I agree with you; however, Silicon Knights brought us Eternal Darkness. In case you haven't played it, it's one of the most innovative and intriguing survival horror games on the market. It was, by and far, one of the best games for the GameCube. It was very different and was very much one of those "love it or leave it" experiences.
I've yet to play Too Human, but I'm hoping it's another case of the media collectively latching onto an opinion and sticking to it. Hopefully there's a little bit more to it and turns out being a sleeper if nothing else. There was a lot of hope for this title in the gaming community. Silicon Knights is one of the few companies that I could actually see putting out a game that the masses just don't get.
The thing is, the popularity of Everquest had little to nothing to do with SOE. In fact, SOE has been named as the source of the downfall of Everquest and the reason Everquest II was so poorly received at launch. The popularity of the original Everquest had everything to do with the heart and soul pumped into the game by Verant Interactive.
Many of us old EQ fans were overly enthusiastic when the news of Vanguard hit and that Brad McQuaid (formerly of Verant) was attempting to make a game that was what Everquest II should have been. Unfortunately, all problems aside, Sony seems to have gotten in on that one too. How much influence they had over the product we saw is unknown; however, it's commonly know that the game was released far before it was ready to keep "investors" happy.
Hopefully Sony will never climb back up to the top. Hopefully the creators of Everquest will, but Sony is only part of that franchises history.
Right, but I wouldn't consider "commodore 64" graphics an "assload of work." They have flash templates set up for everything. It's just a matter of rearranging it and spending 5 minutes writing new scripts for everything. And by scripts, I mean action scripts...because the actual dialog has to be written on the fly to be as unfunny as it is.
I can just see it now. The girlfriend (replace with "mom" for the typical slashdot user) sits down at the computer and opens up Aurora. All of a sudden she's swept with a tornado of porn, bizarro internet videos, bookmarked pictures of her hot friends on myspace, etc. Thought that changing the name of those bookmarks to "email" and "lolcatz" was enough security? Not any more, buddy...
1) Diablo came out during the CRT games. The game was dark but not quite as dark as you remember, your monitor just sucked.
Poor monitor calibration is PEBCAK, not equipment suckage.
2) These are the LCD days. All that black is going to make all the 6bit panels that don't show true blacks well choke and show mud.
No LCD is capable of true black, unless the monitor is turned off. LCD black = "hide the superbright backlight with crystals." Those LCDs with better blacks than others, including M-VA and S-IPS panels, are high-latency affairs that are no good for fast games due to their far slower response time, even slower than TN already is relative to CRT.
No, back when Diablo II came out, bad monitor's were a very large issue. All of the computer manufacturer's were pumping out terrible CRT's dirt cheap and many people had been using their older CRT's for years. The displays started fading, they wouldn't focus like they used to, etc. I'm currently using my pro grade Samsung 900NF prograde monitor that I bought the same week that Diablo II came out. It also brought new life to Diablo. After seeing it in motion on my monitor, I calibrated many friends monitors. Seriously, you could only get some of these old, crappy monitors go good. You're either showing your age or your ignorance. There's a reason pro grade monitors were so expensive. Other CRT's just couldn't produce the right black levels needed for graphic design.
No LCD is capable of true black, but some of them show blacks and greys a hell of a lot better than others. The point was, the gamer monitors aren't good at showing dark scenes in games and the pro monitors that are good at showing dark scenes aren't good at motion. Thanks for unnecessarily exaggerating on the original point I made.
I think some of the things that people aren't taking into consideration are:
1) Diablo came out during the CRT games. The game was dark but not quite as dark as you remember, your monitor just sucked.
2) These are the LCD days. All that black is going to make all the 6bit panels that don't show true blacks well choke and show mud.
3) Diablo wasn't built around 8 player multiplayer. Diablo III is being built ground up as a multiplayer game that can also be played single player. You need to be able to see your companions. That's like the point of the game.
4) The physics of Diablo III look beautiful in motion. To do that, add in all sorts of dynamic, intelligent lighting, and have a game that will play terrific on an average system at standard 1280 x 1024 resolution ain't gonna happen. Not when you have 8 players casting spells and 50 enemies on the screen. This is Blizzard, they're not gonna put out a game if it won't run on an average system. That's kind of their thing.
Fairs fair. The rest of the non-small internet community, non-OSS world will just keep ignoring you as well.
That's exactly how they can compete. Because people use Windows and not so much Linux. If you want to ignore Windows, then all the people using it are more than likely going to ignore you. If you embrace the competition, especially when you're small and they're large, it by comparison makes you look like worthier competition.
In fact, I would go so far as to say ignoring the competition is what's gotten the OSS community in such a k-hole to begin with. The OSS community are pretty much seen as the hippies of the computer world. No one wants your damn hemp carrying bags and sprouted wheat wraps. However, if you make it look like something the masses do want and slip it through other channels, before long it becomes the "cool thing" to do.
I'm not sure if this is a joke or not but, if you are serious, I would seriously consider doing an elimination diet. It certainly sounds like there is a food allergy/intolerance at play. An easy and simple example of such would be something along the lines of Dr. Mark Hyman's UltraSimple diet. It doesn't have you doing anything too out there and, if you follow the advanced version of it where you bring in food items one by one, you'll discover what your body likes vs. what it doesn't like.
Doing an elimination diet I found out that I have sensitivities to soy and dairy products. Once I totally removed dairy from my diet, it was like someone flipped a light switch. On the rare occasion I have it now, I definitely know it about 30 minutes after the fact. Before, I always felt lethargic and bloated and I never knew why. I can also easily loose weight and don't retain water now.
And don't pay them doughnuts, either. Tech writers, as you stated, are part of the development team, and should not be an afterthought to a project. They end up being engineers, even though they're not paid for it. If nothing else, you end up as a mediator between the engineers because you're the only one who gets the big picture. In my experience, tech writers are more akin to project management as you tend to be the project managers right hand man.
Right, and who better to understand why a person actually has to RTFM than the person who writes TFM.
From personal experience, when the UI gets thrown to the graphics design team, it looks stunning...however, the depth is usually too short sighted to anticipate all of the required user interactions.
Frankly, a GUI professional would be optimal, but if your company doesn't have one, the tech writer is going to be the best follow up. If the program looks plain and uninspired, fine, so long as it's easily usable. The fact that so much of the web is an unusable mess is that it's given to the graphics folks who do have training and experience in how people interperate what they are currently seeing but without the anticipatory skills required to pull everything together.
Not in the least. Lord no. Perhaps have them polish up and make things look pretty after the UI is decided upon, sure, but leave the UI design to people with a background in it. That's the equivelant of telling a baker to to cook you a steak. They might both make food, but the thought process is totally different.
If you have a technical writer working on the project, give him/her a shot at it. Their job is to make the complex simple and to make it fit in as small of a container as possible. They'll also be the ones writing the manual on the stupid thing and, more often than not, many design flaws come out in the process of writing the manual. You'd be surprised what kind of input they might have.
Other than that, do you have a corporate psychologist or HR person with a background in psychology? They might also have valuable insight.
Other than that, as far as viewing the UI for a review, have someone make a mock up, clickable UI in Flash or even HTML. It shouldn't take long and will give you a good idea of what the user experience before it's all coded in.
The point was, the people who are most interested in the Wii are more interested in point and click adventures than the core "gamer" audience.
Thank you captain obvious, for I had no idea the Wii was not a game. It is, however, the only home console we have that is equiped to play such a game. Of course a mouse will be better for this type of game, but since I don't see anyone sitting on the floor in front of their tv with a mouse on the carpet, this is kind of a moot point.
Anyone who thinks the puzzle/point and click adventure genre has died hasn't played Zack and Wiki for the Wii yet. The game plays phenomenally well with a lot of personality to boot.
A lot of people are looking towards the Wii as the savior of the genre. Point and clicks aren't always geared towards casuals, but this has always been one of the casual gamers prefered genres. It requires thinking, not quick reflexes and competition.
The DS is also reviving this genre with games such as Hotel Dusk and Trace Memory and ports of games such as Last King of Africa and Myst. I can only imagine it's a matter of time before we start seeing more.
I fully agree. I loved the service and used it about 8 hours a day. That's a lot of frickin' music for what came out to $7/m.
I haven't looked into Rhapsody yet, but if it's Real that's a crime. I refuse to put that garbage on my computer. What makes matters worse, I've already gotten the "transfer to Rhapsody" screen on my account. I clicked okay and tried to transfer my account. No where on any of the screens did it say what software was required, etc. What makes matters worse is how buggy the service transfer is. It wouldn't let me transfer my account because, apparently, I have a Rhapsody account already under my e-mail address. I must have gotten bored one day decided to try it out. But they really need to put a disclaimer up that you'll need Real player to use the service.
And I'm pissed as all hell that my music ratings are going away. I have thousands upon thousands of ratings under my name (IRL, I own thousands of cds, records, etc...not to mention everything I would listen to on Yahoo), so that's a giant slap in the face as far as I'm concerned.
I have used iPhones and other touch devices. They're not nearly accurate enough for fast typing. However, the original point was pointing out how it fails as a music player because one cannot use it's basic functions without looking at the device.
You're missing the point. They're put there so a person who knows a specific interface (in this case, a keyboard) and use the device without having to look at it...just as buttons on a mp3 player, remote control, etc., allow us to use those devices (once we've learned the interface) without looking. A touch screen interface requires full attention because of lack of tactile feedback.
I agree. You remember back in the 80's when all the new appliances had that really cool feature where you didn't have to press a button, just touch the metal button on the front? Yeah, it was slick back then, but it's fallen to the wayside. Why? People want tactile feedback. Our fingers are designed to rely on feedback. With touch interfaces we don't get that.
All this new touch screen mumbo jumbo is slick and all, but I have a feeling it's going to follow suit for exactly the same reasons. Touch screen is great when you're using a stylus; however, when you're using a device that has a small handful of simple functions (on/off, play, ff/rw, pause/stop, vol up/down), simple tactile feedback is critical.
Why do we have the nubby bumps on keyboards on the f and j keys? Heck, why do we have individual keys instead of a touch pad? It's the nature of the beast and it will all come full circle or, at very least, both technologies will come together.
Actually, the press conference stated it would be a simultaneous release with the PS3 version. Whether that means the US/Europe versions will be pushed back for "polishing time" for the 360 version or not is unknown. Japan won't be getting the 360 version, so we should expect it wouldn't be affected by the 360 version's development.
The difference is VF5 has a certain amount of set environments and characters. Fighters will also always have the most eyecandy due to the fact that you have two characters and a single background. No having to take into account multiple enemies, all possible special effects, etc. You can highly optimize them.
Also, they obviously had more time optimizing the graphics for the 360 in this case. I'm no Sony supporter, but it is the more powerful machine. The online play was easy because of the 360's Live infrastructure.
Square though, Square's a weird being. There's no telling what they'll do to make the 360 version "work" on time for release. FFXIII is using the white engine, a graphics engine that Square was working on for years specifically for the PS3. How everything transports over and what they do with cut scenes has yet to be seen. There's bound to be some differences and complications with a game of this scale which, for as much as we know, is a port and not a version that was build side by side with the PS3 version.
Right, but if say the rat lives 2 years and it was nearly 2 years old already, I think it would be a little late in the process to do anything really impressive. Now, you start with a baby rat, that's a different story. When you adjust that for a human's life span, it's going to take a LONG time to see any real results.
I don't' think the point of what de Grey is doing is to play Lazarus, I think it's to prevent you from needing to play Lazarus in the first place. Hell, if he could make the body regenerate itself and grow younger, all the more respect...but I think a more ideal approach would be to start at birth and slow aging to the rate of a snail.
The problem with this question is that it's probably too late to extend any old person's life to a significant degree and it will take a person's life span to see any real improvements to, er, their life span. Unless we can take someone, say, in their 20's, and see if they look the same or are in the same health 20 years from then...in which case he wouldn't have had enough time to really prove much.
I agree, that's partially why I said it. The only difference is that Ubuntu actually has a chance to take a stab at the mainstream market. RedHat has always been more for the weekend hobbyist or the small business that wants to get a linux machine up and running but doesn't know how.
My first introduction to Linux was a FAR version of RedHat I bought from OfficeMax. I surely hope the book included now is better than the book included then was.
I agree 100%. What needs to happen, IMO, if Ubuntu wants to gain any credibility with the mainstream is that a company needs to package it, sell it for a higher price, and include a tech support service line much like MS's. Advertise it as having 2-3 years of technical support but don't make mention that what you're actually paying for is the tech support itself. Seriously, in a business atmosphere you're paying for the tech support more than you're paying for the product.
Besides, according to all the Linites around here, it's 100x's more stable than Windows, the naming convention of the programs isn't confusing at all, the file system makes perfect sense, and hardware support is a thing of the past. So, this should be money in the bank, right?
Slashdot Mirror
I agree with you; however, Silicon Knights brought us Eternal Darkness. In case you haven't played it, it's one of the most innovative and intriguing survival horror games on the market. It was, by and far, one of the best games for the GameCube. It was very different and was very much one of those "love it or leave it" experiences.
I've yet to play Too Human, but I'm hoping it's another case of the media collectively latching onto an opinion and sticking to it. Hopefully there's a little bit more to it and turns out being a sleeper if nothing else. There was a lot of hope for this title in the gaming community. Silicon Knights is one of the few companies that I could actually see putting out a game that the masses just don't get.
The thing is, the popularity of Everquest had little to nothing to do with SOE. In fact, SOE has been named as the source of the downfall of Everquest and the reason Everquest II was so poorly received at launch. The popularity of the original Everquest had everything to do with the heart and soul pumped into the game by Verant Interactive.
Many of us old EQ fans were overly enthusiastic when the news of Vanguard hit and that Brad McQuaid (formerly of Verant) was attempting to make a game that was what Everquest II should have been. Unfortunately, all problems aside, Sony seems to have gotten in on that one too. How much influence they had over the product we saw is unknown; however, it's commonly know that the game was released far before it was ready to keep "investors" happy.
Hopefully Sony will never climb back up to the top. Hopefully the creators of Everquest will, but Sony is only part of that franchises history.
Right, but I wouldn't consider "commodore 64" graphics an "assload of work." They have flash templates set up for everything. It's just a matter of rearranging it and spending 5 minutes writing new scripts for everything. And by scripts, I mean action scripts...because the actual dialog has to be written on the fly to be as unfunny as it is.
"I drink your milkshake" reference. It's too early and I'm too tired to be witty about it, so I'll ruin it for everyone else instead.
I can just see it now. The girlfriend (replace with "mom" for the typical slashdot user) sits down at the computer and opens up Aurora. All of a sudden she's swept with a tornado of porn, bizarro internet videos, bookmarked pictures of her hot friends on myspace, etc. Thought that changing the name of those bookmarks to "email" and "lolcatz" was enough security? Not any more, buddy...
1) Diablo came out during the CRT games. The game was dark but not quite as dark as you remember, your monitor just sucked.
Poor monitor calibration is PEBCAK, not equipment suckage.
2) These are the LCD days. All that black is going to make all the 6bit panels that don't show true blacks well choke and show mud.
No LCD is capable of true black, unless the monitor is turned off. LCD black = "hide the superbright backlight with crystals." Those LCDs with better blacks than others, including M-VA and S-IPS panels, are high-latency affairs that are no good for fast games due to their far slower response time, even slower than TN already is relative to CRT.
No, back when Diablo II came out, bad monitor's were a very large issue. All of the computer manufacturer's were pumping out terrible CRT's dirt cheap and many people had been using their older CRT's for years. The displays started fading, they wouldn't focus like they used to, etc. I'm currently using my pro grade Samsung 900NF prograde monitor that I bought the same week that Diablo II came out. It also brought new life to Diablo. After seeing it in motion on my monitor, I calibrated many friends monitors. Seriously, you could only get some of these old, crappy monitors go good. You're either showing your age or your ignorance. There's a reason pro grade monitors were so expensive. Other CRT's just couldn't produce the right black levels needed for graphic design.
No LCD is capable of true black, but some of them show blacks and greys a hell of a lot better than others. The point was, the gamer monitors aren't good at showing dark scenes in games and the pro monitors that are good at showing dark scenes aren't good at motion. Thanks for unnecessarily exaggerating on the original point I made.
I think some of the things that people aren't taking into consideration are:
1) Diablo came out during the CRT games. The game was dark but not quite as dark as you remember, your monitor just sucked.
2) These are the LCD days. All that black is going to make all the 6bit panels that don't show true blacks well choke and show mud.
3) Diablo wasn't built around 8 player multiplayer. Diablo III is being built ground up as a multiplayer game that can also be played single player. You need to be able to see your companions. That's like the point of the game.
4) The physics of Diablo III look beautiful in motion. To do that, add in all sorts of dynamic, intelligent lighting, and have a game that will play terrific on an average system at standard 1280 x 1024 resolution ain't gonna happen. Not when you have 8 players casting spells and 50 enemies on the screen. This is Blizzard, they're not gonna put out a game if it won't run on an average system. That's kind of their thing.
Fairs fair. The rest of the non-small internet community, non-OSS world will just keep ignoring you as well.
That's exactly how they can compete. Because people use Windows and not so much Linux. If you want to ignore Windows, then all the people using it are more than likely going to ignore you. If you embrace the competition, especially when you're small and they're large, it by comparison makes you look like worthier competition.
In fact, I would go so far as to say ignoring the competition is what's gotten the OSS community in such a k-hole to begin with. The OSS community are pretty much seen as the hippies of the computer world. No one wants your damn hemp carrying bags and sprouted wheat wraps. However, if you make it look like something the masses do want and slip it through other channels, before long it becomes the "cool thing" to do.
I'm not sure if this is a joke or not but, if you are serious, I would seriously consider doing an elimination diet. It certainly sounds like there is a food allergy/intolerance at play. An easy and simple example of such would be something along the lines of Dr. Mark Hyman's UltraSimple diet. It doesn't have you doing anything too out there and, if you follow the advanced version of it where you bring in food items one by one, you'll discover what your body likes vs. what it doesn't like.
Doing an elimination diet I found out that I have sensitivities to soy and dairy products. Once I totally removed dairy from my diet, it was like someone flipped a light switch. On the rare occasion I have it now, I definitely know it about 30 minutes after the fact. Before, I always felt lethargic and bloated and I never knew why. I can also easily loose weight and don't retain water now.
"And don't for get the doughnuts!"
And don't pay them doughnuts, either. Tech writers, as you stated, are part of the development team, and should not be an afterthought to a project. They end up being engineers, even though they're not paid for it. If nothing else, you end up as a mediator between the engineers because you're the only one who gets the big picture. In my experience, tech writers are more akin to project management as you tend to be the project managers right hand man.
Right, and who better to understand why a person actually has to RTFM than the person who writes TFM.
From personal experience, when the UI gets thrown to the graphics design team, it looks stunning...however, the depth is usually too short sighted to anticipate all of the required user interactions.
Frankly, a GUI professional would be optimal, but if your company doesn't have one, the tech writer is going to be the best follow up. If the program looks plain and uninspired, fine, so long as it's easily usable. The fact that so much of the web is an unusable mess is that it's given to the graphics folks who do have training and experience in how people interperate what they are currently seeing but without the anticipatory skills required to pull everything together.
Not in the least. Lord no. Perhaps have them polish up and make things look pretty after the UI is decided upon, sure, but leave the UI design to people with a background in it. That's the equivelant of telling a baker to to cook you a steak. They might both make food, but the thought process is totally different.
If you have a technical writer working on the project, give him/her a shot at it. Their job is to make the complex simple and to make it fit in as small of a container as possible. They'll also be the ones writing the manual on the stupid thing and, more often than not, many design flaws come out in the process of writing the manual. You'd be surprised what kind of input they might have.
Other than that, do you have a corporate psychologist or HR person with a background in psychology? They might also have valuable insight.
Other than that, as far as viewing the UI for a review, have someone make a mock up, clickable UI in Flash or even HTML. It shouldn't take long and will give you a good idea of what the user experience before it's all coded in.
The point was, the people who are most interested in the Wii are more interested in point and click adventures than the core "gamer" audience.
Thank you captain obvious, for I had no idea the Wii was not a game. It is, however, the only home console we have that is equiped to play such a game. Of course a mouse will be better for this type of game, but since I don't see anyone sitting on the floor in front of their tv with a mouse on the carpet, this is kind of a moot point.
Anyone who thinks the puzzle/point and click adventure genre has died hasn't played Zack and Wiki for the Wii yet. The game plays phenomenally well with a lot of personality to boot.
A lot of people are looking towards the Wii as the savior of the genre. Point and clicks aren't always geared towards casuals, but this has always been one of the casual gamers prefered genres. It requires thinking, not quick reflexes and competition.
The DS is also reviving this genre with games such as Hotel Dusk and Trace Memory and ports of games such as Last King of Africa and Myst. I can only imagine it's a matter of time before we start seeing more.
I fully agree. I loved the service and used it about 8 hours a day. That's a lot of frickin' music for what came out to $7/m.
I haven't looked into Rhapsody yet, but if it's Real that's a crime. I refuse to put that garbage on my computer. What makes matters worse, I've already gotten the "transfer to Rhapsody" screen on my account. I clicked okay and tried to transfer my account. No where on any of the screens did it say what software was required, etc. What makes matters worse is how buggy the service transfer is. It wouldn't let me transfer my account because, apparently, I have a Rhapsody account already under my e-mail address. I must have gotten bored one day decided to try it out. But they really need to put a disclaimer up that you'll need Real player to use the service.
And I'm pissed as all hell that my music ratings are going away. I have thousands upon thousands of ratings under my name (IRL, I own thousands of cds, records, etc...not to mention everything I would listen to on Yahoo), so that's a giant slap in the face as far as I'm concerned.
I have used iPhones and other touch devices. They're not nearly accurate enough for fast typing. However, the original point was pointing out how it fails as a music player because one cannot use it's basic functions without looking at the device.
You're missing the point. They're put there so a person who knows a specific interface (in this case, a keyboard) and use the device without having to look at it...just as buttons on a mp3 player, remote control, etc., allow us to use those devices (once we've learned the interface) without looking. A touch screen interface requires full attention because of lack of tactile feedback.
I agree. You remember back in the 80's when all the new appliances had that really cool feature where you didn't have to press a button, just touch the metal button on the front? Yeah, it was slick back then, but it's fallen to the wayside. Why? People want tactile feedback. Our fingers are designed to rely on feedback. With touch interfaces we don't get that.
All this new touch screen mumbo jumbo is slick and all, but I have a feeling it's going to follow suit for exactly the same reasons. Touch screen is great when you're using a stylus; however, when you're using a device that has a small handful of simple functions (on/off, play, ff/rw, pause/stop, vol up/down), simple tactile feedback is critical.
Why do we have the nubby bumps on keyboards on the f and j keys? Heck, why do we have individual keys instead of a touch pad? It's the nature of the beast and it will all come full circle or, at very least, both technologies will come together.
Actually, the press conference stated it would be a simultaneous release with the PS3 version. Whether that means the US/Europe versions will be pushed back for "polishing time" for the 360 version or not is unknown. Japan won't be getting the 360 version, so we should expect it wouldn't be affected by the 360 version's development.
The difference is VF5 has a certain amount of set environments and characters. Fighters will also always have the most eyecandy due to the fact that you have two characters and a single background. No having to take into account multiple enemies, all possible special effects, etc. You can highly optimize them.
Also, they obviously had more time optimizing the graphics for the 360 in this case. I'm no Sony supporter, but it is the more powerful machine. The online play was easy because of the 360's Live infrastructure.
Square though, Square's a weird being. There's no telling what they'll do to make the 360 version "work" on time for release. FFXIII is using the white engine, a graphics engine that Square was working on for years specifically for the PS3. How everything transports over and what they do with cut scenes has yet to be seen. There's bound to be some differences and complications with a game of this scale which, for as much as we know, is a port and not a version that was build side by side with the PS3 version.
Right, but if say the rat lives 2 years and it was nearly 2 years old already, I think it would be a little late in the process to do anything really impressive. Now, you start with a baby rat, that's a different story. When you adjust that for a human's life span, it's going to take a LONG time to see any real results.
I don't' think the point of what de Grey is doing is to play Lazarus, I think it's to prevent you from needing to play Lazarus in the first place. Hell, if he could make the body regenerate itself and grow younger, all the more respect...but I think a more ideal approach would be to start at birth and slow aging to the rate of a snail.
The problem with this question is that it's probably too late to extend any old person's life to a significant degree and it will take a person's life span to see any real improvements to, er, their life span. Unless we can take someone, say, in their 20's, and see if they look the same or are in the same health 20 years from then...in which case he wouldn't have had enough time to really prove much.
I agree, that's partially why I said it. The only difference is that Ubuntu actually has a chance to take a stab at the mainstream market. RedHat has always been more for the weekend hobbyist or the small business that wants to get a linux machine up and running but doesn't know how.
My first introduction to Linux was a FAR version of RedHat I bought from OfficeMax. I surely hope the book included now is better than the book included then was.
I agree 100%. What needs to happen, IMO, if Ubuntu wants to gain any credibility with the mainstream is that a company needs to package it, sell it for a higher price, and include a tech support service line much like MS's. Advertise it as having 2-3 years of technical support but don't make mention that what you're actually paying for is the tech support itself. Seriously, in a business atmosphere you're paying for the tech support more than you're paying for the product.
Besides, according to all the Linites around here, it's 100x's more stable than Windows, the naming convention of the programs isn't confusing at all, the file system makes perfect sense, and hardware support is a thing of the past. So, this should be money in the bank, right?