Good point about the search engines. I hadn't thought about that.
I understand your point about our duty and obligation to inform the public about how Flash would change the nature of the web. However, as we know all to well, people rarely stop to consider these kinds of ramifications. Even if they do, more urgent needs will often take priority.
A businesses will always lean toward what suits their short-term priorities. I can very easily fathom businesses placing a higher priority on Flash's ability to make more attractive sites than on keeping a net with a more "pure" form for data. Do you really think it will really be possible to "educate" businesses about the problem that Flash poses?
I don't think so. If it is somehow shown that the majority of users prefer Flash sites to HTML sites (be it true or not), that will be the direction businesses will head. Unfortunately, I don't think there would be much to change this trend except the regulation of Internet technology---not very likely.
I can understand why hard-core, long time computer users abhor flash and I agree with many of the arguments made about Flash.
But we should stop and consider what the average Internet user is looking for from the web. As a general rule, Flash and "eye candy" pleases the more casual user and they find it impressive. It's one of the major reasons why the USA Today newspaper has been a success. From a marketing perspective (and let's face it, most web sites come from a marketing perspective), Flash is the way to go. I think Macromedia's initiative has a good chance at success.
For those sites geared toward raw content, they would probably stick with HTML because the type of audience they appeal to is only interested in raw content. I don't think the Linux HOWTOs are suddenly going to start using Flash nor do I think they will be forced to.
My biggest concern, however, is that this is a proprietary technology. If Flash starts dominating the web, there should be some mechanism to keep tight reins on how Macromedia deploys it. We all know the power that comes with controlling such an important technology and this would be something to watch carefully.
I've had my Linux box running for over 9 1/2 years. Try that with you Windows 3.1 machine. I'll tell you it can't be done.
Anyway, I've seen surveys by this company before and they've actually had to retract some of the statistics they've published in the past because of some oversights. Notice how they don't provide a breakdown of the 125,000 sites in the survey---just a little suspicious, don't you think? I've talked to almost everyone in my lab and at least 20% are using Linux.
In the long run, about 15 years, I predict Microsoft will be toppled. Let's face it, their software just plain sucks! Once the gov't wakes up and realizes they are nothing but pure monopoly, their market share will get washed away like a brillo pad on soap scum.
However, I am sick of lusers who are too lazy to want to learn anything new. It's like, hello! God help us if they actually put in just 2 hours a day for a couple of months into learning a new user interface so they could duplicate what they can do with Windows, they'd have a kickass OS that never crashed and can simulate many of the same things you do in Microsoft Office. Stupid lusers. Keep buying Microsoft products but don't come whining to me when Bill Gates owns the mortgage on your house.
Anyway, I just wish/. would be a bit more responsible about the articles it posts. The stats are obviously skewed.
I've often heard it said that Nike doesn't sell sneakers, they sell the brand identity feeling that goes with buying $110 worth of rubber, string, and glue. AT&T is simply taking things to the next level: they are a company that doesn't sell anything except to create and "brand" other Fortune 500 companies and spin them off.
In a deal that would create a cable giant with more than 22 million subscribers, AT&T agreed to sell its broadband unit to Comcast for about $47 billion in stock
Actually, the purists will tolerate software of poor quality if it means not having to use proprietary software. Yes, they will do their best to fix bugs and make free software superior. After all, their goal is to wipe out proprietary software and make it unnecessary. But again, making superior software is a secondary consideration. That's my only point. Having superior software is not the primary goal, having free software is.
In other words, what makes free software superior isn't usability stability, it's the fact that it is free to begin with!
Richard Stallman, the guy who started the idea of free software and who created the General Public License has said repeatedly that he is not concerned with the technical superiority of software. Check out this page for all the original goals and objectives of free software. It's really quite fascinating stuff.
P.S. Hmmmm...the FSF site is down so the link above won't work. It's mirror site, gnu.org is also down.
But on the other hand, the reason they insist on having that liberty, is because more people can participate in the development process...
There are two schools of thought, as you probably know, amongst free/open source software advocates. The "free" software advocates, those aligning themselves with the Free Software Foundation, wouldn't necessarily agree with your statement above. The quote I pulled from your post is more a sentiment of the "open source" clan of programmers.
I'm saying that free software advocates, the purists, don't give a hoot about the superiority of free software or how many people can participate in the process. It's a secondary issue for them. Even if Linux sucked by every kind of measure---user interface, speed, stability, etc.---they would gladly use it because it's not proprietary. The reason they insist on having that libery, given to them by the GPL, is because they want to be free of the bonds proprietary software places on them.
A reminder:
It's apparent that the original goals of the free software movement are lost on the vast majority of/. readers. The free software purists out don't use free software because it's more user friendly or technically superior, they use it because it is free (as in liberty).
Free software is first and foremost a political movement. It's a backlash against proprietary software and the restrictions it places on users. By arguing whether or not the Linux is technically superior to Windows, you are arguing a point that free software was not originally designed to address. A "true" free software advocate would shrug their shoulders at this article and wouldn't care if was is right.
I'm a neutral party to the "free" vs. "open" software debate but I just thought I'd bring this point to light because it is highly relevant.
Slashdot Mirror
Before you sink hundreds of hours into learning Curl, you may want to read this Fucked Company entry.
Good point about the search engines. I hadn't thought about that.
I understand your point about our duty and obligation to inform the public about how Flash would change the nature of the web. However, as we know all to well, people rarely stop to consider these kinds of ramifications. Even if they do, more urgent needs will often take priority.
A businesses will always lean toward what suits their short-term priorities. I can very easily fathom businesses placing a higher priority on Flash's ability to make more attractive sites than on keeping a net with a more "pure" form for data. Do you really think it will really be possible to "educate" businesses about the problem that Flash poses?
I don't think so. If it is somehow shown that the majority of users prefer Flash sites to HTML sites (be it true or not), that will be the direction businesses will head. Unfortunately, I don't think there would be much to change this trend except the regulation of Internet technology---not very likely.
I can understand why hard-core, long time computer users abhor flash and I agree with many of the arguments made about Flash.
But we should stop and consider what the average Internet user is looking for from the web. As a general rule, Flash and "eye candy" pleases the more casual user and they find it impressive. It's one of the major reasons why the USA Today newspaper has been a success. From a marketing perspective (and let's face it, most web sites come from a marketing perspective), Flash is the way to go. I think Macromedia's initiative has a good chance at success.
For those sites geared toward raw content, they would probably stick with HTML because the type of audience they appeal to is only interested in raw content. I don't think the Linux HOWTOs are suddenly going to start using Flash nor do I think they will be forced to.
My biggest concern, however, is that this is a proprietary technology. If Flash starts dominating the web, there should be some mechanism to keep tight reins on how Macromedia deploys it. We all know the power that comes with controlling such an important technology and this would be something to watch carefully.
I've had my Linux box running for over 9 1/2 years. Try that with you Windows 3.1 machine. I'll tell you it can't be done.
/. would be a bit more responsible about the articles it posts. The stats are obviously skewed.
Anyway, I've seen surveys by this company before and they've actually had to retract some of the statistics they've published in the past because of some oversights. Notice how they don't provide a breakdown of the 125,000 sites in the survey---just a little suspicious, don't you think? I've talked to almost everyone in my lab and at least 20% are using Linux.
In the long run, about 15 years, I predict Microsoft will be toppled. Let's face it, their software just plain sucks! Once the gov't wakes up and realizes they are nothing but pure monopoly, their market share will get washed away like a brillo pad on soap scum.
However, I am sick of lusers who are too lazy to want to learn anything new. It's like, hello! God help us if they actually put in just 2 hours a day for a couple of months into learning a new user interface so they could duplicate what they can do with Windows, they'd have a kickass OS that never crashed and can simulate many of the same things you do in Microsoft Office. Stupid lusers. Keep buying Microsoft products but don't come whining to me when Bill Gates owns the mortgage on your house.
Anyway, I just wish
preZZure--->Friends don't let friends buy M$.
I've often heard it said that Nike doesn't sell sneakers, they sell the brand identity feeling that goes with buying $110 worth of rubber, string, and glue. AT&T is simply taking things to the next level: they are a company that doesn't sell anything except to create and "brand" other Fortune 500 companies and spin them off.
Your post needs correction. From the NY Times:
In a deal that would create a cable giant with more than 22 million subscribers, AT&T agreed to sell its broadband unit to Comcast for about $47 billion in stock
I'm a MediaOne, er, no I mean AT&T customer, er, uh, wait, Comcast customer...
I just want to know if I'm still going to be able to keep my blah@mediaone.net address until 2020 when M$ provides my service.
Actually, the purists will tolerate software of poor quality if it means not having to use proprietary software. Yes, they will do their best to fix bugs and make free software superior. After all, their goal is to wipe out proprietary software and make it unnecessary. But again, making superior software is a secondary consideration. That's my only point. Having superior software is not the primary goal, having free software is.
In other words, what makes free software superior isn't usability stability, it's the fact that it is free to begin with!
Richard Stallman, the guy who started the idea of free software and who created the General Public License has said repeatedly that he is not concerned with the technical superiority of software. Check out this page for all the original goals and objectives of free software. It's really quite fascinating stuff.
P.S. Hmmmm...the FSF site is down so the link above won't work. It's mirror site, gnu.org is also down.
But on the other hand, the reason they insist on having that liberty, is because more people can participate in the development process...
There are two schools of thought, as you probably know, amongst free/open source software advocates. The "free" software advocates, those aligning themselves with the Free Software Foundation, wouldn't necessarily agree with your statement above. The quote I pulled from your post is more a sentiment of the "open source" clan of programmers.
I'm saying that free software advocates, the purists, don't give a hoot about the superiority of free software or how many people can participate in the process. It's a secondary issue for them. Even if Linux sucked by every kind of measure---user interface, speed, stability, etc.---they would gladly use it because it's not proprietary. The reason they insist on having that libery, given to them by the GPL, is because they want to be free of the bonds proprietary software places on them.
A reminder: /. readers. The free software purists out don't use free software because it's more user friendly or technically superior, they use it because it is free (as in liberty).
It's apparent that the original goals of the free software movement are lost on the vast majority of
Free software is first and foremost a political movement. It's a backlash against proprietary software and the restrictions it places on users. By arguing whether or not the Linux is technically superior to Windows, you are arguing a point that free software was not originally designed to address. A "true" free software advocate would shrug their shoulders at this article and wouldn't care if was is right.
I'm a neutral party to the "free" vs. "open" software debate but I just thought I'd bring this point to light because it is highly relevant.