firstly i wasnt a great salesman. but for the average user what the hell do they gain from a 2 or 3G system that they dont get on a $1500 system ?
they can "easilly manage digital video, pictures and audio files while doing all the usual mundane tasks (e-mail with spam protection, web browsing with pop-up blocking)" with a standard windows or linux PC. as far as "they don't want to fuck around with driver, config, and library files every damn time they try to do something new".... that kinda goes hand in hand with doing something new. but the average computer USER doesnt do much new. hence why the almost always run whatever OS is on the system til they get a new one......
making a profit is not a big deal, redhat does that. what the point the article was trying to make is simple "how long til more people use linux than mac OSX on a desktop". the answer is soon since linux runs on most hardware old and new and mac doesnt.
remember mac's market share has not grown in the past year. linux's has.
BTW..... Dell
how is that a shoddy budget PC ? add on the in home service for another $300 and your still under my aforementioned $1500 price.
and on what planet do you not have to fuck with drivers ?
yeah but (coming from someone who sold mac's and pc's during the.com boom.) hardly anyone spends more than $1500 on a computer these days. and the vast majority of people look at two things when they buy computers
Name
Mhz/Ghz or "speed"
mac's are purrty and shiny, but apple's name recognition is not what it once was, and their "speed" is not as nice as Intels or as market based as AMD.
Linux on the desktop requires next to no maitnence. once you have things installed you are set to roll. i have been running RH 7.3 on my workstation (at work) for a year and a half without issue. and i can run dvd's, mp3's, vcd's, avi's,.mov's, wmv's.... you get the idea.
Linux on the server requires maitnence sure.... but it is also capable of doing/running a crapload more stuff than macOS? on the server
you asked: "Would you be so keen to chop your books into chapters to be sold invididually?"
yes, if i wrote a good book i dont see where the pain/problem is ? people buy chapter one read it , and if they like it they buy the rest. simple. its no damn different than a borders or barnes and noble setup. except i can do it at home butt naked with a bowl of lime jello.
No, if i wrote a piece of crap. or some fluff novel. Because people would buy chapter one and not buy anything else cause my book sucks.
now on to a previous point, the average musician clocks 3-6% of the retail price of a CD, then they payback the label for studio time advertising etc.... usually breaks down to something like 1 or 2% profit. their major bank is touring.
i dont know crap about book publishing except the "elite" of that genre of art are not hurting. J.K. rawling and steven king make just as much (if not more) than radiohead and madonna. i also assume that authors make alot of money when their books are licensed for movies, toys etc. so this is different how ?
the reason the afformentioned pop-artists are whining is because they can no longer drive album sales (2% of $20 is $.40) from one catchy single which generate more money per sale (as opposed to the $.12 they are making per downloaded song.).
nary an album in the past decade has been a "story" or a work of art. its usually a collection of songs written by different people that vaugely sound the same. and thats only because its the same group of half-asses making the "music".
{mock thought proccess}
posts something taking an obvious stab at microsoft. then has anti-billy boy.sig.
this guy must own every release of windows ever made !!!
i must make sure he doesnt buy this one..... that way i can be the biggest pro-monopoly-whore !!!
{/mock thought proccess}
and dont you worry.... i have no intention of buying it, instead i will use its obvious and forthcoming flaws to make sure other people dont buy it either.
i have locate. i have find. i have egrep and grep.
i do not need nor want a relational database to keep track of my files or info about my files.
and i definetly DEFINETLY do not under any circumstances want any goddamn database software that microsoft wrote to try and keep track of a damn thing. ever.
firstly, the only reason anyone who is a really an artist would want to sign with a major is because they want the one in a million chance to get rich. however they would and do sign with major labels because they are forced to.
the major labels (RIAA) have a monopoly. simple period end of discussion. they use this monopoly to control everything within their industry, involving their industry etc....
Do you like the majors ? yes ? fine. but dont try to feed anyone that bullshit that the majors are good for a damn thing, because they arent. the majority of major's artists go in debt because of shitty bussiness decisions they have no control over. They are raped of any creativness they had at the expense of "flavor of the month-ites." that labels impose on them. they control all major distribution channels, manufacturing channels etc .
the major labels have been completely useless for the past 30 years. they destroy creativity and only promote what is "commercial" enough to sell. and everytime something that was once unknown comes along and shows promise they force it down our throats until we get sick of it.
stop watching mtv cribs. it is not the average musicians life.
you'd be surprised how well music would flourish if the majors were forced to play fair. you claim that someone with a website could outsell a major label artist. take away viacomm owned MTV, clearchannel run radio.... does music disappear ? hell no. so what would happen ? people would adapt, and the market would adapt as well, then the people would find the music they actually liked. good bands would finally get airtime. it would be a wonderful thing. it would be music the way it is supposed to be. by the people and for the people. not by the gluttons and force fed to the people.
i own 2000 (est) records (vinyl) and 2500 (est) cd's. and you know what ? almost all of the records are from the 60's (inherited) and the majority (80 - 85%) of the cd's are indy. why ? because i have been boycoting the RIAA for three years not a single album bought by anything major label in three years, simply because as a musician i cannot stand the damn bastards. i know way to many good musicians who are awesome but aren't "whats in" so they dont get to sell albums at any major stores because of the monopoly.
FACT: greenday could have sold 75,000 copies of dookie on an indie label and made as much as they did selling 10 million copies on a major.
FACT: TLC the highest selling female group of all time had to declare bankruptcy after releasing one of the highest selling albums of the 90's (crazysexycool)
its things like that that you seem to forget. the majors will provide a glossy cover for anyone who is selling a shit-load of records. but if you "only" sell 500,000 or 800,000 you are considered insufficient and will be subsequently dropped on your ass, and handed a bill.
the RIAA has every right to charge for the things it does for the artists, but paying 1 million dollars for ads in a shitty magazine is fucking retarded and the artist shouldnt suffer because of the majors fuck up.
untill the RIAA starts treating the artists it has signed better, and opening up the industry and allowing smaller labels to compete they can fuck off.
with all due respect to your friends (whom i dont know.) and their opinions/reasons (which i also dont know.
the reason most people dont like unions is because they dont know what the unions have got for them. they automatically assume their employer would offer health care, vacation time etc....
and more importantly it kills the percieved "favoritism" noone can be promoted without reason and due application proccess, which kills brown nosing and all sorts of other workplace crap.
a good union can help in ALOT of ways most people dont notice. like number of hours one person can work per week, defending the actual "job description" to a T. and most importantly it can buy its own lobbyists to push for laws that help its employees. such has taxing the living hell out of offshored labor.
this is the nice thing about a well run union. they cant fire you without just cause. and whomever they hire must be in the union.
at least thats how the teamsters and afl-cio are run. corrupt or not the tech sector needs something to help with the offshoring and unreasonable working conditions. which would also help you find a job.
anything that you do in the US constitutes a reason to move all your/our jobs offshore.
show up for work. send job offshore.
dont show up. send job offshore.
take a vacation. send job offshore.
apply for a job. it gets sent offshore.
quit a job. it gets sent offshore.
why ? because everything is cheaper offshore and there are no laws to protect us.
unions are a GOOD thing. if tech workers had a union we could get laws institued that could heavily tax the offshoring of tech jobs when there is a sufficient supply.
and exactly how is one supposed to "find out where the code came from" ? should linus start calling EVERY single place who has access to any code to verify it wasnt theirs ?
a closed source product cannot be verified. the code is not public and therefor any closed source code cannot be verified. but more importantly than that.... what would keep someone from using solaris code in aix ? how would the IBM supervisor find out if code is from solaris ? call up the compotition and say something to the effect of "hey i got this really nice piece of code here, i think somebody might have stolen it from you. wanna run a cross reference through your millions of lines of code. sure i'll wait, when your done with that i have another piece you can check for."
brilliant solution. i can see how this would help. no really i can.
long and short -- no way to check for existing code. especially from closed source applications. even if you come up with a way to check it you would essentially be inviting people to use the code. this works fine for open source platforms. but closed source applications shouldnt be have to be open source so welcome to the real problem. and these isn't a real way to solve it. funny thing is that there is no SCO code in the kernel, SCO already said that.
i agree that what the riaa is doing is/what IBM might do is crap.
however IBM wont settle it makes no sense, they'll either buy them or fight them. plus if they do settle all they would be doing is passing the buck, and funding a lawsuit against redhat/SuSe/Sun/whoever. which will not help matters.
internal documents alone wont win this case. the funny thing is that even if SCO has a winnable case they are not going to win against IBM. IBM can just drag this case out forever until SCO runs out of money. kinda scary that the RIAA's legal plan can be used for something good eh ?
to qoute: Given the loose nature of linux coding, I'm not surprised at all that someone with access to SCO code would contribute it to Linux.
I dont think you know a damn thing about "Linux" coding. what you seem confused about is weather a program is "Linux", the answer is NO. the only thing that is and has been "Linux" is the Kernel. And if you know that i would like you to explain to me how its "loose" in nature ? their is only ONE person who can "officially" approve code for use in "THE" kernel, and thats Linus. You can code a module, or even modify the hell out of the kernel, but thats not "Linux", "Linux" can only be found from one place: kernel.org, everything else is a modifyied version of it, and therefor the individual vendors are responsible for it. (hence redhat has an issue if a redhat kernel has SCO code in it, whereas the vanilla kernel wont.)
and i would challenge you to find ANY OS who only has one guy in charge of approving code/patches to the kernel.
two Questions for you, what is the "management software" does it run on linux ? (if you not sure thats cool, what i really wanna know is if it is written in something like java or C, then it should work.) and have you had any HDD issues with it?
Slashdot Mirror
where do you want me to start ?
;-)
i nfo/features_by_edition/ ? cid=61836&parentId=80712
im not linking these since im lazy
http://macromedia.com/software/coldfusion/product
http://store.sun.com/catalog/doc/BrowsePage.jhtml
http://veritas.com/
http://oracle.com --developer only. >beta
i think your getting the point yea ?
firstly i wasnt a great salesman. but for the average user what the hell do they gain from a 2 or 3G system that they dont get on a $1500 system ?
.... that kinda goes hand in hand with doing something new. but the average computer USER doesnt do much new. hence why the almost always run whatever OS is on the system til they get a new one ......
..... Dell
they can "easilly manage digital video, pictures and audio files while doing all the usual mundane tasks (e-mail with spam protection, web browsing with pop-up blocking)" with a standard windows or linux PC. as far as "they don't want to fuck around with driver, config, and library files every damn time they try to do something new"
making a profit is not a big deal, redhat does that. what the point the article was trying to make is simple "how long til more people use linux than mac OSX on a desktop". the answer is soon since linux runs on most hardware old and new and mac doesnt.
remember mac's market share has not grown in the past year. linux's has.
BTW
how is that a shoddy budget PC ? add on the in home service for another $300 and your still under my aforementioned $1500 price.
and on what planet do you not have to fuck with drivers ?
well considering i only have a 16mb vid card in that box im not to conserned with it but since you brought it up .....
... just fine. but your right we dont play all those fancy pants new games that run $40 on our computers.
we play quake 1 2 and 3 , bzflag, parsec etc
thats why i own a playstation 2.
yeah but (coming from someone who sold mac's and pc's during the .com boom.) hardly anyone spends more than $1500 on a computer these days. and the vast majority of people look at two things when they buy computers
Name
Mhz/Ghz or "speed"
mac's are purrty and shiny, but apple's name recognition is not what it once was, and their "speed" is not as nice as Intels or as market based as AMD.
remember one thing when making that assesment.
.mov's, wmv's .... you get the idea.
.... but it is also capable of doing/running a crapload more stuff than macOS? on the server
Ferrari = way over priced.
Linux on the desktop requires next to no maitnence. once you have things installed you are set to roll. i have been running RH 7.3 on my workstation (at work) for a year and a half without issue. and i can run dvd's, mp3's, vcd's, avi's,
Linux on the server requires maitnence sure
you asked: "Would you be so keen to chop your books into chapters to be sold invididually?"
.... usually breaks down to something like 1 or 2% profit. their major bank is touring.
yes, if i wrote a good book i dont see where the pain/problem is ? people buy chapter one read it , and if they like it they buy the rest. simple. its no damn different than a borders or barnes and noble setup. except i can do it at home butt naked with a bowl of lime jello.
No, if i wrote a piece of crap. or some fluff novel. Because people would buy chapter one and not buy anything else cause my book sucks.
now on to a previous point, the average musician clocks 3-6% of the retail price of a CD, then they payback the label for studio time advertising etc
i dont know crap about book publishing except the "elite" of that genre of art are not hurting. J.K. rawling and steven king make just as much (if not more) than radiohead and madonna. i also assume that authors make alot of money when their books are licensed for movies, toys etc. so this is different how ?
the reason the afformentioned pop-artists are whining is because they can no longer drive album sales (2% of $20 is $.40) from one catchy single which generate more money per sale (as opposed to the $.12 they are making per downloaded song.).
nary an album in the past decade has been a "story" or a work of art. its usually a collection of songs written by different people that vaugely sound the same. and thats only because its the same group of half-asses making the "music".
excuse me for my speeling in advance.
goddamn. quite the logic you got working there.
.sig.
..... that way i can be the biggest pro-monopoly-whore !!!
.... i have no intention of buying it, instead i will use its obvious and forthcoming flaws to make sure other people dont buy it either.
{mock thought proccess}
posts something taking an obvious stab at microsoft. then has anti-billy boy
this guy must own every release of windows ever made !!!
i must make sure he doesnt buy this one
{/mock thought proccess}
and dont you worry
i have locate. i have find. i have egrep and grep.
i do not need nor want a relational database to keep track of my files or info about my files.
and i definetly DEFINETLY do not under any circumstances want any goddamn database software that microsoft wrote to try and keep track of a damn thing. ever.
RING RING ..... this is your brain calling ....
....
.... does music disappear ? hell no. so what would happen ? people would adapt, and the market would adapt as well, then the people would find the music they actually liked. good bands would finally get airtime. it would be a wonderful thing. it would be music the way it is supposed to be. by the people and for the people. not by the gluttons and force fed to the people.
firstly, the only reason anyone who is a really an artist would want to sign with a major is because they want the one in a million chance to get rich. however they would and do sign with major labels because they are forced to.
the major labels (RIAA) have a monopoly. simple period end of discussion. they use this monopoly to control everything within their industry, involving their industry etc
Do you like the majors ? yes ? fine. but dont try to feed anyone that bullshit that the majors are good for a damn thing, because they arent. the majority of major's artists go in debt because of shitty bussiness decisions they have no control over. They are raped of any creativness they had at the expense of "flavor of the month-ites." that labels impose on them. they control all major distribution channels, manufacturing channels etc .
the major labels have been completely useless for the past 30 years. they destroy creativity and only promote what is "commercial" enough to sell. and everytime something that was once unknown comes along and shows promise they force it down our throats until we get sick of it.
stop watching mtv cribs. it is not the average musicians life.
you'd be surprised how well music would flourish if the majors were forced to play fair. you claim that someone with a website could outsell a major label artist. take away viacomm owned MTV, clearchannel run radio
i own 2000 (est) records (vinyl) and 2500 (est) cd's. and you know what ? almost all of the records are from the 60's (inherited) and the majority (80 - 85%) of the cd's are indy. why ? because i have been boycoting the RIAA for three years not a single album bought by anything major label in three years, simply because as a musician i cannot stand the damn bastards. i know way to many good musicians who are awesome but aren't "whats in" so they dont get to sell albums at any major stores because of the monopoly.
FACT: greenday could have sold 75,000 copies of dookie on an indie label and made as much as they did selling 10 million copies on a major.
FACT: TLC the highest selling female group of all time had to declare bankruptcy after releasing one of the highest selling albums of the 90's (crazysexycool)
its things like that that you seem to forget. the majors will provide a glossy cover for anyone who is selling a shit-load of records. but if you "only" sell 500,000 or 800,000 you are considered insufficient and will be subsequently dropped on your ass, and handed a bill.
the RIAA has every right to charge for the things it does for the artists, but paying 1 million dollars for ads in a shitty magazine is fucking retarded and the artist shouldnt suffer because of the majors fuck up.
untill the RIAA starts treating the artists it has signed better, and opening up the industry and allowing smaller labels to compete they can fuck off.
GM = microsoft
... look away!
ford = SCO
if you haven't looked at ford lately
with all due respect to your friends (whom i dont know.) and their opinions/reasons (which i also dont know.
....
the reason most people dont like unions is because they dont know what the unions have got for them. they automatically assume their employer would offer health care, vacation time etc
and more importantly it kills the percieved "favoritism" noone can be promoted without reason and due application proccess, which kills brown nosing and all sorts of other workplace crap.
a good union can help in ALOT of ways most people dont notice. like number of hours one person can work per week, defending the actual "job description" to a T. and most importantly it can buy its own lobbyists to push for laws that help its employees. such has taxing the living hell out of offshored labor.
this is the nice thing about a well run union. they cant fire you without just cause. and whomever they hire must be in the union.
at least thats how the teamsters and afl-cio are run. corrupt or not the tech sector needs something to help with the offshoring and unreasonable working conditions. which would also help you find a job.
im sorry i should really post several million reply's regarding india and their citizens.
of workers to support the demand locally.
*must learn to use preview button*
anything that you do in the US constitutes a reason to move all your/our jobs offshore.
show up for work. send job offshore.
dont show up. send job offshore.
take a vacation. send job offshore.
apply for a job. it gets sent offshore.
quit a job. it gets sent offshore.
why ? because everything is cheaper offshore and there are no laws to protect us.
unions are a GOOD thing. if tech workers had a union we could get laws institued that could heavily tax the offshoring of tech jobs when there is a sufficient supply.
mod parent up informative and funny.
if anybody has any experience with the tech workers in india you will get the point.
family holiday weekend + new comedy with good non-perverse actor = good weekend
.......
family holiday weekend + shoot-em up action flick rated R with semi-nudity = not so good weekend.
call it a hunch but the matrix will be back on top next week, and will end up bringing in more money in the long haul
okay now find an ASCI text version of trinity's ass .......
Thank you kid rock for that insight.
i hope to god you were joking.
and exactly how is one supposed to "find out where the code came from" ? should linus start calling EVERY single place who has access to any code to verify it wasnt theirs ?
.... what would keep someone from using solaris code in aix ? how would the IBM supervisor find out if code is from solaris ? call up the compotition and say something to the effect of "hey i got this really nice piece of code here, i think somebody might have stolen it from you. wanna run a cross reference through your millions of lines of code. sure i'll wait, when your done with that i have another piece you can check for."
brilliant solution. i can see how this would help. no really i can.
a closed source product cannot be verified. the code is not public and therefor any closed source code cannot be verified. but more importantly than that
long and short -- no way to check for existing code. especially from closed source applications. even if you come up with a way to check it you would essentially be inviting people to use the code. this works fine for open source platforms. but closed source applications shouldnt be have to be open source so welcome to the real problem. and these isn't a real way to solve it. funny thing is that there is no SCO code in the kernel, SCO already said that.
mod parent up as sarcastic ;-)
i agree that what the riaa is doing is/what IBM might do is crap.
however IBM wont settle it makes no sense, they'll either buy them or fight them. plus if they do settle all they would be doing is passing the buck, and funding a lawsuit against redhat/SuSe/Sun/whoever. which will not help matters.
chicken vs the egg argument.
internal documents alone wont win this case. the funny thing is that even if SCO has a winnable case they are not going to win against IBM. IBM can just drag this case out forever until SCO runs out of money. kinda scary that the RIAA's legal plan can be used for something good eh ?
to qoute: Given the loose nature of linux coding, I'm not surprised at all that someone with access to SCO code would contribute it to Linux.
I dont think you know a damn thing about "Linux" coding. what you seem confused about is weather a program is "Linux", the answer is NO. the only thing that is and has been "Linux" is the Kernel. And if you know that i would like you to explain to me how its "loose" in nature ? their is only ONE person who can "officially" approve code for use in "THE" kernel, and thats Linus. You can code a module, or even modify the hell out of the kernel, but thats not "Linux", "Linux" can only be found from one place: kernel.org, everything else is a modifyied version of it, and therefor the individual vendors are responsible for it. (hence redhat has an issue if a redhat kernel has SCO code in it, whereas the vanilla kernel wont.)
and i would challenge you to find ANY OS who only has one guy in charge of approving code/patches to the kernel.
the Neo looks interesting to say the least.
two Questions for you, what is the "management software" does it run on linux ? (if you not sure thats cool, what i really wanna know is if it is written in something like java or C, then it should work.) and have you had any HDD issues with it?