I'm running Win2K univ. edition when I play games. The only time I can ever recall getting a screen is when IE crashes. Windows shuts down programs all the time and I get BSODs on a semi-regular basis, so it's not like I don't have a good sampling pool.:)
If IBM can own the patents but not the source, that doesn't preclude them from putting the same type of implementation into Linux, even with the same programmers (as they've patented the implementation), they just can't copy.
It's the amazing new product, Insta-Geek! By taking this supplement regularly, you can magically turn yourself into an intelligent*, smelly nerd**! Be the, uh, envy of all your friends!
Try Insta-Geektoday!
*Not guaranteed to bestow knowledge of kernel hacking. **Not responsible for any resulting physical abuse.
1) You don't necessarily even need an admin as most Linux distros come complete with what you need.
2) You're worried about where you install new apps? This worries me. Even using the old crufty RPM system, this isn't even a concern, and using package managers like up2date, Red Carpet, apt, urpm (?), portage, etc. make this a NON-ISSUE.
3) Adding menus? I can't speak for KDE, but in GNOME 2, adding desktop/toolbar icons is trivial. (Note, this isn't new to GNOME 2). Most GNOME 2 applications add them by default to the correct places in the applications menu. If not, yes, you are very correct, the current method of manually adding icons is a joke (anyone know of another way but adding the entry by copying pixmaps and editing files?). However, it seems that a lot of folks like you and me are complaining about this, so it shouldn't be an issue much longer.
4) Uninstalling applications? Get a package manager jack!:)
5) Please don't take offense, but I'm not sure whether you're not a common user of Linux or whether you're just extremely old-school, but if you're the old-school route and want an easier to maintain system, I'd say maybe give Gentoo a try. It can take a good while to get it installed if you haven't done a slack/LFS/etc install before, but it seriously is a no brainer to admin the box. If you want any help with it or want more info, email me (email in profile, put SLASHDOT in subject).
Well, to make it useful you'd only really need to do it for the main projects. Mozilla, Galeon, Xine, Evolution, xcdroast (or whatever else), etc. A single group could enter that information (including options) in a few days.
Make it easy for programs to register themselves and get a big name behind it (the GNOME project, Red Hat, etc.) and I think you'd have a viable system.
So here's the question: I'm willing to look at doing something like this in my spare time. This is something my family and friends could use, so it'd be worth it. I honestly think that something like this could go a long way to making Linux champ on the desktop.
Is anyone else interested in something like this? Send me some mail if so. My email is above or in my profile, put SLASHDOT in the subject.
It's good that you've picked up on this. Many folks don't.
One thing to consider: who, save folks who do more than 'use' their computer, do administration tasks (installing)?
"Well, DUH, Dalcius, you RETARD! I install programs every other week on my Windows box. Weather buddy, Winamp, etc."
When users get a Windows box from Dell, they're going to be missing some things. Weather program, MP3 player, possibly a CD burning program, CD ripping program, etc. etc. People have to install these by hand, hence the perception that installing programs is horrifically normal.
From what I've seen, a default install of Red Hat offers everything that I typically download and install for 2K. That said, up2date, or better, Red Carpet make installing programs relatively easy. Figuring out program names in Red Carpet, isn't pie, but how do you accomplish the same task on Windows? Search for "MP3 player" on google and find the name of some software and download it.
Folks really should think about this. Windows almost exclusively comes pre-installed. Most folks don't download and install more than a handful of programs of which most Linux distros install Linux equivilents by default.
So here's the question: Is Linux really not ready for the desktop? Most admin tasks are either done by a knowledgable family member or an IT admin. You folks are all thinking about "Uncle Bob and Anne" installing their CD burner drivers or installing programs, but most users rarely do this on their own. Most of you folks are coming at this from your own point of view, and that's not the way to look at it.
Linux is no less ready for the desktop than Windows. Quit expecting Linux to live up to standards that you don't hold Windows to.
Imagine if Internet Explorer were labeled "The Internet." What does this do for, say, Mozilla? Netscape? Opera?
That said, the primary benefit, in my mind, of Linux is choice. The idea is to offer many choices, but good defaults, so both normal users are happy (with defaults) and users who like to play around can use what they like. It is necessary to show that there are other alternatives.
THAT said, a task browser wouldn't be such a bad idea.
*Click* What would you like to do? *Click: Burn a CD* You have selected burning data to a CD. Where will this data come from? [Files|ISO] *Click: ISO:* Lauching xcdroast with your specifications...
A bad example to be sure, but it would be an interesting concept.
SCO is not just attacking IBM, but the GPL as well. They're going after the whole idea of open source, trying to convince IBM to step back from the GPL, etc.
This is an attack on the open source way of life and an attack on the friends of GCC. This is an attack on a community.
Not only that, who do you think makes GCC? This whole FUD and anti-GPL campaign strikes directly at the ideals of the FSF.
This is more than just a strike at IBM. Don't you read Slashdot?:)
1) Free software is oft written by folks in the Free Software Movement.
2) Microsoft support is there because Microsoft is relevant. SCO isn't.
3) > if its developers yank your support because they don't like the operating system you use, then they run the risk of being percieved as unreliable. Read: If you don't bend-over to people who want to give it to you, you won't be viewed as an easy target and the scumballs of the Earth won't play nice with you any more.
Sorry, bud, but most of us left the "if you don't give me _____ I won't be your friend anymore" scheme behind in elementary school.
4) > "And how community-friendly is it to yank support for an OS that some people might be heavily reliant upon, when those people aren't responsible for the lawsuit madness?"
How fair is it for these same people, supposedly part of the community, to support a company that is tearing said community apart? If they respect the community at all, they'll understand that it is necessary for the community's self defense.
You know, I really life the EFF. Only the occasional email, and they make it absolutely painless to contact your representatives. Use their form letter or write your own. This is what many folks have asked for; you really have no excuse now.
I'm really glad these folks are around.
Now that I think about it, I think I'll log on tonight and donate a little change.
An ATM running an open and unpatched SMB on a network that, directly or not, is exposed to the internet...
Some things are completely understandable. But this just makes me want to sit down with the IT guy who dempt this up and ask him what the hell he was thinking.
Just a thought, reading your sig for the 500th time (previous discussions with you and all [RIAA, etc.]): If you ever need a hand with Linux, gimme a buzz. Email's in the profile. Put SLASHDOT in the subject.
Well, when you really think about it, this is the only way it should be. Law enforcement needs to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you did crime X. When it involves a computer crime, it falls to them to prove you you did it, not that it was likely that you did it.
An interesting point this brings up. Do we convict people based on statistics now (well, yeah, of course, but let's play dumb for a bit and pretend the system is perfect)?
Are KKK ideals wrong?
One might say, "Yes, they foster hatred which in turn causes action in many people." But is the idea wrong or the action?
Kiddie porn is made by real people. These people should be reformed, or just locked up or otherwise restricted if necessary (notice I didn't use the word punish -- personal belief system at work).
But is viewing the result a crime in itself? Sure, it's worth of further investigation. But save anything else found, is viewing in itself a crime?
The true meaning of giving freedom to others is giving them everything including that which you don't agree with, so long as it doesn't hurt anyone but themselves. Personally, I'd rather convict the KKK of murder than of thoughtcrime.
> The same problem could exist in any net technology, where you might not get a preview prior to download.
It's interesting to consider that you can't "preview" something on a computer without receiving it. Best case scenario is that your ISP is only a carrier and doesn't monitor what comes across and that the image/whatever only gets stored in memory.
However, no one who hasn't looked at the code/docs for a progrma will know. This certainly rules out the majority of people who don't know the difference between storing something in memory and on the disk.
The conclusion? Government (courts are included here) needs to get up to speed on technology before passing judgement on it.
> If it's passively, this could either be the user's
A car driver isn't tested on brake repair knowledge. If his brakes passively fail, or more close to the analogy, if someone cuts his brake lines, is it his fault if he runs someone down due to lack of brakes? If so, can we hold computer users to the same?
>...or the software architect's fault (if some OS's security hole allow one to get into trouble).
I might agree with this, but then the issue comes up, if a manufacturer doesn't put protective coverings around all hydraulic lines in your car, are they responsible for someone cutting the lines? This coupled with today's EULAs leave me thinking this won't work.
> This could also be due to the ISP's neglect.
This is the part that made me reply. I'm not sure if you're aware of how networks function. Computer programs create 'packets' (think of them as letters) and send them to other programs on another computer. The other program reads these packets.
Now to explain this, I'll use a quick analogy. You're a person (program) living in an apartment (computer). You send outgoing mail (a packet). The local post office (local ISP) picks it up and routes it. It goes through more post offices (other ISPs) and is delivered at the post office (ISP) where the destination (computer) is serviced. The letter (packet) is then delivered at the apartment complex (computer) to the PO box (port) of the person (program) you're sending the letter (packet) to.
What you're suggesting is that the post office take responsibility for letters. In the ISP sense, ISPs would either have to filter the data by its contents (which is next to impossible with all the traffic out there) or block entire ports to stop it. There is nothing more annoying than to have your ISP block a port on your network. My incoming port 80 was blocked by my ISP to stop the Code Red virus and I had to get a work-around to host my modest personal website. I want the freedom to do with my own connection as I please, not as my ISP chooses.
On a tangent, this is the general concept behind Libertarianism. Don't expect everyone else (ISP) to take the responsibility of caring for you. In the same vein, it's only sane to expect law enforcement to have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you and you alone were responsible for anything like this. It's odd how this "innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt" concept sounds so foreign to people. Just something to think about, but I digress...
> concerning the present situation, I'd be somehow concerned if I learnt that like my ISP, my OS was actually logging whichever off my actions in order to prove the Law how bad I am actually behaving...
Most ISPs have a clause that says they'll only monitor you to comply with law enforcement. It really isn't to keep you happy, but because they don't want to take responsibility for what you do with your connection.
You've missed the whole point. AOL is easy to use on the surface, but no typical AOL user is going to be able to tell you what happens when he enters an AOL keyword and presses enter.
A computer is not like monopoly, or a dishwasher, or a screwdriver. A computer is a gateway to an insane number of tools, all of which function in different ways. To use a computer, you can't expect to learn it overnight just as you don't learn to drive a car (another complex task) overnight. To understand what a computer is doing is much analogous to understanding how a car works: very few people actually know.
Even hardcore developers accidentally leave security holes in programs they design, how can we expect a mere user to take responsibility for his box if someone else hijacks it? If someone steals your car and runs someone over, is it your fault now?
I don't have the will to get into the necessary explaination, but here's something to think about:
Assuming the government only steps in in cases like the Baby Bells, Microsoft, Standard Oil, etc., the question arises: won't we have more corporate control?
Most of the problem lies in barriers to entry. Patents and general IP, lawsuits, and government regulations and requirements are often the biggest factors in barriers to entry. These are all part of government regulation which go largely unchecked.
There is a time and a place for a small body of individuals to make decisions for everyone else to make things easier, but I'd rather keep my daily business to myself.
IIRC, it was done by someone outside a firewall working for another company -- someone who didn't have full priviledges. IIRC, they had to break into a box to get through the firewall and then into more systems. Or I could just be talking out of my arse.:)
Some of the reports are sketchy. Sorry if I'm not up to snuff, I'm trying to get some work done today.;)
1) The court system is part of "government". I couldn't see the DOJ getting in on this issue.
2) If they took all the reasonable precautions (logging, regular audits, security priviledges, etc.), then I certainly don't see a need for them to do more than notify those whose data was compromised and try their best to ensure that it doesn't happen again. No system can be protected 100%.
However, I won't bet the farm that this was an incident of a responsible company and an unfortunate incident.
What I'm reading is almost strictly related to administration issues: installing the OS, drivers, programs, etc. I'll be the first to admit: this needs a lot of work from distros and from hardware manufacturers.
That said, if you've got someone who knows how to manage it, a friend or IT tech, Linux is usable for everyone. For the vast majority of normal tasks done on a computer, the programs are capable and easy to use. This is why Linux is ready for the corporate environment and for friends of Linux users.
Then again, not many folks do admin tasks on their Windows installations either. The only lacking element is the non-hardcore-but-regular computer user.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm running Win2K univ. edition when I play games. The only time I can ever recall getting a screen is when IE crashes. Windows shuts down programs all the time and I get BSODs on a semi-regular basis, so it's not like I don't have a good sampling pool. :)
If IBM can own the patents but not the source, that doesn't preclude them from putting the same type of implementation into Linux, even with the same programmers (as they've patented the implementation), they just can't copy.
This should be interesting, regardless.
It's the amazing new product, Insta-Geek! By taking this supplement regularly, you can magically turn yourself into an intelligent*, smelly nerd**! Be the, uh, envy of all your friends!
Try Insta-Geek today!
*Not guaranteed to bestow knowledge of kernel hacking.
**Not responsible for any resulting physical abuse.
1) You don't necessarily even need an admin as most Linux distros come complete with what you need.
:)
2) You're worried about where you install new apps? This worries me. Even using the old crufty RPM system, this isn't even a concern, and using package managers like up2date, Red Carpet, apt, urpm (?), portage, etc. make this a NON-ISSUE.
3) Adding menus? I can't speak for KDE, but in GNOME 2, adding desktop/toolbar icons is trivial. (Note, this isn't new to GNOME 2). Most GNOME 2 applications add them by default to the correct places in the applications menu. If not, yes, you are very correct, the current method of manually adding icons is a joke (anyone know of another way but adding the entry by copying pixmaps and editing files?). However, it seems that a lot of folks like you and me are complaining about this, so it shouldn't be an issue much longer.
4) Uninstalling applications? Get a package manager jack!
5) Please don't take offense, but I'm not sure whether you're not a common user of Linux or whether you're just extremely old-school, but if you're the old-school route and want an easier to maintain system, I'd say maybe give Gentoo a try. It can take a good while to get it installed if you haven't done a slack/LFS/etc install before, but it seriously is a no brainer to admin the box. If you want any help with it or want more info, email me (email in profile, put SLASHDOT in subject).
Well, to make it useful you'd only really need to do it for the main projects. Mozilla, Galeon, Xine, Evolution, xcdroast (or whatever else), etc. A single group could enter that information (including options) in a few days.
Make it easy for programs to register themselves and get a big name behind it (the GNOME project, Red Hat, etc.) and I think you'd have a viable system.
So here's the question:
I'm willing to look at doing something like this in my spare time. This is something my family and friends could use, so it'd be worth it. I honestly think that something like this could go a long way to making Linux champ on the desktop.
Is anyone else interested in something like this?
Send me some mail if so. My email is above or in my profile, put SLASHDOT in the subject.
It's good that you've picked up on this. Many folks don't.
One thing to consider: who, save folks who do more than 'use' their computer, do administration tasks (installing)?
"Well, DUH, Dalcius, you RETARD! I install programs every other week on my Windows box. Weather buddy, Winamp, etc."
When users get a Windows box from Dell, they're going to be missing some things. Weather program, MP3 player, possibly a CD burning program, CD ripping program, etc. etc. People have to install these by hand, hence the perception that installing programs is horrifically normal.
From what I've seen, a default install of Red Hat offers everything that I typically download and install for 2K. That said, up2date, or better, Red Carpet make installing programs relatively easy. Figuring out program names in Red Carpet, isn't pie, but how do you accomplish the same task on Windows? Search for "MP3 player" on google and find the name of some software and download it.
Folks really should think about this. Windows almost exclusively comes pre-installed. Most folks don't download and install more than a handful of programs of which most Linux distros install Linux equivilents by default.
So here's the question: Is Linux really not ready for the desktop? Most admin tasks are either done by a knowledgable family member or an IT admin. You folks are all thinking about "Uncle Bob and Anne" installing their CD burner drivers or installing programs, but most users rarely do this on their own. Most of you folks are coming at this from your own point of view, and that's not the way to look at it.
Linux is no less ready for the desktop than Windows. Quit expecting Linux to live up to standards that you don't hold Windows to.
Imagine if Internet Explorer were labeled "The Internet." What does this do for, say, Mozilla? Netscape? Opera?
That said, the primary benefit, in my mind, of Linux is choice. The idea is to offer many choices, but good defaults, so both normal users are happy (with defaults) and users who like to play around can use what they like. It is necessary to show that there are other alternatives.
THAT said, a task browser wouldn't be such a bad idea.
*Click*
What would you like to do?
*Click: Burn a CD*
You have selected burning data to a CD. Where will this data come from? [Files|ISO]
*Click: ISO:*
Lauching xcdroast with your specifications...
A bad example to be sure, but it would be an interesting concept.
As of Tuesday, August 12th at 7:18 PM CST, this is still the case, though it's not on the front page:
Google News search
That is flippin hilarious, thanks for the laugh!
Don't fool yourself.
:)
SCO is not just attacking IBM, but the GPL as well. They're going after the whole idea of open source, trying to convince IBM to step back from the GPL, etc.
This is an attack on the open source way of life and an attack on the friends of GCC. This is an attack on a community.
Not only that, who do you think makes GCC? This whole FUD and anti-GPL campaign strikes directly at the ideals of the FSF.
This is more than just a strike at IBM. Don't you read Slashdot?
1) Free software is oft written by folks in the Free Software Movement.
2) Microsoft support is there because Microsoft is relevant. SCO isn't.
3) > if its developers yank your support because they don't like the operating system you use, then they run the risk of being percieved as unreliable.
Read: If you don't bend-over to people who want to give it to you, you won't be viewed as an easy target and the scumballs of the Earth won't play nice with you any more.
Sorry, bud, but most of us left the "if you don't give me _____ I won't be your friend anymore" scheme behind in elementary school.
4) > "And how community-friendly is it to yank support for an OS that some people might be heavily reliant upon, when those people aren't responsible for the lawsuit madness?"
How fair is it for these same people, supposedly part of the community, to support a company that is tearing said community apart? If they respect the community at all, they'll understand that it is necessary for the community's self defense.
You know, I really life the EFF. Only the occasional email, and they make it absolutely painless to contact your representatives. Use their form letter or write your own. This is what many folks have asked for; you really have no excuse now.
I'm really glad these folks are around.
Now that I think about it, I think I'll log on tonight and donate a little change.
An ATM running an open and unpatched SMB on a network that, directly or not, is exposed to the internet...
Some things are completely understandable. But this just makes me want to sit down with the IT guy who dempt this up and ask him what the hell he was thinking.
Just a thought, reading your sig for the 500th time (previous discussions with you and all [RIAA, etc.]):
If you ever need a hand with Linux, gimme a buzz. Email's in the profile. Put SLASHDOT in the subject.
The same goes for other slashdotters as well. =)
Well, when you really think about it, this is the only way it should be. Law enforcement needs to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you did crime X. When it involves a computer crime, it falls to them to prove you you did it, not that it was likely that you did it.
Unfortunately, in this society...
An interesting point this brings up. Do we convict people based on statistics now (well, yeah, of course, but let's play dumb for a bit and pretend the system is perfect)?
Are KKK ideals wrong?
One might say, "Yes, they foster hatred which in turn causes action in many people." But is the idea wrong or the action?
Kiddie porn is made by real people. These people should be reformed, or just locked up or otherwise restricted if necessary (notice I didn't use the word punish -- personal belief system at work).
But is viewing the result a crime in itself? Sure, it's worth of further investigation. But save anything else found, is viewing in itself a crime?
The true meaning of giving freedom to others is giving them everything including that which you don't agree with, so long as it doesn't hurt anyone but themselves. Personally, I'd rather convict the KKK of murder than of thoughtcrime.
> The same problem could exist in any net technology, where you might not get a preview prior to download.
It's interesting to consider that you can't "preview" something on a computer without receiving it. Best case scenario is that your ISP is only a carrier and doesn't monitor what comes across and that the image/whatever only gets stored in memory.
However, no one who hasn't looked at the code/docs for a progrma will know. This certainly rules out the majority of people who don't know the difference between storing something in memory and on the disk.
The conclusion? Government (courts are included here) needs to get up to speed on technology before passing judgement on it.
> If it's passively, this could either be the user's
...or the software architect's fault (if some OS's security hole allow one to get into trouble).
A car driver isn't tested on brake repair knowledge. If his brakes passively fail, or more close to the analogy, if someone cuts his brake lines, is it his fault if he runs someone down due to lack of brakes? If so, can we hold computer users to the same?
>
I might agree with this, but then the issue comes up, if a manufacturer doesn't put protective coverings around all hydraulic lines in your car, are they responsible for someone cutting the lines? This coupled with today's EULAs leave me thinking this won't work.
> This could also be due to the ISP's neglect.
This is the part that made me reply. I'm not sure if you're aware of how networks function. Computer programs create 'packets' (think of them as letters) and send them to other programs on another computer. The other program reads these packets.
Now to explain this, I'll use a quick analogy. You're a person (program) living in an apartment (computer). You send outgoing mail (a packet). The local post office (local ISP) picks it up and routes it. It goes through more post offices (other ISPs) and is delivered at the post office (ISP) where the destination (computer) is serviced. The letter (packet) is then delivered at the apartment complex (computer) to the PO box (port) of the person (program) you're sending the letter (packet) to.
What you're suggesting is that the post office take responsibility for letters. In the ISP sense, ISPs would either have to filter the data by its contents (which is next to impossible with all the traffic out there) or block entire ports to stop it. There is nothing more annoying than to have your ISP block a port on your network. My incoming port 80 was blocked by my ISP to stop the Code Red virus and I had to get a work-around to host my modest personal website. I want the freedom to do with my own connection as I please, not as my ISP chooses.
On a tangent, this is the general concept behind Libertarianism. Don't expect everyone else (ISP) to take the responsibility of caring for you. In the same vein, it's only sane to expect law enforcement to have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you and you alone were responsible for anything like this. It's odd how this "innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt" concept sounds so foreign to people. Just something to think about, but I digress...
> concerning the present situation, I'd be somehow concerned if I learnt that like my ISP, my OS was actually logging whichever off my actions in order to prove the Law how bad I am actually behaving...
Most ISPs have a clause that says they'll only monitor you to comply with law enforcement. It really isn't to keep you happy, but because they don't want to take responsibility for what you do with your connection.
Eh, I don't think so.
You've missed the whole point. AOL is easy to use on the surface, but no typical AOL user is going to be able to tell you what happens when he enters an AOL keyword and presses enter.
A computer is not like monopoly, or a dishwasher, or a screwdriver. A computer is a gateway to an insane number of tools, all of which function in different ways. To use a computer, you can't expect to learn it overnight just as you don't learn to drive a car (another complex task) overnight. To understand what a computer is doing is much analogous to understanding how a car works: very few people actually know.
Even hardcore developers accidentally leave security holes in programs they design, how can we expect a mere user to take responsibility for his box if someone else hijacks it? If someone steals your car and runs someone over, is it your fault now?
I don't have the will to get into the necessary explaination, but here's something to think about:
Assuming the government only steps in in cases like the Baby Bells, Microsoft, Standard Oil, etc., the question arises: won't we have more corporate control?
Most of the problem lies in barriers to entry. Patents and general IP, lawsuits, and government regulations and requirements are often the biggest factors in barriers to entry. These are all part of government regulation which go largely unchecked.
There is a time and a place for a small body of individuals to make decisions for everyone else to make things easier, but I'd rather keep my daily business to myself.
As the saying goes, it is foolish to interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake.
I think that was Sun Tzu, but I couldn't find out for certain.
~Dalcius
Star Wars:
"And now witness the firepower of this fully-armed and operational battlestation. Fire at will, commander..."
IIRC, it was done by someone outside a firewall working for another company -- someone who didn't have full priviledges. IIRC, they had to break into a box to get through the firewall and then into more systems. Or I could just be talking out of my arse. :)
;)
Some of the reports are sketchy. Sorry if I'm not up to snuff, I'm trying to get some work done today.
Let me add on so I don't get flamed...
1) The court system is part of "government". I couldn't see the DOJ getting in on this issue.
2) If they took all the reasonable precautions (logging, regular audits, security priviledges, etc.), then I certainly don't see a need for them to do more than notify those whose data was compromised and try their best to ensure that it doesn't happen again. No system can be protected 100%.
However, I won't bet the farm that this was an incident of a responsible company and an unfortunate incident.
A few words that might mean something:
1) Logging
2) Audit
3) Priviledges
4) Accountability
5) Background-check
What I'm reading is almost strictly related to administration issues: installing the OS, drivers, programs, etc. I'll be the first to admit: this needs a lot of work from distros and from hardware manufacturers.
That said, if you've got someone who knows how to manage it, a friend or IT tech, Linux is usable for everyone. For the vast majority of normal tasks done on a computer, the programs are capable and easy to use. This is why Linux is ready for the corporate environment and for friends of Linux users.
Then again, not many folks do admin tasks on their Windows installations either. The only lacking element is the non-hardcore-but-regular computer user.
I hope this post doesn't get lost in the crowd...