I think the Fox-bashing will stop when they stop being a conservative propaganda machine. Although then, the conservatives would bash it for being liberal, so it would continue.
The question is, if the conservative viewpoint is what's considered "fair and balanced", why do they need to resort to disinformation through biased selection of news items and stack their discussion panels so far to the right?
As for Saddam, is capture is welcome but pretty much irrelevant. The US business interests have one, there'll be plenty of cheap oil (the cheapest oil in the world) for U.S. companies and plenty of reconstruction contracts for U.S. firms and those of their allies. The war was never about Saddam's oppression of his people in the first place - otherwise it would have happened long ago, and the U.S. wouldn't have been supporting him with weapons and biological agents for so many years.
This was a private war for Bush's electoral buddies, it just happened to serve a good cause, to right a wrong to which Washington contributed.
If only the U.S. defended democracy in as many countries as those where it contributed to its repression, then perhaps we could see a positive impact to american foreign policy. As it happens, there is quite a democracy deficit in that regard.
Indeed! Ross McKitrick, one of the authors, can hardly be considered an "uninterested" researcher. He belongs to the Competitive Enterprise Institute, which has ExxonMobil as a major funder. For that matter, Bjorn Lomberg isn't such a reliable source himself, having been condemned by the Danish Committee on Scientific Dishonesty for misrepresenting or misinterpreting the scientific studies of others.
The good news is that fossil fuel reserves may run out before we cause irreparable damage to our environment. In any case, it makes sense to begin the transition towards renewable sources of energy ASAP (as well as put lots of funding back into energy research). Critics say that will cost too much to be feasible, as if the money would be thrown down a black hole - while in fact this money will go to corporations, associations and workers who develop the new energy economy. Sure, the oil cartels will lose money. But, really, who cares about the oil barons losing a few billions?:-)
If Novell intends to still support KDE on SuSE, they should say so quickly.
Well, they haven't made any such announcements, but there is this positive note in their press release:
"Novell is firmly committed to open standards and maintaining the existing open source kernel development efforts. From advocacy and development resources to events and support of open source efforts like kernel projects, XFree86, ReiserFS, KDE, GNOME and Mono, Novell stands side-by-side with the open source community."
They wouldn't have specifically mentioned KDE if they intended to kill it - well, I hope so anyway! Personally, I think they should give lots of support to freedesktop.org, and thus help out X, KDE and GNOME all at the same time...
Saddam was a brutal dictator, no doubt, and I'm not shedding any tears for him - but he was a secular dictator. He couldn't care less about religion - he was an old-style dictator more interested in making money than furthering any cause. Ben Laden hated him as much as George Bush did.
The fact that terrorists attack the U.S. cannot be used as proof that there is a link between Saddam and Al Qaida. There's actually a pretty good reason why the U.S. is the target of terror attacks: it is the sole remaining superpowers, it has economic interests around the globe, it has an aggressive foreign policy (did you know that the U.S.'s defence budget is higher than that of all other countries in the world?) and it supports Israel's 35+ year illegal occupation of Palestine and the casual oppression of its people (which predates suicide bombers by 25 years, btw).
Hmm...I'm not sure if I'd consider a deliberate act to prevent search engines to access anything related to Iraq on the White House site to be "humor." Considering this administration's nasty habit of making it harder to access public documents (Presidential archives, closed meetings with Energy task force) and making misleading statements to further its goals (WMDs, linking Saddam to Al-Qaida), I can only interpret as another attempt to deceive the american public. Sorry.
All the directories listed in robots.txt probably used to exist and perhaps they don't now.
Do you really think these directories actually existed?
/kids/eggroll/photoessay/iraq
/kids/valentines/quiz/iraq
/infocus/everglades/images/iraq
/holiday/2002/hanukkah/menorah/iraq
/firstlady/recipes/iraq
/fitness/iraq
/mrscheney/iraq
Your theory could possibly make sense until you actually look at the http://www.whitehouse.gov/robots.txt file. Although I did find that this one was particularly funny:
We'll take a per capita of the debt only if we also get a per capita of the federal assets.
At least, you're up front about your bigotry. It takes courage to admit that one is intolerant and uses ethnic and/or cultural slurs to denigrate an entire people. Have you been admitted into the Order of Orange yet (Canada's home-grown version of the KKK)?
If the majority votes to leave, we leave, and there's nothing you can do about it, bigot.
Euh...comment dire...les mots me manquent...
Mange d'la marde mon enfant de chienne!
You, sir, are a racist. Calling us frogs is the same thing as calling people of Italian heritage "wops", calling African-Americans "nigger" and Chinese people "chinks."
And you wonder why some of us want to separate...
Funny, in surveys made among large businesses, "Admin lock-in" is never an issue, but "vendor lock-in" is. Fact of the matter is that, the more Linux will be used, the more qualified admins for it will be available. In fact, Linux is already quite popular in many CS programs. As you say yourself, if your admin doesn't do, you can hire another - they may be less plentiful than MSCEs right now, but they're not so rare that you can't find them!
There are many more variables involved, since it's open, and your cost of maintaining the system will be higher.
Not necessarily, as it has been proven that a *nix admin can handle more servers than a MS admin, and that Linux installations require less maintenance than MS ones. Independent TCO studies confirm this - of course, MS keep spreading the FUD that using Linux is more expensive to use, but then again they are an interested party and one cannot expect them to say the truth about this.
Further, you can find yourself 'locked in' with a custom solution that some surly BOFH has control over.
Well, open-source doesn't have to mean free-for-all. There are a number of established solutions for particular IT needs. Some, like Orbitz, may decide to do everything themselves to save even more on costs, while others might want to go with IBM or RedHat support. But in any case, risks of being "locked-in" with a particular solution (I won't touch the BOFH stereotype, as this is a serious discussion) are entirely dependent on the approach you take, and the amount of planning you do. All things considered, these risks are remote at best.
I don't think many places with actual products and/or customer/citzen bases to serve want to turn into source-code shops with a team of programmers.
More stereotypes. That is a very reductive - and inaccurate - view of the new Linux reality. In fact, according to IBM, there are lots of places with actual products and/or customers who have switched to Linux and have already seen a decrease in costs.
How about this: as long as costs are in the same ballpark, then the Massachussets govt. should favor Open Source over MS products. Talking about "trillions" is ridiculous - if there is a price advantage to MS it won't magnitudes cheaper!
Let's put the question another way: how much is freedom from vedor lock-in worth? How much does maintaining the monopoly cost? It's not always about the lowest cost of purchase, too, but about long-term costs. Remember that a monopoly can lead to inflated prices quickly!
I understand your basic concern - and in fact, if there wasn't such a thing as the MS monopoly (which Massachussets tried to fight in court), I'd say you would be right. But a monopoly changes the rules of the game - weakening it is something we can all benefit from. As such, it this is an important decision - it makes sense financially in the long run (and most probably in the short run as well) and it makes sense socially. I'd say it's a win on all counts - except for MS, of course.
No, really, I am. I've never had any hardware trouble under Linux, but that doesn't mean that others haven't. I'm always curious to hear about it, and it's also a good indication of what not to buy - at least not yet.
tripple-head Matrox Parhelia video card
That's a major bummer. Although, in this case, one can hardly blame Linux - Matrox has had a driver for the Parhelia since September 2002 (at least that's when they announced it on their web site), but if it doesn't support digital output, then clearly they did a shoddy job.
My Printer - there is some loss of options on the Linux side.
I've noticed this as well, although, to tell you the truth, most of these options were redundant with options from the actual printing app or KDE printing engine. I've heard that Epson now has their own drivers for Linux - I'd be curious to see if they have as many options for Linux as for Windows.
My scanner - Windows all the way. Major headache in Linux. And the functionality is greatly reduced in Linux.
This used to be a hassle, but in the latest Mandrake they have an utility to configure this. My own scanner - a HP 2100c - works great, but then I first checked out compatibility lists before buying it. Again, Epson is leading the way: their scanner drivers are quite good. On the app side, QuiteInsane for KDE is great!
webcam[...]digital camera[...]Digital Video Camera
This seems to be the biggest problem people still have with Linux - although, as far as digital cameras are concerned, so far all the ones I've tried (3 in all) have worked. Just plug them in the USB port and an icon appears automatically on the desktop. Again, this seems to be a case of "see if it's supported before you buy." What model is yours? On the app side I've used GPhoto so far, but since now I'm on KDE I should look at an equivalent KDE app.
Firewire
This is a bummer for me, as I'm currently considering to buy a Firewire card. Fortunately, the world seems to be moving towards USB 2.0 instead, but still, I hope they improve Firewire support.
USB Mouse
Strange, my Logitech USB mouse has never given me any problems. You mention multiple buttons - are you talking about a 5-button mouse? Never tried one of those. At least you found a way to get it to work, but you're right, it should be improved. You should report this to the USB kernel people.
CDRW
Since the hardware seems to work (and it should, this is not usually a problem), then I suggest you switch to K3B for your cd-burning program. It simply is the best cd-burning front-end on any platform, period. It is both featureful and easy-to-use, and now supports DVD writing.
Sorry to hear about your troubles. Bright side is, hardware support continues improving at a rapid pace, especially now that some companies (Epson, Samsung) supply their own drivers for their products. Now, if they can get Firewire to work properly, this will be a major advance.
And when asking for help with a Linux problem, you usually just get a response like RTFM - even after you have clearly demonstrated the extent to which you have gone to figure the problem out on your own.
I disagree - maybe it's the way you approach people. You first message to which I replied, for example, was quite arrogant. If you go in with that kind of attitude of course you'll be told to RTFM (and possibly to FO). Personally, in two years of tinkering with Linux, I've never been told to Read The Friendly Manual. Not once. On the contrary, I've found people eager to help and usually I solved my problems quickly thanks to their advice. Perhaps you've just been unlucky (or perhaps you're exaggerating), but may I suggest a gentler approach next time? You'll find it works wonders.
Which piece of hardware gave you so much trouble? I'm curious, because in my 2 years of using Linux I've never had any problem using any piece of hardware. I installed Mandrake Linux, it detected all of my hardware on the first pass - even connected itself to the Internet for security updates once I put it the gateway's IP.
Hardware compatibility is a shrinking problem. 99% of computer hardware now works with Linux distros out of the box (with the notorious exception of Winmodems). The only additional step is installing proprietary drivers for NVIDIA cards (although the 2D works with the nv driver that comes with the distros) - but that's ridiculously easy, requiring you to run a script found on the NVIDIA site.
I haven't installed new hardware on WinXP yet, but I can already tell you that adding new hardware is as easy - if not easier - on a modern Linux distribution such as Mandrake 9.X
So what happens to your competitive edge if you're forced to give out the secrets behind your product?
If you want to base your competitive edge on trade secrets, don't use GPLed software. It's as simple as that.
I didn't build my house either, but I wouldn't be happy if RMS & crew tried to strongarm me into burning it down.
What a useless comment. RMS & crew are protecting the copyrights of the original programmers of the code used by Linksys for their router. Are you against the protection of copyright?
"Their $129 device, of which they have sold 400,000 units of, would have cost much more, and taken much longer to develop and get to market if they hadn't leveraged the free software provided by thousands of volunteers over the past ten years."
Where's your proof?
Are you saying that it would have been cheaper to develop the software in-house? If that was the case, when then didn't Linksys do that?
The proof, as they say, is in the pudding. Linksys used other people's work to develop their product because it was cheaper than re-doing the work themselves, but failed to live up to the agreement these people made that work available under in the first place.
You call disclosing your product secrets a small contribution? I call it freely distributing the technology behind your product's distinct characteristics directly to your competition
Again, if they didn't want to redistribute their changes, they shouldn't have used GPLed software. And, to be honest, I don't think they made that many changes to the software in the first place - so in fact there are little, if any, trade secrets in the Linksys routers. There's not anything they can do that I can't do with a Linux box with firewall/NAT/IP Masquerading. The only thing they added is a Web-based GUI for administration, and that can hardly be considered a trade secret...
This is an open-and-shut case of copyright infringement on Linksys' part. I find it odd that some, such as Forbes, are trying to portray Linksys and Cisco as victims here, when they really are the ones who have infringed on others' rights.
Hey, I used to know APL! I even wrote a 3D maze game in it. That's back when I was in High School and they had that funny idea that it was the language of the future, because some government agencies were using it.
"So I guess the Longhorn version of MS Office will run on Linux (+mono) after all!"
Doubtful.
How so? If Office Longhorn uses.NET, shouldn't it run on other.NET platforms? Isn't.NET a java-like "write once, run anywhere" scheme?
Why wouldn't you consider him a reliable source of Windows information? Considering he has actual sources inside Microsoft and all.
This is exactly why I don't consider him reliable: he is much too close to Microsoft to be objective. In other words, he often (IMO) acts as a MS hype machine.
Oh, please. I don't care about your "working in the software industry." The guy has his information from sources inside Microsoft.
As I said, he gets in info in exchange for building up the hype.
's not a myth. There are tons of windowing libraries and interface inconsistencies, all running into each other. This has already been admitted by many people before me.
It is a myth. The fact that it's been repeated over and over doesn't make it true. BTW, interface inconsistences have nothing to do with X itself.
In other words, performance is broken, but it works, so keep it!
Performance isn't broken - some distros don't set it well, that's all. You just have to be sure it's "niced" at -10, and it is very snappy. Also, responsiveness has got as much to do with the kernel as with X proper. With 2.6, the desktop flies - and I can still use my old Pentium 166 as an X term for my roommate - something I couldn't do with Windows.
Windows apps look the same, with standardized interfaces.
Not true. Compare the Windows Media Player, Winamp and RealPlayer. They all have different interfaces. Compare Lotus Notes to Outlook. Compare Office 97 (which people still use) to Office XP. I could go on with programs that have interface inconsistencies. Adobe Acrobat Reader. WinZip. ACDsee.
It's true that KDE apps, while very consistent between them, are different that Gnome apps, but only marginally. Which is why someone who used KDE will more often than not tend to use KDE apps, and so on. But the "inconsistent interface" is a very minor issue. As I have said, there are lots of inconsistencies in Windows, and people seem to manage nonetheless.
Someone who dismisses criticism so easily is a perfect example of exactly why Linux's march on the desktop is very, very slow and only occuring within Linux advocate circles.
I do not dismiss relevant criticsm easily. I will, however, dispel myths that are repeated over and over by anti-Linux advocates. BTW, Linux's deployment on the desktop is picking up in speed, especially outside of the U.S.
The Linux desktop needs a radical changeover, because KDE and GNOME aren't gonna cut it.
I disagree. Right now, the KDE desktop is actually superior to the Windows Desktop as far as functionalities go. The Gnome desktop is less featureful, but it may be better for new users because it looks less like Windows, and therefore new users don't expect it to behave exactly like Windows. At least that's what recent experiments tell us. One thing is constant, though (and this I've verified with friends and relatives): people adapt very quickly to the Linux desktop, and don't find it lacking compared to Windows. So, no, no radical changeover needed, just continued development and refinement.
I don't need to defend it. Numbers speak for themselves.
But what do the numbers say, actually? Do they indicated a net migration from Linux to Windows? In fact, they do not. What the numbers say is that only a small fraction of new Win2K3 servers come from Linux. Indeed, you do not say otherwise in your sig, but the way it is written seems to indicate such a loss for Linux.
How am I trolling by merely linking to an article that states the same thing? If I were really trolling, you'd know it clearly.
I mean vector-scaled, hardware-accelerated graphics.
That's what I said: eye candy. Well, this is coming to Linux as well, though in my view it really is icing on the cake, and nothing more.
An abandonment of Win32 for.NET.
So I guess the Longhorn version of MS Office will run on Linux (+mono) after all!
A restructuring of the concept of files, getting rid of "drive letters" and such. Everything from the ability to add and remove RAM without rebooting, to XML scripted modular custom installations.
Apart from hot-swapping RAM (and this one I'll believe when I see it), these are not revolutionary changes. If there is a demand for them, you'll see them in Linux before Longhorn comes out.
Go to WinSuperSite and read the Road To Longhorn Part 2 for a full list of all the features, to many to list.
I'm sorry, but I don't consider Paul Thurrott to be a reliable source of information. Working in the software industry, I've long since learned to be careful of hype-spouting, FUD-spreading "advocates" such as he.
"Now, Longhorn will maybe come out in 2005, maybe 2006. By then we'll have a db filesystem for Linux and Linux desktop will be able to match Windows (and OS X) eye candy..."
I doubt it. Not as long as we're stuck on X11 + xlib + window manager + desktop environment + conflicting windowing libraries and inconstent interfaces.
The usual X11 myth, in other words. But in fact, even though some people experience performance issues with X11, the fact is that it's not a broken model, but rather one that is both solid and evolutive - especially since it's not tied to the Window Manager/Desktop Environment. In effect, enhancements to one part of the equation affects the entire experience, and the competition between DEs has dramatically sped up their refinement and the incorporation of new features (or I should say streamlining, in the case of GNOME).
Oh, and nobody really cares about "inconsistent interfaces": I mean, Windows has had them for years, and no one has been complaining! The fact is that it's relatively easy to theme apps so that their widget sets and icons all have the same appearance. In other words, it's a false problem, repeated ad nauseam by those who feel threatened by Linux's slow but irreversible march on the desktop.
* snip three reactive paragraphs about my sig *
Yes, that was reactive, but you should expect this when you troll with your sig. I saw BS, I called it, you didn't bother to try defending it. That's really all there is to say about it...
Indeed I did. Bullshit provokes a reaction in me. Actually, I don't care that he called my paragraphs reactive, but the fact that he didn't bother to defend it is telling...
Incredible features? What, you mean like wiggly windows? So far, Longhorn seems to be additional eye candy+a database-like filesystem. Now, Longhorn will maybe come out in 2005, maybe 2006. By then we'll have a db filesystem for Linux and Linux desktop will be able to match Windows (and OS X) eye candy...
By the way, regarding your sig, you do realize that it does not mean a net gain in favour of Windows, right? The statistic published on Netcraft's site is that 5% of the new Windows 2003 Web servers online were previously running Linux. Now, that number is practically the sole result of a single web hosting provider who switched to Win2K3...however, I'll bet you that waaay more than 5% of all new Linux servers were formerly Win2K/WinXP machines.
The amount of spin put on that statistic is enough to shame the most seasoned Washington politicians - while in fact, the truth of the matter is that only 5% of the new Win2K3 servers come from Linux - and 90%+ come from previous Windows OSes. Since there are only 185K Win2K3 servers, that represents about 9250 servers (out of 43 millions, or 0.02%) switching. So in fact what it tells us is that those who've got Linux web servers are not rushing to change them to Win2K3...
So, indeed, Linux servers are switching to Win2K3, Windows servers are switching to Linux, Solaris servers are switching to Linux, Linux servers are switching to NetBSD, the sky is blue, fire is hot, things fall down when you let them go, and so on...
Slashdot Mirror
I think the Fox-bashing will stop when they stop being a conservative propaganda machine. Although then, the conservatives would bash it for being liberal, so it would continue.
The question is, if the conservative viewpoint is what's considered "fair and balanced", why do they need to resort to disinformation through biased selection of news items and stack their discussion panels so far to the right?
As for Saddam, is capture is welcome but pretty much irrelevant. The US business interests have one, there'll be plenty of cheap oil (the cheapest oil in the world) for U.S. companies and plenty of reconstruction contracts for U.S. firms and those of their allies. The war was never about Saddam's oppression of his people in the first place - otherwise it would have happened long ago, and the U.S. wouldn't have been supporting him with weapons and biological agents for so many years.
This was a private war for Bush's electoral buddies, it just happened to serve a good cause, to right a wrong to which Washington contributed.
If only the U.S. defended democracy in as many countries as those where it contributed to its repression, then perhaps we could see a positive impact to american foreign policy. As it happens, there is quite a democracy deficit in that regard.
Indeed! Ross McKitrick, one of the authors, can hardly be considered an "uninterested" researcher. He belongs to the Competitive Enterprise Institute, which has ExxonMobil as a major funder. For that matter, Bjorn Lomberg isn't such a reliable source himself, having been condemned by the Danish Committee on Scientific Dishonesty for misrepresenting or misinterpreting the scientific studies of others.
:-)
The good news is that fossil fuel reserves may run out before we cause irreparable damage to our environment. In any case, it makes sense to begin the transition towards renewable sources of energy ASAP (as well as put lots of funding back into energy research). Critics say that will cost too much to be feasible, as if the money would be thrown down a black hole - while in fact this money will go to corporations, associations and workers who develop the new energy economy. Sure, the oil cartels will lose money. But, really, who cares about the oil barons losing a few billions?
If Novell intends to still support KDE on SuSE, they should say so quickly.
Well, they haven't made any such announcements, but there is this positive note in their press release:
"Novell is firmly committed to open standards and maintaining the existing open source kernel development efforts. From advocacy and development resources to events and support of open source efforts like kernel projects, XFree86, ReiserFS, KDE, GNOME and Mono, Novell stands side-by-side with the open source community."
They wouldn't have specifically mentioned KDE if they intended to kill it - well, I hope so anyway! Personally, I think they should give lots of support to freedesktop.org, and thus help out X, KDE and GNOME all at the same time...
I've installed IE 6.0 under Crossover Office and it runs fine.
Bill comes in the mail, I go online and pay it.
:-)
Ha! You call that Internet Banking? My bills come directly through the Internet!
I think a more balanced term would be insurgents.
Well said. I wish I had mod points...
Saddam was a brutal dictator, no doubt, and I'm not shedding any tears for him - but he was a secular dictator. He couldn't care less about religion - he was an old-style dictator more interested in making money than furthering any cause. Ben Laden hated him as much as George Bush did.
The fact that terrorists attack the U.S. cannot be used as proof that there is a link between Saddam and Al Qaida. There's actually a pretty good reason why the U.S. is the target of terror attacks: it is the sole remaining superpowers, it has economic interests around the globe, it has an aggressive foreign policy (did you know that the U.S.'s defence budget is higher than that of all other countries in the world?) and it supports Israel's 35+ year illegal occupation of Palestine and the casual oppression of its people (which predates suicide bombers by 25 years, btw).
Hmm...I'm not sure if I'd consider a deliberate act to prevent search engines to access anything related to Iraq on the White House site to be "humor." Considering this administration's nasty habit of making it harder to access public documents (Presidential archives, closed meetings with Energy task force) and making misleading statements to further its goals (WMDs, linking Saddam to Al-Qaida), I can only interpret as another attempt to deceive the american public. Sorry.
Do you really think these directories actually existed?
- /kids/eggroll/photoessay/iraq
- /kids/valentines/quiz/iraq
- /infocus/everglades/images/iraq
- /holiday/2002/hanukkah/menorah/iraq
- /firstlady/recipes/iraq
- /fitness/iraq
- /mrscheney/iraq
Your theory could possibly make sense until you actually look at the http://www.whitehouse.gov/robots.txt file. Although I did find that this one was particularly funny:- /goodbye/iraq
Goodbye indeed!Yeah, sure, you and what army, blah blah blah.
We'll take a per capita of the debt only if we also get a per capita of the federal assets.
At least, you're up front about your bigotry. It takes courage to admit that one is intolerant and uses ethnic and/or cultural slurs to denigrate an entire people. Have you been admitted into the Order of Orange yet (Canada's home-grown version of the KKK)?
If the majority votes to leave, we leave, and there's nothing you can do about it, bigot.
Mod parent up!
A coward, telling me to surrender...sure.
Euh...comment dire...les mots me manquent... Mange d'la marde mon enfant de chienne! You, sir, are a racist. Calling us frogs is the same thing as calling people of Italian heritage "wops", calling African-Americans "nigger" and Chinese people "chinks." And you wonder why some of us want to separate...
How much is freedom from Admin-lockin worth?
Funny, in surveys made among large businesses, "Admin lock-in" is never an issue, but "vendor lock-in" is. Fact of the matter is that, the more Linux will be used, the more qualified admins for it will be available. In fact, Linux is already quite popular in many CS programs. As you say yourself, if your admin doesn't do, you can hire another - they may be less plentiful than MSCEs right now, but they're not so rare that you can't find them!
There are many more variables involved, since it's open, and your cost of maintaining the system will be higher.
Not necessarily, as it has been proven that a *nix admin can handle more servers than a MS admin, and that Linux installations require less maintenance than MS ones. Independent TCO studies confirm this - of course, MS keep spreading the FUD that using Linux is more expensive to use, but then again they are an interested party and one cannot expect them to say the truth about this.
Further, you can find yourself 'locked in' with a custom solution that some surly BOFH has control over.
Well, open-source doesn't have to mean free-for-all. There are a number of established solutions for particular IT needs. Some, like Orbitz, may decide to do everything themselves to save even more on costs, while others might want to go with IBM or RedHat support. But in any case, risks of being "locked-in" with a particular solution (I won't touch the BOFH stereotype, as this is a serious discussion) are entirely dependent on the approach you take, and the amount of planning you do. All things considered, these risks are remote at best.
I don't think many places with actual products and/or customer/citzen bases to serve want to turn into source-code shops with a team of programmers.
More stereotypes. That is a very reductive - and inaccurate - view of the new Linux reality. In fact, according to IBM, there are lots of places with actual products and/or customers who have switched to Linux and have already seen a decrease in costs.
How about this: as long as costs are in the same ballpark, then the Massachussets govt. should favor Open Source over MS products. Talking about "trillions" is ridiculous - if there is a price advantage to MS it won't magnitudes cheaper!
Let's put the question another way: how much is freedom from vedor lock-in worth? How much does maintaining the monopoly cost? It's not always about the lowest cost of purchase, too, but about long-term costs. Remember that a monopoly can lead to inflated prices quickly!
I understand your basic concern - and in fact, if there wasn't such a thing as the MS monopoly (which Massachussets tried to fight in court), I'd say you would be right. But a monopoly changes the rules of the game - weakening it is something we can all benefit from. As such, it this is an important decision - it makes sense financially in the long run (and most probably in the short run as well) and it makes sense socially. I'd say it's a win on all counts - except for MS, of course.
I highly doubt you're looking for a real answer.
No, really, I am. I've never had any hardware trouble under Linux, but that doesn't mean that others haven't. I'm always curious to hear about it, and it's also a good indication of what not to buy - at least not yet.
tripple-head Matrox Parhelia video card
That's a major bummer. Although, in this case, one can hardly blame Linux - Matrox has had a driver for the Parhelia since September 2002 (at least that's when they announced it on their web site), but if it doesn't support digital output, then clearly they did a shoddy job.
My Printer - there is some loss of options on the Linux side.
I've noticed this as well, although, to tell you the truth, most of these options were redundant with options from the actual printing app or KDE printing engine. I've heard that Epson now has their own drivers for Linux - I'd be curious to see if they have as many options for Linux as for Windows.
My scanner - Windows all the way. Major headache in Linux. And the functionality is greatly reduced in Linux.
This used to be a hassle, but in the latest Mandrake they have an utility to configure this. My own scanner - a HP 2100c - works great, but then I first checked out compatibility lists before buying it. Again, Epson is leading the way: their scanner drivers are quite good. On the app side, QuiteInsane for KDE is great!
webcam[...]digital camera[...]Digital Video Camera
This seems to be the biggest problem people still have with Linux - although, as far as digital cameras are concerned, so far all the ones I've tried (3 in all) have worked. Just plug them in the USB port and an icon appears automatically on the desktop. Again, this seems to be a case of "see if it's supported before you buy." What model is yours? On the app side I've used GPhoto so far, but since now I'm on KDE I should look at an equivalent KDE app.
Firewire
This is a bummer for me, as I'm currently considering to buy a Firewire card. Fortunately, the world seems to be moving towards USB 2.0 instead, but still, I hope they improve Firewire support.
USB Mouse
Strange, my Logitech USB mouse has never given me any problems. You mention multiple buttons - are you talking about a 5-button mouse? Never tried one of those. At least you found a way to get it to work, but you're right, it should be improved. You should report this to the USB kernel people.
CDRW
Since the hardware seems to work (and it should, this is not usually a problem), then I suggest you switch to K3B for your cd-burning program. It simply is the best cd-burning front-end on any platform, period. It is both featureful and easy-to-use, and now supports DVD writing.
Sorry to hear about your troubles. Bright side is, hardware support continues improving at a rapid pace, especially now that some companies (Epson, Samsung) supply their own drivers for their products. Now, if they can get Firewire to work properly, this will be a major advance.
And when asking for help with a Linux problem, you usually just get a response like RTFM - even after you have clearly demonstrated the extent to which you have gone to figure the problem out on your own.
I disagree - maybe it's the way you approach people. You first message to which I replied, for example, was quite arrogant. If you go in with that kind of attitude of course you'll be told to RTFM (and possibly to FO). Personally, in two years of tinkering with Linux, I've never been told to Read The Friendly Manual. Not once. On the contrary, I've found people eager to help and usually I solved my problems quickly thanks to their advice. Perhaps you've just been unlucky (or perhaps you're exaggerating), but may I suggest a gentler approach next time? You'll find it works wonders.
Peace.
Which piece of hardware gave you so much trouble? I'm curious, because in my 2 years of using Linux I've never had any problem using any piece of hardware. I installed Mandrake Linux, it detected all of my hardware on the first pass - even connected itself to the Internet for security updates once I put it the gateway's IP.
Hardware compatibility is a shrinking problem. 99% of computer hardware now works with Linux distros out of the box (with the notorious exception of Winmodems). The only additional step is installing proprietary drivers for NVIDIA cards (although the 2D works with the nv driver that comes with the distros) - but that's ridiculously easy, requiring you to run a script found on the NVIDIA site.
I haven't installed new hardware on WinXP yet, but I can already tell you that adding new hardware is as easy - if not easier - on a modern Linux distribution such as Mandrake 9.X
Yeah, you are. The club is alive and well. Which means I'll be firin' up the old Bittorrent client as soon as I get home tonight!
True, the original poster did make appeals to common decency instead of legal issues, which I guess will be lost on the Forbes editor's ears. :-)
So what happens to your competitive edge if you're forced to give out the secrets behind your product?
If you want to base your competitive edge on trade secrets, don't use GPLed software. It's as simple as that.
I didn't build my house either, but I wouldn't be happy if RMS & crew tried to strongarm me into burning it down.
What a useless comment. RMS & crew are protecting the copyrights of the original programmers of the code used by Linksys for their router. Are you against the protection of copyright?
"Their $129 device, of which they have sold 400,000 units of, would have cost much more, and taken much longer to develop and get to market if they hadn't leveraged the free software provided by thousands of volunteers over the past ten years."
Where's your proof?
Are you saying that it would have been cheaper to develop the software in-house? If that was the case, when then didn't Linksys do that?
The proof, as they say, is in the pudding. Linksys used other people's work to develop their product because it was cheaper than re-doing the work themselves, but failed to live up to the agreement these people made that work available under in the first place.
You call disclosing your product secrets a small contribution? I call it freely distributing the technology behind your product's distinct characteristics directly to your competition
Again, if they didn't want to redistribute their changes, they shouldn't have used GPLed software. And, to be honest, I don't think they made that many changes to the software in the first place - so in fact there are little, if any, trade secrets in the Linksys routers. There's not anything they can do that I can't do with a Linux box with firewall/NAT/IP Masquerading. The only thing they added is a Web-based GUI for administration, and that can hardly be considered a trade secret...
This is an open-and-shut case of copyright infringement on Linksys' part. I find it odd that some, such as Forbes, are trying to portray Linksys and Cisco as victims here, when they really are the ones who have infringed on others' rights.
Hey, I used to know APL! I even wrote a 3D maze game in it. That's back when I was in High School and they had that funny idea that it was the language of the future, because some government agencies were using it.
Very powerful syntax, but a bit arcane, IIRC.
"So I guess the Longhorn version of MS Office will run on Linux (+mono) after all!"
.NET, shouldn't it run on other .NET platforms? Isn't .NET a java-like "write once, run anywhere" scheme?
Doubtful.
How so? If Office Longhorn uses
Why wouldn't you consider him a reliable source of Windows information? Considering he has actual sources inside Microsoft and all.
This is exactly why I don't consider him reliable: he is much too close to Microsoft to be objective. In other words, he often (IMO) acts as a MS hype machine.
Oh, please. I don't care about your "working in the software industry." The guy has his information from sources inside Microsoft.
As I said, he gets in info in exchange for building up the hype.
's not a myth. There are tons of windowing libraries and interface inconsistencies, all running into each other. This has already been admitted by many people before me.
It is a myth. The fact that it's been repeated over and over doesn't make it true. BTW, interface inconsistences have nothing to do with X itself.
In other words, performance is broken, but it works, so keep it!
Performance isn't broken - some distros don't set it well, that's all. You just have to be sure it's "niced" at -10, and it is very snappy. Also, responsiveness has got as much to do with the kernel as with X proper. With 2.6, the desktop flies - and I can still use my old Pentium 166 as an X term for my roommate - something I couldn't do with Windows.
Windows apps look the same, with standardized interfaces.
Not true. Compare the Windows Media Player, Winamp and RealPlayer. They all have different interfaces. Compare Lotus Notes to Outlook. Compare Office 97 (which people still use) to Office XP. I could go on with programs that have interface inconsistencies. Adobe Acrobat Reader. WinZip. ACDsee.
It's true that KDE apps, while very consistent between them, are different that Gnome apps, but only marginally. Which is why someone who used KDE will more often than not tend to use KDE apps, and so on. But the "inconsistent interface" is a very minor issue. As I have said, there are lots of inconsistencies in Windows, and people seem to manage nonetheless.
Someone who dismisses criticism so easily is a perfect example of exactly why Linux's march on the desktop is very, very slow and only occuring within Linux advocate circles.
I do not dismiss relevant criticsm easily. I will, however, dispel myths that are repeated over and over by anti-Linux advocates. BTW, Linux's deployment on the desktop is picking up in speed, especially outside of the U.S.
The Linux desktop needs a radical changeover, because KDE and GNOME aren't gonna cut it.
I disagree. Right now, the KDE desktop is actually superior to the Windows Desktop as far as functionalities go. The Gnome desktop is less featureful, but it may be better for new users because it looks less like Windows, and therefore new users don't expect it to behave exactly like Windows. At least that's what recent experiments tell us. One thing is constant, though (and this I've verified with friends and relatives): people adapt very quickly to the Linux desktop, and don't find it lacking compared to Windows. So, no, no radical changeover needed, just continued development and refinement.
I don't need to defend it. Numbers speak for themselves.
But what do the numbers say, actually? Do they indicated a net migration from Linux to Windows? In fact, they do not. What the numbers say is that only a small fraction of new Win2K3 servers come from Linux. Indeed, you do not say otherwise in your sig, but the way it is written seems to indicate such a loss for Linux.
How am I trolling by merely linking to an article that states the same thing? If I were really trolling, you'd know it clearly.
The a
I mean vector-scaled, hardware-accelerated graphics.
.NET.
That's what I said: eye candy. Well, this is coming to Linux as well, though in my view it really is icing on the cake, and nothing more.
An abandonment of Win32 for
So I guess the Longhorn version of MS Office will run on Linux (+mono) after all!
A restructuring of the concept of files, getting rid of "drive letters" and such. Everything from the ability to add and remove RAM without rebooting, to XML scripted modular custom installations.
Apart from hot-swapping RAM (and this one I'll believe when I see it), these are not revolutionary changes. If there is a demand for them, you'll see them in Linux before Longhorn comes out.
Go to WinSuperSite and read the Road To Longhorn Part 2 for a full list of all the features, to many to list.
I'm sorry, but I don't consider Paul Thurrott to be a reliable source of information. Working in the software industry, I've long since learned to be careful of hype-spouting, FUD-spreading "advocates" such as he.
"Now, Longhorn will maybe come out in 2005, maybe 2006. By then we'll have a db filesystem for Linux and Linux desktop will be able to match Windows (and OS X) eye candy..."
I doubt it. Not as long as we're stuck on X11 + xlib + window manager + desktop environment + conflicting windowing libraries and inconstent interfaces.
The usual X11 myth, in other words. But in fact, even though some people experience performance issues with X11, the fact is that it's not a broken model, but rather one that is both solid and evolutive - especially since it's not tied to the Window Manager/Desktop Environment. In effect, enhancements to one part of the equation affects the entire experience, and the competition between DEs has dramatically sped up their refinement and the incorporation of new features (or I should say streamlining, in the case of GNOME).
Oh, and nobody really cares about "inconsistent interfaces": I mean, Windows has had them for years, and no one has been complaining! The fact is that it's relatively easy to theme apps so that their widget sets and icons all have the same appearance. In other words, it's a false problem, repeated ad nauseam by those who feel threatened by Linux's slow but irreversible march on the desktop.
* snip three reactive paragraphs about my sig *
Yes, that was reactive, but you should expect this when you troll with your sig. I saw BS, I called it, you didn't bother to try defending it. That's really all there is to say about it...
Indeed I did. Bullshit provokes a reaction in me. Actually, I don't care that he called my paragraphs reactive, but the fact that he didn't bother to defend it is telling...
Incredible features? What, you mean like wiggly windows? So far, Longhorn seems to be additional eye candy+a database-like filesystem. Now, Longhorn will maybe come out in 2005, maybe 2006. By then we'll have a db filesystem for Linux and Linux desktop will be able to match Windows (and OS X) eye candy...
By the way, regarding your sig, you do realize that it does not mean a net gain in favour of Windows, right? The statistic published on Netcraft's site is that 5% of the new Windows 2003 Web servers online were previously running Linux. Now, that number is practically the sole result of a single web hosting provider who switched to Win2K3...however, I'll bet you that waaay more than 5% of all new Linux servers were formerly Win2K/WinXP machines.
The amount of spin put on that statistic is enough to shame the most seasoned Washington politicians - while in fact, the truth of the matter is that only 5% of the new Win2K3 servers come from Linux - and 90%+ come from previous Windows OSes. Since there are only 185K Win2K3 servers, that represents about 9250 servers (out of 43 millions, or 0.02%) switching. So in fact what it tells us is that those who've got Linux web servers are not rushing to change them to Win2K3...
So, indeed, Linux servers are switching to Win2K3, Windows servers are switching to Linux, Solaris servers are switching to Linux, Linux servers are switching to NetBSD, the sky is blue, fire is hot, things fall down when you let them go, and so on...