Don't I read this exact same article following every one of Steve Jobs' keynote speeches?
Has he "lost the magic" or is it just impossible for any man or any company to live up to the incredible hype the technology media puts on Apple and Jobs?
I very much disagree that it's demonstrably "easier" to do it in windows.
Windows steps to get divx video: 1. Go to http://www.divx.com/ 2. Locate the download page. 3. Download the installer 4. Run the installer program which asks questions about where to install, what to install, etc. (does the "average user" know the answers to these or do they just accept the defaults?) 5. Play video in...well, I'm not sure cause now I have 2 players, the divx player and windows media player--which one can I use (the answer is both, but it's still a challenge)
Ubuntu steps to make DivX video work: 1. Run the Synaptic package manager 2. Search for "Divx" 3. Check the boxes marked for gstreamer plugins that affect DivX. 4. Click the Apply button
And now, double clicking DivX video runs it.
Both require certain knowledge to be had (both require that you know you nee divx, the windows installer requires you know how to find their site, download, and run the.exe file. The linux path requires you know that gstreamer is what powers multimedia by default in ubuntu).
Just because users are more familiar (due to long-term exposure) with the windows scenario doesn't qualify that scenario as "easier"
"Meanwhile, for both personal and professional computer use, I want access to all multimedia functions. While solutions may exist to almost every problem I encountered, I was willing to invest only a limited amount of time as a system administrator."
And therein lies the real problem. Its not that you can't get these things working--and its not that they aren't fairly easy to get working (My Ubuntu desktop took about 5 minutes to get all multimedia enabled to play on it with very little knowledge of Ubuntu, Synaptic, or the apt system)--to be 100% fair, this is a whole lot easier than scouring the internet for random, obscure codecs that people like to use. So how is it "too difficult?"
Simply put, the issue is not one of how much administration time people are willing to put in; its about the fact that under windows, they've forgotten about the administration tasks they've either a) already done or b) done so many times on new machines that they just don't notice it and its just become part of the routine for them. It's about not wanting to learn how to do it differently when they already know how to make it work one way. It's back to the original premise as to WHY users don't want to switch from windows to *nix--its not that the system is harder; its just different.
I don't think they assume that all will convert; TFA even states that they want to convert about 10-15% which is a reasonable goal.
A revolution is coming; but its going to be quiet and slow. However, the new generation of people are tired of getting their content on other people's terms. Look at the popularity of TiVo. Skipping commercials isn't the issue--the issue is getting that content on THEIR terms. The ability to view your favorite programs whenever YOU choose as opposed to whenever the networks choose is what makes the service such a success. The beauty of a digital download is that I can do anything with it; watch, listen, or read whenever I choose, wherever I choose. THAT is the issue here; not simply the ability to download it.
The main issue with this is the restrictions they place on the file. Am I fully willing to pay for content? Some content--if I deem it worth paying for. One day though, the MPAA & RIAA might realize that the reason most people don't want to pay for "their products" is they simply aren't worth the amount of money we are being charged for them.
$19.95 for a DVD? Absolutely not. $4.95 for a downloadable version? Sure...but only if I get the same freedoms that I get with a DVD--that is, I can watch it on any DVD-equipped system in my home or anyone elses home for that matter.
I'd pay the money--if they weren't jerking me around in making me do so.
Less content; the same price, and will only play on the computer that downloaded it? I think I'm going to take a pass.
Wish they'd talk about it from the beginning instead of trying to beat each other to the punch and then act as if they were going to unify the standard.
This is just extremely unfortunate for consumers--I'm personally not touching either of the formats until this issue is resolved.
It's as if these legislators don't pay any attention to what happens in other states.
This has been tried before--the courts have ALWAYS struck it down as a first ammendment violation. What makes each state think that they can get away with it?
He performed the act in a public place (public school) He recorded the act using public equipment (a camera owned by the public school system).
There was literally no implied right to privacy. The only reason this case was settled out of court was because Ghyslain found a lawyer with questionable ethics enough to bring a completely unlawful suit against the "tormentors." As to why it was settled, I'm sure the defendants in the suit didn't want to go through it or pay the court fees.
I'd like to think that if such an exodus occurs, it will encourage developers to port to mac osx. The problem is: I think it will actually discourage it. If mac owners can play their games already; why even bother with a port?
I'm still not sure how I feel about this whole "boot camp" thing. I don't want to see Dvorak's prediction come true.
Why is it that slashdot is so obsessed with this issue (I'd track down the links, but I see a post on this topic at least every 2 weeks so its not like you have to look far to find them).
Honestly, NO ONE seems to think this is a good idea. Governments don't want it because they think it'll somehow legitimize it. The XXX industry doesn't want it because they think they'll get pushed off into some dark corner of the web and shunned easily by ISPs. HOW and WHY does this issue keep coming up--none of the truly interested parties are in favor of it!
Yup; ever since MS decided to drop support for "netscape-style" plugins.
Wouldn't it be great if those developers (namely Adobe/Macromedia and Apple) decided NOT to rewrite their plugins for the new ActiveX spec and instead decided to say, "switch to firefox or opera if you want to use our plugins."
I highly doubt MS is going to shun their own proprietary technology (especially since they've already said it would be present and "enhanced" in IE7 and Vista.
As somone who does deal with a sensitivity to electricity, I can say that electrical storms *are* painful. Though I have not died, I have definitely keeled over in pain from nearby lightning strikes. Strange thing though is that I continue to really like storms.:)
This article is a bit on the "foil-hat" side of things; but that's not to say that electrosensitivity is not a problem for some of us. I don't deal with fluorescent lighting very well, lightning, large CRTs--pretty much anything that has a sizeable field associated with it. I'm sure there are others who *genuinely* experience problems--too bad people like this are going to fuck up any chance we have of getting any REAL help for it.
Simply put; the vast majority of people out there don't really care what the political and social agenda surrounding "free software" is. Moreover, and I think this is the biggest bit, is that even if we *do* care--it has no place in a review or analysis of the product. For example, let's try this:
SlippyMotors makes a car that does everything you need it to do. It has some problems from time-to-time, but the car generally can do everything you want it to. And when you need to repair it, there's tons of people who can do it.
EthicalAuto makes a car that does about 75% of what you need it to do--but sometimes you have to fight with it to make it do what you want. Sometimes it won't start and getting it to go above 50mph is a battle. BUT...they believe in freedom--you can work on it yourself and you're not tied to the corporation that sold you the car!
Sounds kinds ridiculous, doesn't it? I imagine people would be pretty annoyed if they read an "review" like this in Car & Driver or some such publication.
Free software is great; but those that share those politics already know about it and already believe in it. Instead of pushing philosophy on people who are just interested in (as the original poster stated) "getting the job done", we should be taking these articles seriously and telling ourselves, "you know, if one user points out that we're missing something that he considers big, maybe other people consider it big and maybe she should be looking at that too."
Apparently Blizzard set up their link for them--12 minute lag during the first 3 months, but they'll credit nasa with a couple of days online time to make up the difference.
I'm not criticizing it for having a political position--I will not go into whether or not I agree completely with their political position.
From reading Linus' comments, it seems to me that he believes that a software license should be about licensing software--not about pushing others towards complying with your view as to how that should happen.
There is some erroneous language in the v3 license from what I understand that makes it seem to Linus (and very likely some others) that the GNU is pushing their political agenda a little harder than they perhaps should be WITHIN the bounds of a software license.
But is that what a software license about? Or rather; should be about? In my eyes (and apparently in Linus' eyes as well) its about fostering open development because its a better way to do things, not pursuing an agenda.
First off, please forgive my ignorance, but is it really *that* important for Linus to decide to move Linux from the GPLv2 to the GPLv3? Just because version 3 of the license becomes available does not automatically invalidate the version 2 license does it? Why is this such a hot button issue?
For the most part, I completely agree with Torvalds on his points--and I can't say I'm at all surprised to see Stallman and the FSF take this direction with version 3. Simply put: they are "zealots" for lack of a better term. For them, free software is less about open source and open development and more about a form of political agenda.
Now I'm not trying to bash Stallman or the FSF, they have made some wonderful contributions to the community. But let's call a spade a spade here and look at what GPLv3 is about: attempting to hide attempts to restrict developers under the guise of being an update to the world's most popular open source license. For all of the FSF's talk against bad copyright policy and software restrictions, this license introduces their own set as if to say, "we don't like their way; so you should definitely do it our way instead."
Too much politics and agenda and not enough open source development.
The aim of my comment was to express concern over the convoluted way they arrived at that conclusion; not to diminish the importance of a media center PC being able to display its image to a TV.
It's the fact that it took an "entire article" to reach that conclusion that both astounds and disappoints me.
Several paragraphs to lead us to one conclusion: the mac mini recognized the LCD TV, the Media Center PC didn't.
There...I just saved thousands of slashdot readers from reading that poor excuse for an article. They may as well have ended it by saying, "we're just trying to cheese you into visiting our web site over and over."
The argument that I'm attempting to make is that large-scale investors tend to rely heavily on information from analysts. That is, the type of large scale investors who have the ability to change a stock price with their own trades. Piss off those analysts, and the less than glowing reports will likely push those people to bail out.
Slashdot Mirror
Don't I read this exact same article following every one of Steve Jobs' keynote speeches?
Has he "lost the magic" or is it just impossible for any man or any company to live up to the incredible hype the technology media puts on Apple and Jobs?
I very much disagree that it's demonstrably "easier" to do it in windows.
.exe file. The linux path requires you know that gstreamer is what powers multimedia by default in ubuntu).
Windows steps to get divx video:
1. Go to http://www.divx.com/
2. Locate the download page.
3. Download the installer
4. Run the installer program which asks questions about where to install, what to install, etc. (does the "average user" know the answers to these or do they just accept the defaults?)
5. Play video in...well, I'm not sure cause now I have 2 players, the divx player and windows media player--which one can I use (the answer is both, but it's still a challenge)
Ubuntu steps to make DivX video work:
1. Run the Synaptic package manager
2. Search for "Divx"
3. Check the boxes marked for gstreamer plugins that affect DivX.
4. Click the Apply button
And now, double clicking DivX video runs it.
Both require certain knowledge to be had (both require that you know you nee divx, the windows installer requires you know how to find their site, download, and run the
Just because users are more familiar (due to long-term exposure) with the windows scenario doesn't qualify that scenario as "easier"
From TFA:
"Meanwhile, for both personal and professional computer use, I want access to all multimedia functions. While solutions may exist to almost every problem I encountered, I was willing to invest only a limited amount of time as a system administrator."
And therein lies the real problem. Its not that you can't get these things working--and its not that they aren't fairly easy to get working (My Ubuntu desktop took about 5 minutes to get all multimedia enabled to play on it with very little knowledge of Ubuntu, Synaptic, or the apt system)--to be 100% fair, this is a whole lot easier than scouring the internet for random, obscure codecs that people like to use. So how is it "too difficult?"
Simply put, the issue is not one of how much administration time people are willing to put in; its about the fact that under windows, they've forgotten about the administration tasks they've either a) already done or b) done so many times on new machines that they just don't notice it and its just become part of the routine for them. It's about not wanting to learn how to do it differently when they already know how to make it work one way. It's back to the original premise as to WHY users don't want to switch from windows to *nix--its not that the system is harder; its just different.
I don't think they assume that all will convert; TFA even states that they want to convert about 10-15% which is a reasonable goal.
A revolution is coming; but its going to be quiet and slow. However, the new generation of people are tired of getting their content on other people's terms. Look at the popularity of TiVo. Skipping commercials isn't the issue--the issue is getting that content on THEIR terms. The ability to view your favorite programs whenever YOU choose as opposed to whenever the networks choose is what makes the service such a success. The beauty of a digital download is that I can do anything with it; watch, listen, or read whenever I choose, wherever I choose. THAT is the issue here; not simply the ability to download it.
The main issue with this is the restrictions they place on the file. Am I fully willing to pay for content? Some content--if I deem it worth paying for. One day though, the MPAA & RIAA might realize that the reason most people don't want to pay for "their products" is they simply aren't worth the amount of money we are being charged for them.
$19.95 for a DVD? Absolutely not.
$4.95 for a downloadable version?
Sure...but only if I get the same freedoms that I get with a DVD--that is, I can watch it on any DVD-equipped system in my home or anyone elses home for that matter.
I'd pay the money--if they weren't jerking me around in making me do so.
Less content; the same price, and will only play on the computer that downloaded it? I think I'm going to take a pass.
Wish they'd talk about it from the beginning instead of trying to beat each other to the punch and then act as if they were going to unify the standard.
This is just extremely unfortunate for consumers--I'm personally not touching either of the formats until this issue is resolved.
It's as if these legislators don't pay any attention to what happens in other states.
This has been tried before--the courts have ALWAYS struck it down as a first ammendment violation. What makes each state think that they can get away with it?
Everything about this article yells: "I couldn't get attention on myspace so I'm gonna try to piss off as many people as possible."
Honestly, everyone is entitled to their own opinions but the entire tone of this article is "I'm calling you an idiot; what're ya gonna do about it?"
He didn't have to sign a release.
He performed the act in a public place (public school)
He recorded the act using public equipment (a camera owned by the public school system).
There was literally no implied right to privacy. The only reason this case was settled out of court was because Ghyslain found a lawyer with questionable ethics enough to bring a completely unlawful suit against the "tormentors." As to why it was settled, I'm sure the defendants in the suit didn't want to go through it or pay the court fees.
I'd like to think that if such an exodus occurs, it will encourage developers to port to mac osx. The problem is: I think it will actually discourage it. If mac owners can play their games already; why even bother with a port?
I'm still not sure how I feel about this whole "boot camp" thing. I don't want to see Dvorak's prediction come true.
Why is it that slashdot is so obsessed with this issue (I'd track down the links, but I see a post on this topic at least every 2 weeks so its not like you have to look far to find them).
Honestly, NO ONE seems to think this is a good idea. Governments don't want it because they think it'll somehow legitimize it. The XXX industry doesn't want it because they think they'll get pushed off into some dark corner of the web and shunned easily by ISPs. HOW and WHY does this issue keep coming up--none of the truly interested parties are in favor of it!
Yup; ever since MS decided to drop support for "netscape-style" plugins.
Wouldn't it be great if those developers (namely Adobe/Macromedia and Apple) decided NOT to rewrite their plugins for the new ActiveX spec and instead decided to say, "switch to firefox or opera if you want to use our plugins."
Ah...pipe dreams....
I highly doubt MS is going to shun their own proprietary technology (especially since they've already said it would be present and "enhanced" in IE7 and Vista.
Wishful thinking; but nothing more I'm afraid.
As somone who does deal with a sensitivity to electricity, I can say that electrical storms *are* painful. Though I have not died, I have definitely keeled over in pain from nearby lightning strikes. Strange thing though is that I continue to really like storms. :)
This article is a bit on the "foil-hat" side of things; but that's not to say that electrosensitivity is not a problem for some of us. I don't deal with fluorescent lighting very well, lightning, large CRTs--pretty much anything that has a sizeable field associated with it. I'm sure there are others who *genuinely* experience problems--too bad people like this are going to fuck up any chance we have of getting any REAL help for it.
Simply put; the vast majority of people out there don't really care what the political and social agenda surrounding "free software" is. Moreover, and I think this is the biggest bit, is that even if we *do* care--it has no place in a review or analysis of the product. For example, let's try this:
SlippyMotors makes a car that does everything you need it to do. It has some problems from time-to-time, but the car generally can do everything you want it to. And when you need to repair it, there's tons of people who can do it.
EthicalAuto makes a car that does about 75% of what you need it to do--but sometimes you have to fight with it to make it do what you want. Sometimes it won't start and getting it to go above 50mph is a battle. BUT...they believe in freedom--you can work on it yourself and you're not tied to the corporation that sold you the car!
Sounds kinds ridiculous, doesn't it? I imagine people would be pretty annoyed if they read an "review" like this in Car & Driver or some such publication.
Free software is great; but those that share those politics already know about it and already believe in it. Instead of pushing philosophy on people who are just interested in (as the original poster stated) "getting the job done", we should be taking these articles seriously and telling ourselves, "you know, if one user points out that we're missing something that he considers big, maybe other people consider it big and maybe she should be looking at that too."
Which, in my eyes, is the beauty of open source development.
I'm not saying I'm against free software; I'm in fact very much for it.
But freedom should be about freedom; not "freedom my way."
Apparently Blizzard set up their link for them--12 minute lag during the first 3 months, but they'll credit nasa with a couple of days online time to make up the difference.
Very nicely put; pretty much falls in line with exactly what I'm thinking myself.
I (admittedly) do tend to see the "free software" people as a bit of the "zealot" type. Software to me is about software; not political revolution.
I'm not criticizing it for having a political position--I will not go into whether or not I agree completely with their political position.
From reading Linus' comments, it seems to me that he believes that a software license should be about licensing software--not about pushing others towards complying with your view as to how that should happen.
There is some erroneous language in the v3 license from what I understand that makes it seem to Linus (and very likely some others) that the GNU is pushing their political agenda a little harder than they perhaps should be WITHIN the bounds of a software license.
You may well be 100% correct as I am reading people's interpretations and have no desire to peruse the legalese of the actual license.
You are correct.
But is that what a software license about? Or rather; should be about? In my eyes (and apparently in Linus' eyes as well) its about fostering open development because its a better way to do things, not pursuing an agenda.
First off, please forgive my ignorance, but is it really *that* important for Linus to decide to move Linux from the GPLv2 to the GPLv3? Just because version 3 of the license becomes available does not automatically invalidate the version 2 license does it? Why is this such a hot button issue?
For the most part, I completely agree with Torvalds on his points--and I can't say I'm at all surprised to see Stallman and the FSF take this direction with version 3. Simply put: they are "zealots" for lack of a better term. For them, free software is less about open source and open development and more about a form of political agenda.
Now I'm not trying to bash Stallman or the FSF, they have made some wonderful contributions to the community. But let's call a spade a spade here and look at what GPLv3 is about: attempting to hide attempts to restrict developers under the guise of being an update to the world's most popular open source license. For all of the FSF's talk against bad copyright policy and software restrictions, this license introduces their own set as if to say, "we don't like their way; so you should definitely do it our way instead."
Too much politics and agenda and not enough open source development.
The aim of my comment was to express concern over the convoluted way they arrived at that conclusion; not to diminish the importance of a media center PC being able to display its image to a TV.
It's the fact that it took an "entire article" to reach that conclusion that both astounds and disappoints me.
Several paragraphs to lead us to one conclusion: the mac mini recognized the LCD TV, the Media Center PC didn't.
There...I just saved thousands of slashdot readers from reading that poor excuse for an article. They may as well have ended it by saying, "we're just trying to cheese you into visiting our web site over and over."
The argument that I'm attempting to make is that large-scale investors tend to rely heavily on information from analysts. That is, the type of large scale investors who have the ability to change a stock price with their own trades. Piss off those analysts, and the less than glowing reports will likely push those people to bail out.
Money talks and bullshit walks.