It sounds like a Korean car. I'm going to spend the next hour cringing. Really surprised they didn't go with LinDOS (a previous candidate) or something with a modicum of coolness. I guess the company isn't shelling out big bucks for its marketing department.
I read about this project the last time it came on Slashdot, and it didn't excite me then and it doesn't excite me now. And hearing it introduced with "Will Linux for Windows Change the World?" only makes me think, "You've got to be kidding."
For the moment, my only computer is an XP box. I'd rather have a Mac, but can't afford one at the moment. I'd also rather run Linux than XP, but there's a couple XP only apps I don't want to give up. Which means that my Dell 4600 is running XP exclusively, even though it has a second drive and even though I'd rather boot in Linux 95% of the time.
After playing around with Mepis, I was immediately impressed, and I'd like to do nearly all of my work in Linux. I don't want to give up my ability to run Windows, though, so what I want is a dual-boot system. Trouble is, I've asked at least one well-credentialed tech person who uses Linux heavily, and he says dual-booting is still fraught with complications.
I guess my question is, why is it possible to have a decent Linux distribution that runs within XP, but it's not possible to take a dual-drive Dell and easily make your system let you choose between XP and Linux atstartup? And why would anyone want to run Linux within XP, if they could simply have a dual boot system? Seems to me, if you just want to get a flavor of what running Linux is like, get ahold of Mepis and give it a whirl. Your next step should be the ability to gracefully install Linux and make your computer a dual-boot system.
To me, Linux under Windows sounds a lot like divorcing your wife but continuing to live in her house.
Is that why I have two loyalty cards on my keyring and three more in my wallet?
Yeah, don't get me started on "rewards cards" -- I'm carrying two on my keyring as well. There's no reward to those cards. Basically, the supermarkets have decided that unless you become one of the sheep, and carry around their silly cards so they can track your purchases, they won't let you purchase anything on sale.
Which would be fine with me. I'd be happy to take my business elsewhere. Except there is no elsewhere when it comes to supermarkets. They all have "rewards cards" now. So it's either let them track all your purchases, or pay a steep penalty by being excluded from sale items. The same thing's gonna happen with RFID. There will be no place you can go to avoid them.
Except, that is, your local co-op, and similar small-scale businesses. I happen to buy most of my groceries at the co-op just because the prices are comparable, the food is grown closer to me, the politics are better, and I know I'm not getting tracked. Unfortunately, I doubt that enough people care about their privacy for an anti-RFID movement to emerge.
Just last week I took out a ten year registration on my website. And it was great to be able to do that, since every year I always had the fear in the back of my mind that I'd forget about renewing it, and lose the domain.
So when I read about the 100 year domain thing, I thought, "that would be pretty great." Just pay a relatively small amount of money up front, and you're set for life.
But then I realized that there's a pretty big anti-social aspect to allowing 100 year domains. It may not be totally fair that the dotcom domain name ownership thing was a first-come, first take lottery. But we're stuck with it, and, fortunately, nobody owns a name forever -- they have to reregister each year or two or ten. If you can't make a go of flowerpots.com, then it won't be long until it goes back into the pool of unclaimed domains for somebody else to take. Well, that's sort of true anyway. I know at least one company has arrangements with a registrar where expired names fall directly into their hands.
But anyway, my point is that there ought to be some mechanism where the scarcest property in cyberspace, dotcom names, falls back into the hands of the public if they are not being put to full use. And it's not in the public interest to allow 100-year domain names. All sorts of people will register all sorts of useful domain names, fail at making them profitable, and give up on the domain name. However, like neglected inner city property, the domain name will stay in their possession for a friggin century, and deprive the Internet community of using it for any value.
There are times when we think in complete sentences, and times when we just rely on non-verbal thinking. Generally, the more planned the act, the more likely that complete sentences pass through your brain.
For instance, you're more likely to simply pick a quarter off the floor than to say, "I am going to pick this quarter off the floor." Whereas, you're very likely to think the sentence, "I should buy some wine on my way home from the market" if that's part of your plans.
Seems to me that this technology could, in short order, discern the verbal sentences we fashion for ourselves as part of our daily thinking. But it won't ever pick up on the million thoughts we have each day that aren't based on words.
If this technology gets deployed, society will have to learn in short order that not every thought is legitimate. My verbalizing the thought to myself, "I am Napoleon" does not necessarily mean that I think I am Napoleon.
One last thought. If we get widespread, cheap deployment of this technology, it will have as big an effect on our lives as the World Wide Web.
There's been a lot of interest in the top PC companies coming out with Windows-free desktops. Probably the biggest move so far has been Dell, which allows you to buy most of their machines equipped with pro-dos instead of Windows. But here's the surprising thing about the Dell offer: I'm unaware of a single case where a pro-dos equipped model is any cheaper than the same model shipping with Windows XP.
Now, with this HP development, I have to wonder if we're going to see more of the same, particularly since there's no mention that the Mandrake-equipped boxes will be any cheaper than their XP counterparts. Granted, there are some people who, for whatever reason, feel some dislike for Microsoft;) And these people might be willing to have their computer ship without an XP license solely to deprive Microsoft of a few dollars.
But I have to think that most people, if they can't get a discount by going without Windows, would want to receive XP. After all, why turn down something that's free, and something you might decide to install later -- if only to make the machine more valuable for resale?
With this in mind, the option of ordering Linux boxes from major manufacturers just isn't all that exciting unless there's some kind of discount involved. Once you have the option to save thirty dollars by ordering your HP or Dell without XP, that will really be news.
I write for a living, and have used WordPerfect 10 and 11 for my latest book. They came bundled with my last two computers, and I'd take WordPerfect over MS Word or OpenOffice any day.
Most word processors offer substantially the same feature set. But there are at least three key areas where I think WordPerfect has an edge:
1) Draft Mode. This is the mode most people do their writing in, and I love WordPerfect's minimalism. Lots and lots of space for the text you're working on, and minimal clutter since they don't try to include access to every blasted feature in the ruler bar. OpenOffice's version of draft mode, such as it is, is called "Online Layout" and it's still cluttered looking and IMHO garbagey. MS Word's Draft Mode seems more cluttered than WordPerfect's., and suffers from too many autoedit things turned on, where the word processor incorrectly anticipates your needs.
2) Better writing environment. WordPerfect doesn't try to implement every last feature a business user could conceivably want. So the menus and so forth are far less cluttered, which makes the main features you need much easier to find. Add to this that MS Word's grammar checker is a piece of crap, while WordPerfect will actually make some interesting comments. I think if you're trying to write for a living, WordPerfect is a wonderful tool.
3) Reveal Codes. I've heard MS Word is trying to implement this feature, but WordPerfect's had it forever, and it's sensational. Have you ever used a WYSIWYG wordprocessor, and all of a sudden wondered why your text at a certain point has the formatting go to hell? And the only way to fix things is to delete a chunk of your text?
Well, with WordPerfect, you can see the hidden formatting codes embedded in your text. So it makes locating a problem code easy. In a long document, it makes tracing a piece of corruption a breeze, and it takes only seconds to remove the problem at its source. You find the hidden formatting code, delete it with a backspace, and your problem is solved. As far as I know, WordPerfect is the only word processor where you can be 100% sure that your document has absolutely no embedded crap.
Some final comments. I love WordPerfect but I'm no zealot. I'll happily ditch it in two seconds the moment an open source alternative addresses my above comments. I simply can't understand how people can create a word processor that doesn't have a sharp looking, minimal, ultra responsive draft mode. I like the draft mode in ABIword, but I've found that the program isn't as stable as I'd like it to be.
Unfortunately, WordPerfect has some stability issues as well. I've found that in my newest book, which contains 300 or so footnotes, WordPerfect seems to have a memory leak or something which causes a freeze for every ten or so endnotes I edit.
My guess is that in five years or less, open source word processors will have all the main features a serious writer could want. But for now, WordPerfect remains my word processor of choice.
I know it's an internal code name, but you would think they would choose one that doesn't evoke memories of a recent movie that was bombed by the critics.
Anyway, I read the article, and I loved this quote from Window's lead project manager:
"We are exploring ways to add value to Windows XP."
To me, that sounds like newspeak for "We are exploring ways to get existing XP users to pony up extra cash."
What's funny about all this is the article talks all about the prospect for this new XP release, without mentioning even one feature Reloaded would contain. Go figure.
Here's some wild speculation: Longhorn development is running into problems that are further delaying development, so Microsoft is responding with a stopgap operating system. Maybe they should call it OS9 instead of Reloaded.
Anyway, from a Linux advocate's perspective, anything that pushes back Longhorn has to be considered a good thing. Longhorn will no doubt come with some compelling features that will make Linux a harder sell. So the longer it takes to be released, the more time Linux has to establish its foothold.
Note that I'm not saying that Longhorn will be a product I'd want to have. Every new release of Windows seems to be more restrictive than the last, and what little I understand about.NET terrifies me. Still, there's no denying that some users will view Longhorn as sort of the OSX release of Windows.
They won't run PETA's ad either
on
Superbowling
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
The real hypocrisy is in how the network is handling an ad PETA wanted to run. They won't accept anti-meat ads, even though they will accept ads from fast food companies. So much for their excuse of not wanting to air only one side of a controversial issue. Here's a great article on the subject.
Now watch this post get marked down as a troll because somebody with mod points eats meat, and thinks information like this shouldn't receive attention.
CNN is reporting that Microsoft's Xbox may be on the verge of a substantial price cut, falling from $179 to $99 by Labor Day.
I'm sorry, but given that I just got back from trudging through the snow, and practically getting frostbite on my face, I don't see how we're on the "verge" of labor day. On a day like this, it doesn't seem like we're even on the verge of spring, let alone the end of summer.
Reading this press release, one thing comes immediately to mind. If I'm an investor in a company, one of the main things I want its leaders to do is to spend money wisely. If large sums need to be spent, I want this outlay to be done prudently and thoughtfully.
Which is what makes this press release so...so...strange. We all know that the FBI goes ballistic over this kind of thing. And unless the worm author was incredibly careful, he's probably got federal agents tramping around his bedroom and emptying out his dresser drawers even as I write this.
So why then, is SCO so eager to hand over $250,000 for an informant? SCO's moaning about how much this worm has cost them, but, really, can we take that seriously? I could see if this worm targeted Dell or IBM, or, you know, some company that actually has customers visit their website. But who is SCO selling anything to anymore? It's just a litigation house. What do they care if their site drops down for a day or two? The FBI is likely to be hot on the worm author's heels, so why is SCO so eager to hand over 250 thousand smackers without any clear reason?
When you see spending decisions like this, it's a pretty good sign that a company is being run by bozos. You get the sense this press release was rushed out the door in an effort to capitalize on media attention. But was there any real reason why SCO needs the attention, or why it's in their best interest to part with so much money given that the culprit will likely be found anyway?
So here's my crystal ball prediction: the worm author will be found. But SCO won't pay up. This is all about publicity, and for some reason I don't foresee Darl rushing to sign a check.
Not to flame, but the link to the Dell web page was one of the least helpful links I've ever seen in a Slashdot summary. And that's saying something. As other people have noticed, there's not a thing on the linked page that provides any information about the n-series.
So I looked around a bit, and through google I found a back door to Dell site that provides information. But the link cancels after fifteen minutes, so I can't post it here. It appears that this page is only for people associated with corporations, governments, education, and health care. It looks as though the general public cannot buy an n-series computer through Dell's main site.
I did a bit more searching in google and found a news.com story about the n-series. It was posted back in August. Of 2002.
From the Dell page I got access to, I was unable to tell if the company reduces the price for people who choose the n-series instead of the identical windows-equipped machines. It'll be a great thing when tier one PC companies readily make consumer boxes available without Windows, and pass along a discount. I don't think that day has yet arrived.
This problem will diminish over time
on
Perens on Patents
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
From the interview:
We're looking at a future where only the very largest companies will be able to implement software, and it will technically be illegal for other people to do so.
He's probably right on this point, but there's one big qualifier to introduce: The future he's talking about is only the near-future. Unlike copyrights, where post-1930 work is gradually being extended to last forever, patents have a limited length. Right now they last twenty years.
And despite the BS that Amazon has been part of, with their one-click patent nonsense, it looks like people in the industry are growing increasingly uncomfortable with lenghty patents. Even Jeff Bezos, the prime beneficiary of one-click, is pushing to have software patents reduced to five years.
The emergence of the World Wide Web has led to the creation of a whole lot of super obvious ideas that should never have been patented, but were. Right now, software patents are extremely relevant to anyone developing sites or software for the internet. But in a comparatively short time, these patents will expire. And in a few decades, regardless of patent reform, prior art will smother just about any software patent claim that is not truly novel.
So yeah, Perens is right that patents are an enormous threat to developers right now. But the threat is certain to diminish greatly with time.
So I went and read the article linked in the summary. And it has a pic of Darl unlike any I've ever seen.
I was like, "where have I seen this guy before?" Computer guy...wearing a blue work shirt exposing bare forearms. Cocked a bit to the site with his arms folded across his chest.
Generally, in these kinds of articles, the basic idea is that the RIAA is launching these lawsuits as a deterent against piracy. I think the truth is a little different. I think the RIAA is trying to develop a second revenue stream.
Basically, our friends at the RIAA are more than happy if you'll keep buying your CD's at fifteen dollars a pop, then every few years they'll try to make what you already purchased obsolete by offering a new release with better packaging.
Sometimes I wonder if they are deliberately incompetent in issuing their first release. I remember back in 1991, I picked up Miles Davis' "Kind of Blue." Five years later, the record company had re-released it, along with the shocking announcement that one of the original CD's songs had been mastered at the wrong speed -- so the CD I owned had a song that was therefore in the wrong key and at the wrong tempo. And for this incompetence, on their part, I was supposed to shell out another fifteen bucks to get the fixed version.
Understandably, people are tired of this crap, so they've resorted to downloading music. That's where the RIAA's new revenue generating tactic comes in: they're using their legal department to send letters, coercing downloaders to pay up at about seven grand a pop. That's a lot of shiny CD's.
So buy CD's or download illegally -- either way the RIAA wins. Unless you decide to get out of the game.
If you follow the RIAA's tactics at all, you might have decided it's appropriate to not give these bloodsuckers another dime of your money. So here are a couple tips. Don't buy from labels that are affiliated with the RIAA -- and don't buy legally downloaded music from these labels just because they happen to be on the iTunes record store.
Second, check out sites like Magnatune. Read everything you can about their business practices. These people are cool, their artists' music is awesome, and they deserve our support.
From the article:
And that's where were headed, like it or not. No physical media. No rentals. No used games. No sharing games among friends. Limited hardware upgrades. Pay-to-play. Unless something seriously changes the course of the industry, this is the future.
Only one problem with this scenario: I'm not buying, and neither will a lot of other gamers. No doubt video game companies could come out with a really great sounding version of Half Life or whatever, costing $12 a month to play. But if they try to foist subscription fees on me, my money's staying in my pocket.
Dollar for dollar, video games represent probably the cheapest form of entertainment ever developed. A few years back, I spent $20 on a copy of Unreal Tournament, and that is some of the best entertainment money I've ever spent. I've doubtless played that game more than a hundred hours. Same thing with NHL '94 Hockey on the Sega Genesis; I got it used for $10 or so, and I'm still playing that game today in emulation.
No doubt, the video game industry would love for all games to switch over to subscription on-demand models. The only trouble is cheapskates like me won't ever let this happen. When I buy a game, I expect it to be a one-shot expense, and I further expect to be able to play that game ten years from now. If, for the sake of argument, the next Half-Life comes out as subscription, I'll just buy UT 2004. And if UT 2004 comes out as subscription, then I'd keep playing my original UT until Quake 4 or somebody responsive to my needs comes out with a non-subscription game.
No doubt that subscriptions will capture a growing portion of the gaming market, but it's silly to think companies will forsake the model of one-time sales. There's too much demand from gamers who wouldn't have it any other way, and nobody's going to leave that much money on the table.
You buy a game controller for one reason: to have maximum control in a videogame. Anything that interferes with that, including having to exert unnecessary muscle power, makes for a sucky controller.
As Butt Head once put it so well, "If I wanted to read, I'd go to school."
I've been reading Slashdot for years, but have only started playing around with Linux in the past month. It's great to hear Linus say that the desktop is almost ready for prime time. But I think no matter how good the desktop experience is, quality alone won't win over users.
What finally got me to try Linux is when I read a post on Slashdot about Mepis, which, like Knoppix, is a Linux distribution on a bootable CD. While I'd been aching to give Linux a try for years, I never had a spare box to run it, and I wasn't about to wipe XP and all my stuff off my main computer. If you haven't heard about it, Mepis is a full linux install and suite of software that you can boot off a CD and play with, without wiping your existing operating system from your hard drive.
After trying Mepis for just a couple hours, I fell in love. Everything from my optical mouse to my Nvidia drivers to my keychain drive worked without any installation. I'm going to go on using XP on my current box, but I now know that the Linux desktop is indeed ready for prime time. When I upgrade to a new system next year, Microsoft won't get a penny. I'm going to buy a whitebox system, and get myself a good Linux distribution.
I don't care how polished Linux gets; I think the only way it's ever going to get exposure to general users is on Mepis/Knoppix style CD ROMs that let people take the OS for a test drive. I really think that the best way to bring Linux to the general public is to distribute as many ten-cent CD ROMs as you can to friends and family, so they can see for themselves that there's no need to pay the Microsoft tax on their next PC purchase.
The way I see it, overcoming Microsoft's hegemony requires working on two fronts. The first is building quality distributions that work plug-and-play with everything from printers to wireless cards. And the second front is the creation of full-featured bootable CD's that let people see -- on their own machine -- how great Linux has become.
If this [ability to predict earthquakes] turns out to be true, it would be a disaster for the economy in an area.
No, the real disaster for a local economy is when thousands of people hang around, and are buried alive because they weren't told to clear out. People can always come back to town after the quake hits, and return to their land and repair their buildings.
I see a couple show stoppers that could keep this technology from reaching critical mass. First this link (from the summary) says that one station needed to pay $200,000 to switch to digital equipment. That's a helluva lot of money, especially in light of the fact that radio stations are cutting costs at every turn; and are even canning local DJ's, and replacing them with canned national announcers, to save dough.
Which brings me to a second point: nearly all radio today is utter crap. The sort of early adapter who would be willing to shell out $400 extra for digital FM is exactly the kind of person who already shelled out $400 for satellite radio. And why would anyone with that kind of discretionary income want to listen to anything on the FM dial? At the risk of sounding terribly elitist, if you're smart enough to have earned gobs of money, your tastes are likely discriminating enough to want to want nothing to do with what's on the FM band.
The one kind of station that might benefit from high fidelity is NPR, but considering that they're bellyaching for cash every twelve weeks or whatever during pledge drives, this is probably the last type of organization who could cough up the extra dough.
The Inquirer has an excellent article that describes how companies take from the Open Source Community and how few are giving back.
I read the article, and it's one of those rare times that there's nothing much in it that isn't contained in the Slashdot summary. Anyway, isn't it totally to be expected that most companies would take everything they can get from open source, and not give anything back in terms of time or money?
But so what? What Linux needs more than anything else is to capture more than 20% of the desktop market. Once there's a foothold of that magnitude, we'll start seeing practically everything, from Doom III to Quickbooks, released in Linux.
So, as for those companies who aren't "giving back," -- I say, that merely by virtue of adding to the pool of Linux users, they are giving the open source movement exactly what it needs most.
When I first read about iPod's Dirty Secret, it reminded me of the bad old days, when I worked for a PC company that soldered those Dallas clock/battery chips directly onto the motherboard, instead of spending the extra buck to mount them into a socket. There's something about that that turned my stomach; the idea that in five years, this screamingly fast 286 would be landfill material. But thinking more about things, the iPod situation is actually a whole lot different. Let me explain.
I was given an iPod as a gift and I adore it. There's one thing to keep in mind that isn't covered in the Post article, nor in the iPod's Dirty Secret film. As the Post mentioned, the iPod is good for something like 500 charges. Now the thing to keep in mind, is that if you don't listen to tons of music, 500 charges amounts to many, many years of use. A charge lasts me a good six or seven hours, and I doubt if I listen to more than an hour of music a day. So figure one charge a week, or fifty charges a year.
So, for somebody like me, 500 charges lasts nearly a decade (assuming the battery doesn't crap out before that due to old age.)
There are two things that separate people like me from the Neistat Bros. First is that they listen to a whole lot more music than I do. Second, it seems like they listen to all of their music on their iPod. By comparison, I listen to most of my music on my stereo, and only put on my iPod for trance and classical stuff, where I prefer headphones. For people like me, who listen to their iPods for less than an hour a day, battery life is a non-issue. In five or ten years, I would hope that it would not be worth my time to replace the battery. At that time, I'd be more than happy to plunk down, say, $200 for a low-end iPod capable of storing 100,000 songs and twelve feature-length movies;)
One last thing to keep in mind. Good old Steve has had a thing for hermetically sealed boxes since the days of the original Mac, when opening up one to insert a hard drive would void your warranty. And for most people, hermetically sealed is the way to go. If you're a power computer user, you want an expandable computer; and if you're a serious music lover, a sealed solution like an iPod is a poor solution. But there's a certain beauty in keeping things elegant and for making something meant for everyday users.
Slashdot Mirror
It sounds like a Korean car. I'm going to spend the next hour cringing. Really surprised they didn't go with LinDOS (a previous candidate) or something with a modicum of coolness. I guess the company isn't shelling out big bucks for its marketing department.
For the moment, my only computer is an XP box. I'd rather have a Mac, but can't afford one at the moment. I'd also rather run Linux than XP, but there's a couple XP only apps I don't want to give up. Which means that my Dell 4600 is running XP exclusively, even though it has a second drive and even though I'd rather boot in Linux 95% of the time.
After playing around with Mepis, I was immediately impressed, and I'd like to do nearly all of my work in Linux. I don't want to give up my ability to run Windows, though, so what I want is a dual-boot system. Trouble is, I've asked at least one well-credentialed tech person who uses Linux heavily, and he says dual-booting is still fraught with complications.
I guess my question is, why is it possible to have a decent Linux distribution that runs within XP, but it's not possible to take a dual-drive Dell and easily make your system let you choose between XP and Linux atstartup? And why would anyone want to run Linux within XP, if they could simply have a dual boot system? Seems to me, if you just want to get a flavor of what running Linux is like, get ahold of Mepis and give it a whirl. Your next step should be the ability to gracefully install Linux and make your computer a dual-boot system.
To me, Linux under Windows sounds a lot like divorcing your wife but continuing to live in her house.
Is that why I have two loyalty cards on my keyring and three more in my wallet?
Yeah, don't get me started on "rewards cards" -- I'm carrying two on my keyring as well. There's no reward to those cards. Basically, the supermarkets have decided that unless you become one of the sheep, and carry around their silly cards so they can track your purchases, they won't let you purchase anything on sale.
Which would be fine with me. I'd be happy to take my business elsewhere. Except there is no elsewhere when it comes to supermarkets. They all have "rewards cards" now. So it's either let them track all your purchases, or pay a steep penalty by being excluded from sale items. The same thing's gonna happen with RFID. There will be no place you can go to avoid them.
Except, that is, your local co-op, and similar small-scale businesses. I happen to buy most of my groceries at the co-op just because the prices are comparable, the food is grown closer to me, the politics are better, and I know I'm not getting tracked. Unfortunately, I doubt that enough people care about their privacy for an anti-RFID movement to emerge.
So when I read about the 100 year domain thing, I thought, "that would be pretty great." Just pay a relatively small amount of money up front, and you're set for life.
But then I realized that there's a pretty big anti-social aspect to allowing 100 year domains. It may not be totally fair that the dotcom domain name ownership thing was a first-come, first take lottery. But we're stuck with it, and, fortunately, nobody owns a name forever -- they have to reregister each year or two or ten. If you can't make a go of flowerpots.com, then it won't be long until it goes back into the pool of unclaimed domains for somebody else to take. Well, that's sort of true anyway. I know at least one company has arrangements with a registrar where expired names fall directly into their hands.
But anyway, my point is that there ought to be some mechanism where the scarcest property in cyberspace, dotcom names, falls back into the hands of the public if they are not being put to full use. And it's not in the public interest to allow 100-year domain names. All sorts of people will register all sorts of useful domain names, fail at making them profitable, and give up on the domain name. However, like neglected inner city property, the domain name will stay in their possession for a friggin century, and deprive the Internet community of using it for any value.
For instance, you're more likely to simply pick a quarter off the floor than to say, "I am going to pick this quarter off the floor." Whereas, you're very likely to think the sentence, "I should buy some wine on my way home from the market" if that's part of your plans.
Seems to me that this technology could, in short order, discern the verbal sentences we fashion for ourselves as part of our daily thinking. But it won't ever pick up on the million thoughts we have each day that aren't based on words.
If this technology gets deployed, society will have to learn in short order that not every thought is legitimate. My verbalizing the thought to myself, "I am Napoleon" does not necessarily mean that I think I am Napoleon.
One last thought. If we get widespread, cheap deployment of this technology, it will have as big an effect on our lives as the World Wide Web.
Never buy a computer from some guy named Michael. You're better off buying a Dell. Oh, wait.
Now, with this HP development, I have to wonder if we're going to see more of the same, particularly since there's no mention that the Mandrake-equipped boxes will be any cheaper than their XP counterparts. Granted, there are some people who, for whatever reason, feel some dislike for Microsoft ;) And these people might be willing to have their computer ship without an XP license solely to deprive Microsoft of a few dollars.
But I have to think that most people, if they can't get a discount by going without Windows, would want to receive XP. After all, why turn down something that's free, and something you might decide to install later -- if only to make the machine more valuable for resale?
With this in mind, the option of ordering Linux boxes from major manufacturers just isn't all that exciting unless there's some kind of discount involved. Once you have the option to save thirty dollars by ordering your HP or Dell without XP, that will really be news.
Most word processors offer substantially the same feature set. But there are at least three key areas where I think WordPerfect has an edge:
1) Draft Mode. This is the mode most people do their writing in, and I love WordPerfect's minimalism. Lots and lots of space for the text you're working on, and minimal clutter since they don't try to include access to every blasted feature in the ruler bar. OpenOffice's version of draft mode, such as it is, is called "Online Layout" and it's still cluttered looking and IMHO garbagey. MS Word's Draft Mode seems more cluttered than WordPerfect's., and suffers from too many autoedit things turned on, where the word processor incorrectly anticipates your needs.
2) Better writing environment. WordPerfect doesn't try to implement every last feature a business user could conceivably want. So the menus and so forth are far less cluttered, which makes the main features you need much easier to find. Add to this that MS Word's grammar checker is a piece of crap, while WordPerfect will actually make some interesting comments. I think if you're trying to write for a living, WordPerfect is a wonderful tool.
3) Reveal Codes. I've heard MS Word is trying to implement this feature, but WordPerfect's had it forever, and it's sensational. Have you ever used a WYSIWYG wordprocessor, and all of a sudden wondered why your text at a certain point has the formatting go to hell? And the only way to fix things is to delete a chunk of your text?
Well, with WordPerfect, you can see the hidden formatting codes embedded in your text. So it makes locating a problem code easy. In a long document, it makes tracing a piece of corruption a breeze, and it takes only seconds to remove the problem at its source. You find the hidden formatting code, delete it with a backspace, and your problem is solved. As far as I know, WordPerfect is the only word processor where you can be 100% sure that your document has absolutely no embedded crap.
Some final comments. I love WordPerfect but I'm no zealot. I'll happily ditch it in two seconds the moment an open source alternative addresses my above comments. I simply can't understand how people can create a word processor that doesn't have a sharp looking, minimal, ultra responsive draft mode. I like the draft mode in ABIword, but I've found that the program isn't as stable as I'd like it to be.
Unfortunately, WordPerfect has some stability issues as well. I've found that in my newest book, which contains 300 or so footnotes, WordPerfect seems to have a memory leak or something which causes a freeze for every ten or so endnotes I edit.
My guess is that in five years or less, open source word processors will have all the main features a serious writer could want. But for now, WordPerfect remains my word processor of choice.
Anyway, I read the article, and I loved this quote from Window's lead project manager:
"We are exploring ways to add value to Windows XP."
To me, that sounds like newspeak for "We are exploring ways to get existing XP users to pony up extra cash."
What's funny about all this is the article talks all about the prospect for this new XP release, without mentioning even one feature Reloaded would contain. Go figure.
Here's some wild speculation: Longhorn development is running into problems that are further delaying development, so Microsoft is responding with a stopgap operating system. Maybe they should call it OS9 instead of Reloaded.
Anyway, from a Linux advocate's perspective, anything that pushes back Longhorn has to be considered a good thing. Longhorn will no doubt come with some compelling features that will make Linux a harder sell. So the longer it takes to be released, the more time Linux has to establish its foothold.
Note that I'm not saying that Longhorn will be a product I'd want to have. Every new release of Windows seems to be more restrictive than the last, and what little I understand about .NET terrifies me. Still, there's no denying that some users will view Longhorn as sort of the OSX release of Windows.
Now watch this post get marked down as a troll because somebody with mod points eats meat, and thinks information like this shouldn't receive attention.
CNN is reporting that Microsoft's Xbox may be on the verge of a substantial price cut, falling from $179 to $99 by Labor Day.
I'm sorry, but given that I just got back from trudging through the snow, and practically getting frostbite on my face, I don't see how we're on the "verge" of labor day. On a day like this, it doesn't seem like we're even on the verge of spring, let alone the end of summer.
Which is what makes this press release so...so...strange. We all know that the FBI goes ballistic over this kind of thing. And unless the worm author was incredibly careful, he's probably got federal agents tramping around his bedroom and emptying out his dresser drawers even as I write this.
So why then, is SCO so eager to hand over $250,000 for an informant? SCO's moaning about how much this worm has cost them, but, really, can we take that seriously? I could see if this worm targeted Dell or IBM, or, you know, some company that actually has customers visit their website. But who is SCO selling anything to anymore? It's just a litigation house. What do they care if their site drops down for a day or two? The FBI is likely to be hot on the worm author's heels, so why is SCO so eager to hand over 250 thousand smackers without any clear reason?
When you see spending decisions like this, it's a pretty good sign that a company is being run by bozos. You get the sense this press release was rushed out the door in an effort to capitalize on media attention. But was there any real reason why SCO needs the attention, or why it's in their best interest to part with so much money given that the culprit will likely be found anyway?
So here's my crystal ball prediction: the worm author will be found. But SCO won't pay up. This is all about publicity, and for some reason I don't foresee Darl rushing to sign a check.
So I looked around a bit, and through google I found a back door to Dell site that provides information. But the link cancels after fifteen minutes, so I can't post it here. It appears that this page is only for people associated with corporations, governments, education, and health care. It looks as though the general public cannot buy an n-series computer through Dell's main site.
I did a bit more searching in google and found a news.com story about the n-series. It was posted back in August. Of 2002.
From the Dell page I got access to, I was unable to tell if the company reduces the price for people who choose the n-series instead of the identical windows-equipped machines. It'll be a great thing when tier one PC companies readily make consumer boxes available without Windows, and pass along a discount. I don't think that day has yet arrived.
We're looking at a future where only the very largest companies will be able to implement software, and it will technically be illegal for other people to do so.
He's probably right on this point, but there's one big qualifier to introduce: The future he's talking about is only the near-future. Unlike copyrights, where post-1930 work is gradually being extended to last forever, patents have a limited length. Right now they last twenty years.
And despite the BS that Amazon has been part of, with their one-click patent nonsense, it looks like people in the industry are growing increasingly uncomfortable with lenghty patents. Even Jeff Bezos, the prime beneficiary of one-click, is pushing to have software patents reduced to five years.
The emergence of the World Wide Web has led to the creation of a whole lot of super obvious ideas that should never have been patented, but were. Right now, software patents are extremely relevant to anyone developing sites or software for the internet. But in a comparatively short time, these patents will expire. And in a few decades, regardless of patent reform, prior art will smother just about any software patent claim that is not truly novel.
So yeah, Perens is right that patents are an enormous threat to developers right now. But the threat is certain to diminish greatly with time.
I was like, "where have I seen this guy before?" Computer guy...wearing a blue work shirt exposing bare forearms. Cocked a bit to the site with his arms folded across his chest.
And then I realized, it's Peter Norton.
Basically, our friends at the RIAA are more than happy if you'll keep buying your CD's at fifteen dollars a pop, then every few years they'll try to make what you already purchased obsolete by offering a new release with better packaging.
Sometimes I wonder if they are deliberately incompetent in issuing their first release. I remember back in 1991, I picked up Miles Davis' "Kind of Blue." Five years later, the record company had re-released it, along with the shocking announcement that one of the original CD's songs had been mastered at the wrong speed -- so the CD I owned had a song that was therefore in the wrong key and at the wrong tempo. And for this incompetence, on their part, I was supposed to shell out another fifteen bucks to get the fixed version.
Understandably, people are tired of this crap, so they've resorted to downloading music. That's where the RIAA's new revenue generating tactic comes in: they're using their legal department to send letters, coercing downloaders to pay up at about seven grand a pop. That's a lot of shiny CD's.
So buy CD's or download illegally -- either way the RIAA wins. Unless you decide to get out of the game.
If you follow the RIAA's tactics at all, you might have decided it's appropriate to not give these bloodsuckers another dime of your money. So here are a couple tips. Don't buy from labels that are affiliated with the RIAA -- and don't buy legally downloaded music from these labels just because they happen to be on the iTunes record store.
Second, check out sites like Magnatune. Read everything you can about their business practices. These people are cool, their artists' music is awesome, and they deserve our support.
they stole my haiku
my moment of sartori
sold fake viagra
Only one problem with this scenario: I'm not buying, and neither will a lot of other gamers. No doubt video game companies could come out with a really great sounding version of Half Life or whatever, costing $12 a month to play. But if they try to foist subscription fees on me, my money's staying in my pocket. Dollar for dollar, video games represent probably the cheapest form of entertainment ever developed. A few years back, I spent $20 on a copy of Unreal Tournament, and that is some of the best entertainment money I've ever spent. I've doubtless played that game more than a hundred hours. Same thing with NHL '94 Hockey on the Sega Genesis; I got it used for $10 or so, and I'm still playing that game today in emulation.
No doubt, the video game industry would love for all games to switch over to subscription on-demand models. The only trouble is cheapskates like me won't ever let this happen. When I buy a game, I expect it to be a one-shot expense, and I further expect to be able to play that game ten years from now. If, for the sake of argument, the next Half-Life comes out as subscription, I'll just buy UT 2004. And if UT 2004 comes out as subscription, then I'd keep playing my original UT until Quake 4 or somebody responsive to my needs comes out with a non-subscription game.
No doubt that subscriptions will capture a growing portion of the gaming market, but it's silly to think companies will forsake the model of one-time sales. There's too much demand from gamers who wouldn't have it any other way, and nobody's going to leave that much money on the table.
As Butt Head once put it so well, "If I wanted to read, I'd go to school."
And if I wanted to exercise, I'd go outdoors.
This is basically an LCD monitor, using the sun instead of a backlight. Brings a new meaning to Microsoft's "Windows Everywhere" ads.
What finally got me to try Linux is when I read a post on Slashdot about Mepis, which, like Knoppix, is a Linux distribution on a bootable CD. While I'd been aching to give Linux a try for years, I never had a spare box to run it, and I wasn't about to wipe XP and all my stuff off my main computer. If you haven't heard about it, Mepis is a full linux install and suite of software that you can boot off a CD and play with, without wiping your existing operating system from your hard drive.
After trying Mepis for just a couple hours, I fell in love. Everything from my optical mouse to my Nvidia drivers to my keychain drive worked without any installation. I'm going to go on using XP on my current box, but I now know that the Linux desktop is indeed ready for prime time. When I upgrade to a new system next year, Microsoft won't get a penny. I'm going to buy a whitebox system, and get myself a good Linux distribution.
I don't care how polished Linux gets; I think the only way it's ever going to get exposure to general users is on Mepis/Knoppix style CD ROMs that let people take the OS for a test drive. I really think that the best way to bring Linux to the general public is to distribute as many ten-cent CD ROMs as you can to friends and family, so they can see for themselves that there's no need to pay the Microsoft tax on their next PC purchase.
The way I see it, overcoming Microsoft's hegemony requires working on two fronts. The first is building quality distributions that work plug-and-play with everything from printers to wireless cards. And the second front is the creation of full-featured bootable CD's that let people see -- on their own machine -- how great Linux has become.
No, the real disaster for a local economy is when thousands of people hang around, and are buried alive because they weren't told to clear out. People can always come back to town after the quake hits, and return to their land and repair their buildings.
Which brings me to a second point: nearly all radio today is utter crap. The sort of early adapter who would be willing to shell out $400 extra for digital FM is exactly the kind of person who already shelled out $400 for satellite radio. And why would anyone with that kind of discretionary income want to listen to anything on the FM dial? At the risk of sounding terribly elitist, if you're smart enough to have earned gobs of money, your tastes are likely discriminating enough to want to want nothing to do with what's on the FM band.
The one kind of station that might benefit from high fidelity is NPR, but considering that they're bellyaching for cash every twelve weeks or whatever during pledge drives, this is probably the last type of organization who could cough up the extra dough.
I read the article, and it's one of those rare times that there's nothing much in it that isn't contained in the Slashdot summary. Anyway, isn't it totally to be expected that most companies would take everything they can get from open source, and not give anything back in terms of time or money?
But so what? What Linux needs more than anything else is to capture more than 20% of the desktop market. Once there's a foothold of that magnitude, we'll start seeing practically everything, from Doom III to Quickbooks, released in Linux.
So, as for those companies who aren't "giving back," -- I say, that merely by virtue of adding to the pool of Linux users, they are giving the open source movement exactly what it needs most.
I was given an iPod as a gift and I adore it. There's one thing to keep in mind that isn't covered in the Post article, nor in the iPod's Dirty Secret film. As the Post mentioned, the iPod is good for something like 500 charges. Now the thing to keep in mind, is that if you don't listen to tons of music, 500 charges amounts to many, many years of use. A charge lasts me a good six or seven hours, and I doubt if I listen to more than an hour of music a day. So figure one charge a week, or fifty charges a year. So, for somebody like me, 500 charges lasts nearly a decade (assuming the battery doesn't crap out before that due to old age.)
There are two things that separate people like me from the Neistat Bros. First is that they listen to a whole lot more music than I do. Second, it seems like they listen to all of their music on their iPod. By comparison, I listen to most of my music on my stereo, and only put on my iPod for trance and classical stuff, where I prefer headphones. For people like me, who listen to their iPods for less than an hour a day, battery life is a non-issue. In five or ten years, I would hope that it would not be worth my time to replace the battery. At that time, I'd be more than happy to plunk down, say, $200 for a low-end iPod capable of storing 100,000 songs and twelve feature-length movies ;)
One last thing to keep in mind. Good old Steve has had a thing for hermetically sealed boxes since the days of the original Mac, when opening up one to insert a hard drive would void your warranty. And for most people, hermetically sealed is the way to go. If you're a power computer user, you want an expandable computer; and if you're a serious music lover, a sealed solution like an iPod is a poor solution. But there's a certain beauty in keeping things elegant and for making something meant for everyday users.