KDE has copied the Windows gui forever. Look at Linspire. No one seems to be inspired to switch. You right that the GUi sould be intuitive and natural. But, I don't think it has to copy Windows to accomplished this. Apple has made a lot of headway with its unique GUI. Most people can figure out how to get around in about five minute. Linux GUIs should aspire to that but not copy it perse.
The key word you said here is "set up". You assuing that the user can do this effortlessly. But,in any rate, the parent is right. Complexity is a hugh issue. Geeks actually prefer the complexity in that they want to be able to tweak every setting. But, the average user will just get frustrated and then relate his/her horror story to others. I feel that OSes have to be transparent as possible. Driver installation should be completely automated. User confiugration should be limited as possible. When needed, it should come in a questionaire format in a wizard. User interface guidelines should ge established and adhered. Consistency really helps the user become acquainted with the OS. Menu should have an consistent layout. It is not just getting the user to try Linux but, it is keeping the user on Linux. The quicker a user becomes at ease with the OS the better chance the he/she will stick with it.
Bacon: One of the biggest things is lethargy. I consider myself a semi-technical person. So moving between software platforms doesn't mean anything to me.
But if, for example, I have to switch between insurance or phone plans, I just don't want to do it because I don't want to learn about it. I don't want to learn about what's different. Therefore, I'm resistant to change even if it might save me some money each month. Unless I can see a big, perceived win that attracts me, I'm not going to change my current system for something else that doesn't really give me a straight-up benefit.
I also think some people, particularly in business, are skeptical of open source because it is community-based and it's free.
The toughest thing is change. Microsoft carved out a culture. To its credit, the company commoditized computers. There's no easy way around that without education and giving someone that significant win.
For some people, the PDF export feature of OpenOffice 2.0 is a major thing for people who send out invoices. It's a very tiny feature but they see it as a significant thing for them because it affects their business.
If computers are not their field, people are resistant to learning and experimenting with OS. Obvious no one here is beyond using different OSes, however most people are trained in other fields. When it comes to computers, they are going to choose the one OS that which the most supported so they don't search around for the right software, computers, and devices. Unfornately, that OS is Windows. Worse yet, if tried to presuade them about alternative OSes, I find that most people will zone you out or be outright hostile. Microsoft needs to massively screw up before people will look to an alternative. That is how Firefox has made some headway. Alternatively, Linux advocates can use marketing, however, I think that is more Apple's cup of tea.
I really count one! I don't think a consumer is going to get confuse and buy Mac OS X server considering it has Server written on the box and it cost $500-$1000. Even if they did, they will still have all the features of the client version. As for the Intel version, they don't sell it yet as all new macs with intel processors will have it preinstalled. I suspect, when leopard comes out, that either a universal DVD will be sold or both versions will be in the box. It doesn't cost too much to throw in an extra cd. But why are we mentioning the Server version anyway? Of the versions mention in the article, not one is a server version. That is 6 version of Vista to one version of Mac OSX. I suspect that Mac OSX will have all the features of the Ultimate version and still cost less.
I read this story and I hear voices. I know whose voices they are. They are my siblings, my bosses, my friends, my father, and my co-workers. I can make what they are saying. They are questions from my near future. I am confused what version should I buy? Why do make things so complicated? What does Aero do? Do I need Ultimate? I have formulated one answer for them.
Microsoft seems to forget why they have this monopoly in the first place. People bought Windows because don't want to read what is on the box. They bought Windows so they whatever they bought would just work. They don't want read or think about system requirements. Now Microsoft with %90+ market share still in 2006 thinks that attitude has changed. When a customer walks in a store, he will be greeted with 3-5 version and will have to sit down and read to figure it out. I feel sorry for all those compusa salemans.
Why is it that any jerk with website who decides to blog is considered a journalist? This guy is worse than Dvorak. There is nothing to his argument except hypothetical rantings. No facts, no nothing. Hell, in real life, he works in a totally unrelated field. Where is his expertise? Yet, we are posting him without any vetting. He doesn't like DRM, BIG WHOOPIE DOO!!! Half the blokes here don't like DRM. I don't like DRM. But when I see a lot of people around pirating the hell out of music, software, video, OS, whatever, I understand why companies are using it. So Zonk, RTFA
See, there you go. You are not even given the satisfaction to see your solution being implement and receive some recognition of your work. In science, we believe in open ideas but you give credit where credit is due.
I am kind of sad to see that Pro notebooks are becoming increasingly unupgradeable. I remember the Pismo Powerbook could be easily upgraded with an new processor, hard drive, DVD, ram, and had a PC Card slot for extra ports. Nowadays, you really only can up the ram without doing major surgery. What happen to upgradeable mobile GPU touted by ATI and socketed mobile processors. At least, allow me to replace the hard drive after a few years when factory one becomes unbearably loud! Nowadays, I am force to spend top dollar and load the Powerbook up and in 3 years replace it with a completely new one. I don't like that situation at all because it is too expensive.
Even worse, one has to wonder why people would want to donate their time to such a fruitless and pointless cause.
I never did quite understand the gain for open-source developers to work on Darwin. Apple certainly benefits from an improved OSX, Safari, and other which they will in turn sell for a profit. I love OS X and I gladly pay Apple so they can hire developers and keep improving the OS. But, I don't expect people to volunteer talents without any expectation of compensation. What is the reward? Don't say Macbooks, that is crumbs compare to what Apple rakes in. I can sort of see the gain in Linux from a academic point of view. You can test new ideas and have fellow developers expand and improve on them. Something grows out of this colloboration that noone owns. The situation is a little different with Apple where those innovations go to Apple's bottom line. It seems one-sided.
You are right with the exception I would bargain away my right lung as well. I like my 9 month Powerbook and all, but those Macbooks look real tempting.
Actually, there is 3 flavors - Client, Server (10-client), Server (unlimited). In general, if you don't know what a server is, you don't buy OS X. I don't think I was talking about server OS, otherwise, it will take Microsoft number even higher. So stop nitpicking and STFU retard. The dorks that post here.
I'll take one over eight, Mac OS X. This is too confusing and too much. It is just software. You can sell one version with everything in it and people will use what need and ignore the rest. People can put a terabyte in their computers nowadays so there is now arguing harddrive space. Good thing they have a stranglehold on the market because they would be out business.
I would feel that A. Afarenis was probably hunted by something. Hell, throw a modern human, any human in savannah- next to a pride of lions or swamp full of crocs and you will see that at that moment we not sitting on the top of the food chain. So, it stands to reason that our ancestors were probably hunted by their ancestors. The premise that this lead to more social behavior is equally obvious. Look at most animals that are prey. They run in packs from birds to zebras to fish. That is one way to ensure survival. Look at history, we seem to be most united when we are under attack. 911, Pearl Harbor, 1812 all illustrate humans work better together when there is a pernicious threat hanging over our head. So, I surprise no one has written a paper about this earlier.
None of the reasons he sited here really aren't as strong as-it is just easier to bundle Windows with Apple computers. Hell, Apple will just be another OEM like Dell and you won't even call them Macintoshes anymore. I don't think he understand Apple's overall market strategy. Look at all the applications Apple sells. Except for itunes and Quicktime, they have one unique feature-they work only on Mac OSX. For Apple, sales of software and hardware reinforce one another. Thus, it keeps both units profitable. Replace Mac OSX with Windows, Apple loses that synergy between the hardware and the software. Why a buy an Apple if you can just install Final Cut Pro on a Dell? Apple loses its distinction and can no longer justify higher priced systems.
This whole hacking to whitebox x86 pc's is really just for the hobbyist and technophiles. No one outside of slashdot readers is going to care. Most laymen I know could care less about the operating system or the hardware it runs. Though, OSX is arguably easier to use and configure than Windows for non-techies. The questions I hear most when laymen ask me for me for recommendations for a new computer:
Can I run specialized program that turns out to be Windows only?
Can I play games?
Can I run all these Windows applications that cost me hundreds of dollars on OSX?
The answer is usually no. I have not been able to set up or convert one person to the Macintosh as a result. Moreover, price of the hardware is not even the problem. I can find a decent Apple computer at any reasonable price point. In addition, most people I know would gladly spend $500+ so long as they can hold onto it for few years. So, in the end, unleashing OSX carries little gain and whole lot a risk (see other insightful posts).
A better answer is that the iMac does not even have a dvi. Just a vga port. Why, do you ask? Apple purposely cripples the i-Systems with this, video mirroring only, and generally lower bus speeds so as not to detract from sale of the pro systems which have higher margins.
A physical explanation that time travel does not exist is the conservation of mass and energy. Energy and mass are constant through out the universe is a fundamental law of physics. Were time travel to occur to the past, matter would essentially added be to the universe at that point in the past. Moreover the matter you add to that universe is matter that was already present at that time as all matter today has been here for billions of years. That would create a paradox. As for future time travel, we are essentially doing it anway. Moreover, time progresses relative to speed of your reference frame. If travel in space at speeds greater that of earth, time will be perceived to more slowly than those who live on earth. Essentially, you travel into the future but the problem you can't go back in time. In the end, it makes for great movie plots.
HIV is a retrovirus based on RNA and is prone to mutation. However, there is a common feature amongst all HIV virus particles that makes them HIV. If you can exploited that feature either by antibodies or a inhibitory compound, you could theoretically cure it. But, I would think this may still be tricky to cure in a human. HIV genome resides in the infected cells DNA. An application of this drug would attack only the viruses in the bloodstream but not the infected cells. The infected cells only produce HIV when actively fighting an infection. Thus, they could continue to make the virus long after the drug is filtered out of the bloodstream. So, the drug would have to be administer either in tantem with a deliberate infection or over an indefinite period.
These won't be out until 2007, but it still raises the question: did Apple jump the gun by switching to Intel?
To begin, RTFA. This technology will go into POWER 6 processor which is part of server chip family that Apple does not use anyway. It may be a year or two before IBM work it into a desktop class chip like the 970 (G5: we are up to 2009). Then, another 2 years after that to work into a notebook class chip (2011). What is Apple suppose to do between now and then. Second, then IBM has to produce in large enough quantities so Apple can compete with X86 pc which they won't do because Apple is not a big enough customer. IBM priorities have never been to produce chips to power the class of devices that Apple sells where Intel/AMD do. Third, eventually this or a similar technology will filter to the other chip makers. They do research this kind of stuff as well (read IEEE publication someday) or they will just license it.
Well Albert Gonzalez would point out, that they didn't mentioned wiretapping in that admendment therfore it is allowed. Geez, thousands of law enforcement officers are kicking themselves on the hind parts for requesting for all those wiretapping warrants over the years.
Slashdot Mirror
KDE has copied the Windows gui forever. Look at Linspire. No one seems to be inspired to switch. You right that the GUi sould be intuitive and natural. But, I don't think it has to copy Windows to accomplished this. Apple has made a lot of headway with its unique GUI. Most people can figure out how to get around in about five minute. Linux GUIs should aspire to that but not copy it perse.
The key word you said here is "set up". You assuing that the user can do this effortlessly. But,in any rate, the parent is right. Complexity is a hugh issue. Geeks actually prefer the complexity in that they want to be able to tweak every setting. But, the average user will just get frustrated and then relate his/her horror story to others. I feel that OSes have to be transparent as possible. Driver installation should be completely automated. User confiugration should be limited as possible. When needed, it should come in a questionaire format in a wizard. User interface guidelines should ge established and adhered. Consistency really helps the user become acquainted with the OS. Menu should have an consistent layout. It is not just getting the user to try Linux but, it is keeping the user on Linux. The quicker a user becomes at ease with the OS the better chance the he/she will stick with it.
What do you think prevents people from switching?
Bacon: One of the biggest things is lethargy. I consider myself a semi-technical person. So moving between software platforms doesn't mean anything to me. But if, for example, I have to switch between insurance or phone plans, I just don't want to do it because I don't want to learn about it. I don't want to learn about what's different. Therefore, I'm resistant to change even if it might save me some money each month. Unless I can see a big, perceived win that attracts me, I'm not going to change my current system for something else that doesn't really give me a straight-up benefit. I also think some people, particularly in business, are skeptical of open source because it is community-based and it's free. The toughest thing is change. Microsoft carved out a culture. To its credit, the company commoditized computers. There's no easy way around that without education and giving someone that significant win. For some people, the PDF export feature of OpenOffice 2.0 is a major thing for people who send out invoices. It's a very tiny feature but they see it as a significant thing for them because it affects their business.
If computers are not their field, people are resistant to learning and experimenting with OS. Obvious no one here is beyond using different OSes, however most people are trained in other fields. When it comes to computers, they are going to choose the one OS that which the most supported so they don't search around for the right software, computers, and devices. Unfornately, that OS is Windows. Worse yet, if tried to presuade them about alternative OSes, I find that most people will zone you out or be outright hostile. Microsoft needs to massively screw up before people will look to an alternative. That is how Firefox has made some headway. Alternatively, Linux advocates can use marketing, however, I think that is more Apple's cup of tea.
You made a funny, man. Respect
I really count one! I don't think a consumer is going to get confuse and buy Mac OS X server considering it has Server written on the box and it cost $500-$1000. Even if they did, they will still have all the features of the client version. As for the Intel version, they don't sell it yet as all new macs with intel processors will have it preinstalled. I suspect, when leopard comes out, that either a universal DVD will be sold or both versions will be in the box. It doesn't cost too much to throw in an extra cd. But why are we mentioning the Server version anyway? Of the versions mention in the article, not one is a server version. That is 6 version of Vista to one version of Mac OSX. I suspect that Mac OSX will have all the features of the Ultimate version and still cost less.
I read this story and I hear voices. I know whose voices they are. They are my siblings, my bosses, my friends, my father, and my co-workers. I can make what they are saying. They are questions from my near future. I am confused what version should I buy? Why do make things so complicated? What does Aero do? Do I need Ultimate? I have formulated one answer for them.
Buy a MAC!!!
Microsoft seems to forget why they have this monopoly in the first place. People bought Windows because don't want to read what is on the box. They bought Windows so they whatever they bought would just work. They don't want read or think about system requirements. Now Microsoft with %90+ market share still in 2006 thinks that attitude has changed. When a customer walks in a store, he will be greeted with 3-5 version and will have to sit down and read to figure it out. I feel sorry for all those compusa salemans.
Why is it that any jerk with website who decides to blog is considered a journalist? This guy is worse than Dvorak. There is nothing to his argument except hypothetical rantings. No facts, no nothing. Hell, in real life, he works in a totally unrelated field. Where is his expertise? Yet, we are posting him without any vetting. He doesn't like DRM, BIG WHOOPIE DOO!!! Half the blokes here don't like DRM. I don't like DRM. But when I see a lot of people around pirating the hell out of music, software, video, OS, whatever, I understand why companies are using it. So Zonk, RTFA
See, there you go. You are not even given the satisfaction to see your solution being implement and receive some recognition of your work. In science, we believe in open ideas but you give credit where credit is due.
I am kind of sad to see that Pro notebooks are becoming increasingly unupgradeable. I remember the Pismo Powerbook could be easily upgraded with an new processor, hard drive, DVD, ram, and had a PC Card slot for extra ports. Nowadays, you really only can up the ram without doing major surgery. What happen to upgradeable mobile GPU touted by ATI and socketed mobile processors. At least, allow me to replace the hard drive after a few years when factory one becomes unbearably loud! Nowadays, I am force to spend top dollar and load the Powerbook up and in 3 years replace it with a completely new one. I don't like that situation at all because it is too expensive.
Even worse, one has to wonder why people would want to donate their time to such a fruitless and pointless cause.
I never did quite understand the gain for open-source developers to work on Darwin. Apple certainly benefits from an improved OSX, Safari, and other which they will in turn sell for a profit. I love OS X and I gladly pay Apple so they can hire developers and keep improving the OS. But, I don't expect people to volunteer talents without any expectation of compensation. What is the reward? Don't say Macbooks, that is crumbs compare to what Apple rakes in. I can sort of see the gain in Linux from a academic point of view. You can test new ideas and have fellow developers expand and improve on them. Something grows out of this colloboration that noone owns. The situation is a little different with Apple where those innovations go to Apple's bottom line. It seems one-sided.
You are right with the exception I would bargain away my right lung as well. I like my 9 month Powerbook and all, but those Macbooks look real tempting.
Actually, there is 3 flavors - Client, Server (10-client), Server (unlimited). In general, if you don't know what a server is, you don't buy OS X. I don't think I was talking about server OS, otherwise, it will take Microsoft number even higher. So stop nitpicking and STFU retard. The dorks that post here.
I'll take one over eight, Mac OS X. This is too confusing and too much. It is just software. You can sell one version with everything in it and people will use what need and ignore the rest. People can put a terabyte in their computers nowadays so there is now arguing harddrive space. Good thing they have a stranglehold on the market because they would be out business.
I would feel that A. Afarenis was probably hunted by something. Hell, throw a modern human, any human in savannah- next to a pride of lions or swamp full of crocs and you will see that at that moment we not sitting on the top of the food chain. So, it stands to reason that our ancestors were probably hunted by their ancestors. The premise that this lead to more social behavior is equally obvious. Look at most animals that are prey. They run in packs from birds to zebras to fish. That is one way to ensure survival. Look at history, we seem to be most united when we are under attack. 911, Pearl Harbor, 1812 all illustrate humans work better together when there is a pernicious threat hanging over our head. So, I surprise no one has written a paper about this earlier.
None of the reasons he sited here really aren't as strong as-it is just easier to bundle Windows with Apple computers. Hell, Apple will just be another OEM like Dell and you won't even call them Macintoshes anymore. I don't think he understand Apple's overall market strategy. Look at all the applications Apple sells. Except for itunes and Quicktime, they have one unique feature-they work only on Mac OSX. For Apple, sales of software and hardware reinforce one another. Thus, it keeps both units profitable. Replace Mac OSX with Windows, Apple loses that synergy between the hardware and the software. Why a buy an Apple if you can just install Final Cut Pro on a Dell? Apple loses its distinction and can no longer justify higher priced systems.
This whole hacking to whitebox x86 pc's is really just for the hobbyist and technophiles. No one outside of slashdot readers is going to care. Most laymen I know could care less about the operating system or the hardware it runs. Though, OSX is arguably easier to use and configure than Windows for non-techies. The questions I hear most when laymen ask me for me for recommendations for a new computer:
Can I run specialized program that turns out to be Windows only?
Can I play games?
Can I run all these Windows applications that cost me hundreds of dollars on OSX?
The answer is usually no. I have not been able to set up or convert one person to the Macintosh as a result. Moreover, price of the hardware is not even the problem. I can find a decent Apple computer at any reasonable price point. In addition, most people I know would gladly spend $500+ so long as they can hold onto it for few years. So, in the end, unleashing OSX carries little gain and whole lot a risk (see other insightful posts).
A better answer is that the iMac does not even have a dvi. Just a vga port. Why, do you ask? Apple purposely cripples the i-Systems with this, video mirroring only, and generally lower bus speeds so as not to detract from sale of the pro systems which have higher margins.
-5 - Stupid Question
Gee, since IBM sold thier laptop/desktop business. What should they give their open source developers? Servers or workstation? I know a mainframe.
A physical explanation that time travel does not exist is the conservation of mass and energy. Energy and mass are constant through out the universe is a fundamental law of physics. Were time travel to occur to the past, matter would essentially added be to the universe at that point in the past. Moreover the matter you add to that universe is matter that was already present at that time as all matter today has been here for billions of years. That would create a paradox. As for future time travel, we are essentially doing it anway. Moreover, time progresses relative to speed of your reference frame. If travel in space at speeds greater that of earth, time will be perceived to more slowly than those who live on earth. Essentially, you travel into the future but the problem you can't go back in time. In the end, it makes for great movie plots.
HIV is a retrovirus based on RNA and is prone to mutation. However, there is a common feature amongst all HIV virus particles that makes them HIV. If you can exploited that feature either by antibodies or a inhibitory compound, you could theoretically cure it. But, I would think this may still be tricky to cure in a human. HIV genome resides in the infected cells DNA. An application of this drug would attack only the viruses in the bloodstream but not the infected cells. The infected cells only produce HIV when actively fighting an infection. Thus, they could continue to make the virus long after the drug is filtered out of the bloodstream. So, the drug would have to be administer either in tantem with a deliberate infection or over an indefinite period.
Many a slashdotter can now get laid!
I don't think the fear of contracting an STD was preventing that
These won't be out until 2007, but it still raises the question: did Apple jump the gun by switching to Intel?
To begin, RTFA. This technology will go into POWER 6 processor which is part of server chip family that Apple does not use anyway. It may be a year or two before IBM work it into a desktop class chip like the 970 (G5: we are up to 2009). Then, another 2 years after that to work into a notebook class chip (2011). What is Apple suppose to do between now and then. Second, then IBM has to produce in large enough quantities so Apple can compete with X86 pc which they won't do because Apple is not a big enough customer. IBM priorities have never been to produce chips to power the class of devices that Apple sells where Intel/AMD do. Third, eventually this or a similar technology will filter to the other chip makers. They do research this kind of stuff as well (read IEEE publication someday) or they will just license it.
Maybe there's a loop hole
Well Albert Gonzalez would point out, that they didn't mentioned wiretapping in that admendment therfore it is allowed. Geez, thousands of law enforcement officers are kicking themselves on the hind parts for requesting for all those wiretapping warrants over the years.