I really don't think it assumes too much. This entire site is geared toward a demographic that has been following VT for some time.
Therefore, instead of complaining, you can...
Take advantage of this wonderful opportunity to learn something new and do some research. You've already got the Internet, which will tell you everything you want to know.
Stop reading Slashdot. If the stories aren't hitting home with you, then maybe you'd like to try another site. You've got the Internet for that too.
Skip it and focus on the stories that interest you. If you're not concerned enough to research it, and you're not alienated enough to quit Slashdot, it's time to move on. What, did you think you could get us to stop posting articles about VT just because you don't like it?
Microsoft is rich and famous. How did they get there? Well, they did a lot of things, some of which some people don't agree with, but I'm not going to get into that. Part of their success has to do with the philosphy, "Give the customer whatever he wants." For example, look at the history of the Windows system. It was packed with features to woo and wow the consumer, who was hungry for multimedia, while lacking in other features like stability and security. Those deficiencies cost the customer big time, but almost nothing was done about it because the customer actually just didn't care about those things. Microsoft tightened security in their systems only recently because all of the sudden people realized that they wanted it. Even when asked during interviews on why his company spent more time working on new features than fixing bugs, Bill Gates himself said it: "We don't fix bugs unless our customers want us to. More of our customers want new features than fixes."
Give the customer what he wants.
Now, why upgrade? To the average Slashdot reader, who is usually saavy when it comes to software, sticking with tried and true software is not that unusual. Hell, our most popular system (GNU) is based on an OS design dating back close to 40 years now. A lot of us use even older systems that aren't as actively developed or as modernized as GNU. To us, new is not necessarily better.
You may be surprised, however, that most software consumers have no concept of "old is good." The only people who prefer older systems are regarded as backwards and cranky. Mainstream culture says that when it comes to technology (computers especially), the newest version is always the most desirable. Who can blame them for thinking that? The companies producing know how to market it. From their standpoint, it's better in every way--it's progress.
Sadly, everybody is going to want to upgrade to Office 2007 because it's the latest thing. That's all. You think people are reluctant to spend the money? The pressure to stay up to date is cultural, and even businesses will drop a lot of cash to "keep up." Microsoft is the arbiter of software culture here.
This is horrible... this is the worst thing since the communists starting using our city maps to locate our government buildings. I say we put a ban on all maps for good. God bless the United States!
I read that too. It was pretty creepy at first. I mean, I was a minor when I was first exposed to Unix, but that doesn't mean other young people should do the same. Some just aren't ready, you know?
Apple needs Steve Jobs like a fish needs a bicycle. I think. Or maybe like a woman needs a man. No, that isn't right... when a man loves a woman... ugh forget it
I hate ads just as much as anyone else. I certainly hate being subject to "driveby" ads where you happen to visit a web page once in your life for no important reason (ie check out a story linked to by Slashdot), and I would stop at nothing to block those bastards. Yahoo, however, is offering you a pretty valuable service (free web mail), and I assume you enjoy the benefits of having it, so why not let them have their ads? Quid pro quo is not too unfair in this case.
If you really want to get the ads off of your Yahoo mail account, pay them. I have a premium account with Yahoo because my ISP partners with them to provide all the web services. I log in--no ads! It's not too shabby.
True, but the young people of today are the investors of tomorrow. Literally EVERY teenager/young adult I know whom I've ever discussed linux with has said something along the lines of, "Yeah, I would have switched to linux a long time ago, but my games didn't work." Think about it... the only people at that age I knew who used linux were the ones who had more fun programming than playing games. You can probably imagine how with almost everyone it's the other way around.:)
It will be a cold day in hell when Windows isn't the best operating system for gaming. It's the only thing that keeps the ignorant masses from switching to Linux, after all.:)
It has been more widely adopted in some markets, but these markets are guaranteed to fail unless they upgrade their software continually. This could mean buying new licenses, switching platforms when proprietary systems lose support. A proprietary system can't be kept alive for as long as Free software because the businesses behind them always die themselves or kill the product. It's not a product made for the benefit of the client, so the client has to struggle consistently to pay out for proprietary solutions that are "disposable." If a business buys the rights to proprietary software, then they can keep it in house and have it truly benefit them in the long term, but not all businesses can do this. Not all places can afford to develop software in house either.
As you can see, the NET contribution to society is sizeable because society at large has indeed adopted proprietary software, but the GROSS contribution of this software has been severely retarded. While Free software has a lower adoption rate (there is less of it), the contribution made to society as proportionally larger than that of an equal sum of proprietary software.
You mean like Ubuntu? It looks like Fedora is taking some tips from the "other" distro.
Personally, that was one of the things I liked about Fedora--I could download the incredibly large DVD that contained everything and the kitchen sink. Download packages over the network? Pff... I used to sit there and remove/insert CD after CD of the latest linux systems. I remember I had SuSE professional that came with 7 discs. When I finally got a DVD burner, it turns out I didn't need it anymore... distros magically fit on a single CD all of the sudden. >:o
I have to agree with you there. Wine is pretty good, but I noticed that programs tend to render differently than they do in their native Windows environment. How differently depends on which functions are being used, but something as complicated and visually-oriented as a web browser has very little hope of producing the same image.
IE7 on linux might be useful to an end user; they could take advantage of certain compatible features, but end users have different needs than developers.
Bill Joy makes this really off the wall comment about browsing the net on a satellite phone at 2400 baud. First of all, why pick such an obscure way to connect to the Internet? Secondly, 2400 baud is way off from 300. He makes it sounds like that's the only way to get such a slow connection speed.
As far as the Internet goes, you could always simulate this by deliberately slowing down your connection. It's easier to slow down fast connections than it is to speed up slow ones.:)
Internet aside, though, just get a serial terminal and set that up. As far as I know most of them have adjustable baud rates (I have a portable 286 running DOS, and I use kermit to emulate a vt100--baud rate can be whatever). That kind of hardware is not difficult to find, and plus you can always emulate it and see what 300 baud is really like.
Maybe I'm crazy, but low baud rates are kind of fun. It really makes you value your time more when you have to sit and watch the text being printed out on the screen. You start to think more about what you're doing and work more efficiently.
To rationalize the results, here are some advantages I can think of that the XBox 360 touted...
First to market: It's been around for a while, so more people have seen it in action. That level of familiarity gives consumers more confidence--they know what they're buying. Also, let's say little Timmy sees gets to play with his friend's XBox and now wants one and talks about it all the time. I think his family might pick up on that; it's easy to want what other people already have. It's also easy to want what nobody else has, but you have to know about it first. More people know about things that exist than things that don't exist.
Domestic brand: People in the US know Microsoft. They trust Microsoft with their lives. Some people worship it. Don't believe me? I've seen it. The mere fact that Microsoft's name is on the box will cause people to gravitate toward it. The average Joe American tends to ignore Microsoft opponents because while he doesn't understand the issues, he knows how to stereotype anti-Microsoft folks as fanatics--tree hugging hippies that would just as soon turn on his cherished nation as his favorite software vendor. To him these people are the same people that are always saying bad things about the president, and he can't agree with those people.
Success of XBox: The original console did pretty well. It became a household name rather quickly and had enough good titles to get people coming back for more.
Episodic gaming is just not the sort of thing I want in a game. What I really like is to have a game that is one complete experience. I want the whole enchilada, so that I can savor it from start to finish. Then I want to put the game away and move on to something different, not play reiterations of it over and over again.
Granted, my description of the way I feel seems pretty lame, so I'll throw in an analogy about literature. Episodic gaming is like reading a magazine. I don't subscribe to any magazines, but I would if I wanted to repeatedly pay money for writing that came in a stream of small packages. The advantages are there... I could subscribe long enough to get my fill, and I can always stick around to consistently receive fresh, renewed content, but that's just not my dig.
What do I like? I like novels. A novel is a piece of literature that really stands on its own as an enclosed piece of art. It's the alpha and omega of what it is, and that allows it to really capture and express things that you wouldn't otherwise get from episodic content. A novel you read from front to back, evaluate it for what it is, and maybe read it again sometime if you liked it (or hated it enough). Novels usually contain a level of depth that periodic publishing doesn't... you can really dig in and immerse yourself. Also, not having the ability to pull in new episodes really causes the writer/creator to get right down to the heart of what they're writing about. Sometimes they even become timeless (which is a word adults use to mean "meaningful for a very long time"). How often do you read timeless newspaper and magazines? They really don't retain their relevence for very long.
Of course, some novels are episodic. Just look at the wheel of time. You read that because you want more Wheel of Time. It's not that you are interested in the true meaning of the works, but you just want to revel in the fantasy genre. Some people like that. I read the first couple books, but dropped it when I realized it was going to drag me through "episodic content."
It's kind of like the difference between movies and TV series'. The author mentions TV shows in the article. Sure, TV shows are fun... I watch a few good ones myself, but when it comes to that kind of entertainment, I value movies more. That's just my personal preference, but I like that format for the same reason I prefer to read novels and play standalone games. Movies often feature better writing and higher production quality. Some TV shows are just as good as some of the best movies, but there is a pull on TV series' toward becoming bland crap mills. If someone asked you to list some timeless movies--real classics from antiquity--you could probably think of a number of classic films that are just as much worth watching today as they were back then. Now do the same with TV shows. Not only are they harder to access now, but they're also less valuable.
I can run up to any person today and grab them and say, "Play Quest for Glory I--you will love it." They probably will love it, and find the game relevent and meaningful. That game is over 20 years old. 20 years from now, I could still expose people to this classic. Now in 20 years, what episodic games do you really think are going to make that grade? If I were to go back and play games again the way I remembered them from this day in age, I'd probably be picking up titles like Morrowind and Baldur's Gate (granted, they've already started aging, but they're not THAT old).
That's because they're brighter (the CFL--not the woman). We know from experience that women find these two things odious:
Seeing themselves.
Being seen by others.
Most women expend incredible amounts of time and effort to avoid being seen, either by altering their appearance cosmetically to mask or otherwise obfuscate their features or by insisting that you turn the lights off during sex.
When confronted by a well lit area, a reasonably intelligent woman, upon realizing that you installed the new light, will complain that she "doesn't like the way it throws off light," thereby marrying her distrust toward optical clarity with her natural prejudice against new technology.
I was under the impression that most people stuck to a single service anyway. Maybe they have multiple accounts across the board, but they probably devote most of their time to just one.
Which one they choose depends on their "network." Just like instant messaging, some people will use aim, some will use yahoo, some will use msn. Some will try to keep up with all of them, and some will occasionally convert for someone special. The headline makes it sound like people will tire of social networking in general, but typically people will always be social, so that won't hurt the business.
Slashdot Mirror
I really don't think it assumes too much. This entire site is geared toward a demographic that has been following VT for some time.
Therefore, instead of complaining, you can...
Microsoft is rich and famous. How did they get there? Well, they did a lot of things, some of which some people don't agree with, but I'm not going to get into that. Part of their success has to do with the philosphy, "Give the customer whatever he wants." For example, look at the history of the Windows system. It was packed with features to woo and wow the consumer, who was hungry for multimedia, while lacking in other features like stability and security. Those deficiencies cost the customer big time, but almost nothing was done about it because the customer actually just didn't care about those things. Microsoft tightened security in their systems only recently because all of the sudden people realized that they wanted it. Even when asked during interviews on why his company spent more time working on new features than fixing bugs, Bill Gates himself said it: "We don't fix bugs unless our customers want us to. More of our customers want new features than fixes."
Give the customer what he wants.
Now, why upgrade? To the average Slashdot reader, who is usually saavy when it comes to software, sticking with tried and true software is not that unusual. Hell, our most popular system (GNU) is based on an OS design dating back close to 40 years now. A lot of us use even older systems that aren't as actively developed or as modernized as GNU. To us, new is not necessarily better.
You may be surprised, however, that most software consumers have no concept of "old is good." The only people who prefer older systems are regarded as backwards and cranky. Mainstream culture says that when it comes to technology (computers especially), the newest version is always the most desirable. Who can blame them for thinking that? The companies producing know how to market it. From their standpoint, it's better in every way--it's progress.
Sadly, everybody is going to want to upgrade to Office 2007 because it's the latest thing. That's all. You think people are reluctant to spend the money? The pressure to stay up to date is cultural, and even businesses will drop a lot of cash to "keep up." Microsoft is the arbiter of software culture here.
This is horrible... this is the worst thing since the communists starting using our city maps to locate our government buildings. I say we put a ban on all maps for good. God bless the United States!
Are you OK, man? :-/
I read that too. It was pretty creepy at first. I mean, I was a minor when I was first exposed to Unix, but that doesn't mean other young people should do the same. Some just aren't ready, you know?
Is the source code included? It says only "Solaris," not "OpenSolaris," so I'm guessing that it's not. If it were, that would be cool.
I, for one, welcome our new "not OS X" overlord.
RegardlessI think you can save a lot of money by just buying standard NiMH batteries. They don't last forever, you know...
Me? Capitalist? Never! Just think of me as a very practical socialist...
Apple needs Steve Jobs like a fish needs a bicycle. I think. Or maybe like a woman needs a man. No, that isn't right... when a man loves a woman... ugh forget it
I hate ads just as much as anyone else. I certainly hate being subject to "driveby" ads where you happen to visit a web page once in your life for no important reason (ie check out a story linked to by Slashdot), and I would stop at nothing to block those bastards. Yahoo, however, is offering you a pretty valuable service (free web mail), and I assume you enjoy the benefits of having it, so why not let them have their ads? Quid pro quo is not too unfair in this case.
If you really want to get the ads off of your Yahoo mail account, pay them. I have a premium account with Yahoo because my ISP partners with them to provide all the web services. I log in--no ads! It's not too shabby.
That is hilarious. :)
True, but the young people of today are the investors of tomorrow. Literally EVERY teenager/young adult I know whom I've ever discussed linux with has said something along the lines of, "Yeah, I would have switched to linux a long time ago, but my games didn't work." Think about it... the only people at that age I knew who used linux were the ones who had more fun programming than playing games. You can probably imagine how with almost everyone it's the other way around. :)
It will be a cold day in hell when Windows isn't the best operating system for gaming. It's the only thing that keeps the ignorant masses from switching to Linux, after all. :)
It has been more widely adopted in some markets, but these markets are guaranteed to fail unless they upgrade their software continually. This could mean buying new licenses, switching platforms when proprietary systems lose support. A proprietary system can't be kept alive for as long as Free software because the businesses behind them always die themselves or kill the product. It's not a product made for the benefit of the client, so the client has to struggle consistently to pay out for proprietary solutions that are "disposable." If a business buys the rights to proprietary software, then they can keep it in house and have it truly benefit them in the long term, but not all businesses can do this. Not all places can afford to develop software in house either.
As you can see, the NET contribution to society is sizeable because society at large has indeed adopted proprietary software, but the GROSS contribution of this software has been severely retarded. While Free software has a lower adoption rate (there is less of it), the contribution made to society as proportionally larger than that of an equal sum of proprietary software.
You mean like Ubuntu? It looks like Fedora is taking some tips from the "other" distro.
Personally, that was one of the things I liked about Fedora--I could download the incredibly large DVD that contained everything and the kitchen sink. Download packages over the network? Pff... I used to sit there and remove/insert CD after CD of the latest linux systems. I remember I had SuSE professional that came with 7 discs. When I finally got a DVD burner, it turns out I didn't need it anymore... distros magically fit on a single CD all of the sudden. >:o
I have to agree with you there. Wine is pretty good, but I noticed that programs tend to render differently than they do in their native Windows environment. How differently depends on which functions are being used, but something as complicated and visually-oriented as a web browser has very little hope of producing the same image.
IE7 on linux might be useful to an end user; they could take advantage of certain compatible features, but end users have different needs than developers.
Bill Joy makes this really off the wall comment about browsing the net on a satellite phone at 2400 baud. First of all, why pick such an obscure way to connect to the Internet? Secondly, 2400 baud is way off from 300. He makes it sounds like that's the only way to get such a slow connection speed.
As far as the Internet goes, you could always simulate this by deliberately slowing down your connection. It's easier to slow down fast connections than it is to speed up slow ones. :)
Internet aside, though, just get a serial terminal and set that up. As far as I know most of them have adjustable baud rates (I have a portable 286 running DOS, and I use kermit to emulate a vt100--baud rate can be whatever). That kind of hardware is not difficult to find, and plus you can always emulate it and see what 300 baud is really like.
Maybe I'm crazy, but low baud rates are kind of fun. It really makes you value your time more when you have to sit and watch the text being printed out on the screen. You start to think more about what you're doing and work more efficiently.
I'd like to see what the difference there is.
Even if you bought a PS3 to sell and couldn't find the righter buyer, at least you have a PS3. :)
I really don't think your post answers the question.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_analogy
To rationalize the results, here are some advantages I can think of that the XBox 360 touted...
Episodic gaming is just not the sort of thing I want in a game. What I really like is to have a game that is one complete experience. I want the whole enchilada, so that I can savor it from start to finish. Then I want to put the game away and move on to something different, not play reiterations of it over and over again.
Granted, my description of the way I feel seems pretty lame, so I'll throw in an analogy about literature. Episodic gaming is like reading a magazine. I don't subscribe to any magazines, but I would if I wanted to repeatedly pay money for writing that came in a stream of small packages. The advantages are there... I could subscribe long enough to get my fill, and I can always stick around to consistently receive fresh, renewed content, but that's just not my dig.
What do I like? I like novels. A novel is a piece of literature that really stands on its own as an enclosed piece of art. It's the alpha and omega of what it is, and that allows it to really capture and express things that you wouldn't otherwise get from episodic content. A novel you read from front to back, evaluate it for what it is, and maybe read it again sometime if you liked it (or hated it enough). Novels usually contain a level of depth that periodic publishing doesn't... you can really dig in and immerse yourself. Also, not having the ability to pull in new episodes really causes the writer/creator to get right down to the heart of what they're writing about. Sometimes they even become timeless (which is a word adults use to mean "meaningful for a very long time"). How often do you read timeless newspaper and magazines? They really don't retain their relevence for very long.
Of course, some novels are episodic. Just look at the wheel of time. You read that because you want more Wheel of Time. It's not that you are interested in the true meaning of the works, but you just want to revel in the fantasy genre. Some people like that. I read the first couple books, but dropped it when I realized it was going to drag me through "episodic content."
It's kind of like the difference between movies and TV series'. The author mentions TV shows in the article. Sure, TV shows are fun... I watch a few good ones myself, but when it comes to that kind of entertainment, I value movies more. That's just my personal preference, but I like that format for the same reason I prefer to read novels and play standalone games. Movies often feature better writing and higher production quality. Some TV shows are just as good as some of the best movies, but there is a pull on TV series' toward becoming bland crap mills. If someone asked you to list some timeless movies--real classics from antiquity--you could probably think of a number of classic films that are just as much worth watching today as they were back then. Now do the same with TV shows. Not only are they harder to access now, but they're also less valuable.
I can run up to any person today and grab them and say, "Play Quest for Glory I--you will love it." They probably will love it, and find the game relevent and meaningful. That game is over 20 years old. 20 years from now, I could still expose people to this classic. Now in 20 years, what episodic games do you really think are going to make that grade? If I were to go back and play games again the way I remembered them from this day in age, I'd probably be picking up titles like Morrowind and Baldur's Gate (granted, they've already started aging, but they're not THAT old).
That's because they're brighter (the CFL--not the woman). We know from experience that women find these two things odious:
Most women expend incredible amounts of time and effort to avoid being seen, either by altering their appearance cosmetically to mask or otherwise obfuscate their features or by insisting that you turn the lights off during sex.
When confronted by a well lit area, a reasonably intelligent woman, upon realizing that you installed the new light, will complain that she "doesn't like the way it throws off light," thereby marrying her distrust toward optical clarity with her natural prejudice against new technology.
I was under the impression that most people stuck to a single service anyway. Maybe they have multiple accounts across the board, but they probably devote most of their time to just one.
Which one they choose depends on their "network." Just like instant messaging, some people will use aim, some will use yahoo, some will use msn. Some will try to keep up with all of them, and some will occasionally convert for someone special. The headline makes it sound like people will tire of social networking in general, but typically people will always be social, so that won't hurt the business.