Sorry to be a pedant, but a public good is actually one which is non-rivalrous (and possibly non-excludable, although this is not essential). In other words, the opposite of what you suggest.
Web data is a public good because once an article has been provided to one individual, it can be provided to any number of individuals at negligible cost. In this case, it is necessary that some people view advertisements in order that the firm covers its costs, but once it has done so it does not matter if other people block advertisements (free-ride), since this does not impose a marginal cost on the firm.
As I mention in this comment, one needs to consider the presence of network externalities. Essentially, operating systems take the characteristics of a good which increases in benefit to one individual with increasing numbers of consumers.
The implication is that it doesn't matter how 'good' free/open source software is, the existing system is likely to survive, unless the alternative is much, much better.
I suggest you read about network externalities. Even if a better product (defined in the broad sense) comes along, it won't matter if enough people are already using the existing product since the benefits they derive increase with the number of people also using the product.
This is obviously the case with MS Windows, for example, irrespective of whether it is objective a 'better' operating system.
I'm not sure how governments messing around in the marketplace constitutes "freedom". Here in the Land of the Free, we place limits on the powers that can be assumed by our federal/state/local governments.
You should understand the freedom is not simply the protection of property. Most Europeans understand freedom to mean something closer to Jean Jacques Rousseau's definition. In short, you are not free unless you obey the general will, since natural liberty implies slavery due to inequality in the 'state of nature'. If Rousseau is correct, then in theory we should remove all limits of governmental power, so long as government expresses the general will, since this increases freedom.
There is a rule in most debate arenas: The first person that stoops to a Nazi reference automatically loses the debate.
It is just not necessary, and serves only to inflame an already over-exposed wound.
As Ken Livingstone (London Mayor) is finding out...
All this seems completely ridiculous to us Brits. I mean, how can we justify democracy if we don't count all the votes? We all know in the UK that Chelsea and Kensington is going to vote Tory, but we at least count every last vote and announce the results before suggesting who has a majority in the Commons.
>> you often find times when you need to put things in all caps, it's still plenty useful. >> No, you don't, therefore it isn't. I spent thousands of hours entering all kinds of text into all kinds of programs, and I never ever used caps lock in order to put something in all caps. I figure the key is most for people who find holding down shift while typing several letters difficult. Only rarely you really have to put a word in all caps; almost no one needs to put whole phrases in all caps. _Very_ few people need to make whole paragraphs all caps, e.g. with various kinds of legalese; however, this is about how you _format_ the text, not about how you _enter_ it.
Just because you don't have to use caps-lock, it doesn't mean that it is not useful for anything else. Suppose I need to write a whole load of codes into a database like XXXX222.
To do so quickly and accurately is difficult without caps-lock. Otherwise you end up writing XXXx222 or XXXX@22 etc
The criticisms of Fedora are of course accurate, but it is not true to say that any Linux distribution has got it perfect just yet. I've used practically all of them, and although I agree with the poster that SuSE is up there with the best, even it has its problems with misconfigurations or odd-behaviour. The fact seems to remain that distros cannot afford to spend a significant amount of money on testing on different hardware.
In Windows XP, one click selects a file, then a second click (and a short delay) renders the file name editable. In Mac OS X, any click on the file name renders the file name editable. In my experience, on both platforms, the file renaming functionality is triggered by accident far more often than it is intentionally.
Gnome, and the Nautilus file manager (the equivalent of Windows Explorer or Mac OS Finder) allows you to rename files only by right-clickling and choosing "Rename..." from the context-menu. While it may seem like the function is "hidden away" behind the context-menu, give that renaming files is a far less frequent tasks then double-clicking on them or moving them (click+drag), this is an appropriate trade-off. Accidentally triggered the file-renaming functionality in both Windows and Mac OS, I'm happy to report that the Gnome technique is much better.
Wait, so just because the guy is clearly incompetent at using any form of pointer input device, the GUI is to blame?!? I use Mac OS X every day and I think it is far more efficient at renaming files, which I have to do regularly when downloading journal articles from the likes of Jstor.
In OS X, if you click on the filename then the rename option becomes available. If you click on the icon, then you select the file. Predictable behaviour in my opinion, and allows you move and select files just as quickly, but rename even quicker.
This guy is clearly looking for reasons to justify GNOME's eccentricities and poor design, and seems to be ignoring the immense research that Microsoft and Apple put into interface design.
Microsoft is still putting out updates all the time for Windows 2000 and that came out in 1999
Security updates, fine! But software enhancements is a different matter. Microsoft hasn't updated IE6 functionality since Windows XP was released, whereas Apple has consistently improved upon its packaged web browser's functionality. Sure, Microsoft has improved Windows Media Player, but what else?
The law in the UK says that you can copy one chapter or 5% (whichever is greater), and one article from an issue of a periodical or journal.
I myself can't see why people don't use libraries more! Here in Oxford you simply can't get through most courses unless you spend a considerable amount of time per week sitting in a library reading reference only books.
Exactly. The record companies need to see the added value that people experience by having the physical CD. Just because people can copy CDs, it doesn't mean they will. The same is true of DVDs.
I would have thought somebody of your stature wouldn't have made such a simple mistake. The GPL doesn't state that distributors have to supply source with all products, only that it is supplied on request. Thus the company does nothing wrong until it refuses to release the source upon a request.
Speak to any economist and they will tell you that Microsoft isn't a monopoly because it can only charge about 1/16th of the monopoly price of Windows. Why? Because piracy undermines its monopoly position and therefore acts as competition.
The same applies with games. The greater the extent of piracy, the more price elastic is demand and so consumers are more willing to switch from the legal to illegal alternative. Thus in countries with a high acceptance of piracy, the "legal premium" of paying for the official product is small, and companies can only charge a price a little higher than the blackmarket pirates charge.
This is inefficient. Suppose that I want to switch between two windows in the same application, but before opening the second window I had opened a separate application. Typical alt-tab behaviour is to open the second application, before the second window. Expose allows easy access to the second window, as does the cmd-` keystroke, which cycles through all windows under the same application. Windows alt-tab just doesn't compare.
The US did not start out to become a Superpower, at least not in the sense people see the US today. But power has a way of becoming a means to its own end. Do you really think France and Germany want power to do good works throughout the world? If so, you are naive. They want power in order to persue their own national interests. Interests like selling goods and services to some of the worst dictators around the world. Remember, it was the Europeans who created many of the messes in the Middle East, Africa, and much of Asia in the first place. Why do you think they have changed?
Er, because the likes of France and Germany have been telling the USA not to make the same mistakes in Iraq that the European nations made in colonial times?
I might be missing the point completely here, but surely for accessibility purposes (i.e. if you have crap vision), the resolution doesn't matter. All you have to do is change the default font size in your window manager... it's hardly revolutionary:S
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry to be a pedant, but a public good is actually one which is non-rivalrous (and possibly non-excludable, although this is not essential). In other words, the opposite of what you suggest. Web data is a public good because once an article has been provided to one individual, it can be provided to any number of individuals at negligible cost. In this case, it is necessary that some people view advertisements in order that the firm covers its costs, but once it has done so it does not matter if other people block advertisements (free-ride), since this does not impose a marginal cost on the firm.
Wow, a grammar Nazi who gets it wrong!
As I mention in this comment, one needs to consider the presence of network externalities. Essentially, operating systems take the characteristics of a good which increases in benefit to one individual with increasing numbers of consumers.
The implication is that it doesn't matter how 'good' free/open source software is, the existing system is likely to survive, unless the alternative is much, much better.
I suggest you read about network externalities. Even if a better product (defined in the broad sense) comes along, it won't matter if enough people are already using the existing product since the benefits they derive increase with the number of people also using the product.
This is obviously the case with MS Windows, for example, irrespective of whether it is objective a 'better' operating system.
1. National defence 2. Police 3. Health system - oh sorry, you need to buy your right to life in the US!
I'm not sure how governments messing around in the marketplace constitutes "freedom". Here in the Land of the Free, we place limits on the powers that can be assumed by our federal/state/local governments.
You should understand the freedom is not simply the protection of property. Most Europeans understand freedom to mean something closer to Jean Jacques Rousseau's definition. In short, you are not free unless you obey the general will, since natural liberty implies slavery due to inequality in the 'state of nature'. If Rousseau is correct, then in theory we should remove all limits of governmental power, so long as government expresses the general will, since this increases freedom.
There is a rule in most debate arenas: The first person that stoops to a Nazi reference automatically loses the debate. It is just not necessary, and serves only to inflame an already over-exposed wound.
As Ken Livingstone (London Mayor) is finding out...
Isn't ROI that thing in SimCity?
All this seems completely ridiculous to us Brits. I mean, how can we justify democracy if we don't count all the votes? We all know in the UK that Chelsea and Kensington is going to vote Tory, but we at least count every last vote and announce the results before suggesting who has a majority in the Commons.
These jokes really are getting old...
>> you often find times when you need to put things in all caps, it's still plenty useful.
>> No, you don't, therefore it isn't. I spent thousands of hours entering all kinds of text into all kinds of programs, and I never ever used caps lock in order to put something in all caps. I figure the key is most for people who find holding down shift while typing several letters difficult. Only rarely you really have to put a word in all caps; almost no one needs to put whole phrases in all caps. _Very_ few people need to make whole paragraphs all caps, e.g. with various kinds of legalese; however, this is about how you _format_ the text, not about how you _enter_ it.
Just because you don't have to use caps-lock, it doesn't mean that it is not useful for anything else. Suppose I need to write a whole load of codes into a database like XXXX222.
To do so quickly and accurately is difficult without caps-lock. Otherwise you end up writing XXXx222 or XXXX@22 etc
The criticisms of Fedora are of course accurate, but it is not true to say that any Linux distribution has got it perfect just yet. I've used practically all of them, and although I agree with the poster that SuSE is up there with the best, even it has its problems with misconfigurations or odd-behaviour. The fact seems to remain that distros cannot afford to spend a significant amount of money on testing on different hardware.
In Windows XP, one click selects a file, then a second click (and a short delay) renders the file name editable. In Mac OS X, any click on the file name renders the file name editable. In my experience, on both platforms, the file renaming functionality is triggered by accident far more often than it is intentionally. Gnome, and the Nautilus file manager (the equivalent of Windows Explorer or Mac OS Finder) allows you to rename files only by right-clickling and choosing "Rename..." from the context-menu. While it may seem like the function is "hidden away" behind the context-menu, give that renaming files is a far less frequent tasks then double-clicking on them or moving them (click+drag), this is an appropriate trade-off. Accidentally triggered the file-renaming functionality in both Windows and Mac OS, I'm happy to report that the Gnome technique is much better.
Wait, so just because the guy is clearly incompetent at using any form of pointer input device, the GUI is to blame?!? I use Mac OS X every day and I think it is far more efficient at renaming files, which I have to do regularly when downloading journal articles from the likes of Jstor.
In OS X, if you click on the filename then the rename option becomes available. If you click on the icon, then you select the file. Predictable behaviour in my opinion, and allows you move and select files just as quickly, but rename even quicker.
This guy is clearly looking for reasons to justify GNOME's eccentricities and poor design, and seems to be ignoring the immense research that Microsoft and Apple put into interface design.
Microsoft is still putting out updates all the time for Windows 2000 and that came out in 1999
Security updates, fine! But software enhancements is a different matter. Microsoft hasn't updated IE6 functionality since Windows XP was released, whereas Apple has consistently improved upon its packaged web browser's functionality. Sure, Microsoft has improved Windows Media Player, but what else?
Given that Slashdot has a bsd.slashdot.org sub-section, why is this on the frontpage.
It's a point-point release for heaven's sake!
The law in the UK says that you can copy one chapter or 5% (whichever is greater), and one article from an issue of a periodical or journal.
I myself can't see why people don't use libraries more! Here in Oxford you simply can't get through most courses unless you spend a considerable amount of time per week sitting in a library reading reference only books.
Make notes for god's sake!
Exactly. The record companies need to see the added value that people experience by having the physical CD. Just because people can copy CDs, it doesn't mean they will. The same is true of DVDs.
I would have thought somebody of your stature wouldn't have made such a simple mistake. The GPL doesn't state that distributors have to supply source with all products, only that it is supplied on request. Thus the company does nothing wrong until it refuses to release the source upon a request.
Mod parent up.
Speak to any economist and they will tell you that Microsoft isn't a monopoly because it can only charge about 1/16th of the monopoly price of Windows. Why? Because piracy undermines its monopoly position and therefore acts as competition.
The same applies with games. The greater the extent of piracy, the more price elastic is demand and so consumers are more willing to switch from the legal to illegal alternative. Thus in countries with a high acceptance of piracy, the "legal premium" of paying for the official product is small, and companies can only charge a price a little higher than the blackmarket pirates charge.
What's wrong with just using Alt-Tab?
This is inefficient. Suppose that I want to switch between two windows in the same application, but before opening the second window I had opened a separate application. Typical alt-tab behaviour is to open the second application, before the second window. Expose allows easy access to the second window, as does the cmd-` keystroke, which cycles through all windows under the same application. Windows alt-tab just doesn't compare.
The US did not start out to become a Superpower, at least not in the sense people see the US today. But power has a way of becoming a means to its own end. Do you really think France and Germany want power to do good works throughout the world? If so, you are naive. They want power in order to persue their own national interests. Interests like selling goods and services to some of the worst dictators around the world. Remember, it was the Europeans who created many of the messes in the Middle East, Africa, and much of Asia in the first place. Why do you think they have changed?
Er, because the likes of France and Germany have been telling the USA not to make the same mistakes in Iraq that the European nations made in colonial times?
> > Michael Robertson, in his usual marketing speak, compares this to adding "Fluoride in the water"
> Great, so not only do they make a crappy OS, their also after my precious bodily fluids.
This just goes to show that Linux is for Communists!!!
That's interesting - I'd love to see how most Americans would react to their federal tax going up by a few percentage points to fund drugs research...
I don't play that many games anymore, so now I am only interested in buying those that I can play on my OS of choice - Linux.
So why would games companies give a flying fuck what you think? Think about it...
I might be missing the point completely here, but surely for accessibility purposes (i.e. if you have crap vision), the resolution doesn't matter. All you have to do is change the default font size in your window manager... it's hardly revolutionary :S