Even WITH a reason you're not going to see people switching. I swear, my mother thought it was a violation of her warrantee to upgrade from Windows 95 to Windows 98. I had to remind her that she had a one year warrantee and that the computer was about 3 years old at that point. "Oh yeah." Says she. "But why do I need to change?"
I'm a geek, I like to think I'm a good geek, but I can't even bring myself to think about recommending Linux to someone who doesn't know what they're doing, or at least have someone who does living with them. It's hard enough to explain that when scandisk pops up they're supposed to leave it alone and let it do what it wants and just say "ok" to everything. But try explaining to them how to e2fsck/dev/hdc6. Forgettaboutit.
I've seen a quote floating around on here. Something along the lines of Unix being user-friendly but selective about who it makes friends with. I think it's going to be that way with Linux for a little more time.
Like the guy before me said, that's what the search results are for. Personally, I like Google's ads. The search results they provide often fall within the spectrum of what I'm looking for, and are worth checking out. If they don't, then I can freely ignore them and move on. They take up so little of the page.
I find Google's practice MUCH more appealing than banner ads, search results that have been paid for and that aren't clearly identified as sponsored or "advertisement", or worst yet- popups/popunders.
-Sara
The one problem with this type of site...
on
Disinformation.com
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
The one problem with this type of site is that morons (like my parents) actually believe what they read and turn it into chain letters of protest.
Actually if I were smart I would have bought a $30 dollar case with enough room for everything, and a power supply capable of handling 5 devices. I actually did research that and splitters before I snipped the floppy, but it was 2 AM, I wanted Linux on my machine and didn't feel like waiting for a splitter.
So not only am I dumb, I'm also obsessive compulsive. =] But at least I don't call tech support about that! *grin*
Yeah. Tell me about it. Whenever I'm having an "issue" my unenlightened friends tell me I should contact Tech Support. I tell them I'd have better luck going to an analyst on Park Avenue to have my computer's head shrunk. =]
The tech support people for most businesses are trained to handle the "bulk" of users who are having problems turning their computer on, turning it off, figuring out the difference between the "keyboard" and "mouse" icons on the back of their computers, etc. A few of them have probably even answered my Grandma's question about "Why do I need to fondle the mouse's butt?"... Can't blame the companies for the most part, though. The majority of the questions they recieve *are* along those lines.
Maybe Slashdotters should start phoning in more complex questions. Might have an impact on the Tech support industry-- high paid intelligent tech support people.
Reinstall it? Why? It's much more fun to edit the Registry and sort through the files. =] Also saves *so* much time locating backups and reinstalling software. I've got my system the way I like it, I don't want to restore it to the original configuration. Ick. Plus, with all the patches you have to download you're looking at a few days of downtime just to get a working system again. MUCH better to know how to clean up a running system.
uh oh. Hope I never have to use a floppy. =] I ripped out my floppy for a place to mount a second hard drive in my Compaq, and snipped the floppy power supply cable connector to splice on a hard drive power connector.
NEWSFLASH: computer manufacturers do not make it easy to do anything you want to do. Computer manufacturers are for consumers, not for actual system users. Most consumers would rather buy a new PC than deal with something like disk failure. Support lines for consumer products aren't going to be able to give you an answer, you probably know more than they do.
Haven't you noticed that every time you're on the phone with support staff the on-going statement of the day seems to be "oh.. uhm.. I've never heard of it doing that before. Uhm.. Are you sure the computer is plugged in?"
Kidding. Kidding. I never said that Windows 2000 was not a good OS. I'd just never think of putting it on a server when a perfectly good distro of Linux was within reach. Personal preference.
It's common enough... Do you really think that fashion magazines know that far in advance that the color of the season will be puce? While this practice of reviewing software that does not exist is slightly more odiferous, it's understandable. Magazines need to compete with the online market somehow, otherwise the magazines will go out of business and we'll be left with nothing to read in the bathroom. (The ink on printouts runs too quickly when accidentally wet.)
I don't think the reviews are entirely "pie in the sky". Magazines probably obtain beta copies of the software for review purposes, along with descriptions of feature-sets. This is beneficial for the companies releasing the software because it gets the public hyped up about it before its release and makes them more likely to rush off to the nearest computer store to make the purchase and be the first kid on the block to get the newest toy. The magazines get larget numbers of people reading their articles because they're the "first out" with the news. Who will read a review that's only a rehash of half a dozen others on software that was released a few weeks ago?
Problems only arise when the review becomes inaccurate due to miscommunication, bugs in the beta software, discontinued features that never make it to the public release, etc. That's what follow-ups, corrections, and deeper research are for. Reviews, afterall, are frequently tainted with mistaken impressions, prejudices, and plain old "difference of opinion". If you believe what you read the first time around, then you get what you deserve.
Hmm.. Sure. Put a slow OS on fast hardware with a fast connection to the internet, yeah it kicks butt. =] Take Linux, put it on the same hardware and connection and all bets are off.
[Especially if the Win2k system isn't the patchwork quilt it needs to be... Because those "harmless little lines" we all see in our logs will otherwise bring the server down all on their own as it goes off on a little worm-spreading spree.]
That said, I doubt that the 'Slashdotting' of the website was due to the OS. Doesn't the bottleneck usually occur before the traffic hits the actual server? Sure, a fast server can keep the bottleneck at bay a little better than a slow one... But if you have too many hits coming in at the same time then isn't it safe to bet that a lot of the traffic never even meets the OS?
If x= number of hits per second that Windows can handle, and x-2 = number of hits that the server's connection can handle, then it doesn't matter if Linux can handle x^10 hits. Linux might fare slightly better, but when the hits go over the limit that the connection can handle, neither OS is going to make a significant difference.
Microsoft's connections are capable of handling way more hits than any individual machine of theirs could ever handle.
It's common to change the terms of service after they've initially been implemented.
Common reasons are: people abusing the current terms of service, Over-load of information that does not contribute to the quality of the site (such as the "first post" twits on Slashdot... I'm sure there are similar abusers of the SourceForge service.)Or the original terms of service opens them up to liability or other unpleasant legal circumstances. Basically, it could be compared to "The punishing of all" that often occurs in elementary school where 3 or 4 kids mishbehave and everyone is forced to skip recess. It's easier for the moderators to do this and cover their bases than it is to attempt to weed out the troublemakers under the old policies.
Yes, there are chances that the new terms of service will harm those who are innocent of any "evildoing"(sorry, couldn't resist the quote.), but for the most part those that are harmed will be those who contribute nothing to the service. Hey- maybe it's a good thing and will weed out the useless or "garbage" content.
What I *am* against in their new terms of service is that they're not required to give notice of changes if they're not major changes. I dislike "contracts" with ambiguous language. What constitutes a change that is large enough to notify people?
(note: "we" is in the figurative sense. In fact, I am a no one.)
Your "questions" are not the potential pitfalls that I see:
Regarding payment: your source, as you said is no longer making money for you. It is not a valuable resource to you, and to "us" it's along the lines of old clothing donated to the Salvation Army. We might be able to do something with it, we might not. Personally, I think the govermnent should offer tax breaks to the "donors" of source code to the public domain. (This, of course, brings about the potential of fraudulent source code, questions about the 'value' of the source and how to measure it... etc.)
Regarding liability--Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't see that many lawsuits regarding opensource or public domain software. In fact, the only lawsuits regarding software that I can think of off the top of my head involve commercial software with fairly restrictive licensing agreements. Isn't it a common "term of agreement" that open source and public domain software is largely "use at your own risk"?
There *are* other questions that would be harder to answer, but I just can't think of them right now. It's 12:16 in the afternoon and I need sleep.
You're right, I misspoke, we are not beyond evolution. I meant to say that "we are far beyond the *acceptance* of evolution at this point."
A child is born with a collapsed lung and doctors are almost effortlessly able to save its life. We are trying to cure cancer, aids, the common cold. Even the "selection pressures" you mention above are rebelled against. Paramedics run to the scene of a crash and try to rescue the drunk driver. Someone walks in on their suicidal friend and calls 911 to have his stomach pumped. "Rights" activists lobby against attempts to restrict the number of children allowed per couple.
While there are still rules, they're far more lax than they used to be. You're right, though. Once DNA is modified the rules go out.. Although I'm sure new rules will come in. Nature has a way of balancing out.
A.) My point was that genetics doesn't necessarily contribute to "undesirable" things such as deafness, blindness, etc. and so it was not exactly accurate to lump all of these traits together and say that we should not allow people with these traits to reproduce. It was also meant to convey that just because a person is physically unable to reproduce doesn't mean that they have faulty genes, as the post I was responding to implied. I also included this because I believe personal experiences are relevant and capable of conveying a point. "I am one of those 'damaged' people you list, but my genes are fine". I felt the person was viewing things from the wrong angle- "Who is allowed to reproduce" vs. "What impact will the method of reproduction have on the resulting offspring?"
B.) I could have limited my input to the "logical reasons", yes. Perhaps I should have made two posts, one with my "over the top looniness" where I "took offense where there was none", and the other with my logical reasons. Henceforth before posting I will divide my emotional and logical thought processes and post two comments- one to call people over the top looneys, and the other to come across as a logical intelligent human being.
Ok. I tried not to get pissed off... Didn't work. Not even thinking happy thoughts about the new computer I get to build soon worked.
Number one: I am deaf, it has NOTHING to do with my genes and I fully intend on procreating once I find a suitable life-partner to do so with.
Number two: If a couple, or woman, or man can take care of a child they should be permitted to procreate if they like. It's those who cannot take care of their offspring that should not be permitted to.
Number three: You assume that genes have everything to do with everything. My deafness is a far cry from being related to genetics, and so might peoples sterility, blindness, stupidity, and ugliness.
Number four: This is slashdot, I think we are all far beyond merely "depending" on technology. I can probably safely bet that 9/10ths of us would commit suicide if technology were eliminated from the planet tomorrow. (This is a safe bet because I'd probably be the first to go.)
There are enough LOGICAL reasons to argue against this without pushing buttons. ie:
1- Impact on the offspring-- The subtle shifting of hormonal balances, nutrients, etc. in the natural womb cannot be duplicated exactly. What will the impact on the offspring be mentally, physically, and emotionally?
2- Human bonding- The bonding process begins in the womb. We might end up with a whole generation of children who are emotionally and mentally like the monkey in the experiment with the wire and "fur" surrogate mothers.
3- Potential of mass-producing human life for slavery, medical experiments, or the like. Do we really want to open the doors to this possibility?
Screw evolution. Do you really think that anything going on today allows evolution? Miracle drugs and antibiotics to curb infection, breast implants to attract males, CPR to save lives, the internet to allow the meeting of geeks who would never otherwise venture outside even if it meant never reproducing... We're far beyond evolution at this point. Now all we can *really* do is sit back and watch the world fall apart or come together whatever the case might be.
grease paint? Or are we off the subject of geek girls in teeshirts? =] In which case, doesn't painting it increase the liklihood of overheating the circuitry? (might overheat the geek girl, too-- but in that case it's a positive thing.)
Slashdot Mirror
Even WITH a reason you're not going to see people switching. I swear, my mother thought it was a violation of her warrantee to upgrade from Windows 95 to Windows 98. I had to remind her that she had a one year warrantee and that the computer was about 3 years old at that point. "Oh yeah." Says she. "But why do I need to change?"
/dev/hdc6. Forgettaboutit.
I'm a geek, I like to think I'm a good geek, but I can't even bring myself to think about recommending Linux to someone who doesn't know what they're doing, or at least have someone who does living with them. It's hard enough to explain that when scandisk pops up they're supposed to leave it alone and let it do what it wants and just say "ok" to everything. But try explaining to them how to e2fsck
I've seen a quote floating around on here. Something along the lines of Unix being user-friendly but selective about who it makes friends with. I think it's going to be that way with Linux for a little more time.
-Sara
Like the guy before me said, that's what the search results are for. Personally, I like Google's ads. The search results they provide often fall within the spectrum of what I'm looking for, and are worth checking out. If they don't, then I can freely ignore them and move on. They take up so little of the page.
I find Google's practice MUCH more appealing than banner ads, search results that have been paid for and that aren't clearly identified as sponsored or "advertisement", or worst yet- popups/popunders.
-Sara
The one problem with this type of site is that morons (like my parents) actually believe what they read and turn it into chain letters of protest.
*growl*
-Sara
Actually if I were smart I would have bought a $30 dollar case with enough room for everything, and a power supply capable of handling 5 devices. I actually did research that and splitters before I snipped the floppy, but it was 2 AM, I wanted Linux on my machine and didn't feel like waiting for a splitter.
So not only am I dumb, I'm also obsessive compulsive. =] But at least I don't call tech support about that! *grin*
-Sara
Yeah. Tell me about it. Whenever I'm having an "issue" my unenlightened friends tell me I should contact Tech Support. I tell them I'd have better luck going to an analyst on Park Avenue to have my computer's head shrunk. =]
The tech support people for most businesses are trained to handle the "bulk" of users who are having problems turning their computer on, turning it off, figuring out the difference between the "keyboard" and "mouse" icons on the back of their computers, etc. A few of them have probably even answered my Grandma's question about "Why do I need to fondle the mouse's butt?"... Can't blame the companies for the most part, though. The majority of the questions they recieve *are* along those lines.
Maybe Slashdotters should start phoning in more complex questions. Might have an impact on the Tech support industry-- high paid intelligent tech support people.
Hey, I can dream.
-Sara
So learn how to use e2fsck. ;)
-Sara
Reinstall it? Why? It's much more fun to edit the Registry and sort through the files. =] Also saves *so* much time locating backups and reinstalling software. I've got my system the way I like it, I don't want to restore it to the original configuration. Ick. Plus, with all the patches you have to download you're looking at a few days of downtime just to get a working system again. MUCH better to know how to clean up a running system.
-Sara
uh oh. Hope I never have to use a floppy. =] I ripped out my floppy for a place to mount a second hard drive in my Compaq, and snipped the floppy power supply cable connector to splice on a hard drive power connector.
NEWSFLASH: computer manufacturers do not make it easy to do anything you want to do. Computer manufacturers are for consumers, not for actual system users. Most consumers would rather buy a new PC than deal with something like disk failure. Support lines for consumer products aren't going to be able to give you an answer, you probably know more than they do.
Haven't you noticed that every time you're on the phone with support staff the on-going statement of the day seems to be "oh.. uhm.. I've never heard of it doing that before. Uhm.. Are you sure the computer is plugged in?"
-Sara
But... Why would I do that?
Kidding. Kidding. I never said that Windows 2000 was not a good OS. I'd just never think of putting it on a server when a perfectly good distro of Linux was within reach. Personal preference.
-Sara
It's common enough... Do you really think that fashion magazines know that far in advance that the color of the season will be puce? While this practice of reviewing software that does not exist is slightly more odiferous, it's understandable. Magazines need to compete with the online market somehow, otherwise the magazines will go out of business and we'll be left with nothing to read in the bathroom. (The ink on printouts runs too quickly when accidentally wet.)
I don't think the reviews are entirely "pie in the sky". Magazines probably obtain beta copies of the software for review purposes, along with descriptions of feature-sets. This is beneficial for the companies releasing the software because it gets the public hyped up about it before its release and makes them more likely to rush off to the nearest computer store to make the purchase and be the first kid on the block to get the newest toy. The magazines get larget numbers of people reading their articles because they're the "first out" with the news. Who will read a review that's only a rehash of half a dozen others on software that was released a few weeks ago?
Problems only arise when the review becomes inaccurate due to miscommunication, bugs in the beta software, discontinued features that never make it to the public release, etc. That's what follow-ups, corrections, and deeper research are for. Reviews, afterall, are frequently tainted with mistaken impressions, prejudices, and plain old "difference of opinion". If you believe what you read the first time around, then you get what you deserve.
-Sara
Hmm.. Sure. Put a slow OS on fast hardware with a fast connection to the internet, yeah it kicks butt. =] Take Linux, put it on the same hardware and connection and all bets are off.
[Especially if the Win2k system isn't the patchwork quilt it needs to be... Because those "harmless little lines" we all see in our logs will otherwise bring the server down all on their own as it goes off on a little worm-spreading spree.]
That said, I doubt that the 'Slashdotting' of the website was due to the OS. Doesn't the bottleneck usually occur before the traffic hits the actual server? Sure, a fast server can keep the bottleneck at bay a little better than a slow one... But if you have too many hits coming in at the same time then isn't it safe to bet that a lot of the traffic never even meets the OS?
If x= number of hits per second that Windows can handle, and x-2 = number of hits that the server's connection can handle, then it doesn't matter if Linux can handle x^10 hits. Linux might fare slightly better, but when the hits go over the limit that the connection can handle, neither OS is going to make a significant difference.
Microsoft's connections are capable of handling way more hits than any individual machine of theirs could ever handle.
-Sara
Slashdotters need all the help we can get. =] (Although in our case a more appropriate aphrodisiac would be a beowu... Ok. I'll resist the joke.)
-Sara
It's common to change the terms of service after they've initially been implemented.
Common reasons are: people abusing the current terms of service, Over-load of information that does not contribute to the quality of the site (such as the "first post" twits on Slashdot... I'm sure there are similar abusers of the SourceForge service.)Or the original terms of service opens them up to liability or other unpleasant legal circumstances. Basically, it could be compared to "The punishing of all" that often occurs in elementary school where 3 or 4 kids mishbehave and everyone is forced to skip recess. It's easier for the moderators to do this and cover their bases than it is to attempt to weed out the troublemakers under the old policies.
Yes, there are chances that the new terms of service will harm those who are innocent of any "evildoing"(sorry, couldn't resist the quote.), but for the most part those that are harmed will be those who contribute nothing to the service. Hey- maybe it's a good thing and will weed out the useless or "garbage" content.
What I *am* against in their new terms of service is that they're not required to give notice of changes if they're not major changes. I dislike "contracts" with ambiguous language. What constitutes a change that is large enough to notify people?
-Sara
Hm.
(note: "we" is in the figurative sense. In fact, I am a no one.)
Your "questions" are not the potential pitfalls that I see:
Regarding payment: your source, as you said is no longer making money for you. It is not a valuable resource to you, and to "us" it's along the lines of old clothing donated to the Salvation Army. We might be able to do something with it, we might not. Personally, I think the govermnent should offer tax breaks to the "donors" of source code to the public domain. (This, of course, brings about the potential of fraudulent source code, questions about the 'value' of the source and how to measure it... etc.)
Regarding liability--Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't see that many lawsuits regarding opensource or public domain software. In fact, the only lawsuits regarding software that I can think of off the top of my head involve commercial software with fairly restrictive licensing agreements. Isn't it a common "term of agreement" that open source and public domain software is largely "use at your own risk"?
There *are* other questions that would be harder to answer, but I just can't think of them right now. It's 12:16 in the afternoon and I need sleep.
-Sara
You're right, I misspoke, we are not beyond evolution. I meant to say that "we are far beyond the *acceptance* of evolution at this point."
A child is born with a collapsed lung and doctors are almost effortlessly able to save its life. We are trying to cure cancer, aids, the common cold. Even the "selection pressures" you mention above are rebelled against. Paramedics run to the scene of a crash and try to rescue the drunk driver. Someone walks in on their suicidal friend and calls 911 to have his stomach pumped. "Rights" activists lobby against attempts to restrict the number of children allowed per couple.
While there are still rules, they're far more lax than they used to be. You're right, though. Once DNA is modified the rules go out.. Although I'm sure new rules will come in. Nature has a way of balancing out.
-Sara
I think you misunderstood my "tirade".
A.) My point was that genetics doesn't necessarily contribute to "undesirable" things such as deafness, blindness, etc. and so it was not exactly accurate to lump all of these traits together and say that we should not allow people with these traits to reproduce. It was also meant to convey that just because a person is physically unable to reproduce doesn't mean that they have faulty genes, as the post I was responding to implied. I also included this because I believe personal experiences are relevant and capable of conveying a point. "I am one of those 'damaged' people you list, but my genes are fine". I felt the person was viewing things from the wrong angle- "Who is allowed to reproduce" vs. "What impact will the method of reproduction have on the resulting offspring?"
B.) I could have limited my input to the "logical reasons", yes. Perhaps I should have made two posts, one with my "over the top looniness" where I "took offense where there was none", and the other with my logical reasons. Henceforth before posting I will divide my emotional and logical thought processes and post two comments- one to call people over the top looneys, and the other to come across as a logical intelligent human being.
-Sara
The best way to attract a girlfriend: Wear a glitter tee!
Sorry, couldn't resist.
Wait for college, females tend to be more friendly and less neurotic there anyway. =]
-Sara
Ok. I tried not to get pissed off... Didn't work. Not even thinking happy thoughts about the new computer I get to build soon worked.
Number one: I am deaf, it has NOTHING to do with my genes and I fully intend on procreating once I find a suitable life-partner to do so with.
Number two: If a couple, or woman, or man can take care of a child they should be permitted to procreate if they like. It's those who cannot take care of their offspring that should not be permitted to.
Number three: You assume that genes have everything to do with everything. My deafness is a far cry from being related to genetics, and so might peoples sterility, blindness, stupidity, and ugliness.
Number four: This is slashdot, I think we are all far beyond merely "depending" on technology. I can probably safely bet that 9/10ths of us would commit suicide if technology were eliminated from the planet tomorrow. (This is a safe bet because I'd probably be the first to go.)
There are enough LOGICAL reasons to argue against this without pushing buttons. ie:
1- Impact on the offspring-- The subtle shifting of hormonal balances, nutrients, etc. in the natural womb cannot be duplicated exactly. What will the impact on the offspring be mentally, physically, and emotionally?
2- Human bonding- The bonding process begins in the womb. We might end up with a whole generation of children who are emotionally and mentally like the monkey in the experiment with the wire and "fur" surrogate mothers.
3- Potential of mass-producing human life for slavery, medical experiments, or the like. Do we really want to open the doors to this possibility?
Screw evolution. Do you really think that anything going on today allows evolution? Miracle drugs and antibiotics to curb infection, breast implants to attract males, CPR to save lives, the internet to allow the meeting of geeks who would never otherwise venture outside even if it meant never reproducing... We're far beyond evolution at this point. Now all we can *really* do is sit back and watch the world fall apart or come together whatever the case might be.
-Sara
grease paint? Or are we off the subject of geek girls in teeshirts? =] In which case, doesn't painting it increase the liklihood of overheating the circuitry? (might overheat the geek girl, too-- but in that case it's a positive thing.)
-Sara
Why not? Glitter's fun. Self respecting geek girls can do whatever they like. =] Even if it means writing chmod 777 on their forehead in glitter. =]
Buy the guy's shirts. There's more of a choice anyway. Although, I'm afraid they've neglected the glitter. Such a shame.
-Sara
Thought I was the only girl who ran Linux. =] Darn, now I have to find some other way to be unique. -Sara