Fine. You keep thinking that. I'm at the point where I'm beating a dead horse here. I never claimed anywhere that Linux has no success. You put that in there to make yourself feel good. I'd ask you to prove it but since you can't quote a user but instead try to make them seem like they said something they didn't...
So feel good about "winning" this arguement (only because this has become a waste of time since you won't stay on topic). Continue to feel good about your pet OS having single digit market share on the desktop since you're yet another Linux zealot who takes everything as an attack. But I will say it was refreshing to find one user who didn't have his head so far up his ass that he couldn't have an honest conversation. I even mentioned to him how he may be able to help spread Linux.
Huh, imagine that, a microsoft astroturfer who doesn't have a stick up his ass about Linux. Not to hard to imagine when you can look beyond the myth that someone needs to choose one side or another. As I told many users here: Nothing against Linux but the software support for the platform just doesn't exist on the level it would take to get me to switch.
Too bad you can't see that as a truth but instead insist that it's an attack on Linux.
Yup, that's the only thing I wrote in my whole response. I certainly didn't point out plenty of areas where Linux is winning big in business on its merits or anything like that. Of course I didn't refer to greatly improved Linux desktop support in the last couple years. I didn't even point out, like others have, that Linux does have support if you want to pay for it.
I quoted a hell of a lot more of your post then you quoted of mine and I backed up my points. Who's being selective here?
And as for support? I don't mean tech support. I'm talking about software support for the platform. Who's out there writing the seriously productive desktop apps of today? Who's writing the gaming and entertainment software?
If you don't think this doesn't matter then you really haven't been keeping an eye on who lived and who died in the home computing market over the past 25 years.
That sort of hideous instructional approach just helps to cement Microsoft's position in the computing infrastructure
Ah ha! So the truth is that you don't like it because it makes MS's products too familure to the student and at the same time say that if the student can't adapt to a new OS/app then they've been taught poorly? Can't you see how this flies in the face of your own logic?
Again, I would want my kids taught on what will be used. That's the bottom line. If you can make the argument against MS that being taught with MS products cements Microsoft's way of doing things into the students mind that's what I want. I want them to know the productivity software they're likely to use in the field.
want kids today to know that powerful software can cost nothing at all and be infinitely redistributable. I don't want kids today to think that every computing solution requires spending money when we all know that's just no longer true. Schools that continue to "train" kids in how to use Microsoft software rather than "teaching" them how to use a computer do their students a disservice.
Kids can know about all types of alternatives without having to be dumbed down to an environment that they'll likely never use. If they can be taught basic methodology on Linux they sure as hell can be taught the same on Windows and with the benefit of getting a richer understanding of the software they're most likely to use in the future.
Hence my suggestion of a marketing campaign; many people tend to be more receptive for commercials than for simple word-of-mouth, especially when you are the only Linux user hanging around. You can't expect more than mild, polite interest and being forgotten again the next moment in that situation.
Well, if you have mild interest then a live CD wouldn't be a bad thing to keep around. But I still maintain that without mainstream software support Linux simply is not going to raise above the hobbyist level on the desktop.
But I guess that's the catch-22. Linux needs big software to get the user base that it take to make it worth big software's investments to support Linux.
Given the speed of development, it's likely that the kids in this family will use in their careers something completely different from what's on their school and home computers today.
Uh, yeah, because kids graduating today aren't running the same basic GUI and file system that was in place when they entered 1st grade? Windows has maintained it user interface and this is yet another reason it's acceptable by so many. Not to say that others haven't done the same but Windows has both the market share and the stablity behind it.
You don't really believe that not using Microsoft products is skimping on software, do you?
For the OS and the Office suite? I sure do. Since any kind of coding class is going to be simple I'd accept that using one of the free compilers is as good as anything else since it is such a narrow focus.
Honestly, from the aspect of education, does it matter if the OS your kid is running in K-12 is from Microsoft? Give me a good reason.
As I have already said; it's the most likely OS they're going to run in their professional careers. I want kids taught on the tools of the times, not what's cheap or what's speculative.
I care that the school accepts assignment submissions in more than just Microsoft's format
MS Office can save in more then just the proprietary MS formats.
I care that the school has taught my 10 year old granddaughter what a file is and how to download
and upload using the school server (the system used is Class Fronter).
You can upload with Windows just like anything else.
I care that they use open standards
that don't shut out students based on the OS they use on their home systems.
Again, MS can do open standards just like any other. And this is about what the school buys, not what you run at home. You want to run Linux at home? have a blast. If it works for you that's great. But I don't want a school administrator deciding that in exchange for saving a bit of money (that will likely be wasted on school sports programs for no good reason) that they can short my kids the real world experiences of computing.
I wish that they didn't send any of my tax money to MS, though.
I want my tax money to be effective. Teaching Windows today is more effective than teaching any other OS as Windows is what the students will most likely use for the foreseeable future.
Nearly all computer users have heard of it, but they are used to Windows (including its shortcomings), it is forced upon them every day and they only have a very, very vague imagination about what Linux has to offer as an alternative; and even half of that is the usual anti-Linux FUD.
Granted, there is Linux FUD within the industry but I really don't see that from where Joe Sixpack sits. And if he's "forced" into Windows shortcomings don't you think he's be looking for an alternative? He's not being forced by anything more then himself. Granted, he may not have seriously looked over Linux (or MacOS) but that only shows how much he isn't struggling with Windows.
So, it can't be both ways. Either he knows about Linux and he's rejected it or the "tyranny" of Windows isn't so bad that he needs to run for cover. He's not being forced into the situation at all.
it appears you don't quite get what an education is since you believe that being educated on what buttons to click is more important than the concepts of clicking buttons. You would yank your kid from a school which uses Linux? That's just plain idiotic thinking and I'm not falling for it.
Absolutely I would. I would probably take my kids out of most schools as it is given their corruption but aside from that...
If a school is willing to skimp on getting their students the proper educational materials then I would hold them suspect on their willingness to educate properly as well. If they're skimping on software with no other excuse than it being cheap it would tell me a great deal about the rest of their spending habits.
As far as diverting attention to other aspects of school budgets and financial waste goes, forget it also. I'm not out to fix other aspects of the school system, just get them from wasting money and resources on tools when there are commodity replacements in the open source market.
See that, you doubt me but when it comes down to your convictions of open source your suppose to be trusted? Honestly, from the aspect of education, does it matter if the OS your kid is running in K-12 is open source? Give me a good reason.
If anything, I'd go after the poor understanding teachers have of what is a product name is and what a data file is. I get sick when I hear an educator exclaiming, "I'll send you a powerpoint on that."! But then again, it sounds like this is just how you want your kids taught. Not I, not I.
Yeah, Lord forbid someone call it "a powerpoint" instead of "a ppt file". That's fantastic that you consider something as minor as that as being earthshaking but not teaching your children with the proper tools to carry off into their professional lives isn't as important. Your argument is either made up or you really need to go back and get a hold of what you just posted.
Basically you're saying: I'd rather have my kids learn on a platform that they will not likely use in their careers instead of having to worry about a teacher calling a PDF "an acrobat"? Who's harder to believe here? And do you honestly think that is going to change if the teacher starts using Linux? Come on now.
Busting into that market is tough. When dealing with an effective monopoly, to an extent you do have to capitalize on the mistakes of the competition.
Ah yes, another "we need MS to fail because they're keeping us down" excuse. Again, pull yourself up by your bootstraps or fail. It's that simple. And so far the software offerings with Linux just are not there.
Microsoft makes money in only about three areas - desktop OS, Office, and servers. Everything else is pretty much a loss leader from what I've seen. MS has to work hard for server dollars, but the real cash cows are desktop and office. That's by far their biggest cash source, and it reflects monopoly pricing.
Yeah, the big monopoly. Free software that people just don't turn to versus the supposed evil empire complete with their own tax, as the Linux community constantly cries. If MS is charging so much over fair market value and if Linux and OSS alternatives are so fantastic you wouldn't need to worry about MS at all. But instead you have to fight tooth and nail for market share. Could lack of software support be the problem here? I have to keep hammering on this point over and over again and you guys just aren't getting it. I guess that's why Linux has such a low market share for all the pros that Linux carries with it? It's about software support. That's what my original post addressed but instead of people discussing it I have reply after reply of "Linux is fantastic, it doesn't have all these viruses" while the entire software support aspect is completely swept under the carpet. Not having a virus issue is fantastic until you get users who aren't getting the software support they need to justify turning the machine on at all.
I switched my parents to Ubuntu a year and a half ago and they've been quite happy. They can surf the web, do their email, write letters, even make greeting cards, etc. I do their tech support, sure - but I was doing that when they were running Windows, too. (Come on - in the home desktop market, how many people call up their tech-savvy cousin rather than sitting on hold with some company? My wife got me a t-shirt, "No, I will not fix your computer.", to wear to family functions.) And now I don't have to worry about malware. I spend a couple minutes installing updates when I walk in the door (click on the icon, give their password, click on 'install updates') and I have time to actually talk instead of cleaning up crap.
That's great. I've had my father on Windows for more then twice that amount of time. He's gone from a know nothing to a fairly knowledgeable home user. How many times have I had to reinstall Windows? None. How many times have I had to remove malware from his system? Never.
It just takes a half an ounce of knowledge to make a Windows user safe from the trash that is out there. And don't think malware will never be an issue if Linux gains enough market share. In any case...
For corporate desktops, yeah there's tech support available. I'm having a hard time coming up with a way to say, "For f&ck's sake, haven't you ever used Google?" without sounding snide, and I'm failing.
Buying MS products, either retail or OEM is a tacit endorsement of their behavior.
If you really beleive in this you're going to find that a lot of the product around your home are probably made by companies with policies that aren't much different. Exclusivity in the business world is far from uncommon. In fact, it happens so frequently that you don't even notice it any longer, not because you think objectively about choice but because you never knew it to be different in the first place.
I've currently got 2 Linux boxes running, and they have been up for 61 days and 75 days respectively running everything from basic utilities to heavy duty CAD software. These boxes are 2+ years old and I don't remember either of them crashing and forcing me to reboot. In my experience, you just don't get that with Windows.
While you may have issues of that nature I can tell you that I admin a site with over 600 PCs and the problems that we hear many people have with Windows simply doesn't present the same issues here. We have plenty of machines that have been up for months with no issues. BSODs are very exaggerated by most. The only time I see them here is hardware failure. The reboots are true but it's not as much as being forced as is suggested. In any case the reboot after patching issue is becoming less of a problem.
Your security concerns are also noted but once you put a machine behind any kind of firewall just about 98% of that disappears on the spot. As for malware? If someone puts out malware for Linux people are going to install it. The downside of security on Windows boxes has more to do with the people using them not using common sense then anything.
As for the rest? Eh, without the software support it still doesn't mean much to me. I rarely look at my desktop let alone to change it and I have never bought a copy of Windows off the shelf. I stick with the version that comes with the PC.
The bottom line is that Linux needs mainstream software support. People keep ignoring that. People at companies like Commodore and Atari will tell you that you have to be a fool to ignore it. Maybe within your own needs the apps out there are fine but lots of users are looking for apps that simply aren't out on Linux and the software publishers don't seem to be trying to satisfy that base market need.
and what software for K-12 is not supported on Linux?
No, what I mean by this is that getting kids into Linux isn't nearly as important for Linux as what some good old software support from major vendors would be.
BTW, Apple did a pretty good job getting school kids familiar with its product. What happened was about a billion dollars in Microsoft marketing of FUD that Apple Mac was dead because Windows 95 made it obsolete. I was there and I had school teachers asking me about Windows PC's "because Apple was going out of business". There were no exploding Macs or anything like it, just millions and millions of Microsofts money going out to the press to spread the FUD. Apple survived by the skin of their teeth and even had to take money from Microsoft and agree to drop Netscape for a Mac version of MS Internet Explorer.
So MS putting Windows in the schools and putting money into advertising their product now counts as FUD? Apple was going down like the Titanic. I was there too and a bit older then you to know the business side of it all. Windows was the smart choice for school since school are about training kids, not bringing in one's own compu-political agenda. You don't train jet mechanics on old prop planes. If my kid were going to a school where Linux was being favored over Windows for the training of students then the ones at the top would have to make a really seriously good argument for me not to yank my kid from their classes.
Linux and OSS are a perfect match for K-12. It's inexpensive, completely open for their learning experiences if that is what they want to do, it works. At least here in the US, school systems are constantly fighting for their budgets and floundering with expensive support of Microsoft Windows software and their hardware requirements.
What difference does it make if it's open to K-12? Kids coding, if they even have a class that involves coding, aren't going to be able to do jack with a large open source project like Linux. Hell, I've seen whats been offered to most freshmen and sophomores at the state colleges and even then access to large OSS projects mean nothing to the coding neophyte. And any other open source argument involving Linux dies right there. There is OSS for Windows and Mac. Don't act like Linux and OSS are mutually exclusive.
Also, rarely do schools budgeting problems center around MS fees. If you're really that concerned have the schools cut the serious budget fat and don't skirt the subject with them. Turning away from high end corruption (and that's what it is) in schools by cutting funding for real educational materials is an atrocity in itself. Microsoft or not, your kids shouldn't have to suffer with their education because someone is using school funds for what are essentially private little projects, in most cases.
Linux users that only use Linux never even THINK of Microsoft, its out of sight, its out of mind.
This is such a load of bullshit. Check out the threads sometime, my man. Go find a story that is only about Linux and go through the thread and see how many times people defend their choices of Linux by dumping on MS. I've been around here for a long time and I know the story.
This is a Linux story right here and what are you debating? Microsoft!
There was a story not too long ago about Linux vs MacOS. Half the postings were MS bashes!
Why do you need a reason to switch?
You're right. I don't. I don't plan on switching. The software support just isn't there. But I am addressing the big ideals of "this is the year for Linux on the desktop" type of hype. That coupled with posters like the GP trying to calculate how MS screw ups will mean big gains for Linux. I was offering up the idea of "Hey, instead of waiting for MS to screw up to gain more users why not give users a reason to leave MS". If you don't know what I'm saying by this there isn't much I can do to explain it further.
If you want to try it out then just do it! You can download a vmware image, you can boot up on a CD. Its not like you're screwing up you life by trying something different.
I do have a Linux VM. I never said I didn't try it or that I've never used it. Granted, I only keep it now just in case someone brings up something about Linux and I want to investigate. I don't use it on a real productive level. I guess you really just aren't getting the point of what I'm trying to say.
Please do not mistake one slashdot poster for the entire Linux community
One slashdot poster? Come on now. Don't be so biased and act like you can't see the same exact thing I do. The vast majority of Linux users on Slashdot beat the same drum as the GP. Take a look around sometime at the stories and you'll see it plainly. Anytime a Linux article is up the response is, at best, lukewarm with mostly in-fighting and MS bashing and when the article is a blatant MS flamefest the replies are mostly that "this is the big chance we have been waiting for" and MS bashing. If the Linux community is so focused on their corner of computing that they don't have time to worry about MS where do all these posts come from?
Granted, the developers may feel different but there are certainly a ton of mouthpieces here that are of the "If MS fails, we will get ahead. It's MS that holds us back" mentality.
And stop and think about it: These are the people Joe Sixpack is most likely to get introduced to Linux by. Some of them sound like freaking cult members with their rhetoric. (Not that certain cults are a bad thing, mind you. I'a I'a!)
A great strategy would be to get linux in the elementary and middle schools, get 'em young.... keep 'em for life.
Yeah, that worked out great for Apple.
Apple was falling flat on it's face at the same time it was giving out free goods to public schools. The few that stuck with Apple in their times of need are now helping to drive the Apple market with their expendable income since they're finally growing up a bit and not spending every spare dime down at the local bar. Apple is having mild success with a younger crowd because of the iPod hipster factor but how long will that really continue? The iPod will help keep Apple afloat if they take a downturn in the desktop market but that has nothing to do with having their PCs in the schools.
The problem with Linux right now is software support. Pure and simple.
If Microsoft loses share in the server or desktop market they've got no one to blame but themselves. Vista was a giant FUM-BLE at a time they really needed to hit one out of the park. If you don't mind me mixing sports metaphors.;) But the big problems aren't related to Vista. Byzantine license requirements, ever escalating fees, product activation, DRM, back-stabbing EULA's...those problems will continue to haunt Microsoft.
This is one of my big problems with the Linux community: You guys keep waiting for MS to fuck up.
Give me a reason to get rid of them first! Where is the software support, for one?
It actually makes me feel stand-offish about doing anything more with Linux knowing that they (as in the community) are waiting for someone else to fail enough to drive business their way instead of succeeding enough in their own right to give me a reason to look their way. Basing the value of your product on a competitors failures doesn't make me feel too confident. Endless stories of a new Linux revolution while the marketshare hardly creeps up doesn't make me feel too confident. The fact that major apps and games publishers are still taking a wait-and-see attitude towards Linux doesn't make me feel to confident.
For as much trash talk I hear about Vista around here I'm not seeing too much of it on the streets. The handful of Vista adopters I know don't seem to be having such a hard time with it and it seems that the situation is only getting better for Vista. And these guys aren't geeks, mostly. It's the fabled Joe Sixpacks I know who are adopting Vista. The geeks I know are sticking to XP. Even the biggest Linux advocate I know (whom I also respect his opinion) is running XP on his laptop and his main home desktop. As far as Linux goes he's still little more then a hobbyist. After talks with him I don't think he's going to switch to Linux as his main any time soon.
Give us a reason to switch. Don't wait for MS to file for Chapter 11. It's not going to happen anytime soon. As long as the Linux community and software publishers don't step up to the plate I don't think I'm going to see a time where I am forced to switch out of desperation.
So if the big plan in the community is to wait for the old guard to be weak, sick and feeble before they make their attack I'm afraid you guys are going to be hanging out in the bushes for a long long time. And no, talk of another wooden rabbit isn't going to do much to sway me. But I'll keep an eye open because it is mildly amusing.
In all honesty? It depends. I like games with detail so product placement is fine. It's certainly less annoying then having to see the nVidia logo coming up every time I start a game.
I'm starting not to care who wins, I just don't trust Hillary one bit.
Amen to that. I don't mind that she's a moderate. I'm not even a Democrat myself. But all things considered it makes you wonder:
The Dems were also trying to distance themselves from the Clintons at the end of Bill's terms in office. Distance themselves so much that there was a debate over whether or not Bill should align himself with John Kerry after the first four years of Bush Jr. The idea that Hillary is the current front runner for the Dems doesn't bode well with them is a sign of something being sour.
Aside from potentially pulling some of the female vote the only reason I can think of that Dems are supporting her at this point is that she has the potential to also drum up some real monetary support.
I'm afraid unless someone comes way out of left field at this point 2008 is going to be another year of voting based on the flip of a coin instead of a real candidate with some direction.
I just hope that some people finally put their vote where their mouth is a vote third parties. If for no other reason then to show the public discontent with the meager offerings that the Dems and Reps think should entice us.
Color me cynical, as usual, but it isn't hard to diagnose asthma, pneumonia and most other lung diseases with a combination of a stethoscope and plain x-ray.
Stone knives and bear skins. The "plain x-ray" is both expensive and time consuming. Not to even mention the potential harm from radiation exposure.
It just seems that everyone on slashdot is waiting for the total cure in a pill kind of medical breakthrough and these things don't happen often enough for us to spend our lifetime waiting around for it to be found.
If this device can make the old methods even slightly more cost effective and time effective then it's worth the investment. Why is that such a problem for people?
Yeah, I'm certainly trying to take your freedoms away. [rolling of eyes]
The bottom line is that if people really want to leave they should just leave instead of making hollow threats.
I'm not saying we're living in a good reasonable society today but if you're attitude is "Screw this, I'm taking my ball and going home" don't act like you've got a viewpoint that we should bother with. If you want to pitch in and try to make things better don't come off like an 8 year old that's been bullied around with no other option than to run away.
BTW: Just in case you still plan on hiding in the woods... don't take a lot of guns. Get a lot of ammo instead. Just some friendly advice.
This appears to be a point that we agree on. It sounded to me like the great-grand-parent post (I don't know if it was you) was trying to say that artists should never have to tour if they don't want to. Making an album is hard work, but even if it takes months and costs thousands of dollars in studio time, the artists who produced it should not be surprised if they have to tour to cover their bills.
It was me and I think you're reading into something that I never said. I'm not saying that artists should have a guarantee on their investment into the record making process. That's why I call it a gamble. But at the same time if someone is listening to their music on their iPod or how ever the artist should be compensated for this. Some bands have been very successful with album sales without ever having to leave the studio. I think this makes good sense and I think it's their right to profit from album sales. Why force them to tour?
There is a large number of slashdotters out there that think that recorded music should be free and that the artist should have to tour to make any money from their efforts. If I'm making it sound like you're one of these people I'm sorry for that but it is fairly common around here.
What I am complaining about is that megacorporations with megabucks can and do force stuff down people's throats.
I'm sorry, I don't see it that way. I see people as making a choice as what's best for the by what information they are given. The fact that some people never look beyond pop radio is not the fault of the producers, it's the fault of the consumer. But some people can't be bothered and are willing to settle for pop radio because they just don't have enough interest in music to look for something they like more. I can't slight them for that. I'm the same way with food: I go to the same restaurants and I order the same food. I just don't have the desire to try something different just to find out it's not something I like. Maybe there is something better on the menu but I'm satisfied with what I get. It works for me. I don't lose sleep over it.
Like it or not, it's true.
Oh, I agree that it's true but again, I don't have a problem with people settling for what they can get and enjoy. It's their choice to be introduced to new music and they've made the choice that works for them in their own time and place. And who's to say that these same people wouldn't search a large chunk of available music and still be sitting there wanting to listen to Justin Timberlake? As much as I don't like it I don't think it's unreasonable for others to enjoy.
I just think that there's more out there than the majors sell, and unfortunately, for the great majority of people, a lot of it is lost in the shuffle because so much attention is being put on a relatively small group of bands (compared to what's out there).
Maybe if they're stuck on one radio station but in general I think that the majors do a fairly good job at representing a variety of musics without being too focused on only one or two. There are doubtlessly some niche markets and without getting down to naming individual bands that we may think should be on a major label I don't see too many holes. Is every type of music well represented? Not at all but there is enough of a crack in the major label/pop music myth to gain access to a wider variety of music without being able to claim that the majors refuse to represent certain subcultures.
With regards to other types of artists, I don't know how they all pay their rent. Patronage used to be a big thing, and I know many major artists took commissions. Some artists are independently wealthy and never had to worry about that stuff, and others beg, borrow and steal in order to afford that next tube of oil. And of course some simply sell paintings, though my understanding is that's the hardest way to make a living as an artist. I don't know what Dali's situation was, but unless he had his own money, or unless he go
We all make huge gambles when we choose a career and it doesn't entitle any of us to compensation.
Choosing a career and not getting a job in the field is a far cry from going to work, putting out a product that others consume and not getting compensated for it. I'm not saying, nor did I ever imply, that any swinging dick who picks up a guitar should be paid for it. But if they put together an album and you (or whomever else) chooses that they like to listen to that music then they should be compensated for it.
Many people reading this have invested years and tens of thousands of dollars in a university and are not guaranteed any compensation. I've seen many people dedicate themselves completely to their career, often damaging their bodies, their families or their own financial situation, only to meet with failure in the end even though the work they did was very good. Every career has sacrifices and requires an investment from the worker.
Again, the bottom line is that if you show up and you work your shift, you produce whatever it is that you produce, you get paid at the end of the shift. You're confusing working towards a career with being paid for doing a job. And for those who work and become physically impaired doing their jobs there certainly is compensation in place for this. At least in the US. I can't speak for elsewhere.
Should we now start paying a lifelong salary to a promising college athlete who spent years training before injuring himself in a car accident before playing in the major leagues?
Where the hell did this come from? No one suggested anything like that at any point. Quote me as to where I said that a musician should be paid if he doesn't produce music.
Do we owe living to every person who graduated from the university with a history degree because he made an investment of time and money much greater than any single song required?
So we're paying students now? Again, I never said anything like this. It would have been nice if you had quoted me on these things.
Again, for the third time, if the history student shows up at the job and puts his time in does he get paid? If he was out doing his own research I can understand if no one buys it but at the same time if he publishes his own research and puts a price tag to that publication he deserves to get paid by the people who use that research. Otherwise it's theft.
If a heart surgeon keeps a person from dying surely he should be compensated for every day that person continues to live, right? Especially since that was his only successful surgery followed by a string of failures before his license to practice medicine was revoked.
Again, quote me as to where I said something so ridiculous about the musician. Please quote me. You are so far off base here it's insane. If you can't see that I feel sorry for you.
A doctor get compensated for work done on one patient. A musician should be paid when new people buy their work just as the doctor is paid when he gets a new patient. Your analogy is mixing apples and oranges as I don't have to pay out to the guys in Pink Floyd every time I listen to Dark Side of the Moon but if my nephew buys it they deserve to be compensated.
I agree that artists should be compensated for their work. I've never downloaded or otherwise copied any copyrighted content. But I'm reluctant to say that they deserve the rest of their lives to get compensated for the labor.
Why did you go off on some really odd spiel to end up with this? This is what I've been talking about all along! Jesus. Read my post instead of assuming what I'm saying. It's not that hard.
I think a five year copyright, from the initial publishing of a work, would be a sufficient window for an artist to exact a just reward for their efforts. In every other career, you must keep doing something new to get paid. Why should music be any different?
Just because I can accept it doesn't mean I'm happy with it. I accept it because not accepting it means that I want to shove my artistic tastes down someone else's throat. That doesn't work out well and goes against the better nature of a little thing most people like to call "freedom of choice". You should look into it. It's pretty liberating to be ok with someone else's choices realizing that you can make choices on your own instead of having to do someone else's goosestep.
For the record, as I stated before, I don't steal music. I do pay for what I listen to. However, as you may or may not know, most of that money does not go to the bands.
And under Amazon's model the same will be true. I never accused you of stealing anything.
Many people do like what they buy. Others are being herded like sheep; those with the greatest resources for marketing can take the money that might go to better art. It may not be a zero sum game, but it is indeed a game.
Has it ever occurred to you that maybe a lot of people really do like pop? Is there something wrong with people getting together and deciding that something is good without being labeled as sheep? Jesus. It's old. I spent a lot of time on the indy/punk music scene at one point and one of the things that was a big turn off to me was the endless banter about how if people didn't think the latest offering from whatever band Dave Smalley (no offense Dave) was in that week was better then the most recent Guns and Roses album that they were automatically lemmings sent from hell to drag us all down into some 1984 society of mediocrity and ultimately some form of brainwashing... I got news for you. It's bullshit. As much as I think that Guns and Roses is a suck band and as much as I generally like the Dave Smalley band-of-the-week club the truth was that the fans were pretty much the same types of people in different costumes. I now spend much less time in "the scene" for as much as I still like the music. It's sad but it's true. Anyway...
I'm not telling anyone what to like or not like.
Well, calling people mindless idiots for their music tastes does come pretty close. Let's be honest enough to admit that.
I just think it's silly to say that people who write music shouldn't have to tour. Being an artist--of any type--does not exempt you from having to continually earn your keep.
And the months and sometimes years of producing music to release to the public is not earning your keep? Come on now. Not every band is the Ramones. Not every band can use the cheap 8-track recorder and complete an album in two days. Money is needed for the process and these guys still have to eat while they work. They deserve to be paid. If you disagree don't buy it. It's that simple.
And I would still like to see what you think artists in other areas should do to "earn their keep". Perhaps Dali should have taught painting at the local community college while he did his little side gig known as surrealism? heh. Think about it.
It's great that a few people do hit the jackpot, but I'm just saying that it could be a better world for more people if something were changed to reduce the concentration of wealth in the hands of major music corporations and a few of their marquee bands.
What? What in the world are you talking about? Something has changed! Look around you. Get your head out of the sand and look at the alternatives today. Anyone can put music out without a label and have the reasonable ability to be paid for it. Wow! What else could you want?
As I had to (sadly) point out to anther user: the choices are no longer "major label" or "die". There's tons of alternatives. There have been for years. I really don't know what else people could want. The models are out there and now it'
So instead we should subsidize the indie artists? Or are you suggesting that by charging an equal amount for lesser known artists, people are more likely to take a chance on them?
I'm suggesting that the smaller artist will at least see some return on a static price model. This will not be true under Amazon's model as Amazon will be able to eat whatever money comes in until the artist proves that their worth in amazon's eyes. In the world where smaller independent artists take on large pop culture artists that is going to mean that the smaller artist will lose. Hands down. And if Amazon even considers using a bell curve structure for their payout system? Forget it. It will be game over to anyone who isn't represented in the top 10-15% of all Amazon sales. How is that so much different from the fabled record company argument we see flying around here?
The big wigs of the music industry are always going to 'play it safe' - that's just a fact of business. But an indie artist can come along and get good exposure through this system because their songs cost little. The consumer might be willing to take a risk on some "unproven" but cheap songs. If they are good, word spreads and more people download it, and hopefully the artist sees the additional revenue from the price increases. As the price goes up, eventually the "big wigs" take note and consider putting more dough into the artist. Remember, even the big pop artists don't account for all of the music out there. The industry has to spread its money around somewhat because tastes change constantly. Of course once they get popular, they won't be indie any more and will be accused of 'selling out,' eventually becoming the very artists you now revile for their success.
Please, don't start making assumptions about my musical tastes or anyone elses for that matter. "Revile" someone for being successful? What do you really know of my music collection? I guess that I "revile" bands like Rush, Pink Floyd and Yes (and a couple hundred other artists that I own that are on majors) everytime I put money down to buy one of their CDs? I'm not playing this up as a popularity contest or an artistic merit pissing match. Let's not turn it into one.
If what you're saying is true what about all these guys already giving away their music? Sure, a few people have risen up from that to do fairly well but what I see happening with Amazon is that unless you're selling fairly well you're going to see no return from the system. Again, if I were putting music out there I would rather take my chances on getting a few bucks out of a static pricing model instead of hoping that my band magically starts to sell more songs then a moderately popular MTV artist in the hopes of finally seeing my cut of the action.
On the flip side, small artists who only appeal to a small group will never be rich. But neither should they. Just because you can sing and some people aren't driven away by your banshee-like wail does not mean you deserve to make a career in music. To do that you have to consistently put out something people are willing to pay for, and the fact that right now the musical tastes of the majority (however they are derived) don't align with yours is quite irrelevant to that process.
Who said anything about being rich? I'm talking about seeing dollar #1 here. I'm talking about getting above that goose egg figure. While smaller artists shouldn't make as much as the latest multi-platinum seller I still think that if you consume their music they should see some return on it. The "pay for popularity" model is going to ensure that these people see nothing. Certainly a smaller slice for the same number of purchased songs. That may work on well for the already popular artist but it's going to be a bad time for the unestablished. They can already give away tracks for free on their own. They didn't need Amazon to do that. Not to even mention that Amazon is going to see a profit wel
First, if 'half the iPod owning population' buys an indie band's song, the price would go up dramatically... I'm sure at this point this popular song would indeed be $0.98.
Uh, it was an exaggeration. I guess this type of mechanism doesn't go over well with the slashdot crowd. I'll be sure not to use it in the future.
The bottom line is that a small unpopular artist is going to have to sell many copies to make the returns that a more popular artist will see in one purchase.
Secondly, indie artists are going to make a much better percentage of profits than pop-culture icons. We've all heard about artists getting screwed and record companies getting the VAST majority of profits for CD sales... I don't know what profits yielded from digital sales are like, but something tells me it isn't much different. The label's 95% cut is something your local rock band doesn't really have to worry about.
A popular song is going to make a better profits per download. What are you talking about?
Oh, I see. We're going back to the old tired record companies debate. Hey, McFly, it's over! The whole "record companies screw small artists" thing is over. At least to artists who have finally risen above the entire "poor me" mentality. I'm not talking about record companies at all here. That's one of about 20 music distribution models. Stop singling it out like it's the only alternative to every digital distribution method lumped together. It's time to see that just because you're no longer being handed a physical disc and just because you don't have to walk down to Sam Goodie to buy it doesn't mean that every digital distribution model is automatically superior or different then the old record company model. With Amazon's model the small guy not selling a ton of songs is going to get screwed even more since his songs will be valued less. Do you really think that the song that sells for a dime is going to get the small guy 9 cents in return and that the guy selling his song at 98 cents is only going to get back a dime? In most likeliness there is going to be a static overhead mixed with some kind of other charges. In most likeliness there is going to be no profit for people selling song that never go above a certain price. the big sellers are still going to make the big money and the small sellers are going to have their share eroded away with overhead charges. With a static pricing model the little guy still gets to see some money from each sale. That probably will not be true in Amazon's model.
Slashdot Mirror
Fine. You keep thinking that. I'm at the point where I'm beating a dead horse here. I never claimed anywhere that Linux has no success. You put that in there to make yourself feel good. I'd ask you to prove it but since you can't quote a user but instead try to make them seem like they said something they didn't...
So feel good about "winning" this arguement (only because this has become a waste of time since you won't stay on topic). Continue to feel good about your pet OS having single digit market share on the desktop since you're yet another Linux zealot who takes everything as an attack. But I will say it was refreshing to find one user who didn't have his head so far up his ass that he couldn't have an honest conversation. I even mentioned to him how he may be able to help spread Linux.
Huh, imagine that, a microsoft astroturfer who doesn't have a stick up his ass about Linux. Not to hard to imagine when you can look beyond the myth that someone needs to choose one side or another. As I told many users here: Nothing against Linux but the software support for the platform just doesn't exist on the level it would take to get me to switch.
Too bad you can't see that as a truth but instead insist that it's an attack on Linux.
Yup, that's the only thing I wrote in my whole response. I certainly didn't point out plenty of areas where Linux is winning big in business on its merits or anything like that. Of course I didn't refer to greatly improved Linux desktop support in the last couple years. I didn't even point out, like others have, that Linux does have support if you want to pay for it.
I quoted a hell of a lot more of your post then you quoted of mine and I backed up my points. Who's being selective here?
And as for support? I don't mean tech support. I'm talking about software support for the platform. Who's out there writing the seriously productive desktop apps of today? Who's writing the gaming and entertainment software?
If you don't think this doesn't matter then you really haven't been keeping an eye on who lived and who died in the home computing market over the past 25 years.
That sort of hideous instructional approach just helps to cement Microsoft's position in the computing infrastructure
Ah ha! So the truth is that you don't like it because it makes MS's products too familure to the student and at the same time say that if the student can't adapt to a new OS/app then they've been taught poorly? Can't you see how this flies in the face of your own logic?
Again, I would want my kids taught on what will be used. That's the bottom line. If you can make the argument against MS that being taught with MS products cements Microsoft's way of doing things into the students mind that's what I want. I want them to know the productivity software they're likely to use in the field.
want kids today to know that powerful software can cost nothing at all and be infinitely redistributable. I don't want kids today to think that every computing solution requires spending money when we all know that's just no longer true. Schools that continue to "train" kids in how to use Microsoft software rather than "teaching" them how to use a computer do their students a disservice.
Kids can know about all types of alternatives without having to be dumbed down to an environment that they'll likely never use. If they can be taught basic methodology on Linux they sure as hell can be taught the same on Windows and with the benefit of getting a richer understanding of the software they're most likely to use in the future.
That's enough for me to support it.
Hence my suggestion of a marketing campaign; many people tend to be more receptive for commercials than for simple word-of-mouth, especially when you are the only Linux user hanging around. You can't expect more than mild, polite interest and being forgotten again the next moment in that situation.
Well, if you have mild interest then a live CD wouldn't be a bad thing to keep around. But I still maintain that without mainstream software support Linux simply is not going to raise above the hobbyist level on the desktop.
But I guess that's the catch-22. Linux needs big software to get the user base that it take to make it worth big software's investments to support Linux.
I really just don't know.
Given the speed of development, it's likely that the kids in this family will use in their careers something completely different from what's on their school and home computers today.
Uh, yeah, because kids graduating today aren't running the same basic GUI and file system that was in place when they entered 1st grade? Windows has maintained it user interface and this is yet another reason it's acceptable by so many. Not to say that others haven't done the same but Windows has both the market share and the stablity behind it.
You don't really believe that not using Microsoft products is skimping on software, do you?
For the OS and the Office suite? I sure do. Since any kind of coding class is going to be simple I'd accept that using one of the free compilers is as good as anything else since it is such a narrow focus.
Honestly, from the aspect of education, does it matter if the OS your kid is running in K-12 is from Microsoft? Give me a good reason.
As I have already said; it's the most likely OS they're going to run in their professional careers. I want kids taught on the tools of the times, not what's cheap or what's speculative.
I care that the school accepts assignment submissions in more than just Microsoft's format
MS Office can save in more then just the proprietary MS formats.
I care that the school has taught my 10 year old granddaughter what a file is and how to download and upload using the school server (the system used is Class Fronter).
You can upload with Windows just like anything else.
I care that they use open standards that don't shut out students based on the OS they use on their home systems.
Again, MS can do open standards just like any other. And this is about what the school buys, not what you run at home. You want to run Linux at home? have a blast. If it works for you that's great. But I don't want a school administrator deciding that in exchange for saving a bit of money (that will likely be wasted on school sports programs for no good reason) that they can short my kids the real world experiences of computing.
I wish that they didn't send any of my tax money to MS, though.
I want my tax money to be effective. Teaching Windows today is more effective than teaching any other OS as Windows is what the students will most likely use for the foreseeable future.
Nearly all computer users have heard of it, but they are used to Windows (including its shortcomings), it is forced upon them every day and they only have a very, very vague imagination about what Linux has to offer as an alternative; and even half of that is the usual anti-Linux FUD.
Granted, there is Linux FUD within the industry but I really don't see that from where Joe Sixpack sits. And if he's "forced" into Windows shortcomings don't you think he's be looking for an alternative? He's not being forced by anything more then himself. Granted, he may not have seriously looked over Linux (or MacOS) but that only shows how much he isn't struggling with Windows.
So, it can't be both ways. Either he knows about Linux and he's rejected it or the "tyranny" of Windows isn't so bad that he needs to run for cover. He's not being forced into the situation at all.
it appears you don't quite get what an education is since you believe that being educated on what buttons to click is more important than the concepts of clicking buttons. You would yank your kid from a school which uses Linux? That's just plain idiotic thinking and I'm not falling for it.
Absolutely I would. I would probably take my kids out of most schools as it is given their corruption but aside from that...
If a school is willing to skimp on getting their students the proper educational materials then I would hold them suspect on their willingness to educate properly as well. If they're skimping on software with no other excuse than it being cheap it would tell me a great deal about the rest of their spending habits.
As far as diverting attention to other aspects of school budgets and financial waste goes, forget it also. I'm not out to fix other aspects of the school system, just get them from wasting money and resources on tools when there are commodity replacements in the open source market.
See that, you doubt me but when it comes down to your convictions of open source your suppose to be trusted? Honestly, from the aspect of education, does it matter if the OS your kid is running in K-12 is open source? Give me a good reason.
If anything, I'd go after the poor understanding teachers have of what is a product name is and what a data file is. I get sick when I hear an educator exclaiming, "I'll send you a powerpoint on that."! But then again, it sounds like this is just how you want your kids taught. Not I, not I.
Yeah, Lord forbid someone call it "a powerpoint" instead of "a ppt file". That's fantastic that you consider something as minor as that as being earthshaking but not teaching your children with the proper tools to carry off into their professional lives isn't as important. Your argument is either made up or you really need to go back and get a hold of what you just posted.
Basically you're saying: I'd rather have my kids learn on a platform that they will not likely use in their careers instead of having to worry about a teacher calling a PDF "an acrobat"? Who's harder to believe here? And do you honestly think that is going to change if the teacher starts using Linux? Come on now.
Busting into that market is tough. When dealing with an effective monopoly, to an extent you do have to capitalize on the mistakes of the competition.
Ah yes, another "we need MS to fail because they're keeping us down" excuse. Again, pull yourself up by your bootstraps or fail. It's that simple. And so far the software offerings with Linux just are not there.
Microsoft makes money in only about three areas - desktop OS, Office, and servers. Everything else is pretty much a loss leader from what I've seen. MS has to work hard for server dollars, but the real cash cows are desktop and office. That's by far their biggest cash source, and it reflects monopoly pricing.
Yeah, the big monopoly. Free software that people just don't turn to versus the supposed evil empire complete with their own tax, as the Linux community constantly cries. If MS is charging so much over fair market value and if Linux and OSS alternatives are so fantastic you wouldn't need to worry about MS at all. But instead you have to fight tooth and nail for market share. Could lack of software support be the problem here? I have to keep hammering on this point over and over again and you guys just aren't getting it. I guess that's why Linux has such a low market share for all the pros that Linux carries with it? It's about software support. That's what my original post addressed but instead of people discussing it I have reply after reply of "Linux is fantastic, it doesn't have all these viruses" while the entire software support aspect is completely swept under the carpet. Not having a virus issue is fantastic until you get users who aren't getting the software support they need to justify turning the machine on at all.
I switched my parents to Ubuntu a year and a half ago and they've been quite happy. They can surf the web, do their email, write letters, even make greeting cards, etc. I do their tech support, sure - but I was doing that when they were running Windows, too. (Come on - in the home desktop market, how many people call up their tech-savvy cousin rather than sitting on hold with some company? My wife got me a t-shirt, "No, I will not fix your computer.", to wear to family functions.) And now I don't have to worry about malware. I spend a couple minutes installing updates when I walk in the door (click on the icon, give their password, click on 'install updates') and I have time to actually talk instead of cleaning up crap.
That's great. I've had my father on Windows for more then twice that amount of time. He's gone from a know nothing to a fairly knowledgeable home user. How many times have I had to reinstall Windows? None. How many times have I had to remove malware from his system? Never.
It just takes a half an ounce of knowledge to make a Windows user safe from the trash that is out there. And don't think malware will never be an issue if Linux gains enough market share. In any case...
For corporate desktops, yeah there's tech support available. I'm having a hard time coming up with a way to say, "For f&ck's sake, haven't you ever used Google?" without sounding snide, and I'm failing.
I really don't know what you're saying here.
Buying MS products, either retail or OEM is a tacit endorsement of their behavior.
If you really beleive in this you're going to find that a lot of the product around your home are probably made by companies with policies that aren't much different. Exclusivity in the business world is far from uncommon. In fact, it happens so frequently that you don't even notice it any longer, not because you think objectively about choice but because you never knew it to be different in the first place.
I've currently got 2 Linux boxes running, and they have been up for 61 days and 75 days respectively running everything from basic utilities to heavy duty CAD software. These boxes are 2+ years old and I don't remember either of them crashing and forcing me to reboot. In my experience, you just don't get that with Windows.
While you may have issues of that nature I can tell you that I admin a site with over 600 PCs and the problems that we hear many people have with Windows simply doesn't present the same issues here. We have plenty of machines that have been up for months with no issues. BSODs are very exaggerated by most. The only time I see them here is hardware failure. The reboots are true but it's not as much as being forced as is suggested. In any case the reboot after patching issue is becoming less of a problem.
Your security concerns are also noted but once you put a machine behind any kind of firewall just about 98% of that disappears on the spot. As for malware? If someone puts out malware for Linux people are going to install it. The downside of security on Windows boxes has more to do with the people using them not using common sense then anything.
As for the rest? Eh, without the software support it still doesn't mean much to me. I rarely look at my desktop let alone to change it and I have never bought a copy of Windows off the shelf. I stick with the version that comes with the PC.
The bottom line is that Linux needs mainstream software support. People keep ignoring that. People at companies like Commodore and Atari will tell you that you have to be a fool to ignore it. Maybe within your own needs the apps out there are fine but lots of users are looking for apps that simply aren't out on Linux and the software publishers don't seem to be trying to satisfy that base market need.
I was fairly amused by the Tom Green Show and associated co-star articles this weekend. It just goes to show that things do slip through the cracks.
and what software for K-12 is not supported on Linux?
No, what I mean by this is that getting kids into Linux isn't nearly as important for Linux as what some good old software support from major vendors would be.
BTW, Apple did a pretty good job getting school kids familiar with its product. What happened was about a billion dollars in Microsoft marketing of FUD that Apple Mac was dead because Windows 95 made it obsolete. I was there and I had school teachers asking me about Windows PC's "because Apple was going out of business". There were no exploding Macs or anything like it, just millions and millions of Microsofts money going out to the press to spread the FUD. Apple survived by the skin of their teeth and even had to take money from Microsoft and agree to drop Netscape for a Mac version of MS Internet Explorer.
So MS putting Windows in the schools and putting money into advertising their product now counts as FUD? Apple was going down like the Titanic. I was there too and a bit older then you to know the business side of it all. Windows was the smart choice for school since school are about training kids, not bringing in one's own compu-political agenda. You don't train jet mechanics on old prop planes. If my kid were going to a school where Linux was being favored over Windows for the training of students then the ones at the top would have to make a really seriously good argument for me not to yank my kid from their classes.
Linux and OSS are a perfect match for K-12. It's inexpensive, completely open for their learning experiences if that is what they want to do, it works. At least here in the US, school systems are constantly fighting for their budgets and floundering with expensive support of Microsoft Windows software and their hardware requirements.
What difference does it make if it's open to K-12? Kids coding, if they even have a class that involves coding, aren't going to be able to do jack with a large open source project like Linux. Hell, I've seen whats been offered to most freshmen and sophomores at the state colleges and even then access to large OSS projects mean nothing to the coding neophyte. And any other open source argument involving Linux dies right there. There is OSS for Windows and Mac. Don't act like Linux and OSS are mutually exclusive.
Also, rarely do schools budgeting problems center around MS fees. If you're really that concerned have the schools cut the serious budget fat and don't skirt the subject with them. Turning away from high end corruption (and that's what it is) in schools by cutting funding for real educational materials is an atrocity in itself. Microsoft or not, your kids shouldn't have to suffer with their education because someone is using school funds for what are essentially private little projects, in most cases.
Linux users that only use Linux never even THINK of Microsoft, its out of sight, its out of mind.
This is such a load of bullshit. Check out the threads sometime, my man. Go find a story that is only about Linux and go through the thread and see how many times people defend their choices of Linux by dumping on MS. I've been around here for a long time and I know the story.
This is a Linux story right here and what are you debating? Microsoft!
There was a story not too long ago about Linux vs MacOS. Half the postings were MS bashes!
Why do you need a reason to switch?
You're right. I don't. I don't plan on switching. The software support just isn't there. But I am addressing the big ideals of "this is the year for Linux on the desktop" type of hype. That coupled with posters like the GP trying to calculate how MS screw ups will mean big gains for Linux. I was offering up the idea of "Hey, instead of waiting for MS to screw up to gain more users why not give users a reason to leave MS". If you don't know what I'm saying by this there isn't much I can do to explain it further.
If you want to try it out then just do it! You can download a vmware image, you can boot up on a CD. Its not like you're screwing up you life by trying something different.
I do have a Linux VM. I never said I didn't try it or that I've never used it. Granted, I only keep it now just in case someone brings up something about Linux and I want to investigate. I don't use it on a real productive level. I guess you really just aren't getting the point of what I'm trying to say.
Please do not mistake one slashdot poster for the entire Linux community
One slashdot poster? Come on now. Don't be so biased and act like you can't see the same exact thing I do. The vast majority of Linux users on Slashdot beat the same drum as the GP. Take a look around sometime at the stories and you'll see it plainly. Anytime a Linux article is up the response is, at best, lukewarm with mostly in-fighting and MS bashing and when the article is a blatant MS flamefest the replies are mostly that "this is the big chance we have been waiting for" and MS bashing. If the Linux community is so focused on their corner of computing that they don't have time to worry about MS where do all these posts come from?
Granted, the developers may feel different but there are certainly a ton of mouthpieces here that are of the "If MS fails, we will get ahead. It's MS that holds us back" mentality.
And stop and think about it: These are the people Joe Sixpack is most likely to get introduced to Linux by. Some of them sound like freaking cult members with their rhetoric. (Not that certain cults are a bad thing, mind you. I'a I'a!)
A great strategy would be to get linux in the elementary and middle schools, get 'em young.... keep 'em for life.
Yeah, that worked out great for Apple.
Apple was falling flat on it's face at the same time it was giving out free goods to public schools. The few that stuck with Apple in their times of need are now helping to drive the Apple market with their expendable income since they're finally growing up a bit and not spending every spare dime down at the local bar. Apple is having mild success with a younger crowd because of the iPod hipster factor but how long will that really continue? The iPod will help keep Apple afloat if they take a downturn in the desktop market but that has nothing to do with having their PCs in the schools.
The problem with Linux right now is software support. Pure and simple.
If Microsoft loses share in the server or desktop market they've got no one to blame but themselves. Vista was a giant FUM-BLE at a time they really needed to hit one out of the park. If you don't mind me mixing sports metaphors. ;) But the big problems aren't related to Vista. Byzantine license requirements, ever escalating fees, product activation, DRM, back-stabbing EULA's...those problems will continue to haunt Microsoft.
This is one of my big problems with the Linux community: You guys keep waiting for MS to fuck up.
Give me a reason to get rid of them first! Where is the software support, for one?
It actually makes me feel stand-offish about doing anything more with Linux knowing that they (as in the community) are waiting for someone else to fail enough to drive business their way instead of succeeding enough in their own right to give me a reason to look their way. Basing the value of your product on a competitors failures doesn't make me feel too confident. Endless stories of a new Linux revolution while the marketshare hardly creeps up doesn't make me feel too confident. The fact that major apps and games publishers are still taking a wait-and-see attitude towards Linux doesn't make me feel to confident.
For as much trash talk I hear about Vista around here I'm not seeing too much of it on the streets. The handful of Vista adopters I know don't seem to be having such a hard time with it and it seems that the situation is only getting better for Vista. And these guys aren't geeks, mostly. It's the fabled Joe Sixpacks I know who are adopting Vista. The geeks I know are sticking to XP. Even the biggest Linux advocate I know (whom I also respect his opinion) is running XP on his laptop and his main home desktop. As far as Linux goes he's still little more then a hobbyist. After talks with him I don't think he's going to switch to Linux as his main any time soon.
Give us a reason to switch. Don't wait for MS to file for Chapter 11. It's not going to happen anytime soon. As long as the Linux community and software publishers don't step up to the plate I don't think I'm going to see a time where I am forced to switch out of desperation.
So if the big plan in the community is to wait for the old guard to be weak, sick and feeble before they make their attack I'm afraid you guys are going to be hanging out in the bushes for a long long time. And no, talk of another wooden rabbit isn't going to do much to sway me. But I'll keep an eye open because it is mildly amusing.
In all honesty? It depends. I like games with detail so product placement is fine. It's certainly less annoying then having to see the nVidia logo coming up every time I start a game.
So instead of writing someone off because you have a superstitious feeling about them
Where did I ever say I was superstitious about her? And quote me, don't say "what I meant" by your definitions.
I'm starting not to care who wins, I just don't trust Hillary one bit.
Amen to that. I don't mind that she's a moderate. I'm not even a Democrat myself. But all things considered it makes you wonder:
The Dems were also trying to distance themselves from the Clintons at the end of Bill's terms in office. Distance themselves so much that there was a debate over whether or not Bill should align himself with John Kerry after the first four years of Bush Jr. The idea that Hillary is the current front runner for the Dems doesn't bode well with them is a sign of something being sour.
Aside from potentially pulling some of the female vote the only reason I can think of that Dems are supporting her at this point is that she has the potential to also drum up some real monetary support.
I'm afraid unless someone comes way out of left field at this point 2008 is going to be another year of voting based on the flip of a coin instead of a real candidate with some direction.
I just hope that some people finally put their vote where their mouth is a vote third parties. If for no other reason then to show the public discontent with the meager offerings that the Dems and Reps think should entice us.
Color me cynical, as usual, but it isn't hard to diagnose asthma, pneumonia and most other lung diseases with a combination of a stethoscope and plain x-ray.
Stone knives and bear skins. The "plain x-ray" is both expensive and time consuming. Not to even mention the potential harm from radiation exposure.
It just seems that everyone on slashdot is waiting for the total cure in a pill kind of medical breakthrough and these things don't happen often enough for us to spend our lifetime waiting around for it to be found.
If this device can make the old methods even slightly more cost effective and time effective then it's worth the investment. Why is that such a problem for people?
Yeah, I'm certainly trying to take your freedoms away. [rolling of eyes]
The bottom line is that if people really want to leave they should just leave instead of making hollow threats.
I'm not saying we're living in a good reasonable society today but if you're attitude is "Screw this, I'm taking my ball and going home" don't act like you've got a viewpoint that we should bother with. If you want to pitch in and try to make things better don't come off like an 8 year old that's been bullied around with no other option than to run away.
BTW: Just in case you still plan on hiding in the woods... don't take a lot of guns. Get a lot of ammo instead. Just some friendly advice.
This appears to be a point that we agree on. It sounded to me like the great-grand-parent post (I don't know if it was you) was trying to say that artists should never have to tour if they don't want to. Making an album is hard work, but even if it takes months and costs thousands of dollars in studio time, the artists who produced it should not be surprised if they have to tour to cover their bills.
It was me and I think you're reading into something that I never said. I'm not saying that artists should have a guarantee on their investment into the record making process. That's why I call it a gamble. But at the same time if someone is listening to their music on their iPod or how ever the artist should be compensated for this. Some bands have been very successful with album sales without ever having to leave the studio. I think this makes good sense and I think it's their right to profit from album sales. Why force them to tour?
There is a large number of slashdotters out there that think that recorded music should be free and that the artist should have to tour to make any money from their efforts. If I'm making it sound like you're one of these people I'm sorry for that but it is fairly common around here.
What I am complaining about is that megacorporations with megabucks can and do force stuff down people's throats.
I'm sorry, I don't see it that way. I see people as making a choice as what's best for the by what information they are given. The fact that some people never look beyond pop radio is not the fault of the producers, it's the fault of the consumer. But some people can't be bothered and are willing to settle for pop radio because they just don't have enough interest in music to look for something they like more. I can't slight them for that. I'm the same way with food: I go to the same restaurants and I order the same food. I just don't have the desire to try something different just to find out it's not something I like. Maybe there is something better on the menu but I'm satisfied with what I get. It works for me. I don't lose sleep over it.
Like it or not, it's true.
Oh, I agree that it's true but again, I don't have a problem with people settling for what they can get and enjoy. It's their choice to be introduced to new music and they've made the choice that works for them in their own time and place. And who's to say that these same people wouldn't search a large chunk of available music and still be sitting there wanting to listen to Justin Timberlake? As much as I don't like it I don't think it's unreasonable for others to enjoy.
I just think that there's more out there than the majors sell, and unfortunately, for the great majority of people, a lot of it is lost in the shuffle because so much attention is being put on a relatively small group of bands (compared to what's out there).
Maybe if they're stuck on one radio station but in general I think that the majors do a fairly good job at representing a variety of musics without being too focused on only one or two. There are doubtlessly some niche markets and without getting down to naming individual bands that we may think should be on a major label I don't see too many holes. Is every type of music well represented? Not at all but there is enough of a crack in the major label/pop music myth to gain access to a wider variety of music without being able to claim that the majors refuse to represent certain subcultures.
With regards to other types of artists, I don't know how they all pay their rent. Patronage used to be a big thing, and I know many major artists took commissions. Some artists are independently wealthy and never had to worry about that stuff, and others beg, borrow and steal in order to afford that next tube of oil. And of course some simply sell paintings, though my understanding is that's the hardest way to make a living as an artist. I don't know what Dali's situation was, but unless he had his own money, or unless he go
We all make huge gambles when we choose a career and it doesn't entitle any of us to compensation.
Choosing a career and not getting a job in the field is a far cry from going to work, putting out a product that others consume and not getting compensated for it. I'm not saying, nor did I ever imply, that any swinging dick who picks up a guitar should be paid for it. But if they put together an album and you (or whomever else) chooses that they like to listen to that music then they should be compensated for it.
Many people reading this have invested years and tens of thousands of dollars in a university and are not guaranteed any compensation. I've seen many people dedicate themselves completely to their career, often damaging their bodies, their families or their own financial situation, only to meet with failure in the end even though the work they did was very good. Every career has sacrifices and requires an investment from the worker.
Again, the bottom line is that if you show up and you work your shift, you produce whatever it is that you produce, you get paid at the end of the shift. You're confusing working towards a career with being paid for doing a job. And for those who work and become physically impaired doing their jobs there certainly is compensation in place for this. At least in the US. I can't speak for elsewhere.
Should we now start paying a lifelong salary to a promising college athlete who spent years training before injuring himself in a car accident before playing in the major leagues?
Where the hell did this come from? No one suggested anything like that at any point. Quote me as to where I said that a musician should be paid if he doesn't produce music.
Do we owe living to every person who graduated from the university with a history degree because he made an investment of time and money much greater than any single song required?
So we're paying students now? Again, I never said anything like this. It would have been nice if you had quoted me on these things.
Again, for the third time, if the history student shows up at the job and puts his time in does he get paid? If he was out doing his own research I can understand if no one buys it but at the same time if he publishes his own research and puts a price tag to that publication he deserves to get paid by the people who use that research. Otherwise it's theft.
If a heart surgeon keeps a person from dying surely he should be compensated for every day that person continues to live, right? Especially since that was his only successful surgery followed by a string of failures before his license to practice medicine was revoked.
Again, quote me as to where I said something so ridiculous about the musician. Please quote me. You are so far off base here it's insane. If you can't see that I feel sorry for you.
A doctor get compensated for work done on one patient. A musician should be paid when new people buy their work just as the doctor is paid when he gets a new patient. Your analogy is mixing apples and oranges as I don't have to pay out to the guys in Pink Floyd every time I listen to Dark Side of the Moon but if my nephew buys it they deserve to be compensated.
I agree that artists should be compensated for their work. I've never downloaded or otherwise copied any copyrighted content. But I'm reluctant to say that they deserve the rest of their lives to get compensated for the labor.
Why did you go off on some really odd spiel to end up with this? This is what I've been talking about all along! Jesus. Read my post instead of assuming what I'm saying. It's not that hard.
I think a five year copyright, from the initial publishing of a work, would be a sufficient window for an artist to exact a just reward for their efforts. In every other career, you must keep doing something new to get paid. Why should music be any different?
Uh, take a look around, pal. Arthur C. Clar
I'm glad you're so happy with the status quo.
Just because I can accept it doesn't mean I'm happy with it. I accept it because not accepting it means that I want to shove my artistic tastes down someone else's throat. That doesn't work out well and goes against the better nature of a little thing most people like to call "freedom of choice". You should look into it. It's pretty liberating to be ok with someone else's choices realizing that you can make choices on your own instead of having to do someone else's goosestep.
For the record, as I stated before, I don't steal music. I do pay for what I listen to. However, as you may or may not know, most of that money does not go to the bands.
And under Amazon's model the same will be true. I never accused you of stealing anything.
Many people do like what they buy. Others are being herded like sheep; those with the greatest resources for marketing can take the money that might go to better art. It may not be a zero sum game, but it is indeed a game.
Has it ever occurred to you that maybe a lot of people really do like pop? Is there something wrong with people getting together and deciding that something is good without being labeled as sheep? Jesus. It's old. I spent a lot of time on the indy/punk music scene at one point and one of the things that was a big turn off to me was the endless banter about how if people didn't think the latest offering from whatever band Dave Smalley (no offense Dave) was in that week was better then the most recent Guns and Roses album that they were automatically lemmings sent from hell to drag us all down into some 1984 society of mediocrity and ultimately some form of brainwashing... I got news for you. It's bullshit. As much as I think that Guns and Roses is a suck band and as much as I generally like the Dave Smalley band-of-the-week club the truth was that the fans were pretty much the same types of people in different costumes. I now spend much less time in "the scene" for as much as I still like the music. It's sad but it's true. Anyway...
I'm not telling anyone what to like or not like.
Well, calling people mindless idiots for their music tastes does come pretty close. Let's be honest enough to admit that.
I just think it's silly to say that people who write music shouldn't have to tour. Being an artist--of any type--does not exempt you from having to continually earn your keep.
And the months and sometimes years of producing music to release to the public is not earning your keep? Come on now. Not every band is the Ramones. Not every band can use the cheap 8-track recorder and complete an album in two days. Money is needed for the process and these guys still have to eat while they work. They deserve to be paid. If you disagree don't buy it. It's that simple.
And I would still like to see what you think artists in other areas should do to "earn their keep". Perhaps Dali should have taught painting at the local community college while he did his little side gig known as surrealism? heh. Think about it.
It's great that a few people do hit the jackpot, but I'm just saying that it could be a better world for more people if something were changed to reduce the concentration of wealth in the hands of major music corporations and a few of their marquee bands.
What? What in the world are you talking about? Something has changed! Look around you. Get your head out of the sand and look at the alternatives today. Anyone can put music out without a label and have the reasonable ability to be paid for it. Wow! What else could you want?
As I had to (sadly) point out to anther user: the choices are no longer "major label" or "die". There's tons of alternatives. There have been for years. I really don't know what else people could want. The models are out there and now it'
So instead we should subsidize the indie artists? Or are you suggesting that by charging an equal amount for lesser known artists, people are more likely to take a chance on them?
I'm suggesting that the smaller artist will at least see some return on a static price model. This will not be true under Amazon's model as Amazon will be able to eat whatever money comes in until the artist proves that their worth in amazon's eyes. In the world where smaller independent artists take on large pop culture artists that is going to mean that the smaller artist will lose. Hands down. And if Amazon even considers using a bell curve structure for their payout system? Forget it. It will be game over to anyone who isn't represented in the top 10-15% of all Amazon sales. How is that so much different from the fabled record company argument we see flying around here?
The big wigs of the music industry are always going to 'play it safe' - that's just a fact of business. But an indie artist can come along and get good exposure through this system because their songs cost little. The consumer might be willing to take a risk on some "unproven" but cheap songs. If they are good, word spreads and more people download it, and hopefully the artist sees the additional revenue from the price increases. As the price goes up, eventually the "big wigs" take note and consider putting more dough into the artist. Remember, even the big pop artists don't account for all of the music out there. The industry has to spread its money around somewhat because tastes change constantly. Of course once they get popular, they won't be indie any more and will be accused of 'selling out,' eventually becoming the very artists you now revile for their success.
Please, don't start making assumptions about my musical tastes or anyone elses for that matter. "Revile" someone for being successful? What do you really know of my music collection? I guess that I "revile" bands like Rush, Pink Floyd and Yes (and a couple hundred other artists that I own that are on majors) everytime I put money down to buy one of their CDs? I'm not playing this up as a popularity contest or an artistic merit pissing match. Let's not turn it into one.
If what you're saying is true what about all these guys already giving away their music? Sure, a few people have risen up from that to do fairly well but what I see happening with Amazon is that unless you're selling fairly well you're going to see no return from the system. Again, if I were putting music out there I would rather take my chances on getting a few bucks out of a static pricing model instead of hoping that my band magically starts to sell more songs then a moderately popular MTV artist in the hopes of finally seeing my cut of the action.
On the flip side, small artists who only appeal to a small group will never be rich. But neither should they. Just because you can sing and some people aren't driven away by your banshee-like wail does not mean you deserve to make a career in music. To do that you have to consistently put out something people are willing to pay for, and the fact that right now the musical tastes of the majority (however they are derived) don't align with yours is quite irrelevant to that process.
Who said anything about being rich? I'm talking about seeing dollar #1 here. I'm talking about getting above that goose egg figure. While smaller artists shouldn't make as much as the latest multi-platinum seller I still think that if you consume their music they should see some return on it. The "pay for popularity" model is going to ensure that these people see nothing. Certainly a smaller slice for the same number of purchased songs. That may work on well for the already popular artist but it's going to be a bad time for the unestablished. They can already give away tracks for free on their own. They didn't need Amazon to do that. Not to even mention that Amazon is going to see a profit wel
First, if 'half the iPod owning population' buys an indie band's song, the price would go up dramatically... I'm sure at this point this popular song would indeed be $0.98.
Uh, it was an exaggeration. I guess this type of mechanism doesn't go over well with the slashdot crowd. I'll be sure not to use it in the future.
The bottom line is that a small unpopular artist is going to have to sell many copies to make the returns that a more popular artist will see in one purchase.
Secondly, indie artists are going to make a much better percentage of profits than pop-culture icons. We've all heard about artists getting screwed and record companies getting the VAST majority of profits for CD sales... I don't know what profits yielded from digital sales are like, but something tells me it isn't much different. The label's 95% cut is something your local rock band doesn't really have to worry about.
A popular song is going to make a better profits per download. What are you talking about?
Oh, I see. We're going back to the old tired record companies debate. Hey, McFly, it's over! The whole "record companies screw small artists" thing is over. At least to artists who have finally risen above the entire "poor me" mentality. I'm not talking about record companies at all here. That's one of about 20 music distribution models. Stop singling it out like it's the only alternative to every digital distribution method lumped together. It's time to see that just because you're no longer being handed a physical disc and just because you don't have to walk down to Sam Goodie to buy it doesn't mean that every digital distribution model is automatically superior or different then the old record company model. With Amazon's model the small guy not selling a ton of songs is going to get screwed even more since his songs will be valued less. Do you really think that the song that sells for a dime is going to get the small guy 9 cents in return and that the guy selling his song at 98 cents is only going to get back a dime? In most likeliness there is going to be a static overhead mixed with some kind of other charges. In most likeliness there is going to be no profit for people selling song that never go above a certain price. the big sellers are still going to make the big money and the small sellers are going to have their share eroded away with overhead charges. With a static pricing model the little guy still gets to see some money from each sale. That probably will not be true in Amazon's model.