what about when the US government sends in troops to another country, bombs the crap out of it, and then captures those who were merely defending themselves... and then strips those people of their human rights?
And I'm tired of all the people who are so full of themselves and their twisted ideals that they can't even muster up enough brain power to understand the simple concepts of war. If you're fighting someone, they are the enemy. If they happen to be defending their country and they surrender to you there are only two options available: kill them or capture them. Are you saying we should kill them instead?
I may be wrong, but I think the Liberals hold more sway and have limited more personal freedoms in Australia than conservatives have. Not that I'm advocating either political philosophy... it just seems to be a/. attitude to blame conservatives for everything.
I don't know about this, but could this be perceived as possible anti-trust violation? Could you imagine if Microsoft bought a stake of a major PC maker?
Wow, and if they modified their OS to only run on that PC Maker's hardware they'd be almost as bad as Mac.
The record company that a band is under still gets money whether you buy directly from the band, from an online store, or from a regular retail store...
I'm deeply offended at this. The U.S. government is punishing an entire nation for the actions of it's democratically elected government. It's not like there's a group of radicals forcing the Ukrainian people to pirate CD's...the decision to not follow US demands was made consciously and rationally by that country's ruling bodies.
Just want to point out a slight flaw in your logic. "Punishing the whole country because of the actions of its democratically elected government"? Yeah, that actually does makes sense. It means that a majority of the country supports these people and gave them power. If you were saying "Why should we punish the country for the actions of a government that imposed itself by force" then maybe you'd have an argument.
It's not absurd, it's business as usual for the States. They embargo'd Iraq at a time where people could not afford food. Sadam just built his own secret pipeline and went off to sell more oil while the innocents starved. It's been said a million times before, but unfortuanetly, at the end of the day, countries are out for themselves. Whether or not the US is helping it's own cause here is up for debate, but that doesn't change the enormity of US economic might and leverage. They have the power to do shit like this, so they do, plain and simple. because they're big and powerful and so on and so forth. That's one of the main reasons you want to be powerful and they have every right to push their agenda. Despite that, I don't think this is a case of anything remotely like that. Unfortunetly, you end up saying something like "RIAA" on slashdot and arguments like this pop up almost instantly...
However... is this sort of release really going to be downloaded and used a lot (outside of Slashdot)?
If it was used only by the people on slashdot that'd still be a pretty large audience. This site has a big base of regulars, posters, and lurkers. Why do you think that within minutes of a small to mid-size site link being posted here the server ends up going down?
I can see people from/. and other geeks downloading it just to see how it works, but this is as a novelty, IMO. You download it, get it working, say "this is cool I am gaming on Linux" and get back to work never to touch it again.
People who would do that weren't really that interested in playing it in the first place. It's the same thing as people who download the PC demo, try it for five minutes, and move on. I'm guessing there's a large segment of Linux users who do a lot of gaming on their Windows machines, but would rather be doing it on their Linux box (I know I fall into this category). For them, it's a godsend. And in terms of appeal, I'm sure the percentage of Linux users who will stick with it is probably proportional to the amount of PC users who will.
I think you're lumping "programming" jobs together a bit too generally. There are a lot of different jobs that relate to programming out there and there is simply no way that the majority of those jobs could simply be done away with by untrained labor (and that's meant in a relative sense, since no computer worker can really be "untrained"). One field that I would be worried about, and that I've never really intended to get into for this reason, is simple business application development (er... which is probably what the majority of programmers do - damn).
Visual Basic is a step in the direction of simplified business application development, after all. And companies are going to start giving pay cuts to their programmers when they realize that less-trained workers can do the job equally well, for less. Even worse, they'll probably start laying people off once it occurs to them that not as many programmers are needed.
Still, I wouldn't say that it's a bleak future for programming as a profession. It's just that the "average" programmer is going to be a much more common profession and may not be quite the money-maker it was before.
That's an interesting point. Note that DVDs, even when used as media for games (ie, PS2 games) are never sold in standard CD jewel cases, but rather in larger plastic "book" cases.
Gaming platforms are super-efficient customized hardware solutions with well thought out ergonomics and a psysical interface that is designed, from the ground up, for gaming.
I think that's kind of a poor attitude. Despite what we gamers like to think, gaming isn't "elite". It doesn't take the most powerful machine in the world to enjoy the majority of PC games out there and a lot of "barely better than retail" computers are up to the task. The average game player isn't too interested in having graphics options maxed out, even though the average "gamer" might be. This translates to the PDA market as well...
A lot of people would be interested in just playing a game of space invaders on their Palm. Palm gaming has already moved beyond that point, though, with a port of the original Simcity available along with fairly complex RPGs and strategy games.
The main problem, Cliff, is that people who want to do this kind of thing with their handheld devices typically buy the PocketPC. Palm-freaks (a term of endearment, not a slight) are usually more interested in the smooth operation of their device and the ease of use stemming from its minimalist design.
I'm not quite a Palm or Windows CE nut (I have devices running both OS' and I'm interested in an iPaq to get Linux running on it), but I will say that the majority of interesting and unique games are for the Palm OS. I'll admit this is strange, because most PocketPC style PDAs are definetly better in the hardware department.
I'm surprised the original poster here didn't get modded down for off-topicness. I can see where he's going, but there's a difference between one company owning your life and a company making an all-in-one product (which is the case here). Anyway, I can still see where he was going with this. I'm opposed to "all-in-one" units, but not because I think they're bad. They are an ideal solution for people who are willing to suffer through mediocre quality for a bargain and compactness. My worry is that they're eventually dominate the market, slowing beating down the level of customizability available to use in our household electronics.
After all, who wants a computer that's self-contained and virtually unmodifiable, even if it can play DVDs and serve the functions of a TiVo. I have no interest in a computerized entertainment hub, thank you very much. The same goes for the kind of things this article claims will be happening to the X-Box. I have a great 5-DVD changer right now. I love it. It's resting on top of a surround receiver which I also love. On top of it is a 60-disc CD player that works great. Why should I replace these with an all-in-one unit? And how can an all-in-one possibly give me the functionality and level of customization that all of these do?
Kind of late in the game to be posting this (doubt anyone will see it?), but I never said Macs were good for niche applications. I said they filled a niche in the computer market. They're fine for general purpose use, but there are a lot of things they don't do. The amount of software available, even with unix compatibility is still severely limited. This won't matter to someone who's only interested in graphic design, since Mac does have a nice amount of creative-related programs. This doesn't matter to the average home user, who's happy if he can get on the internet and use Word. Who does it matter to?
People who want a massive selection of software, both commercial, shareware, and freeware. People interested in playing games. People who just don't want to feel limited in terms of what they can and cannot purchase when they go to a computer software store. I've never once asked if a Mac program is going to be ported to PC, because I've never once seen a program that runs on a Mac that either a) doesn't run on a PC or b) would actually be useful to me. And let's not even get into the hardware issue.
I'm not saying anything bad about Macs. Really. But they're not perfect and they're definetly not better than PCs. They're not worse, either, but I can say without a bit of arrogance or doubt that Macs have not (and will not anytime soon) reached the point where I'm jealous of them or where I feel that I'm defending my choice of computer. Macs are a fine choice for some people, but you can't go on without admitting their weaknesses.
While 40K might seem a lot to you it is not a major item in a city budget. If the only plank in your platform is that you can save the city 40K you should probably be directed to the suggestions box rather than the council chamber.
Are you crazy? Have you ever served on the council of a small-ish city (ie, 20-50 thousand people)? $40,000 is a big deal. Unfortunetly, I can guarantee to you that a city of that size spends significantly more than $40,000 and buys a lot more than 100 copies of Word per year. Since I'm bored I might as well give you a bit of insight from my experience living in a small town and having a father who served on the city council and a mother who had a fairly high position in the town's education system.
First of all, last year my city updated all of the computers at the intermediate and high schools to Windows 2000. There are roughly 75-125 computers in the highschool alone. About 75-90 in the intermediate school. And then they added Office 2000 to those computers. Visual Studio 6.0 was later purchased for the roughly 40 computers in the Highschool computer lab. The smaller, niche applications which you (probably correctly) claim can't be replaced by open-source software (such as the accounting class software, the programs used to track student progress/grades, etc.) were all bought rather cheaply with a full site license or made by one of the computer science teachers at the school. On top of that, the adult education system (this is state level, but it's still somewhat relevant) recently spent close to $3 million dollars to have a new database system developed.
And that's just the school system. Pretty soon they're going to be upgraded to Windows XP since they want to use the OS that will be most likely featured on new computers. Now add to that the cost of upgrading the computers used by government jobs and you can see that things are really adding up. For a much larger city I would imagine the costs to be astronomical.
Despite this, I don't think switching to open-source is really a good idea. Obviously, schools need to teach what students will most likely use. Unfortunetly, Linux that is not. Even government positions probably would not benefit from a change-over. Despite what most people say, though, it's not because of retraining per se. The majority of computer training classes focus on MS Window, MS Word, MS Excel... seeing a pattern here? People graduating from these courses are looking for a job where they can apply these newfound skills. By using open-source software that the majority of middle-aged computer training class graduates will be unfamiliar with you alienate them and reduce the number of potential employees. Even worse, the ones that are fluent in using open-source software are probably going to want a bigger paycheck.
I wish you luck, but you should carefully weight the benefits and disadvantages to your plan.
I can only speak from personal experience, but I definetly bought more CDs during the Napster era. I'm something of a hypocrite, though, so I am going to say that I don't really support p2p file-sharing on a Napster scale... but here's the thing: as long as it's there and easily accessible (and not nearly as risky as, say, robbing a music store) I'm going to use it. And so are a load of other people. The industry needs to wake up and realize it's not going away. They also need to realize that the majority of mp3s shared online are encoded at sub-CD levels. It's still preferable to buy the actual CD, especially when it's going to be played on good equipment (such as a mid-range home or car stereo). Many people hear a song on the radio, download a few more songs from the CD... and if they like what they hear they actually buy the disc. Sometimes it's for the quality, sometimes it's to have the actual disc and insert to add to a CD collection. But for whatever reason it's done, it is done. If the industry would realize this and embrace p2p maybe they wouldn't have to worry about this slump in sales.
I wouldn't be so quick to say that no other "p2p" service is quite as good as Napster was during its time. People always want to say things were better "back in the day", but in this case I'd say Morpheus/Kazaa and the various clients running off Gnutella are nearly as good - plus they offer the ability to share other types of files (ranging from documents to movies to software). I'm fairly confident that Napster will never really catch on again. There's probably a small minority of people who see file-sharing as an easy way to get a hold of files and they don't mind paying, but the vast majority of users on p2p file sharing networks only do it because it's free. Had Napster been originally launched as a pay service it would have never reached the level of interest that it has today.
Unfortunetly, it's not quite appropriate to use the McDonalds vs. 5* restaurant analogy here. From a purely objective standpoint (and yes, I know, I've posted some pretty mean things about Macs in the past... but I'm being nice now) the average Apple computer fills one niche and does a good job at it while the PC market is more open-ended and generally does most things pretty well.
Macs appeal to certain people. A lot of creative professionals use them (I do a lot of design work, I hate 'em.. go figure - although I will say this: damn you Mac users and your Monaco!), although I wouldn't say that Macs are really superior to PCs in this respect (Photoshop is a Mac and PC program, as are most other graphical design suites... and don't forget about the gimp!). Macs are superior in terms of interface, and that appeals to some people and alone makes a Mac a worthwhile purchase.
It really just comes down to different tastes. I don't agree with Katz completely, though. Apple is a financially viable company. They're not as successful in terms of profits as most major PC makers, I'd imagine, but that doesn't really mean much. Very few companies achieve those levels of success. And, of course, Microsoft has them beat - but Microsoft doesn't sell computers.
As for the "kewlness" (seems more appropriate when talking about Mac..) factor. Eh.. I guess it's there. I've always found iMacs to be on the overdone, loud, and gaudy side, though - the new one being no different. But that's beside the point: there is a market for these things, so Jobs is being an intelligent business man by selling them. He's filling a niche. Apple will never be as successful as Microsoft, Macs will never be as prominent as PCs, but who cares? It's about time that people realize that comparing Macs to PCs is like comparing apples to oranges and will be until I can install Linux and WinXP on my iMac and OS X on my new Athlon 1800.
The Riot is one slick looking machine. A lot nicer, IMNSHO, than the iPod. From what I've heard about it, the interface will be better as well. Unfortunetly, $399 is still a bit steep. Not that I don't think mp3 players are 'nifty' and all, but I've got a 12-disc changer in my car, a 60-disc changer in my room, and a laptop that has mp3s ripped from most of the CDs I own. And even for people who don't have quite as much audio equipment (or audio capable equipment) I've never quite understood the need to have something like 50 albums available all the time, anywhere.
Not that's it not something good to have, just seems like there are better things to buy for $400.
Like I've said before, I have absolutely no problem with OS X. From what I've seen of it, I think it's great. But I absolutely refuse to give up my PC hardware and my windows level of compatibility for it. When it comes to Linux it's not an issue - I have six computers in this room with me and there are more elsewhere in the house. None of them are Macs and any of them will happily run linux or *BSD, along with Windows.
I built them all to my specifications and they all look exactly as I'd want them to look. I really think it's too bad that Apple insists on keeping their OS exclusive to Apple so-trendy-it-makes-me-want-vomit hardware.
I'm not convinced that most people download or buy very many applications for their handhelds. Many seem to buy it as one complete package. Does anyone have any hard data on this?
I don't have any actual hard data, but I can say from experience that I know a large number of people who do download many applications for their palm pilot. You'd be surprised by the variety of people who like to expand upon these things. It's also a very big point salesmen make when pushing them.
"Well, sir, you know that this PDA uses the PalmOS, which has thousands of applications? As a matter of fact, you can go to [insert palm site] and download games, better organization software, and lots of other stuff."
My father has a palm pilot and uses it as much at home and on the road as he does at the office. He uses Avantgo and mapquest to get directions, I've caught him playing games on it more than once, and he uses it for organizing his day and keeping track of some minor business expenses. These things have a huge number of uses and that is their appeal. As a college student I still prefer my good old laptop for note taking and other activities, but I have a number of friends who swear by their PDAs and can write abbreviated notes on them as fast (if not faster) as I can type.
In high school (a measly year and a half ago for me) I knew at least ten people who were happy using their Palm pilots soley as a glorified calculator, assignment tracker, and game machine. To be totally honest, I don't think WinCE machines have quite as many uses. I constantly hear people say that WinCE devices are "almost real handheld computers!" but Palms are better because "they stay focused as organizers". And yet from my considerable experience I've found that less people use their Pocket PCs for very interesting purposes.
You make a valid point, but there's a reason Linux is loved by (most) people who use it. It's a fast, stable operating system with generally low requirements. That makes it perfect for the PDA market. Remember: Linux purists are going to love seeing it on a PDA, but the average consumer won't what it runs as long as it meets his needs. This is a lot different from the desktop computer market, where Joe consumer expects to see a Windows-like environment.
PDA's and other devices really are a great use for Linux. As long as the lack-of-software hurdle can be overcome I think that this is a great way for Linux to break into the mainstream.
The design is nice and it definetly has good hardware (for a PDA), but there's always the issue of compatibility. I love Linux. It's my preferred operating system, but while the OS can do everything (and a whole lot more) than Windows OS, it can't run as many things. That's important in the handheld market as well. PDAs are expensive and to be worth that expense they have to serve a greater purpose than as a glorified organizer.
This is a big reason why I'm still so obsessed with PalmOS. The amount of software available for it is staggering and a good portion is free (it's also a good, fairly fast OS). Unfortunetly, the hardware it runs on generally isn't that powerful and most Palm devices aren't quite a step in the "handheld computer" direction. And since Linux doesn't seem to be making its way into the mainstream PDA market I somehow doubt that it'll ever get the amount of programs it deserves...
Like any other medium the internet is a place to express and share ideas. Some ideas can only be expressed with a certain degree of flashiness. More importantly, a good design and color scheme makes it more pleasant for users to browse and stay at the site. If we were to completely ignore these technologies the web would be a dull, boring place.
On the other hand, one of the most important tasks a web developer faces is to make an attractive site that uses the least amount of bandwidth possible while still providing a good amount of eye-candy. Flash, when used properly, is perfect for this task. It's vector-based files are small and load quickly even on slow connections. So, to a certain degree, I agree with you. But, flashy technologies (like Flash) shouldn't be abandoned. But anyone without enough talent to use them in a small, yet attractive way (that means all you morons who make your entire site in Flash will be shot on the spot) should stick to html.
Slashdot Mirror
what about when the US government sends in troops to another country, bombs the crap out of it, and then captures those who were merely defending themselves ... and then strips those people of their human rights?
And I'm tired of all the people who are so full of themselves and their twisted ideals that they can't even muster up enough brain power to understand the simple concepts of war. If you're fighting someone, they are the enemy. If they happen to be defending their country and they surrender to you there are only two options available: kill them or capture them. Are you saying we should kill them instead?
I may be wrong, but I think the Liberals hold more sway and have limited more personal freedoms in Australia than conservatives have. Not that I'm advocating either political philosophy... it just seems to be a /. attitude to blame conservatives for everything.
I don't know about this, but could this be perceived as possible anti-trust violation? Could you imagine if Microsoft bought a stake of a major PC maker?
Wow, and if they modified their OS to only run on that PC Maker's hardware they'd be almost as bad as Mac.
Cringes and waits for the flames and mod downs
The record company that a band is under still gets money whether you buy directly from the band, from an online store, or from a regular retail store...
I'm deeply offended at this. The U.S. government is punishing an entire nation for the actions of it's democratically elected government. It's not like there's a group of radicals forcing the Ukrainian people to pirate CD's...the decision to not follow US demands was made consciously and rationally by that country's ruling bodies.
Just want to point out a slight flaw in your logic. "Punishing the whole country because of the actions of its democratically elected government"? Yeah, that actually does makes sense. It means that a majority of the country supports these people and gave them power. If you were saying "Why should we punish the country for the actions of a government that imposed itself by force" then maybe you'd have an argument.
It's not absurd, it's business as usual for the States. They embargo'd Iraq at a time where people could not afford food. Sadam just built his own secret pipeline and went off to sell more oil while the innocents starved. It's been said a million times before, but unfortuanetly, at the end of the day, countries are out for themselves. Whether or not the US is helping it's own cause here is up for debate, but that doesn't change the enormity of US economic might and leverage. They have the power to do shit like this, so they do, plain and simple.
because they're big and powerful and so on and so forth. That's one of the main reasons you want to be powerful and they have every right to push their agenda. Despite that, I don't think this is a case of anything remotely like that. Unfortunetly, you end up saying something like "RIAA" on slashdot and arguments like this pop up almost instantly...
However... is this sort of release really going to be downloaded and used a lot (outside of Slashdot)?
/. and other geeks downloading it just to see how it works, but this is as a novelty, IMO. You download it, get it working, say "this is cool I am gaming on Linux" and get back to work never to touch it again.
If it was used only by the people on slashdot that'd still be a pretty large audience. This site has a big base of regulars, posters, and lurkers. Why do you think that within minutes of a small to mid-size site link being posted here the server ends up going down?
I can see people from
People who would do that weren't really that interested in playing it in the first place. It's the same thing as people who download the PC demo, try it for five minutes, and move on. I'm guessing there's a large segment of Linux users who do a lot of gaming on their Windows machines, but would rather be doing it on their Linux box (I know I fall into this category). For them, it's a godsend. And in terms of appeal, I'm sure the percentage of Linux users who will stick with it is probably proportional to the amount of PC users who will.
I think you're lumping "programming" jobs together a bit too generally. There are a lot of different jobs that relate to programming out there and there is simply no way that the majority of those jobs could simply be done away with by untrained labor (and that's meant in a relative sense, since no computer worker can really be "untrained"). One field that I would be worried about, and that I've never really intended to get into for this reason, is simple business application development (er... which is probably what the majority of programmers do - damn).
Visual Basic is a step in the direction of simplified business application development, after all. And companies are going to start giving pay cuts to their programmers when they realize that less-trained workers can do the job equally well, for less. Even worse, they'll probably start laying people off once it occurs to them that not as many programmers are needed.
Still, I wouldn't say that it's a bleak future for programming as a profession. It's just that the "average" programmer is going to be a much more common profession and may not be quite the money-maker it was before.
That's an interesting point. Note that DVDs, even when used as media for games (ie, PS2 games) are never sold in standard CD jewel cases, but rather in larger plastic "book" cases.
Gaming platforms are super-efficient customized hardware solutions with well thought out ergonomics and a psysical interface that is designed, from the ground up, for gaming.
I think that's kind of a poor attitude. Despite what we gamers like to think, gaming isn't "elite". It doesn't take the most powerful machine in the world to enjoy the majority of PC games out there and a lot of "barely better than retail" computers are up to the task. The average game player isn't too interested in having graphics options maxed out, even though the average "gamer" might be. This translates to the PDA market as well...
A lot of people would be interested in just playing a game of space invaders on their Palm. Palm gaming has already moved beyond that point, though, with a port of the original Simcity available along with fairly complex RPGs and strategy games.
The main problem, Cliff, is that people who want to do this kind of thing with their handheld devices typically buy the PocketPC. Palm-freaks (a term of endearment, not a slight) are usually more interested in the smooth operation of their device and the ease of use stemming from its minimalist design.
I'm not quite a Palm or Windows CE nut (I have devices running both OS' and I'm interested in an iPaq to get Linux running on it), but I will say that the majority of interesting and unique games are for the Palm OS. I'll admit this is strange, because most PocketPC style PDAs are definetly better in the hardware department.
I'm surprised the original poster here didn't get modded down for off-topicness. I can see where he's going, but there's a difference between one company owning your life and a company making an all-in-one product (which is the case here). Anyway, I can still see where he was going with this. I'm opposed to "all-in-one" units, but not because I think they're bad. They are an ideal solution for people who are willing to suffer through mediocre quality for a bargain and compactness. My worry is that they're eventually dominate the market, slowing beating down the level of customizability available to use in our household electronics.
After all, who wants a computer that's self-contained and virtually unmodifiable, even if it can play DVDs and serve the functions of a TiVo. I have no interest in a computerized entertainment hub, thank you very much. The same goes for the kind of things this article claims will be happening to the X-Box. I have a great 5-DVD changer right now. I love it. It's resting on top of a surround receiver which I also love. On top of it is a 60-disc CD player that works great. Why should I replace these with an all-in-one unit? And how can an all-in-one possibly give me the functionality and level of customization that all of these do?
Kind of late in the game to be posting this (doubt anyone will see it?), but I never said Macs were good for niche applications. I said they filled a niche in the computer market. They're fine for general purpose use, but there are a lot of things they don't do. The amount of software available, even with unix compatibility is still severely limited. This won't matter to someone who's only interested in graphic design, since Mac does have a nice amount of creative-related programs. This doesn't matter to the average home user, who's happy if he can get on the internet and use Word. Who does it matter to?
People who want a massive selection of software, both commercial, shareware, and freeware. People interested in playing games. People who just don't want to feel limited in terms of what they can and cannot purchase when they go to a computer software store. I've never once asked if a Mac program is going to be ported to PC, because I've never once seen a program that runs on a Mac that either a) doesn't run on a PC or b) would actually be useful to me. And let's not even get into the hardware issue.
I'm not saying anything bad about Macs. Really. But they're not perfect and they're definetly not better than PCs. They're not worse, either, but I can say without a bit of arrogance or doubt that Macs have not (and will not anytime soon) reached the point where I'm jealous of them or where I feel that I'm defending my choice of computer. Macs are a fine choice for some people, but you can't go on without admitting their weaknesses.
While 40K might seem a lot to you it is not a major item in a city budget. If the only plank in your platform is that you can save the city 40K you should probably be directed to the suggestions box rather than the council chamber.
Are you crazy? Have you ever served on the council of a small-ish city (ie, 20-50 thousand people)? $40,000 is a big deal. Unfortunetly, I can guarantee to you that a city of that size spends significantly more than $40,000 and buys a lot more than 100 copies of Word per year. Since I'm bored I might as well give you a bit of insight from my experience living in a small town and having a father who served on the city council and a mother who had a fairly high position in the town's education system.
First of all, last year my city updated all of the computers at the intermediate and high schools to Windows 2000. There are roughly 75-125 computers in the highschool alone. About 75-90 in the intermediate school. And then they added Office 2000 to those computers. Visual Studio 6.0 was later purchased for the roughly 40 computers in the Highschool computer lab. The smaller, niche applications which you (probably correctly) claim can't be replaced by open-source software (such as the accounting class software, the programs used to track student progress/grades, etc.) were all bought rather cheaply with a full site license or made by one of the computer science teachers at the school. On top of that, the adult education system (this is state level, but it's still somewhat relevant) recently spent close to $3 million dollars to have a new database system developed.
And that's just the school system. Pretty soon they're going to be upgraded to Windows XP since they want to use the OS that will be most likely featured on new computers. Now add to that the cost of upgrading the computers used by government jobs and you can see that things are really adding up. For a much larger city I would imagine the costs to be astronomical.
Despite this, I don't think switching to open-source is really a good idea. Obviously, schools need to teach what students will most likely use. Unfortunetly, Linux that is not. Even government positions probably would not benefit from a change-over. Despite what most people say, though, it's not because of retraining per se. The majority of computer training classes focus on MS Window, MS Word, MS Excel... seeing a pattern here? People graduating from these courses are looking for a job where they can apply these newfound skills. By using open-source software that the majority of middle-aged computer training class graduates will be unfamiliar with you alienate them and reduce the number of potential employees. Even worse, the ones that are fluent in using open-source software are probably going to want a bigger paycheck.
I wish you luck, but you should carefully weight the benefits and disadvantages to your plan.
I can only speak from personal experience, but I definetly bought more CDs during the Napster era. I'm something of a hypocrite, though, so I am going to say that I don't really support p2p file-sharing on a Napster scale... but here's the thing: as long as it's there and easily accessible (and not nearly as risky as, say, robbing a music store) I'm going to use it. And so are a load of other people. The industry needs to wake up and realize it's not going away. They also need to realize that the majority of mp3s shared online are encoded at sub-CD levels. It's still preferable to buy the actual CD, especially when it's going to be played on good equipment (such as a mid-range home or car stereo). Many people hear a song on the radio, download a few more songs from the CD... and if they like what they hear they actually buy the disc. Sometimes it's for the quality, sometimes it's to have the actual disc and insert to add to a CD collection. But for whatever reason it's done, it is done. If the industry would realize this and embrace p2p maybe they wouldn't have to worry about this slump in sales.
I wouldn't be so quick to say that no other "p2p" service is quite as good as Napster was during its time. People always want to say things were better "back in the day", but in this case I'd say Morpheus/Kazaa and the various clients running off Gnutella are nearly as good - plus they offer the ability to share other types of files (ranging from documents to movies to software). I'm fairly confident that Napster will never really catch on again. There's probably a small minority of people who see file-sharing as an easy way to get a hold of files and they don't mind paying, but the vast majority of users on p2p file sharing networks only do it because it's free. Had Napster been originally launched as a pay service it would have never reached the level of interest that it has today.
Dear god. Please tell me that either my connection or kerneltrap.com's server is incredibly slow. There's no way we /.ed this poor site already...
Unfortunetly, it's not quite appropriate to use the McDonalds vs. 5* restaurant analogy here. From a purely objective standpoint (and yes, I know, I've posted some pretty mean things about Macs in the past... but I'm being nice now) the average Apple computer fills one niche and does a good job at it while the PC market is more open-ended and generally does most things pretty well.
Macs appeal to certain people. A lot of creative professionals use them (I do a lot of design work, I hate 'em.. go figure - although I will say this: damn you Mac users and your Monaco!), although I wouldn't say that Macs are really superior to PCs in this respect (Photoshop is a Mac and PC program, as are most other graphical design suites... and don't forget about the gimp!). Macs are superior in terms of interface, and that appeals to some people and alone makes a Mac a worthwhile purchase.
It really just comes down to different tastes. I don't agree with Katz completely, though. Apple is a financially viable company. They're not as successful in terms of profits as most major PC makers, I'd imagine, but that doesn't really mean much. Very few companies achieve those levels of success. And, of course, Microsoft has them beat - but Microsoft doesn't sell computers.
As for the "kewlness" (seems more appropriate when talking about Mac..) factor. Eh.. I guess it's there. I've always found iMacs to be on the overdone, loud, and gaudy side, though - the new one being no different. But that's beside the point: there is a market for these things, so Jobs is being an intelligent business man by selling them. He's filling a niche. Apple will never be as successful as Microsoft, Macs will never be as prominent as PCs, but who cares? It's about time that people realize that comparing Macs to PCs is like comparing apples to oranges and will be until I can install Linux and WinXP on my iMac and OS X on my new Athlon 1800.
Firewire is reasonable, but take a look at the interface. I'd, personally, prefer it over the iPod's anyday.
The Riot is one slick looking machine. A lot nicer, IMNSHO, than the iPod. From what I've heard about it, the interface will be better as well. Unfortunetly, $399 is still a bit steep. Not that I don't think mp3 players are 'nifty' and all, but I've got a 12-disc changer in my car, a 60-disc changer in my room, and a laptop that has mp3s ripped from most of the CDs I own. And even for people who don't have quite as much audio equipment (or audio capable equipment) I've never quite understood the need to have something like 50 albums available all the time, anywhere.
Not that's it not something good to have, just seems like there are better things to buy for $400.
Like I've said before, I have absolutely no problem with OS X. From what I've seen of it, I think it's great. But I absolutely refuse to give up my PC hardware and my windows level of compatibility for it. When it comes to Linux it's not an issue - I have six computers in this room with me and there are more elsewhere in the house. None of them are Macs and any of them will happily run linux or *BSD, along with Windows.
I built them all to my specifications and they all look exactly as I'd want them to look. I really think it's too bad that Apple insists on keeping their OS exclusive to Apple so-trendy-it-makes-me-want-vomit hardware.
I'm not convinced that most people download or buy very many applications for their handhelds. Many seem to buy it as one complete package. Does anyone have any hard data on this?
I don't have any actual hard data, but I can say from experience that I know a large number of people who do download many applications for their palm pilot. You'd be surprised by the variety of people who like to expand upon these things. It's also a very big point salesmen make when pushing them.
"Well, sir, you know that this PDA uses the PalmOS, which has thousands of applications? As a matter of fact, you can go to [insert palm site] and download games, better organization software, and lots of other stuff."
My father has a palm pilot and uses it as much at home and on the road as he does at the office. He uses Avantgo and mapquest to get directions, I've caught him playing games on it more than once, and he uses it for organizing his day and keeping track of some minor business expenses. These things have a huge number of uses and that is their appeal. As a college student I still prefer my good old laptop for note taking and other activities, but I have a number of friends who swear by their PDAs and can write abbreviated notes on them as fast (if not faster) as I can type.
In high school (a measly year and a half ago for me) I knew at least ten people who were happy using their Palm pilots soley as a glorified calculator, assignment tracker, and game machine. To be totally honest, I don't think WinCE machines have quite as many uses. I constantly hear people say that WinCE devices are "almost real handheld computers!" but Palms are better because "they stay focused as organizers". And yet from my considerable experience I've found that less people use their Pocket PCs for very interesting purposes.
You make a valid point, but there's a reason Linux is loved by (most) people who use it. It's a fast, stable operating system with generally low requirements. That makes it perfect for the PDA market. Remember: Linux purists are going to love seeing it on a PDA, but the average consumer won't what it runs as long as it meets his needs. This is a lot different from the desktop computer market, where Joe consumer expects to see a Windows-like environment.
PDA's and other devices really are a great use for Linux. As long as the lack-of-software hurdle can be overcome I think that this is a great way for Linux to break into the mainstream.
The design is nice and it definetly has good hardware (for a PDA), but there's always the issue of compatibility. I love Linux. It's my preferred operating system, but while the OS can do everything (and a whole lot more) than Windows OS, it can't run as many things. That's important in the handheld market as well. PDAs are expensive and to be worth that expense they have to serve a greater purpose than as a glorified organizer.
This is a big reason why I'm still so obsessed with PalmOS. The amount of software available for it is staggering and a good portion is free (it's also a good, fairly fast OS). Unfortunetly, the hardware it runs on generally isn't that powerful and most Palm devices aren't quite a step in the "handheld computer" direction. And since Linux doesn't seem to be making its way into the mainstream PDA market I somehow doubt that it'll ever get the amount of programs it deserves...
Like any other medium the internet is a place to express and share ideas. Some ideas can only be expressed with a certain degree of flashiness. More importantly, a good design and color scheme makes it more pleasant for users to browse and stay at the site. If we were to completely ignore these technologies the web would be a dull, boring place.
On the other hand, one of the most important tasks a web developer faces is to make an attractive site that uses the least amount of bandwidth possible while still providing a good amount of eye-candy. Flash, when used properly, is perfect for this task. It's vector-based files are small and load quickly even on slow connections. So, to a certain degree, I agree with you. But, flashy technologies (like Flash) shouldn't be abandoned. But anyone without enough talent to use them in a small, yet attractive way (that means all you morons who make your entire site in Flash will be shot on the spot) should stick to html.