Well, I wasn't trying to offset your post but more pointing to the idea that Word today isn't Word of 1987. You know where I'm coming from with that.
From the user experience, things are better/more feature-laden, but not significantly faster.
Absolutely. And why should it be faster? When it comes right down to it the user is still the weak link in the speed chain. Why put a Ford 5.0 in a Yugo if you have no plans on going above 20 MPH?
It's a design trade-off driven in part by what the software vendors think the customer wants.
It's also a limitation of the customer too. I don't get upset when I find that the high end of my headphones is about 20Khz. I know that even if it were higher I'd never hear it. So even if Word were faster would the end user ever see it? Aside from the load time of Word I don't see any real gains.
but not a whole lot "faster" for things like boot-up, word processing, and other office productivity applications.
That's because in most cases we're doing much more at boot up today. 20 years ago we weren't going to the internet looking for software updates, we weren't loading background process for IMs, QuickTime and RealPlayer. Our passive virus scanners were much lighter and less sophisticated not to mention that most do all types of other side tasks aside from looking for viruses. As I look at my system tray today I see that four out of the eight icons that are there are because of our "always on" internet connection society. This isn't even to mention the stuff I don't see.
As for office applications. Why do they need to be faster? My bet is that they are actually faster but suffer from the same bloat as our startups do. But in the end who notices? I would be hard pressed to find users using office suite applications on such a level that they speed of the machine was causing more of a problem then the users ability to enter data. Perhaps on some very large documents, sure, but these types of documents would have been impossible 20 years ago.
It sounds trite but any 10 year old PC worth $100 today will run but it wont run Windows, at least not a current version.
My 3 year old TI-94 Silver Plus has more balls then a 10 year old PC. No PC that is 10 years old is worth $100.
And, in ensuing 10 years, that old clunky desktop could EASILY be miniaturized down to a laptop size or smaller.
Again, my 3 year old TI-94 Silver Plus has more balls then a 10 year old PC. and it's is much smaller then any laptop. My Garmin GPS/PDA unit is better outfitted then any 10 year old PC.
Even Redmond estimates that Vista will obsolete more than 85% of the PC's out there. To do what, exactly?
Here's the thing. Vista was written with the PC in mind. My bet is that if MS were developing the OLPC it would be running WindowsCE instead.
You're trying to put a generic PC OS on what is essentially an embedded system. WindowsCE was made for this purpose.
So in answer to your question of "To do what, exactly": That's what MS (and everyone else who's writing an OS) is trying to figure out too and that's why general OSs of this nature are bloatware. If all you really wanted to do with your PC is surf the net we could make a 100 dollar appliance to do that and only that. The problem is that we've already done that, it's failed. People grew to want more out of the system. This means more power and more OS bloat.
You know, if we made the C=64 today it would probably cost bout 3.50 and retail for about 10 bucks. I remember when they were over 300 USD. Why don't modern PCs cost 10 bucks? Because we keep demanding more and more out of them. People will want more out of their laptops. This is going to require faster processors.
Sure, there are still guys pounding away on an old C=64 because it's what works for them. Notice that there aren't too many of them tho.
This is like the old saw about Linux being harder to install than Windows (have you ever tried to actually *install* Windows?)
Yes, I've done real installs of Windows many many times. I don't see any big difference between it an installing Ubuntu.
Windows is far harder and more expensive to support, and customers are far more confused by it.
Windows is easier to hire a support crew for with real credentials. I don't support being an expense issue in that manner.
And how are your customers confused that they wouldn't be with Linux?
Most customers choose it only because all desktops come with it preloaded, and being non-geek end-users, they would have to pay us or pay somebody to load a Linux desktop for them.
Hold on, hold on, hold on! If Windows is so hard to install and Linux is not as confusing as Linux why would they have a problem with it?
If what you said before is true then this has to either be a lie or you're saying that even as Linux is easy to install (and I do agree, Ubuntu is not hard to install by most standards) Joe Sixpack simply wants nothing to do with it. So which is it?
What I think you need to look at more is that Joe either is having a problem with the install or that Joe needs a real reason to leave Windows and isn't half as confussed by Windows as you make him out to be.
There has to be a really compelling reason to forfeit the Microsoft tax. We've tried charging more for Windows support - but this seems unfair to end users since from their perspective Windows is included in the price and Linux is extra cost, so why should they pay more for Windows support?
What? You're trying to force people to Linux by charging more of Windows support? Ok. I see where this is going. Not to even mention the old tired "Microsoft tax" argument. Geesh.
The end-user Linux desktops are all recycled Windows machines. Windows "broke" (malware out the wazoo) and starting from scratch was the cheapest option.
A fresh install of Windows costs more then installing Linux how? Maybe I'm missing something here about your business.
In my opinion, the only thing holding back Linux on the desktop is Microsoft's illegal preload stranglehold. We'll see if the Dell/Ubuntu experiment changes that opinion.
Good luck with that. Seriously, if you can't see that people aren't clawing their way to leave Windows like most slashdotters make it seem then you're not understanding what is holding Linux back. Linux needs to offer something, not just be different.
That's another way of saying "they had no storyline". Do novels require input to have good storylines? No.
What bullshit. The input a novel requires is for the reader to put emotion into a bunch of words. Without that fiction is a meaningless waste of time. Or are you suggesting that any story telling can be successful regardless of the observer? If you think that you're even more full of shit then what I originally thought.
We identify with characters who are sympathetic even though we can't influence them in any way.
Yeah, the big difference is influence. That doesn't mean that there can't be a story line.
I think the whole "make your own story" is the reason that most FPS have the literary content of a "choose your own adventure" book.
Only if you want to look at it in that way. You, like the OP fit into my idea that you simply don't want more so you don't get more. No different then the types of people who choose the Cliff's Notes versions of books. Oh well, no loss to me.
Does anyone stop to realize why CYOA books never rose above 5th grade reading level? It's the same reason that "interactive" story lines won't either. The simplest explanation is this: Americans believe in character-driven stories (as oppose to plot-driven stories like the Illiad or the Odyssey).
Oh, so now this is an American problem. I just love the bashers.
It's also fantastic the the two toothpicks that you've used as legs for your argument are both over 2600 years old and most people today can't relate to the culture and history of the times. Do you ever stop to think that may be why they're kind of brushed off today and that it has nothing to do with the idea that it's "Americans" being the problem? While the Iliad and the Odyssey may be great they're also a large investment of time to read properly. Just like the video games being mentioned they take a bit of effort to enjoy fully. Given their age and the language barriers they're more pursuits instead of simple entertainment. That's not to say that there is anything wrong with that but you're talking about a different level of literature where it goes from leisure to a serious pastime. These video games, on the other hand, do not require as much of an investment and are often more interesting as they deal with subject matter that is easier for the play to recognize.
To take the main character and just say "oh, that's the actual human playing the game" is to eviscerate the entire plot. The plot has to be advanced by that person, but if we let them choose "meh, save the girl" or "rape the girl" or "ignore the girl", etc. then we basically end up writing 3 stories. Per every major decision. It's combinatorial explosion.
If making decisions are that big of a deal to you perhaps you shouldn't be playing video games at all.
If you think that making yourself a participant in the action in some form "eviscerates the entire plot" perhaps you should be mingling with people in public either. It's really sad that you probably take it so hard that people putting themselves into a dialog somehow ruins it for you.
Instead the objective should be to show a protagonist who is sympathetic so that the player wants to participate in the action of the game. Sound impossible? It's what every novelist has to do to write an enjoyable novel.
Actually, it doesn't sound impossible. It doesn't even sound hard to be honest.
I let people participate on whatever level they choose. They don't have to follow my vision to every detail to make it rewarding for me. I don't think people ruin anything by seeing things they want to see it.
If anything it sucks that you can't let these things unfold for people on their own terms. Again, no loss to me.
So you're saying that if people don't need choice they should stay put where they're at? Ok, don't expect your market to grow. Joe Sixpack needs a reason to leave Microsoft. Many of the Joes I know doesn't seem to be looking for an alternative.
If you don't like something, you can go your own way and select another application (or make your own).
If you really think that the "build your own" aspect is going to convert anyone don't expect your market to grow. Most people do not have the time or desire to make an app that fits their needs. This is the reason that spreadsheets and OpenOffice Base and MS Access exist; they let people build little simple systems to fill a need that would otherwise require a real developer. It's an easy way to have mailing lists, basic accounting records and inventories without having to have professional software or a different app for each need.
If people really wanted to develop their own software office suites would have only a sliver of the market they possess today.
And please, don't act like other platforms do not offer choices. That's pretty short sighted to think in that manner.
Users who demand only one piece of software to perform a task don't know what they're talking about.
It comes to this again? If you're looking to increase your "customer" base you need to listen to your potential customers. Regardless if you think their way of seeing things is stupid or not you have to win them over, they don't need to make a difference to you at all. Many people do indeed want one peice of software to do everything they need it to do. Most home PCs probably only run a couple of apps and having those apps seem seamless is a big plus for lighter computer users. Those who aren't into Linux today are either not the type of hobbyists who enjoy the computer for the machine it is (Joe Sixpack) or they have solid reasons for sticking with Windows/Mac/whatever. So your best bet at expanding the user base is to go to Joe. But Joe wants simple. He doesn't want a bunch of bullshit about freedom of choice and the politics of OSS. If you think this is reason enough to avoid Joe by all means, that's your choice. But don't sit there and act like Joe needs what you're trying to sell.
Even my girlfriend uses it as a desktop now, and had only 1 day to "convert" to the usage, and she's not that computer savvy.
Yeah, but you are computer savvy, on the other hand. She has someone to turn to for answers. Where does Joe Sixpack turn? You don't think that simply being lost trying to get to more then a browser and word processor isn't enough to get Joe Sixpack to not use Linux? You're fooling yourself.
It's easy to not be frustrated when your lost if you have someone in the passenger seat that knows where you're going.
If your idea of being "converted" is being able to open a web browser, send an e-mail and write a paper I guess anyone can be converted in a day too, if they have someone there who knows what they're doing, that is.
I just do not understand why the Linux community is still living in denial of this simple point!
It would be nice for you to lend a bit of insight into what you have an have not played. To be honest, if you break down even the most epic of tales eventually everything sounds like it was written by 12 year olds. This actually works to the advantage games with storylines in general...
You ever played Alice or Undying? Fantastic games with great visuals in their day. The great thing about the story lines was that you could make it make as much of a difference in the game as you wanted. Didn't give a damn about poor Alice being in an institution and suicidal? Ok, just chop something up with this knife. Don't give a damn about the Covenant family and the Undying back story? The game still gladly leads you by the nose as long as you don't get sloppy and get yourself killed.
Of how about Thief? Potentially the most immersive atmosphere and story line to ever be pumped into on series. But does the story line make a big difference in achieving your goals on a mission by mission basis? Not really. Not unless you want to be Garrett.
You see, that's another thing about it all. If you don't want to be in the game it's not going to have an effect on you. Just like a book, if you read a book but put no life into the story itself you're just going to see strings of words. Maybe you don't have the type of imagination that it takes to put yourself in the shoes of the shooter. If you simply don't care enough that's fine too but don't act like someone didn't put effort into the end product other then yourself.
If you're going to walk around with your nose in the air to FPS story lines don't act like the game didn't do what it was suppose to do. There is no truely passive entertainment. Every medium for story telling requires at least a smidgen of effort from the spectator in order for it to work for everyone.
Since the election year is near, campaigns should be started against the politicians that are basically pushing for laws that are not in the interest of the people.
Who would we have left?
Stupid as it may sound as the likelihood is that another evil will gain a politic foothold, at least it will ensure that politicians will think twice before they will push for certain laws for it is not in their personal interest to be voted out.
Here's the thing with that way of thinking: While we're still involved in this Rep vs. Dem deal we're (as in, We the people) not going to have the kind of power it takes to ensure that someone is watching out for our best interests. We have the Dems pushing about on things like the DMCA, Gun control and copyright protection while we have the Reps going after wiretaps, the PATRIOT act and abortion. Some people are willing to sacrifice the rights of others to protect their own interests. The big parties know this and use this to their advantage.
The solution is that we need real competition in DC and the states. We need to make it a bit tougher then to simply attack "the other guy" to make our "point". We need to start voting with our heads as we untie the party line that is around most of our necks.
But given the climate of Rep/Dem bashing it's just not going to happen.
We are not far away from the next generation of P2P.
Ok, I'm interested. What is this next generation you speak of?
It will be untraceable and unstoppable.
Will it be as unhackable as DRM? Not that I don't think that the media companies aren't making DRMs hackable by design but I don't think that anything is fool proof.
Wait until they discover stealth P2P! I would say more about it and perhaps advocate its development and deployment, but the timing is not quite right.
That's what most developers say about vaporware.
I'm not so sure about the ethics of doing this. But if Congress interferes with my rights to legitimate P2P transfers, the gloves come off.
Oh, so this is a method of your own design? Fantastic. Sounds more and more like vaporware to me.
Not a 'first', like the Wright Brothers (there were a lot of people round the world working on airplanes who could just as easily have been first, so the Wrights did not 'invent' the airplane), but a totally new advance.
Couldn't this be said for the vast majority of advancements? By your standards we'd also have to neglect just about everything Bell and Edison had ever done. I guess that makes it convenient for your argument.
So, by your own little rules tell me of advancements made by any scientist that wasn't being worked on by others at the same time? Advancement normally happens as society looks towards a common goal and various people pursue the same.
If an American researcher suddenly got cold fusion to work like a dream today you'd dismiss him as being a true innovator simply because others were working on the same technology.
Those of us who believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis obviously don't believe that humans came from multiple sources, we believe all humans descended from one couple.
Quote me where it says this in the bible.
Now, I'm not a Christian but I do not bash the believers out there but on the argument of ID and giving the benefit of the doubt I think that there is a lot of room for other humans being created without being mentioned in the bible.
To follow what little I know of the bible Adam and Eve had two sons, one murders the other. Where is the female(s) needed to carry on the race?
I think if there is any validity to the Christian mythology of ID that there will also need to be the allowance for God to have created multiple people from "nothing" to provide us with our current makeup of genetics. This isn't to say they couldn't all be in the same geological area either.
Ultimately I don't think this study does enough to give either side of this debate absolute validity. Unless, perhaps, there is something that actually says that there is only Adam and Eve and everything else came from the natural order. Too much has been assumed to be true from the bible that simply isn't stated and I think the idea of Adam and Eve being the only humans created by God is one of them.
But again, I'm not a Christian so I won't brow beat you with your own religion.
I'm sorry to hear that you had an encounter with unsavoury individuals; however, it would be entirely wrong of you to associate this behaviour with Linux users alone -- and completely unfounded. If one asks a question on any subject via IRC one must be prepared for a vulgar response
I'm saying the fabled community support isn't there. It really isn't. And no one said it was only the Linux community either. Please do not try to turn this into something that it isn't. If I feel the need to defend my thoughts as a Linux novice against the core fan base I'd simply rather not have to deal with Linux in the first place. This is the type of attitude that is alienating Joe from Linux today and the Linux sauve either don't care or can't see it.
It's just like your subject: "Only in the mind of an open source hater"? Do you honestly think that the kind of users that Linux is going to have to attract to make it mainstream give a damn about the whole open source/closed source debate? From a non-geek standpoint it simply doesn't matter. Joe doesn't care if what he runs is open or closed source. Bringing the politics of development into every conversation is also going to alienate Joe.
I am glad of different telephone networks, and that each network can offer a wide range of telephones. If tomorrow we were all restricted to using only one approved cellular telephone device there would be uproar. People choose different telephones depending on which features are the most important to them.
Who ever said anyone was going to be limited to one phone? You're taking your own analogy out of context.
Again, the reason that the phone analogy doesn't work at all is because these are approved devices sold for an approved network. Linux can not say that. There is no one that I know of who is producing hardware that is certified to run every distro of Linux. When I go to Verizon every one of their phones is going to work in the Verizon coverage area. It's a very different concept.
Maybe I just suck at communicating but I seriously don't think you're getting my point.
This is what Live CDs are for. Burn CD, boot, check hardware works OK. If so select install option. If not, no changes to undo. You can't do that with a new version of Windows. And it's incredibly unlikely these days that your NIC won't be supported.
Most people don't know that. This is the point. There are tons of people in the Linux community who are crying that Joe simply needs to try Linux and he will embrace it but there is a large gulf between having an interest in running Linux and actually having all the components in hand (mostly a serious knowledge of what one is getting into).
Continue to brush off and ignore what I'm saying but, again, don't be surprised when Joe doesn't embrace Linux. You need to understand that your simple solutions aren't so simple and obvious to the n00b.
Isn't that the same as suggesting too many different brands of cellular telephone make for a communications mess?
Actually, no.
When I goto Verizon in search for a new phone I know that what Verizon sells is going to work on their network. And considering that phones aren't too complex and I have a general understanding of all the major cellphone features it's not hard for me to find one in a pleasing form factor with the right gadgets and get moving.
On the other hand...
As a Linux n00b I take the pains of going out and asking what is the best Linux distro. Say I use IRC. One of two things will happen: Either I get a "go to Distrowatch, fucktard*" or I get 23 different distro names shouted to me at one time. Gee, thanks, that really cleared things up for me.
Maybe if I'm really lucky I find the company IT kid and he gives up a few minutes to cover the fundamentals of what I'm looking for. He's going to ask some questions that would confuse any Joe Sixpack (I have no idea what my soundcard is. I don't know if I'm trying to run a server. What's a server?)
Even if I find the right distro how am I going to know if it's going to work on my system. Or worse yet what if I don't even consider that it might not work until I'm nearly done with the install only to find that my NIC is not supported?
These are all legitimate questions from the Linux n00b and as long as the Linux community keeps calling these concerns "strawmen" the longer they're going to keep to that 5 or 10% marketshare. Once someone gets burnt on not being able to make Linux work "off the shelf" they're not soon to go back and try again.
* This is a real response. As part of a "Linux is ready for desktop because of all the community support" posting here on Slashdot a couple of years back I went on the hunt for "the community" and when I asked in #Linux on undernet what the best Linux distro was one of the 60-some users (the only one who even bothered to respond to my question) told me to "go to Distrowatch fucktard". Man, that community support rocked.
"Don't care enough, don't know enough". You make is sound as if a user was at fault here.
My entire post deals with the coders, not the users.
This is a bogus argument, which simply is not applicable in this case. If Linux gets more users, the percentage of those who install and execute everything the find will grow, but this has nothing to do with dangerous commercial, binary only software packages.
Either you will admit that this is a strawman argument or you will have to absolve anyone who produces shoddy code that leaves the system open to outside influences in the future. Close source or open source should not make a difference with the security of a package and it certainly has no difference in the end result.
Maybe too many, but not those who count.
Oh, so you're saying that if a coder produces secure code and admins have secure systems using the Windows platform that the problems lay squarely on the shoulders of those who don't? That's fine but if that's the terms of how the OS will be judged in the face of malware and security vulnerabilities then we can simply scream "incompetence" at every Windows admin who didn't take care of business and left their system open to attack. If that's the way this is to be seen then, by your own standards, every OS is secure and well written. It's only the policies of the administration and users that are at fault.
This was an intentional attempt to create a backdoor.
So when this same type of thing happens in Windows it's that Windows coders are inept but when the same happens in Linux it's because of a conspiracy? Please.
The Linux community better be damn well ready for when this becomes commonplace as more people use Linux. I don't expect it as much from real vendors but it's going to happen more from the likes of amateur coders and malware producers.
Too many have fallen pray to the myth that Linux isn't going to have some of the same issues that Windows has with these areas in software. This incident alone shows that Linux will not be immune to those who don't care enough, don't know enough or are willing enough to sacrifice system security for whatever reasons.
Most rational people understand that Google supports its free services by displaying ads.
To the point where the invasion of "privacy" is concerned? How is it bad that MS does this but Google gets away with this? As I told another poster; they can continue to display ads, fine, but why invade one's privacy to target ads at a user?
You have already paid MS a lot of money soi why should they feel they have a right to invade your desktop?
Probably the same reasoning Google uses; It's part of the EULA.
What's wrong with your assumptions is just that: It's an assumption. An assumption that MS is just going to let this go out without any kind of forewarning or opt out gadget in place. Suppose that MS gives this out as an option in any one of their freeware offerings, would you have less of a problem with it?
And this is, of course, assuming that it's used at all.
Slashdot Mirror
Everything you wrote proves my point:
Well, I wasn't trying to offset your post but more pointing to the idea that Word today isn't Word of 1987. You know where I'm coming from with that.
From the user experience, things are better/more feature-laden, but not significantly faster.
Absolutely. And why should it be faster? When it comes right down to it the user is still the weak link in the speed chain. Why put a Ford 5.0 in a Yugo if you have no plans on going above 20 MPH?
It's a design trade-off driven in part by what the software vendors think the customer wants.
It's also a limitation of the customer too. I don't get upset when I find that the high end of my headphones is about 20Khz. I know that even if it were higher I'd never hear it. So even if Word were faster would the end user ever see it? Aside from the load time of Word I don't see any real gains.
but not a whole lot "faster" for things like boot-up, word processing, and other office productivity applications.
That's because in most cases we're doing much more at boot up today. 20 years ago we weren't going to the internet looking for software updates, we weren't loading background process for IMs, QuickTime and RealPlayer. Our passive virus scanners were much lighter and less sophisticated not to mention that most do all types of other side tasks aside from looking for viruses. As I look at my system tray today I see that four out of the eight icons that are there are because of our "always on" internet connection society. This isn't even to mention the stuff I don't see.
As for office applications. Why do they need to be faster? My bet is that they are actually faster but suffer from the same bloat as our startups do. But in the end who notices? I would be hard pressed to find users using office suite applications on such a level that they speed of the machine was causing more of a problem then the users ability to enter data. Perhaps on some very large documents, sure, but these types of documents would have been impossible 20 years ago.
It sounds trite but any 10 year old PC worth $100 today will run but it wont run Windows, at least not a current version.
My 3 year old TI-94 Silver Plus has more balls then a 10 year old PC. No PC that is 10 years old is worth $100.
And, in ensuing 10 years, that old clunky desktop could EASILY be miniaturized down to a laptop size or smaller.
Again, my 3 year old TI-94 Silver Plus has more balls then a 10 year old PC. and it's is much smaller then any laptop. My Garmin GPS/PDA unit is better outfitted then any 10 year old PC.
Even Redmond estimates that Vista will obsolete more than 85% of the PC's out there. To do what, exactly?
Here's the thing. Vista was written with the PC in mind. My bet is that if MS were developing the OLPC it would be running WindowsCE instead.
You're trying to put a generic PC OS on what is essentially an embedded system. WindowsCE was made for this purpose.
So in answer to your question of "To do what, exactly": That's what MS (and everyone else who's writing an OS) is trying to figure out too and that's why general OSs of this nature are bloatware. If all you really wanted to do with your PC is surf the net we could make a 100 dollar appliance to do that and only that. The problem is that we've already done that, it's failed. People grew to want more out of the system. This means more power and more OS bloat.
You know, if we made the C=64 today it would probably cost bout 3.50 and retail for about 10 bucks. I remember when they were over 300 USD. Why don't modern PCs cost 10 bucks? Because we keep demanding more and more out of them. People will want more out of their laptops. This is going to require faster processors.
Sure, there are still guys pounding away on an old C=64 because it's what works for them. Notice that there aren't too many of them tho.
The problem is dollars are losing half their value every 3 years.
If this were true why did my Hyundai Elantra 2001 cost about 100 USD less then my Hyundai Elantra 2005?
Wow. You must be a Jedi master or something. You win.
This is like the old saw about Linux being harder to install than Windows (have you ever tried to actually *install* Windows?)
Yes, I've done real installs of Windows many many times. I don't see any big difference between it an installing Ubuntu.
Windows is far harder and more expensive to support, and customers are far more confused by it.
Windows is easier to hire a support crew for with real credentials. I don't support being an expense issue in that manner.
And how are your customers confused that they wouldn't be with Linux?
Most customers choose it only because all desktops come with it preloaded, and being non-geek end-users, they would have to pay us or pay somebody to load a Linux desktop for them.
Hold on, hold on, hold on! If Windows is so hard to install and Linux is not as confusing as Linux why would they have a problem with it?
If what you said before is true then this has to either be a lie or you're saying that even as Linux is easy to install (and I do agree, Ubuntu is not hard to install by most standards) Joe Sixpack simply wants nothing to do with it. So which is it?
What I think you need to look at more is that Joe either is having a problem with the install or that Joe needs a real reason to leave Windows and isn't half as confussed by Windows as you make him out to be.
There has to be a really compelling reason to forfeit the Microsoft tax. We've tried charging more for Windows support - but this seems unfair to end users since from their perspective Windows is included in the price and Linux is extra cost, so why should they pay more for Windows support?
What? You're trying to force people to Linux by charging more of Windows support? Ok. I see where this is going. Not to even mention the old tired "Microsoft tax" argument. Geesh.
The end-user Linux desktops are all recycled Windows machines. Windows "broke" (malware out the wazoo) and starting from scratch was the cheapest option.
A fresh install of Windows costs more then installing Linux how? Maybe I'm missing something here about your business.
In my opinion, the only thing holding back Linux on the desktop is Microsoft's illegal preload stranglehold. We'll see if the Dell/Ubuntu experiment changes that opinion.
Good luck with that. Seriously, if you can't see that people aren't clawing their way to leave Windows like most slashdotters make it seem then you're not understanding what is holding Linux back. Linux needs to offer something, not just be different.
That's another way of saying "they had no storyline". Do novels require input to have good storylines? No.
What bullshit. The input a novel requires is for the reader to put emotion into a bunch of words. Without that fiction is a meaningless waste of time. Or are you suggesting that any story telling can be successful regardless of the observer? If you think that you're even more full of shit then what I originally thought.
We identify with characters who are sympathetic even though we can't influence them in any way.
Yeah, the big difference is influence. That doesn't mean that there can't be a story line.
I think the whole "make your own story" is the reason that most FPS have the literary content of a "choose your own adventure" book.
Only if you want to look at it in that way. You, like the OP fit into my idea that you simply don't want more so you don't get more. No different then the types of people who choose the Cliff's Notes versions of books. Oh well, no loss to me.
Does anyone stop to realize why CYOA books never rose above 5th grade reading level? It's the same reason that "interactive" story lines won't either. The simplest explanation is this: Americans believe in character-driven stories (as oppose to plot-driven stories like the Illiad or the Odyssey).
Oh, so now this is an American problem. I just love the bashers.
It's also fantastic the the two toothpicks that you've used as legs for your argument are both over 2600 years old and most people today can't relate to the culture and history of the times. Do you ever stop to think that may be why they're kind of brushed off today and that it has nothing to do with the idea that it's "Americans" being the problem? While the Iliad and the Odyssey may be great they're also a large investment of time to read properly. Just like the video games being mentioned they take a bit of effort to enjoy fully. Given their age and the language barriers they're more pursuits instead of simple entertainment. That's not to say that there is anything wrong with that but you're talking about a different level of literature where it goes from leisure to a serious pastime. These video games, on the other hand, do not require as much of an investment and are often more interesting as they deal with subject matter that is easier for the play to recognize.
To take the main character and just say "oh, that's the actual human playing the game" is to eviscerate the entire plot. The plot has to be advanced by that person, but if we let them choose "meh, save the girl" or "rape the girl" or "ignore the girl", etc. then we basically end up writing 3 stories. Per every major decision. It's combinatorial explosion.
If making decisions are that big of a deal to you perhaps you shouldn't be playing video games at all.
If you think that making yourself a participant in the action in some form "eviscerates the entire plot" perhaps you should be mingling with people in public either. It's really sad that you probably take it so hard that people putting themselves into a dialog somehow ruins it for you.
Instead the objective should be to show a protagonist who is sympathetic so that the player wants to participate in the action of the game. Sound impossible? It's what every novelist has to do to write an enjoyable novel.
Actually, it doesn't sound impossible. It doesn't even sound hard to be honest.
I let people participate on whatever level they choose. They don't have to follow my vision to every detail to make it rewarding for me. I don't think people ruin anything by seeing things they want to see it.
If anything it sucks that you can't let these things unfold for people on their own terms. Again, no loss to me.
Choice is THE reason people should use Linux.
So you're saying that if people don't need choice they should stay put where they're at? Ok, don't expect your market to grow. Joe Sixpack needs a reason to leave Microsoft. Many of the Joes I know doesn't seem to be looking for an alternative.
If you don't like something, you can go your own way and select another application (or make your own).
If you really think that the "build your own" aspect is going to convert anyone don't expect your market to grow. Most people do not have the time or desire to make an app that fits their needs. This is the reason that spreadsheets and OpenOffice Base and MS Access exist; they let people build little simple systems to fill a need that would otherwise require a real developer. It's an easy way to have mailing lists, basic accounting records and inventories without having to have professional software or a different app for each need.
If people really wanted to develop their own software office suites would have only a sliver of the market they possess today.
And please, don't act like other platforms do not offer choices. That's pretty short sighted to think in that manner.
Users who demand only one piece of software to perform a task don't know what they're talking about.
It comes to this again? If you're looking to increase your "customer" base you need to listen to your potential customers. Regardless if you think their way of seeing things is stupid or not you have to win them over, they don't need to make a difference to you at all. Many people do indeed want one peice of software to do everything they need it to do. Most home PCs probably only run a couple of apps and having those apps seem seamless is a big plus for lighter computer users. Those who aren't into Linux today are either not the type of hobbyists who enjoy the computer for the machine it is (Joe Sixpack) or they have solid reasons for sticking with Windows/Mac/whatever. So your best bet at expanding the user base is to go to Joe. But Joe wants simple. He doesn't want a bunch of bullshit about freedom of choice and the politics of OSS. If you think this is reason enough to avoid Joe by all means, that's your choice. But don't sit there and act like Joe needs what you're trying to sell.
Why is it that every time someone criticizes Linux all the Linux zealots have to turn and scream "What about MS"?
Come on now, I thought Linux was above that.
Why can't the Linux zealots face their own failures and turn them into success instead of leaning on the old "MS Sucks" crutch?
Even my girlfriend uses it as a desktop now, and had only 1 day to "convert" to the usage, and she's not that computer savvy.
Yeah, but you are computer savvy, on the other hand. She has someone to turn to for answers. Where does Joe Sixpack turn? You don't think that simply being lost trying to get to more then a browser and word processor isn't enough to get Joe Sixpack to not use Linux? You're fooling yourself.
It's easy to not be frustrated when your lost if you have someone in the passenger seat that knows where you're going.
If your idea of being "converted" is being able to open a web browser, send an e-mail and write a paper I guess anyone can be converted in a day too, if they have someone there who knows what they're doing, that is.
I just do not understand why the Linux community is still living in denial of this simple point!
It would be nice for you to lend a bit of insight into what you have an have not played. To be honest, if you break down even the most epic of tales eventually everything sounds like it was written by 12 year olds. This actually works to the advantage games with storylines in general...
You ever played Alice or Undying? Fantastic games with great visuals in their day. The great thing about the story lines was that you could make it make as much of a difference in the game as you wanted. Didn't give a damn about poor Alice being in an institution and suicidal? Ok, just chop something up with this knife. Don't give a damn about the Covenant family and the Undying back story? The game still gladly leads you by the nose as long as you don't get sloppy and get yourself killed.
Of how about Thief? Potentially the most immersive atmosphere and story line to ever be pumped into on series. But does the story line make a big difference in achieving your goals on a mission by mission basis? Not really. Not unless you want to be Garrett.
You see, that's another thing about it all. If you don't want to be in the game it's not going to have an effect on you. Just like a book, if you read a book but put no life into the story itself you're just going to see strings of words. Maybe you don't have the type of imagination that it takes to put yourself in the shoes of the shooter. If you simply don't care enough that's fine too but don't act like someone didn't put effort into the end product other then yourself.
If you're going to walk around with your nose in the air to FPS story lines don't act like the game didn't do what it was suppose to do. There is no truely passive entertainment. Every medium for story telling requires at least a smidgen of effort from the spectator in order for it to work for everyone.
How very insightful. You speak of a technology that will some day "pop out of nowhere" but you claim I probably already own one? Great.
Since the election year is near, campaigns should be started against the politicians that are basically pushing for laws that are not in the interest of the people.
Who would we have left?
Stupid as it may sound as the likelihood is that another evil will gain a politic foothold, at least it will ensure that politicians will think twice before they will push for certain laws for it is not in their personal interest to be voted out.
Here's the thing with that way of thinking: While we're still involved in this Rep vs. Dem deal we're (as in, We the people) not going to have the kind of power it takes to ensure that someone is watching out for our best interests. We have the Dems pushing about on things like the DMCA, Gun control and copyright protection while we have the Reps going after wiretaps, the PATRIOT act and abortion. Some people are willing to sacrifice the rights of others to protect their own interests. The big parties know this and use this to their advantage.
The solution is that we need real competition in DC and the states. We need to make it a bit tougher then to simply attack "the other guy" to make our "point". We need to start voting with our heads as we untie the party line that is around most of our necks.
But given the climate of Rep/Dem bashing it's just not going to happen.
Here's to the Status Quo.
We are not far away from the next generation of P2P.
Ok, I'm interested. What is this next generation you speak of?
It will be untraceable and unstoppable.
Will it be as unhackable as DRM? Not that I don't think that the media companies aren't making DRMs hackable by design but I don't think that anything is fool proof.
Wait until they discover stealth P2P! I would say more about it and perhaps advocate its development and deployment, but the timing is not quite right.
That's what most developers say about vaporware.
I'm not so sure about the ethics of doing this. But if Congress interferes with my rights to legitimate P2P transfers, the gloves come off.
Oh, so this is a method of your own design? Fantastic. Sounds more and more like vaporware to me.
And this got modded up why?
Enough with all of this talk of "dangling pointers" you perverts.
Not a 'first', like the Wright Brothers (there were a lot of people round the world working on airplanes who could just as easily have been first, so the Wrights did not 'invent' the airplane), but a totally new advance.
Couldn't this be said for the vast majority of advancements? By your standards we'd also have to neglect just about everything Bell and Edison had ever done. I guess that makes it convenient for your argument.
So, by your own little rules tell me of advancements made by any scientist that wasn't being worked on by others at the same time? Advancement normally happens as society looks towards a common goal and various people pursue the same.
If an American researcher suddenly got cold fusion to work like a dream today you'd dismiss him as being a true innovator simply because others were working on the same technology.
Those of us who believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis obviously don't believe that humans came from multiple sources, we believe all humans descended from one couple.
Quote me where it says this in the bible.
Now, I'm not a Christian but I do not bash the believers out there but on the argument of ID and giving the benefit of the doubt I think that there is a lot of room for other humans being created without being mentioned in the bible.
To follow what little I know of the bible Adam and Eve had two sons, one murders the other. Where is the female(s) needed to carry on the race?
I think if there is any validity to the Christian mythology of ID that there will also need to be the allowance for God to have created multiple people from "nothing" to provide us with our current makeup of genetics. This isn't to say they couldn't all be in the same geological area either.
Ultimately I don't think this study does enough to give either side of this debate absolute validity. Unless, perhaps, there is something that actually says that there is only Adam and Eve and everything else came from the natural order. Too much has been assumed to be true from the bible that simply isn't stated and I think the idea of Adam and Eve being the only humans created by God is one of them.
But again, I'm not a Christian so I won't brow beat you with your own religion.
I'm sorry to hear that you had an encounter with unsavoury individuals; however, it would be entirely wrong of you to associate this behaviour with Linux users alone -- and completely unfounded. If one asks a question on any subject via IRC one must be prepared for a vulgar response
I'm saying the fabled community support isn't there. It really isn't. And no one said it was only the Linux community either. Please do not try to turn this into something that it isn't. If I feel the need to defend my thoughts as a Linux novice against the core fan base I'd simply rather not have to deal with Linux in the first place. This is the type of attitude that is alienating Joe from Linux today and the Linux sauve either don't care or can't see it.
It's just like your subject: "Only in the mind of an open source hater"? Do you honestly think that the kind of users that Linux is going to have to attract to make it mainstream give a damn about the whole open source/closed source debate? From a non-geek standpoint it simply doesn't matter. Joe doesn't care if what he runs is open or closed source. Bringing the politics of development into every conversation is also going to alienate Joe.
I am glad of different telephone networks, and that each network can offer a wide range of telephones. If tomorrow we were all restricted to using only one approved cellular telephone device there would be uproar. People choose different telephones depending on which features are the most important to them.
Who ever said anyone was going to be limited to one phone? You're taking your own analogy out of context.
Again, the reason that the phone analogy doesn't work at all is because these are approved devices sold for an approved network. Linux can not say that. There is no one that I know of who is producing hardware that is certified to run every distro of Linux. When I go to Verizon every one of their phones is going to work in the Verizon coverage area. It's a very different concept.
Maybe I just suck at communicating but I seriously don't think you're getting my point.
This is what Live CDs are for. Burn CD, boot, check hardware works OK. If so select install option. If not, no changes to undo. You can't do that with a new version of Windows. And it's incredibly unlikely these days that your NIC won't be supported.
Most people don't know that. This is the point. There are tons of people in the Linux community who are crying that Joe simply needs to try Linux and he will embrace it but there is a large gulf between having an interest in running Linux and actually having all the components in hand (mostly a serious knowledge of what one is getting into).
Continue to brush off and ignore what I'm saying but, again, don't be surprised when Joe doesn't embrace Linux. You need to understand that your simple solutions aren't so simple and obvious to the n00b.
Oh, well. I've spoken my peace.
Isn't that the same as suggesting too many different brands of cellular telephone make for a communications mess?
Actually, no.
When I goto Verizon in search for a new phone I know that what Verizon sells is going to work on their network. And considering that phones aren't too complex and I have a general understanding of all the major cellphone features it's not hard for me to find one in a pleasing form factor with the right gadgets and get moving.
On the other hand...
As a Linux n00b I take the pains of going out and asking what is the best Linux distro. Say I use IRC. One of two things will happen: Either I get a "go to Distrowatch, fucktard*" or I get 23 different distro names shouted to me at one time. Gee, thanks, that really cleared things up for me.
Maybe if I'm really lucky I find the company IT kid and he gives up a few minutes to cover the fundamentals of what I'm looking for. He's going to ask some questions that would confuse any Joe Sixpack (I have no idea what my soundcard is. I don't know if I'm trying to run a server. What's a server?)
Even if I find the right distro how am I going to know if it's going to work on my system. Or worse yet what if I don't even consider that it might not work until I'm nearly done with the install only to find that my NIC is not supported?
These are all legitimate questions from the Linux n00b and as long as the Linux community keeps calling these concerns "strawmen" the longer they're going to keep to that 5 or 10% marketshare. Once someone gets burnt on not being able to make Linux work "off the shelf" they're not soon to go back and try again.
* This is a real response. As part of a "Linux is ready for desktop because of all the community support" posting here on Slashdot a couple of years back I went on the hunt for "the community" and when I asked in #Linux on undernet what the best Linux distro was one of the 60-some users (the only one who even bothered to respond to my question) told me to "go to Distrowatch fucktard". Man, that community support rocked.
Ok, Mr. Smart Guy, now explain how the spearman shot down my stealth bomber.
Two words: Cheerleader pyramid.
"Don't care enough, don't know enough". You make is sound as if a user was at fault here.
My entire post deals with the coders, not the users.
This is a bogus argument, which simply is not applicable in this case. If Linux gets more users, the percentage of those who install and execute everything the find will grow, but this has nothing to do with dangerous commercial, binary only software packages.
Either you will admit that this is a strawman argument or you will have to absolve anyone who produces shoddy code that leaves the system open to outside influences in the future. Close source or open source should not make a difference with the security of a package and it certainly has no difference in the end result.
Maybe too many, but not those who count.
Oh, so you're saying that if a coder produces secure code and admins have secure systems using the Windows platform that the problems lay squarely on the shoulders of those who don't? That's fine but if that's the terms of how the OS will be judged in the face of malware and security vulnerabilities then we can simply scream "incompetence" at every Windows admin who didn't take care of business and left their system open to attack. If that's the way this is to be seen then, by your own standards, every OS is secure and well written. It's only the policies of the administration and users that are at fault.
This was an intentional attempt to create a backdoor.
So when this same type of thing happens in Windows it's that Windows coders are inept but when the same happens in Linux it's because of a conspiracy? Please.
The Linux community better be damn well ready for when this becomes commonplace as more people use Linux. I don't expect it as much from real vendors but it's going to happen more from the likes of amateur coders and malware producers.
Too many have fallen pray to the myth that Linux isn't going to have some of the same issues that Windows has with these areas in software. This incident alone shows that Linux will not be immune to those who don't care enough, don't know enough or are willing enough to sacrifice system security for whatever reasons.
Most rational people understand that Google supports its free services by displaying ads.
To the point where the invasion of "privacy" is concerned? How is it bad that MS does this but Google gets away with this? As I told another poster; they can continue to display ads, fine, but why invade one's privacy to target ads at a user?
You have already paid MS a lot of money soi why should they feel they have a right to invade your desktop?
Probably the same reasoning Google uses; It's part of the EULA.
What's wrong with your assumptions is just that: It's an assumption. An assumption that MS is just going to let this go out without any kind of forewarning or opt out gadget in place. Suppose that MS gives this out as an option in any one of their freeware offerings, would you have less of a problem with it?
And this is, of course, assuming that it's used at all.