling two very different philosophies about software and look like a hypocrit. On one case you claim to support free software, but on the other hand you blatently use proprietary software without concern for those who strive for freedom.
I am not an hypocrite, I am flexible. I don't believe in dogmas. Free Software is good, so is Open Source, so is Proprietary. I use good software. I pay for good proprietary software, and sometimes I contribute for Free Software because I believe that it has an important place in the way the industry is developing (and changing). I also like the fact that people who produce free software will often distribute their source, giving it back to the community, so other can reuse and build on it. That's a very noble, unselfish thing to do and I think it is admirable.
Either freedom of software is an ideal, or it is not. You can't simply say "I'm all for free software" and then turn around and use proprietary. This hurts the cause greatly.
Says you. And who says that there's no middle ground, that you either have to be Free Software 100% or Proprietary Software all the way? I didn't, for sure. I don't care much for your confrontational, black-and-white approach...and BTW, the only reason I'm calling you a MS employee is that this is the exact line propagated by Gates, Ballmer and co...No, I believe that all these different licences have a right to exist, because the programmers who choose to adopt them do so of their own free will. That is freedom - if they choose to be dispossessed of their code, that's their decision. You say they might be naive...perhaps they are just unselfish.
I'm not trying to sensor you, per se.
Well, that says it all!
Advocating free software and discussing it are two different matters.
The two are not mutually exclusive.
What I'm simply saying is don't run around telling people they should be using free software because of it being "free" software, when you really mean "no-cost" software.
There you go again, distorting what I say. Are you sure you're not from MS? I never said anything of the sort. Never. Please take it back. I am not advocating that people should use "no-cost" software. I'm saying that people should use software that works, and that some of it will be free software (as in freedom) that may or may not be free (as in gratis). I'm saying that if someone wants to contribute code freely to the community (you know, "giving", a concept which is still important for some people), then it's all in their honor. If their program is good, then we should definitely use it. I'll give you another example: Star/OpenOffice. I will personally buy StarOffice 6.0 when it comes out in May (I have the Beta right now). Now, some people are putting out a no-frills version called OpenOffice, which is available for free...obviously, the two can coexist. So people with less money (or living in the third world) would still be able to use a professionnal Office suite, even though it might not have all the bells and whistles of the commercial version. What's wrong with that? Actually, I know what's wrong: you see software as a revenue source for programmers, first and foremost. Many people see software as a way to make things simpler by automating tasks. Well, I'm sorry, but it's up to the industry to change it's business model, not for FS and OSS licenses to go away. That's called progress, and it doesn't always favor the status quo (again, think of those manual laborers who lost their jobs to programmed machines...)
Then again, you will probably go into bezerk rampage mode again and start waving your American flag yelling "I demand my freedom of speech"
For the record, I am not an american, but I do believe that freedom of speech is a universal human right, which each individual should be fully entitled to. Stop assuming everything, it makes you look like a fool.
I'm glad you know your god-given rights that were provided to you by the founders of America, but can you please be a little less ignorant to those who do have sincere issues on the line?
Funny, there are lots of people here who are programmers - some very brillant - and yet they support the idea of FS and OSS. It's actually their arguments which have convinced me...so I guess I'm not so ignorant about those who are concerned by these issues.
If you want to be a cheerleader, at least learn the moves (i.e. to program and how to use the freedom provided by GNU).
Actually, if you had paid attention to my posts, you'd see that I do know how to program...just not in any useful language. I am not a programmer, but I understand the principles of programming and I work with them everyday (I work for a video game company). But just to shut you up I'm going to buy a Perl book tonight and write a little script I need for my web site. I'll make it GPL so then you won't be able to complain any more about how I should just shut up about the issue.
And I'm sure your "contribution" will be greatly appreciated by all involved in the creation, maintenance, and advocation of free software.
A lot more than yours, of that I'm certain!
To be wrong you must not constantly insist that you are right.
You might want to rephrase this, it doesn't make any sense.
So, are you a MS employee or not? C'mon, you can tell us, we won't say anything to your boss...
Freedom is also about freedom of speech. You would censor me because I am not programmer? That's total bullshit. You can disagree with me but you shouldn't say that I cannot express myself on these matters. I don't have to program to understand the social implications of OSS, agree with them, and promote what it stands for. And don't you DARE second-guess what I want!! As I have said, I use both "free" software, some of which I have paid for, and commercial software (all of which I have paid for). How does that make me a leech? I contribute by saying what I think it's right, and I won't let an elitist, arrogant and anti-democratic MS pawn like you tell me what to do or not do!
As far as my politics go, I am an anarcho-syndicalist and actually agree with many elements of Marxist theory (such as the alienation of the worker from the fruit of his labor, etc.) I believe that Free Software (as opposed to Open Source) is a superior ideal. But there are great programs out there that aren't Free Software, they are Open Source or even proprietary...should I not use these programs as well? What's your point? Nobody's forcing anyone to write free (as in gratis) software - certainly not me! As I said, I have often paid for what I consider good software. I even have a registered version of WinZip on my old Windows partition.
On a side matter: you seem to be worried about programmers being put out of a job because of free software. Now, what do you make of manual laborers who were put out of a job because of automation? Who programs those machines? Programmer, perhaps? Did you ever condemn automation for this? many of those laid-off workers eventually found a different job. Even if some programmers do lose their job because of open-source software (an assertion you make but for which there is no proof, and I mean absolutely none) being smart people they will find manage to get by. But let me ask you this: if FS or OSS is suicidal for programmers (as you imply), then why are there programmers who do it? Answer that question before trying to censor me!
Oh, about the "unnecessary" bashing of Microsoft: MS is still abusing its monopoly to stifle competition. To claim that it's "ancient history" as you do is to either a) totally ignore reality or b) exactly what your MS supervisor asked you to do. Yes, I'm sure that there are some nice and knowledgeable programmers working at MS. I never said the contrary, and actually some of their programs are very good. That is not, that has never been the point. I have never said anything to the contrary. Are you so thick as to not understand what an "abuse of monopoly" is? You are living proof that you can be a programmer and still spew crap about the OSS debate.
Just be certain about one thing: I'll keep on contributing to this debate, even at the risk of being wrong sometimes, whether you like it or not. And that's all I have to say about this.
One way or the other, this is awesome news...being able to play on a AAA PC Game on Linux as soon as it comes out...
Now help Transgaming fix that Battle.net bug by subscribing to their service! This is truly one killer app for Linux...I've been happily fragging opponents in Half-Life on Linux for a couple of weeks now, and it rocks! That game still is my favorite FPS, even after...what...four years now? Perfect balance between speed and tactics, IMO much better than Quake III which is all twitch.
There's nothing wrong (IMO) about commercial software and open source software cohabiting on the same computer. I know it does on mine.
About the contribution of non-technical people to the OSS movement, I think you should reconsider your elitist approach. I am not a programmer (actually did some Pascal and *cough*APL*cough* back in the days), so my contribution is of course limited. However, I do try to "spread the gospel" around me, as well as participate in open forums like this one in order to express my point of view, which is as valid as a hardcore C++ hacker. Just because you're not an expert in a given field doesn't mean you can't have an opinion (or that your opinion will be erroneous). I am not a politician or economist, that doesn't prevent me from knowing a thing or two about politics and the economy - enough to have an educated opinion about such matters, anyway!
In any case, if this was intended as a jab, let me state for the record that I do use both open source and commercial software, and I don't have a problem with that. Do you?
They make a lot of money from server sales and services, but from what I understand they also contributed by writing apps. One way or the other, it's still making money by using open source: you might not make money from the software directly, but you use the software to offer products and services which bring in a revenue stream. Nobody ever said anything about keeping the same business model...in any case, Microsoft itself is gradually moving away from the traditional business model of software licensing with their.Net "initiative".
Indeed, IBM claims to have invested 1 billion dollars (1G$) in Linux, and to have recouped that investment already. Actually they made a big deal out of it; make a search on Google and you'll be able to read all about it.
As for the paranoia...knowing the way Microsoft operates on many front, and often using underhanded disinformation against potential competitors (especially Linux), I don't see why they'd refrain themselves from spreading FUD everywhere, including this, a well-known Linux hangout. I don't seem how it would seem like a waste to them: sowing discord and doubt in the hearts and minds of your (presumed) opponent is the oldest trick in the book. If it prevents people from switching to open-source products, then it does translate into money for them.
Of course, there's also plenty of people taking MS's defense for their own (obscure) reasons, but it would be exceedingly naive to think that they don't have at least a dozen or so employees whose sole purpose is to engage in psychological warfare with the enemy. As I said, if I was in their place I know I would do it...
It doesn't take long to be productive with a correctly-configured Linux system (which is usually what you have when you install one of the newer distros). If you want to, you can spend months studying the inner workings of the OS. With Windows, trying to go under the hood is a nightmare -- or are you suggesting that the Registry is user-friendly?
Overall, Linux is a better OS than Windows (at least Windows 9x) so that shows that Open Source software can compete with closed source. Another, perhaps more probing example is Apache vs. Microsoft IIS.
If you don't believe that you can make money based on Free Software, just ask IBM. They claim to have already recouped the 1G$ investment they made in Linux...
But then again, seeing as how you sound exactly like a MS employee paid to spread FUD on Slashdot would, I doubt that these arguments will convince you...
On a side note, I wonder exactly how many of these MS has assigned to this site? (I'm sure that there are - hey, if I was running Microsoft, I would hire people for that very purpose. Seeing as there must be at least one MS manager as smart and devious as I am, I don't see a reason why they wouldn't...)
All right, this is off-topic (unless we also believe the rumors that L. Ron Hubbard has been put on ice himself) but Walt Disney was notcryogenically frozen. He was cremated. Here is the link to his death certificate.
Note to Scientology Lawyers: I did not explicitly specify which bastards I advocate nuking of. For all you know, the nukification I am endorsing could be the one of three-legged peruvian llamas (oh, how I hate these) and not at all the leaders of the IMO controversial and IMO dangerous cult full of IMO manipulative IMO crooks who IMO abuse the weak-minded by syphoning out their cash (IMHO) and producing god-awful films with stars who manage to IMO ruin their career twice. By assuming that the bastards I am referring to are representatives from the Church of Violentology...er...Scientology (great, now Steve Jackson Games' lawyers will be going after me, too!), you are setting up yourselves to be sued by your own employers for libel.
Seriously, someone should firebomb the Celebrity Center (and by that I could mean Kelly Preston's navel, or John Travolta's ego - hey, you can't physically harm an ego!
Well, if they're going to play that game...just install a (legal) copy of Win98 on your machine and dual-boot into Linux...heck, you don't even have to dual-boot! As long as it's install on your disk, your computer will qualify as a "system with MS Windows".
I'd like to add that I did buy the CrossOver Plugin, and that it's all that it's cracked up to be except for two things (which may be related to my configuration): it did not install icons or MIME type extensions (a minor annoyance) and I can't install the Word viewer without the installer crasshing (a medium one). No matter, I think I'm entitled to download updates as they come...in any case, I urge as many people as possible to contribute to both Codeweavers Crossover and Transgaming's Winex project. I mean, their products are relatively cheap and it does help them bring Windows assimilation into Linux closer to being a seamless experience.
Of course they play by the rules when it suits them...however the rules are made, though, I find this to be very, very bad form. I would even go as far as to call it a blunder. And that's coming from an XBOX owner! I work in the console industry and it's bad enough with the fanboys arguing over which is the best and all...it's funny when it's just good-humored jabs and the like - hey, it's part of the game - but this is kind of an insult. The top brass at Sony (especially the japanese) will take it personally, you can bet on that.
...are mixed. I tried it out on my machine inside a VMWare Virtual Machine, but I could not get it to complete the install (I guess it had trouble with the "virtual" video card). I installed it on an old Pentium 233, but it was too slow to be usable (I guess KDE is pretty heavy on resources). Then I tried it on a Pentium II 350 and performance was acceptable. I like what they've done with the interface and all, especially the Network Neighborhood. Also, it's a good idea for newbies only to have a limited amount of apps (though they should have gone with OpenOffice...).
However, like the author, I wasn't impressed with app installation. With advanced installation managers like apt-get and red-carpet, it's a shame that Lycoris didn't achieve the same level of efficiency. Maybe they could adapt one of these (I really like Red-carpet, even with occasionnal glitch it makes updating and installing software so easy.)
Hmmm...actually, it makes me realize that perhaps Ximian should put out their own distro, following the same kind of philosophy: they already have the e-mail client (evolution) and the install/update manager (Red-carpet), and the Gnome desktop can be configured to look and feel like Windows almost as much as KDE can...use Galeon as a browser, Open or StarOffice for productivity, add a "network neighborhood" app like they have for Desktop/LX and you would have a very newbie-friendly - as long as they fix Nautilus so it's faster (that's Gnome weakest point right now: the Gnome File Manager is ugly and Nautilus is slow...)
The problem is not with Microsoft improving on a good idea. The problem is Microsoft using the unfair advantage of having access to the source code of the OS in order to produce apps that are better integrated and therefore run better than those made by competitors. Wal-Mart, though it is a giant, isn't a monopoly. GM and Ford are part of an oligopoly, yes, but they aren't monopolies. Microsoft, on the other hand, is a monopoly. That they continue on with dirty tricks (like this new VNC thing) shows that they will not change their monopolistic ways, even though they have received the proverbial slap on the fingers by a (newly Republican) DoJ.
I personally like VNC, a lot. I use it to control my machines at home with a single keyboard/video/mouse setup, I also use it whenever I get to play "family tech support" (it's not too bad if you can eventually get a free dinner for it!:-) So far, I have not installed it on an XP machine but if a family member does install XP I'll have no qualms about smashing that EULA into pieces.
On a side note: I recently discovered that MS has no plans to release a free PowerPoint 2002 viewer. They do not give a reason, but I think it's pretty clear: they want people to switch to Office XP. Right now that is the only way to see an PPT made with Office XP - if you want the nifty new effect and "exit" animations, that is. Too bad, it is a rather impressive program. They've improved a lot of things since the last version...
Well, I went through all the 100+ TT fonts I have installed on my machine, and they all look nicer. It's not even just an impression: the difference is striking. Since I've already got all of the fonts I need for daily use, I'll keep this simple, yet very useful hack until they actually fix it officially.
Did you even try the hack? Did it cause problems in some applications? Or are you just bitchin' 'cause you didn't think of it first?:-)
"XFree86 4 supports sub-pixel anti-aliasing (aka ClearType). You just need to put match edit rgba=rgb; in XftConfig."
Ah, how intuitive... how many hours of reading manpages, HOWTOs and FAQs did it take to figure that one out?
Goddammit. This is what I really hate in Linux. You have to read tons of obsolete and badly written documentation until you can turn on something as trivial as sub-pixel rendering.
Actually, whenever I want to find out about something, I usually hit the newsgroups to do a search. Usually I find what I need in about fifteen minutes or so. That's what I love about Linux: the community is always eager to help each other out by writing about their experiences. You don't find the same spirit of community in Windows...
Unless you enjoy tweaking your computer for hours and hours instead of getting something productive done at work, the current state of affairs is just unacceptable.
You said it, not me: if you enjoy tweaking your machine, you can do it for hours - but you don't have to. If you just want to do productive work, go ahead! In most modern distros (Mandrake in particular) the hardware detect and system setup is automatic...I don't know about sub-pixel AA for laptops, though...it might be good if someone actually made a distro just for laptops, as these usually seem more temperamental than desktops (and not only with Linux: installing Windows on some laptops can be quite complicated...)
Perhaps, but I tried it last night and all the fonts look much, much better. On my 19" monitor in 1280x1024, they even look better than any Windows AA I've seen so far! So who cares if it was simple to do: it works, and very, very well! In that sense, it is a major breakthrough: Linux (and Unix in general, I guess) now has nicer AA fonts than Windows, and at least equal to those of OS X.
I'm sure they can manage to get at least a year and a half. Think of all the extra programmers they would have to hire to make it...it could even be a boon for the "new economy" (however temporary)...although it would give a bit of help to the next cyclic "Desktop Linux" push. The "pause" in Windows development would make the OS field just a bit more even. Do you realize they have at least two more versions in the pipeline? They can handle it - but their cash pile will diminish, that's for sure. That's not necessarily a bad thing, unless you're a MS shareholder...
Rereading the blurb I realized that they're switching ACPI off by default, so that would actually solve that X (or something) problem I was referring to. I take it all back. Microsoft is great and Bill Gates has nice hair (now). FreeBSD sucks.
I have a hard time believing that this wasn't done expressely to make it harder for alternate OSes to get to work properly. I recall reading on a Linux newsgroup about needing to switch off ACPI for some configuration problem or something (I think it was X, but it's kind of a haze)...
So maybe we'll see a truce in the Linux/*BSD feud over this one...:-)
The difference being, of course, that an OEM could include a different browser than IE, by having a deal with a different software company. Again, the problem here is one of monopoly. To keep with your car analogy, imagine if you could only get a Chrysler with a Chrysler radio and sound system with it, and that changing it is a major hassle, even though you might want to have an Alpine? I don't know about you, but I'll take choice over being stuck with factory defaults any day. I actuall did a "test drive" of Opera, Netscape/Mozilla and Galeon before settling on the last one. In the end, when given choice, the consumer is the winner.
I understand your concern about the impact of the IE-less Windows on Windows developers...and actually I am not totally anti-Microsoft (I recently bought an Xbox)! It seems to me, though, that what they need for the file manager, help system, etc., is just the HTML rendering engine, not the actual browser. So they could just integrate a good HTML renderer (perhaps even an open-source one) into the OS...
My main beef with MS is their blatant lack of good faith in accepting a fair remedy. Of course they won't be happy about it, and it will probably cost them a lot of money...but then again they should have been a good corporate citizen in the first place! Saying that it can't be done and then admitting they haven't done any research into it is kind of...lame.
..and because standardization is invevitable, we should all embrace OPEN standards, and therefore an OPEN OS so that no company would profit from its monopoly. The problem is not even with the fact that Windows achieved monopoly status with their OS, it's that they used this monopoly status to gain unfair advantages over competitors in other types of applications. Bundling is not even the problem: Linux distros bundle lots of Software together...however, this software comes from various source, and so does not profit a single company.
I don't recall Judge Penfield Jackson defining the market as Intel-based home computers only...BTW, even with Apple factored in, Microsoft still has a monopoly on home PCs (95% for MS, 5% for all the rest).
Also, I have to point out that it must have been quite a while since you've lsat tried to install Linux. The installers on modern and newbie-friendly distros are actually easier to use (not to mention less time-consuming) than for Windows. Give it a try! You'll be pleasantly surprised...
Slashdot Mirror
Well most of what you say is unfortunately not based on scientific fact but rather wild speculation. Yes, there could be matter-bending aliens who control enery with a thought. There could also be a god (who'd be even more powerful). There may be universes within universes. The thing is, when there are infinite possibilities, it doesn't make any sense to try to guess what we don't know (like you do). In fact, it is a complete waste of time, because when there are an infinite number of possibilities, chances are that the one you'll pick will turn out to be wrong.
You also make numerous assumptions that could turn out to be false. First, there's the fact that I've already mentioned. Given that the age of the universe is about 15-20 billion years (which we can calculate with increasing precision - there's no reason to believe we're way off mark here), and that it takes 10-15 billion years to get third-generation stars (we need that Carbon, remember) and that evolution - in our case - took about 5 billion years until we got intelligent life, there is a very good case to be made about the fact that there are probably no such "extremely advanced" race as you mention. Well, perhaps not a very good case, but at least as good as that of telepathic, teleporting aliens. You also assume that technology will keep on developing at the same rapid pace...well, again, there's no proof that this will always be the case. There always the possibility that development will go through plateaus, and who knows how long these can take...theoretically, it's impossible to bring a physical object to the speed of light. Perhaps you'd like to imagine that it's possible, but again there is no proof that it is. Now, to go faster than light...Even if it was possible, it could take use thousands of years before we'd achieve it.
There is also another assumption that you make which, unfortunately, could be false as well: that civilization can both advance technologically and survive. I believe that the development of nuclear energy (which, like the discovery of fire, is on the roadmap of every intelligent species' development) is an important test of intelligent species - one that we have yet to pass, even though we seem to be doing better these days (Bush notwithstanding). But there might be other species-threatening discoveries that await...now, these other advanced species you speak of would have had to go through these scientific "ordeals"...since they probably weren't much more advanced than us when they did, there is always a chance that they did not actually make it!
As far as "teleportation" is concerned, I think that perhaps you read a little too much science fiction. Even though there are theoretical advances, we are still far from the day when you can just teleport to the corner store to get a quart of milk...
Of course, perhaps you are right. Like matters of religion, it is mosly a question of faith, and not logical debate. But remember: in spite of our technological "primitiveness", we have discovered the basic tenets of rational thought: logic, the empirical method of scientific research, euclidian geometry, the basic principles of mathematics, physics, chemistry...these principles are universal: natural laws are the same here as they are on the sixth planet of Epsilon Eridani (nice place, too). We can already figure that out...it always makes me smile to see that those who expound on how primitive we must be compared to imagined alien races usually don't know too much about the current state of human scientific knowledge. I'll grant you: it's not as romantic, but it's a lot closer to the truth (as far as we can tell).
Perhaps incorporeal aliens exist - though you'd have to wonder how evolution would get them to that state - and perhaps God looks down upon us from heaven. The two beliefs are identical in nature. We'll probably never know who is right, so in the end this discussion is rather pointless and sterile. Meanwhile, I'll keep on giving computing cycles to SETI, just because it's the best thing to do with the information we have today...and because the speculative road leads everywhere and thus nowhere, that's the only alternative we've got.
Aliens are too advanced for us to find them
:-(
Why to you assume that aliens are too advanced for us to find them? Why assume that aliens are technologically more advanced than us right now? If the universe is teeming with life, there is likely to be races more advanced and others that are less advanced than us. Maybe some are a little bit more advanced than we are...maybe some are nearly-omniscient, nearly-omnipotent beings (I hope they're not too cranky)...On the other hand, we could basically be among the most technologically advanced species around - if that's the case we won't know about alien species for a while...
Now, as well as we can figure out organic chemistry, all life is probably based on carbon (or perhaps silicon, but that's very speculative). Like all other elements except for Hydrogen, Carbon is produced inside stars as gravity forces protons and neutrons to merge into heavier elements. However, Carbon is only produced when second- or third-generation stars die (thus releasing the heavier elements into space). First-generation stars produce only lighter elements (like helium and lithium). That means that life as we know it could only have started after the formation of third generation stars (like our sun). If the universe is about as old as we think, that means that not too many races should have gotten a billion-year headstart on us.
Now, while civilization and technology may develop at a relatively rapid pace, evolution itself is very, very slow - especially when you start at the unicellular level. As it is, it is not that clear that there would actully be those "ancient races" so prevalent in cosmic sci-fi. But as I said, we can only speculate. And every theory is about as valid as the other. But we shouldn't assume anything.
There is no way for us to know of these things. The most we can do is make an educated guess. That's why - unless some kind of "manager" alien race (or council of races, if they're all suffiently advanced and not too xenophobic) is actively blocking electromagnetic transmissions around Earth - there's no reason to think that SETI would not at some point catch an alien signal, a distant proof that, at some point, an alien race was using radio waves to communicate...
Theres life on earth, perhaps they are curious and want to study us.
If aliens want to study us, they don't need to actually come to earth. We broadcast plenty enough material into space using those same electromagnetic wave. Perhaps they're even fans of Gilligan's Island.
Oh and I'm sure if Aliens do see us, and how brutal we are,
As far as us being too brutal, I don't know...if such aliens are indeed watching us they're the dominant species on their home planet, they very probably have had a violent, often brutal past. There's no reason to think that the darwinian concept of "survival of the fittest" would work any differently in an alien setting. But definitely they might think we are overtly greedy, materialistic, and live in a world where great social and economical inequalities persist.
Actually, I think it is possible to access Win from X, but it requires an expensive proprietary server app (whose names eludes me for the moment, but I did find it on google...)
The freedom of software has absolutely nothing to do with free speech. Nothing.
I wasn't implying that. I was referring to the freedom I have in advocating Free Software, Open Source Software, proprietary Software, sleeping in the nude, nuking three-legged llamas, etc. The point I'm trying to make (I'll spell it out so that you can understand) is that I can advocate whatever I want to whomever I want. If I convince people, it's not because I have some secret mind-control powers, it is because my arguments resonate with those who receive them. What you're saying is that I should shut up because I am not a programmer and therefore am not deeply involved with the subject. To which I reply that freedom of speech (not software) gives me the right to say what I want, and dammit I will! Try to pay attention.
>And don't you DARE second-guess what I want!!
Just like you are second guessing what I want?
Well, you started it. You somehow figured that I want all software to be free software (as in gratis). I never said such a thing, so you must have assumed it, so therefore you are assuming wrong. So stop assuming you know in advance what I think (or that I'm an American, for that matter -- I'm not) and I'll stop saying that you're a MS employee... (which you haven't denied, BTW).
You are staddling two very different philosophies about software and look like a hypocrit. On one case you claim to support free software, but on the other hand you blatently use proprietary software without concern for those who strive for freedom.
I am not an hypocrite, I am flexible. I don't believe in dogmas. Free Software is good, so is Open Source, so is Proprietary. I use good software. I pay for good proprietary software, and sometimes I contribute for Free Software because I believe that it has an important place in the way the industry is developing (and changing). I also like the fact that people who produce free software will often distribute their source, giving it back to the community, so other can reuse and build on it. That's a very noble, unselfish thing to do and I think it is admirable.
Either freedom of software is an ideal, or it is not. You can't simply say "I'm all for free software" and then turn around and use proprietary. This hurts the cause greatly.
Says you. And who says that there's no middle ground, that you either have to be Free Software 100% or Proprietary Software all the way? I didn't, for sure. I don't care much for your confrontational, black-and-white approach...and BTW, the only reason I'm calling you a MS employee is that this is the exact line propagated by Gates, Ballmer and co...No, I believe that all these different licences have a right to exist, because the programmers who choose to adopt them do so of their own free will. That is freedom - if they choose to be dispossessed of their code, that's their decision. You say they might be naive...perhaps they are just unselfish.
I'm not trying to sensor you, per se.
Well, that says it all!
Advocating free software and discussing it are two different matters.
The two are not mutually exclusive.
What I'm simply saying is don't run around telling people they should be using free software because of it being "free" software, when you really mean "no-cost" software.
There you go again, distorting what I say. Are you sure you're not from MS? I never said anything of the sort. Never. Please take it back. I am not advocating that people should use "no-cost" software. I'm saying that people should use software that works, and that some of it will be free software (as in freedom) that may or may not be free (as in gratis). I'm saying that if someone wants to contribute code freely to the community (you know, "giving", a concept which is still important for some people), then it's all in their honor. If their program is good, then we should definitely use it. I'll give you another example: Star/OpenOffice. I will personally buy StarOffice 6.0 when it comes out in May (I have the Beta right now). Now, some people are putting out a no-frills version called OpenOffice, which is available for free...obviously, the two can coexist. So people with less money (or living in the third world) would still be able to use a professionnal Office suite, even though it might not have all the bells and whistles of the commercial version. What's wrong with that? Actually, I know what's wrong: you see software as a revenue source for programmers, first and foremost. Many people see software as a way to make things simpler by automating tasks. Well, I'm sorry, but it's up to the industry to change it's business model, not for FS and OSS licenses to go away. That's called progress, and it doesn't always favor the status quo (again, think of those manual laborers who lost their jobs to programmed machines...)
Then again, you will probably go into bezerk rampage mode again and start waving your American flag yelling "I demand my freedom of speech"
For the record, I am not an american, but I do believe that freedom of speech is a universal human right, which each individual should be fully entitled to. Stop assuming everything, it makes you look like a fool.
I'm glad you know your god-given rights that were provided to you by the founders of America, but can you please be a little less ignorant to those who do have sincere issues on the line?
Funny, there are lots of people here who are programmers - some very brillant - and yet they support the idea of FS and OSS. It's actually their arguments which have convinced me...so I guess I'm not so ignorant about those who are concerned by these issues.
If you want to be a cheerleader, at least learn the moves (i.e. to program and how to use the freedom provided by GNU).
Actually, if you had paid attention to my posts, you'd see that I do know how to program...just not in any useful language. I am not a programmer, but I understand the principles of programming and I work with them everyday (I work for a video game company). But just to shut you up I'm going to buy a Perl book tonight and write a little script I need for my web site. I'll make it GPL so then you won't be able to complain any more about how I should just shut up about the issue.
And I'm sure your "contribution" will be greatly appreciated by all involved in the creation, maintenance, and advocation of free software.
A lot more than yours, of that I'm certain!
To be wrong you must not constantly insist that you are right.
You might want to rephrase this, it doesn't make any sense.
So, are you a MS employee or not? C'mon, you can tell us, we won't say anything to your boss...
Freedom is also about freedom of speech. You would censor me because I am not programmer? That's total bullshit. You can disagree with me but you shouldn't say that I cannot express myself on these matters. I don't have to program to understand the social implications of OSS, agree with them, and promote what it stands for. And don't you DARE second-guess what I want!! As I have said, I use both "free" software, some of which I have paid for, and commercial software (all of which I have paid for). How does that make me a leech? I contribute by saying what I think it's right, and I won't let an elitist, arrogant and anti-democratic MS pawn like you tell me what to do or not do!
As far as my politics go, I am an anarcho-syndicalist and actually agree with many elements of Marxist theory (such as the alienation of the worker from the fruit of his labor, etc.) I believe that Free Software (as opposed to Open Source) is a superior ideal. But there are great programs out there that aren't Free Software, they are Open Source or even proprietary...should I not use these programs as well? What's your point? Nobody's forcing anyone to write free (as in gratis) software - certainly not me! As I said, I have often paid for what I consider good software. I even have a registered version of WinZip on my old Windows partition.
On a side matter: you seem to be worried about programmers being put out of a job because of free software. Now, what do you make of manual laborers who were put out of a job because of automation? Who programs those machines? Programmer, perhaps? Did you ever condemn automation for this? many of those laid-off workers eventually found a different job. Even if some programmers do lose their job because of open-source software (an assertion you make but for which there is no proof, and I mean absolutely none) being smart people they will find manage to get by. But let me ask you this: if FS or OSS is suicidal for programmers (as you imply), then why are there programmers who do it? Answer that question before trying to censor me!
Oh, about the "unnecessary" bashing of Microsoft: MS is still abusing its monopoly to stifle competition. To claim that it's "ancient history" as you do is to either a) totally ignore reality or b) exactly what your MS supervisor asked you to do. Yes, I'm sure that there are some nice and knowledgeable programmers working at MS. I never said the contrary, and actually some of their programs are very good. That is not, that has never been the point. I have never said anything to the contrary. Are you so thick as to not understand what an "abuse of monopoly" is? You are living proof that you can be a programmer and still spew crap about the OSS debate.
Just be certain about one thing: I'll keep on contributing to this debate, even at the risk of being wrong sometimes, whether you like it or not. And that's all I have to say about this.
One way or the other, this is awesome news...being able to play on a AAA PC Game on Linux as soon as it comes out...
Now help Transgaming fix that Battle.net bug by subscribing to their service! This is truly one killer app for Linux...I've been happily fragging opponents in Half-Life on Linux for a couple of weeks now, and it rocks! That game still is my favorite FPS, even after...what...four years now? Perfect balance between speed and tactics, IMO much better than Quake III which is all twitch.
There's nothing wrong (IMO) about commercial software and open source software cohabiting on the same computer. I know it does on mine.
About the contribution of non-technical people to the OSS movement, I think you should reconsider your elitist approach. I am not a programmer (actually did some Pascal and *cough*APL*cough* back in the days), so my contribution is of course limited. However, I do try to "spread the gospel" around me, as well as participate in open forums like this one in order to express my point of view, which is as valid as a hardcore C++ hacker. Just because you're not an expert in a given field doesn't mean you can't have an opinion (or that your opinion will be erroneous). I am not a politician or economist, that doesn't prevent me from knowing a thing or two about politics and the economy - enough to have an educated opinion about such matters, anyway!
In any case, if this was intended as a jab, let me state for the record that I do use both open source and commercial software, and I don't have a problem with that. Do you?
They make a lot of money from server sales and services, but from what I understand they also contributed by writing apps. One way or the other, it's still making money by using open source: you might not make money from the software directly, but you use the software to offer products and services which bring in a revenue stream. Nobody ever said anything about keeping the same business model...in any case, Microsoft itself is gradually moving away from the traditional business model of software licensing with their .Net "initiative".
Indeed, IBM claims to have invested 1 billion dollars (1G$) in Linux, and to have recouped that investment already. Actually they made a big deal out of it; make a search on Google and you'll be able to read all about it.
As for the paranoia...knowing the way Microsoft operates on many front, and often using underhanded disinformation against potential competitors (especially Linux), I don't see why they'd refrain themselves from spreading FUD everywhere, including this, a well-known Linux hangout. I don't seem how it would seem like a waste to them: sowing discord and doubt in the hearts and minds of your (presumed) opponent is the oldest trick in the book. If it prevents people from switching to open-source products, then it does translate into money for them.
Of course, there's also plenty of people taking MS's defense for their own (obscure) reasons, but it would be exceedingly naive to think that they don't have at least a dozen or so employees whose sole purpose is to engage in psychological warfare with the enemy. As I said, if I was in their place I know I would do it...
It doesn't take long to be productive with a correctly-configured Linux system (which is usually what you have when you install one of the newer distros). If you want to, you can spend months studying the inner workings of the OS. With Windows, trying to go under the hood is a nightmare -- or are you suggesting that the Registry is user-friendly?
Overall, Linux is a better OS than Windows (at least Windows 9x) so that shows that Open Source software can compete with closed source. Another, perhaps more probing example is Apache vs. Microsoft IIS.
If you don't believe that you can make money based on Free Software, just ask IBM. They claim to have already recouped the 1G$ investment they made in Linux...
But then again, seeing as how you sound exactly like a MS employee paid to spread FUD on Slashdot would, I doubt that these arguments will convince you...
On a side note, I wonder exactly how many of these MS has assigned to this site? (I'm sure that there are - hey, if I was running Microsoft, I would hire people for that very purpose. Seeing as there must be at least one MS manager as smart and devious as I am, I don't see a reason why they wouldn't...)
All right, this is off-topic (unless we also believe the rumors that L. Ron Hubbard has been put on ice himself) but Walt Disney was not cryogenically frozen. He was cremated. Here is the link to his death certificate.
Note to Scientology Lawyers: I did not explicitly specify which bastards I advocate nuking of. For all you know, the nukification I am endorsing could be the one of three-legged peruvian llamas (oh, how I hate these) and not at all the leaders of the IMO controversial and IMO dangerous cult full of IMO manipulative IMO crooks who IMO abuse the weak-minded by syphoning out their cash (IMHO) and producing god-awful films with stars who manage to IMO ruin their career twice. By assuming that the bastards I am referring to are representatives from the Church of Violentology...er...Scientology (great, now Steve Jackson Games' lawyers will be going after me, too!), you are setting up yourselves to be sued by your own employers for libel.
Seriously, someone should firebomb the Celebrity Center (and by that I could mean Kelly Preston's navel, or John Travolta's ego - hey, you can't physically harm an ego!
IMHO, of course.
Well, if they're going to play that game...just install a (legal) copy of Win98 on your machine and dual-boot into Linux...heck, you don't even have to dual-boot! As long as it's install on your disk, your computer will qualify as a "system with MS Windows".
I'd like to add that I did buy the CrossOver Plugin, and that it's all that it's cracked up to be except for two things (which may be related to my configuration): it did not install icons or MIME type extensions (a minor annoyance) and I can't install the Word viewer without the installer crasshing (a medium one). No matter, I think I'm entitled to download updates as they come...in any case, I urge as many people as possible to contribute to both Codeweavers Crossover and Transgaming's Winex project. I mean, their products are relatively cheap and it does help them bring Windows assimilation into Linux closer to being a seamless experience.
Of course they play by the rules when it suits them...however the rules are made, though, I find this to be very, very bad form. I would even go as far as to call it a blunder. And that's coming from an XBOX owner! I work in the console industry and it's bad enough with the fanboys arguing over which is the best and all...it's funny when it's just good-humored jabs and the like - hey, it's part of the game - but this is kind of an insult. The top brass at Sony (especially the japanese) will take it personally, you can bet on that.
...are mixed. I tried it out on my machine inside a VMWare Virtual Machine, but I could not get it to complete the install (I guess it had trouble with the "virtual" video card). I installed it on an old Pentium 233, but it was too slow to be usable (I guess KDE is pretty heavy on resources). Then I tried it on a Pentium II 350 and performance was acceptable. I like what they've done with the interface and all, especially the Network Neighborhood. Also, it's a good idea for newbies only to have a limited amount of apps (though they should have gone with OpenOffice...).
However, like the author, I wasn't impressed with app installation. With advanced installation managers like apt-get and red-carpet, it's a shame that Lycoris didn't achieve the same level of efficiency. Maybe they could adapt one of these (I really like Red-carpet, even with occasionnal glitch it makes updating and installing software so easy.)
Hmmm...actually, it makes me realize that perhaps Ximian should put out their own distro, following the same kind of philosophy: they already have the e-mail client (evolution) and the install/update manager (Red-carpet), and the Gnome desktop can be configured to look and feel like Windows almost as much as KDE can...use Galeon as a browser, Open or StarOffice for productivity, add a "network neighborhood" app like they have for Desktop/LX and you would have a very newbie-friendly - as long as they fix Nautilus so it's faster (that's Gnome weakest point right now: the Gnome File Manager is ugly and Nautilus is slow...)
Hey, Ximian, are you up to it? I'd buy a copy...
The problem is not with Microsoft improving on a good idea. The problem is Microsoft using the unfair advantage of having access to the source code of the OS in order to produce apps that are better integrated and therefore run better than those made by competitors. Wal-Mart, though it is a giant, isn't a monopoly. GM and Ford are part of an oligopoly, yes, but they aren't monopolies. Microsoft, on the other hand, is a monopoly. That they continue on with dirty tricks (like this new VNC thing) shows that they will not change their monopolistic ways, even though they have received the proverbial slap on the fingers by a (newly Republican) DoJ.
:-) So far, I have not installed it on an XP machine but if a family member does install XP I'll have no qualms about smashing that EULA into pieces.
I personally like VNC, a lot. I use it to control my machines at home with a single keyboard/video/mouse setup, I also use it whenever I get to play "family tech support" (it's not too bad if you can eventually get a free dinner for it!
On a side note: I recently discovered that MS has no plans to release a free PowerPoint 2002 viewer. They do not give a reason, but I think it's pretty clear: they want people to switch to Office XP. Right now that is the only way to see an PPT made with Office XP - if you want the nifty new effect and "exit" animations, that is. Too bad, it is a rather impressive program. They've improved a lot of things since the last version...
Well, I went through all the 100+ TT fonts I have installed on my machine, and they all look nicer. It's not even just an impression: the difference is striking. Since I've already got all of the fonts I need for daily use, I'll keep this simple, yet very useful hack until they actually fix it officially.
:-)
Did you even try the hack? Did it cause problems in some applications? Or are you just bitchin' 'cause you didn't think of it first?
"XFree86 4 supports sub-pixel anti-aliasing (aka ClearType). You just need to put match edit rgba=rgb; in XftConfig."
Ah, how intuitive... how many hours of reading manpages, HOWTOs and FAQs did it take to figure that one out?
Goddammit. This is what I really hate in Linux. You have to read tons of obsolete and badly written documentation until you can turn on something as trivial as sub-pixel rendering.
Actually, whenever I want to find out about something, I usually hit the newsgroups to do a search. Usually I find what I need in about fifteen minutes or so. That's what I love about Linux: the community is always eager to help each other out by writing about their experiences. You don't find the same spirit of community in Windows...
Unless you enjoy tweaking your computer for hours and hours instead of getting something productive done at work, the current state of affairs is just unacceptable.
You said it, not me: if you enjoy tweaking your machine, you can do it for hours - but you don't have to. If you just want to do productive work, go ahead! In most modern distros (Mandrake in particular) the hardware detect and system setup is automatic...I don't know about sub-pixel AA for laptops, though...it might be good if someone actually made a distro just for laptops, as these usually seem more temperamental than desktops (and not only with Linux: installing Windows on some laptops can be quite complicated...)
Perhaps, but I tried it last night and all the fonts look much, much better. On my 19" monitor in 1280x1024, they even look better than any Windows AA I've seen so far! So who cares if it was simple to do: it works, and very, very well! In that sense, it is a major breakthrough: Linux (and Unix in general, I guess) now has nicer AA fonts than Windows, and at least equal to those of OS X.
I'm sure they can manage to get at least a year and a half. Think of all the extra programmers they would have to hire to make it...it could even be a boon for the "new economy" (however temporary)...although it would give a bit of help to the next cyclic "Desktop Linux" push. The "pause" in Windows development would make the OS field just a bit more even. Do you realize they have at least two more versions in the pipeline? They can handle it - but their cash pile will diminish, that's for sure. That's not necessarily a bad thing, unless you're a MS shareholder...
Rereading the blurb I realized that they're switching ACPI off by default, so that would actually solve that X (or something) problem I was referring to. I take it all back. Microsoft is great and Bill Gates has nice hair (now). FreeBSD sucks.
:-)
...just kidding!
I have a hard time believing that this wasn't done expressely to make it harder for alternate OSes to get to work properly. I recall reading on a Linux newsgroup about needing to switch off ACPI for some configuration problem or something (I think it was X, but it's kind of a haze)...
:-)
So maybe we'll see a truce in the Linux/*BSD feud over this one...
The difference being, of course, that an OEM could include a different browser than IE, by having a deal with a different software company. Again, the problem here is one of monopoly. To keep with your car analogy, imagine if you could only get a Chrysler with a Chrysler radio and sound system with it, and that changing it is a major hassle, even though you might want to have an Alpine? I don't know about you, but I'll take choice over being stuck with factory defaults any day. I actuall did a "test drive" of Opera, Netscape/Mozilla and Galeon before settling on the last one. In the end, when given choice, the consumer is the winner.
I understand your concern about the impact of the IE-less Windows on Windows developers...and actually I am not totally anti-Microsoft (I recently bought an Xbox)! It seems to me, though, that what they need for the file manager, help system, etc., is just the HTML rendering engine, not the actual browser. So they could just integrate a good HTML renderer (perhaps even an open-source one) into the OS...
My main beef with MS is their blatant lack of good faith in accepting a fair remedy. Of course they won't be happy about it, and it will probably cost them a lot of money...but then again they should have been a good corporate citizen in the first place! Saying that it can't be done and then admitting they haven't done any research into it is kind of...lame.
..and because standardization is invevitable, we should all embrace OPEN standards, and therefore an OPEN OS so that no company would profit from its monopoly. The problem is not even with the fact that Windows achieved monopoly status with their OS, it's that they used this monopoly status to gain unfair advantages over competitors in other types of applications. Bundling is not even the problem: Linux distros bundle lots of Software together...however, this software comes from various source, and so does not profit a single company.
I don't recall Judge Penfield Jackson defining the market as Intel-based home computers only...BTW, even with Apple factored in, Microsoft still has a monopoly on home PCs (95% for MS, 5% for all the rest).
Also, I have to point out that it must have been quite a while since you've lsat tried to install Linux. The installers on modern and newbie-friendly distros are actually easier to use (not to mention less time-consuming) than for Windows. Give it a try! You'll be pleasantly surprised...