It's not even pirate copies that really make them lose out on some films.
One kid's film (I freely admit it, it was Digimon: the Movie) followed the usual trick of "release it the main holiday after the one in America" - giving a lag-time of about four or finve months between the US and UK releases. I picked up the R1 DVD at an Anime Convention before the film was even finished in it's Cinema run.
Now had they actually releaseed in in november instead of February, I might have actually seen it in the cinema. but I didn't. I bought a legitimate copy, but the local industry didn't get a penny out of me.
True, I might have possibly paid the cinema to see it on a bigger screen in surround.... had a local Anime fan I was friends with not had a surround+widescreen TV.
Easier said than done. The timings aren't always consistent.
Sometimes it's 10 minutes of comnmercials before they even start with the trailers.
But occasionally you get in only 5 minutes after advertised time and they're already in the opening credits.
Not only that, in this case their stated concerns arise because it opens in Britain four days earlier than the States? Why not just release it simultaneously worldwide?
I think originally they were going to release it everywhere this Friday. But this current week is the half-term break - meaning just about every kid in the country is off school, and many parents are going to be taking them out.
So releasing HP3 this Monday (also a Bank Holiday, by the way) made perfect sense. Why bring it out for a weekend and a school week, when you can bring it out for a non-school week instead?
I'm also guessing (pure speculation) that they made that decision too late to put the worldwide release a week earlier, and nowhere else would make quite the killing on profits this week unless they too were off school. (And I'm assuming USA isn't...)
Now if I'm right about this, I can't figure out why they didn't factor in the UK Half-Term first and do worldwide release last Friday. Would have made much more sense.
can't say I think this is going too far at all. It is illegal to tape a movie in the theater, it always has been, and everyone knows it.
Yes. Very true. But that's not the problem.
Legitimate viewers are now being made to feel like they're being automatically suspected of being movie-pirates. That's not on. Not any way you justify it.
I don't record stuff in the movie theatre. I don't buy DVDs from dodgy sources. Therefore I don't want to be forced to sit through warnings against activities I don't participate in. I'd say that's fair, wouldn't you?
First we had this advert about how piracy funds terrorism,
WTF!!??!??
They cannot be serious, can they?
OK, I wouldn't necessarily be too surprised if terrorist organisations funded themselves by selling pirate copies of stuff. However, I'd imagine it to be Digital Quality Rips (either from DVDs or digital cinemas) not from Bloke with a Camcorder Enterprises copies.
More of this FUD and I'll stop attending the cinema. DVD releases are often better. Problem is they're starting to have too many warnings ("this DVD is for sale only, not for rental...." on unskippable) so if anything they're making me more likely to await the inevitable high-quality DVD-rip.
Why can't they see that their "anti-piracy" measure are going to be counter-productive in the long term?
Seriously, I think that's a really good idea. I hate the warnings they give. They don't stop the people they're supposed to, and make the rest of us feel like we're being treated as criminals. They make me want to get out a comcorder at that point just in spite.
I really would love to see a showing of a film (any film) where when the FACT warning screen comes up, over three-quarters of the audience immedately get out camcorders.
It'd be funny if nothing else.
I wouldn't advise looking at the latest Linux Kernel releases, then. Both the 2.2 and 2.4 branches are at 2.x.26 at the moment.
Not only using two-digit numbers after the dot, but actually having 2 dots.
I guess it just requires adjusting to the fact that software-versioning although looking like a decimal number, often isn't a decimal number and therefore can't really be parsed as same.
Many people have said "Maybe you didn't take the customer's needs into account" - but that's only one half of it. (Besides, only you know whether you did or not. We don't. For all the rest of us know, you already did your homework thoroughly.)
The competitor's site, does it work? Does it do the job? And does it have flash, or any code that breaks other browsers, or takes an age to download? (Also ask the same questions about your site)
Now if it's a well-written easily-loadable site, then maybe you have a problem. If it's an "All style, no substance" site then it's they (and your client) who has the problem.
I've seen so many (commercial) websites out there which look good, but either contain too much information (flash, etc) or not enough (the "Merely a list of e-mail addresses" scenario). Maybe it's just the Geek in me, but both of those kind of site are prone to make me start checking out competitors' sites. And let's not forget the "This site requires IEx.0 or higher" and refuse to load in another Browser situation.
I suppose the best thing to do is do a "Style and Substance" comparison chart on both your site and the competitor, and also weigh each up against whether it does it's job. Also take into account scalability. If their's scores higher, then maybe you should rethink your design. If yours scores higher, then write something stating all the reasons why your design is the more appropriate - but be prepared to rethink anyway if they won't budge.
I've had problems where Linux has locked up unexpectedly. Sometimes I can still ssh in and either kill the X-Session or at least force a clean reboot, sometimes it requires cycling the power.
Similarly I've had problems in Windows which are the hardware's fault - I know this as Linux had fallen over at similar points.
True, Windows has a habit of tripping over more often. Often for no reason, and often running straight into hardware issues without stopping... (until stopping dead, that is). True, Linux tends to be more tolerant of these issues, and often easier to recover from. (Crashes are less fatal, if not less frequent)
Personally I think it's to do with the Many Eyes aspect of Linux coding. Or at least it's close-cousin Many Hardware-Combinations.
Windows Devs (comercial) are probably running on top-spec hardware. Linux Kernel-hackers aren't always. And if they run into a problem, they might see if they can code around it, and if they can then submit a patch.
I think Windows is getting more stable. Just the politics of DRM and Activation far outweigh the improvements in amny cases. Similarly I don't think linux is perfect or bullet-proof, but the benefits (price, freedom, choice) can often outweigh the problems it does have.
I still think Windows main (technical) flaw, however, is it needing a reboot after every little change. I like Linux's approach where you many need to restart a service, but apart from the Kernel (oh, and new hardware...) there's very little that requires the entire system rebooting.
But really, I think the processor market is about to hit a wall where faster really doesn't speed things up much. Afterall, you need hardly any proc power to browse the WWW, read e-mail, or do IM chat. Sure, some people want "desktop replacement" laptops, but others want their laptop to just do some simple things.
I think you have a point there (and with desktops as well as laptops). Also, especially as people keep bringing up some sort of hard-limit that will get hit, hurtling full-speed (no pun intended...) towards it seems rather short-sighted of the manufacturers.
I know the CPU manufacturers want to keep pushing up "the numbers" so that people will but more new stuff, but maybe it's time they slowed down that side of things for a while.
Yes, for some things more raw CPU power is an advantage. But it's not the only bottleneck. In laptops there's power-consumptions (mentioned already - especially in non-CPU components). In graphics/media/gaming platforms then ramping up the GPU can have quite an effect. Heck, even just having software that makes better use of the hardware can be damned impressive.
If anything, increasing the efficiency (SMP?) rather than the raw power/speed of a CPU is what's needed. Also working on the graphics, and the local bus. Having a 10GHz CPU will only increase performance so much, mainly getting held back by the power and speed of the graphics, memory, and motherboards.
Of course (as you mentioned above) "We have a lower clock-speed but can still get the job done more efficiently" simply won't sell units. Especially when many non-technical buyers will go around the shops saying that "This one here has 3.2 gigabytes (sic) whereas this one here only has 2.8 in it."
More than likely they were using spamassassin, but with all the external checks still turned on. They recommend for large sites to turn these off because checking SPEWS, ORDB and Spamcop takes a few vital seconds per message, and when you're delivering more than about 20K messages per day you start getting a backlog.
Hmmmmmm. That's a shame. Especially for large organisations, using a blacklist on the score-system seems like a good idea. Is there any way of somehow cacheing a local copy of a blacklist (updated daily) and then modifrying SA's rules to check locally?
No, I don't run a mailserver. But if I did I'd want to run combinations of checks, not replying purely on one method.
I think SMTP in it's current form is on it's last legs. I've seen it said in/. comments before, and kind of laughed it off - but I'm thinking these days that they have a point.
E-Mail isn't going away. Simple. It's being used mroe and mroe often. Back in the day, a Simple Mail Transfer Protocol was sufficient. Nothing too complex was required, as there was less rubbish and also people would (sensibly) use otehr protocols for sending larger files.
These days, however, there is Spam, viruses, and people who (rightly or wrongly) insist on sending out large files via e-mail. If anything what's needed now is a Secure Mail Transfer Protocol. So that only legitimate mail-servers can send messages out, and that these require at least some semblance of authentication from the client. Plus some way of identifying the source-machine's authenticity would be nice.
Now on the technical side of things I admit I haven't got the slightest clue how to go about it. And I've no idea whether a from-scratch-replacement protocol would be any better than extensions to the existing SMTP-spec.
But I do think that more-secure and less-simple is the way to go.
It could be the range. Or it could be as simple as the poster already having Bluetooth capability on the system and deciding to go with what's already there instead of adding Yet Another Wireless Transmitter. Plus if there isn't an ideal integrated solution, seperate BT appliances will sitll just use the same one adaptor on the PC.
I guess the problem is that the phonecalls always (obviously) go to the front-line support. The ones who basically take you through the basics, and only have as much info as is on their screens.They're not actually the tech-department.
Now, where the real problems come in here is that they often won't pass you onto the actual techincal department until they've made sure it's not any of the obvious stuff that non-technical users can (and will) run into problems with.
When you are technical yourself, however, this can be annoying. I know myself I've often not even looked at the phone until I've tried all the obvious tricks. Power cycling. Cable checking. (And yes, I admit I've caught more than the odd one or two errors merely by checking the cables on my own systems...) Problem is then I finally pluck up the courage to make a phonecall (I'm one of those people to whom calling someone I don't know is near-physically uncomfortable), and I get asked all of the things I've already checked.
Now rationally I know it's not the fault of the guys on the end of the phone. Often they're working with not enough information and dealing with people who are either non-techincal or irate (or both).
And too often the information on their screens is woefully inadequate. Their "State of the network" readout says everything's fine.
Still, sometimes I find myself wishing even the front-line people were people who actually had a clue about the technology they're trying to field problems about. Me:I'm having problems accessing the newsgroups. Is there someone up with the NNTP server? Them:I don't think so. Is that something to do with your e-mail?
OK. Technologically close, but not exactly encouraging.
The GoogleBar-equivalent for Moz/Firefox is third-party, because Google didn't do one themselves. However, it was possible to search quickly in Mozilla before it was via IE's toolbar.
I'm reasonably sure that the address bar had Search for $term$ in $Search-Engine$ before the Googlebar appeared on IE - and Google was one of the options. Plus it had the sidebar.
Yes, but Blogger had Blog This! before Google had Blogger.
The the point is accurate, but not necessarily indicative.
Plus the APIs were, I'm guessing, merely publishing stuff that they already had.
I'm not doubting that it's useful. Plus it gdes scew the count. It potentially reduces the amount of thigns they need to do themselves, yet encouages things that may not have got done otehrwise.
If you don't want any browser, media player, or have your own particular favourite alternative, you can actually exclude the application from your installation setup. If you don't like GNOME/KDE you can install an alternative. Either at install, or later.
Yes, the common UIs these days do try to simplify things, but all of the "old-fashioned methods" of the Command Line and the Plaintext Configuration Files are still there.
You can turn off all of the graphical extravagances, use a simple WM, and even forgo apt/yum and build everything from source yourself.
True, some things you are "forced" to install owing to dependencies dictated by exactly how the distro is set up. But if you don't like it, you can try another distro, try Gentoo (too complex for me, but some people swear by it's freedom), defect to *BSD, or even compile your own system entirely.
All of the low-level control is still there behind Linux - and you're encouraged to use it. Maybe it is in Windows, but you're discouraged from it.
I also use FC1. I can't deny that GNOME does seem to suffer from the "Windows Effect" at times - but so far it hasn't stopped me doing anything I couldn't do in older distros. Plus you can get rid of the RHN alerts. You don't have to have them there, or even install anything from them.
To sum up...
the common linux user interfaces strive to appear as user friendly and dumbed down as you would claim windows is
True, but the keyword is "common". Like I said above, there are alternatives. In Windows there aren't. Not completely. And certainly not officially. And Linux doesn't (yet) try to hide the existance of the command line.
Linux Users: They admit that to use Linux, you need to learn some real skills... that any damn fool off the street will have to work at it a bit to really benefit from Linux... yet they expect MS to make windows so that the same damn fool can use it with absolutely no problems of any kind with out any work at all to learn how to use it properly.
Aah, but Microsoft themselves try to make Windows so that "any damn fool off the street" can use it out of the box. True, we geek-types know it doesn't end up that way, but as Windows is meant to be that way some of us treat it like that.
Linux isn't means to be easy. So we tinker, we learn, and for some of us it takes a long time. (I'm no expert, just someone who can get the bloody thing running) But we're encouraged to do so.
In Windows they discourage you from tinkering.
Plus there is one major difference - in Linux's favour...
In Linux, (and other systems) we know to not install anything we don't particularly need or that might prove a security risk. In Windows they don't give you any fucking choice. IE/OE/WMP - you have to lock them down and download shit-loads of patches for software packages we neither use nor even want on the bloody system!
Would the same hold true of a Bit Torrent tracker?
I'm not asking for any ulterior motive. More that it seems like one of the more grey areas like this case seems to be.
'Cos technically a Tracker never holds a copy of the file, and the.torrent file is merely a glorified pointer to a list of where the file is - but never actually contains part of the file itself.
I'm under no illusions as to whether it affect the legality of Bit Torrent itself - in that it depends very much on what file it is at the time. "Linux ISO"[*] vs "WinXP ISO" for example. I'm just curious as the the legality of the tracker and torrent-files - even when the particular download is blatantly infringing copyright.
Tiggs
[*] Yes, I know that SCO would have us believe that this one isn't much better...
I've always wondered why red text in subtitles looks really bad. I'm guessing this doesn't help.
I can't remember seeing any examples in blue, but I'll keep my eyes open.
Not all Blogs are quite like that, though. OK, far too many are, but far from all of them.
Certainly my personal site-blog (using Blogger, btw) isn't often used for that purpose. (I have LJ for that - and, to keep this vaguely on-topic, I gladly pay for my account to access better features)
On my site I mainly try to write about deeper things (often I admit I fail...), or site-updates, or link to intriguing articles. (I wonder where else does that...)
Sometimes blogging is merely a lightweight way of trying to automate site updates when we don't have the required skill-level to use a full-blown CMS solution (yet).
Whats wrong with a company that is still offering there product for free, but trying to make money off it by offering more features to the people who are willing to pay for it.
Nothing wrong with that.
Problem is that the "more features" are ones that were originally for-free. That never goes down well - not unless it was clearly stated somewhere that is either could or would happen. In this case it seems it was a bit of a surprise - and as a result hasn't gone down at all well.
Is this a case of bait-n-switch, or simply a company trying to capitalize on its dominant market share?
There's a difference?
To an extent, yes there is.
In that the latter happens, and will happen. Like ti or not, it's perfect business sense. Many companies do this as they go along. If some features are proving popular and they need to make extra profits then charge extra for the "premium" services.
However, bait & switch implies (to my mind, anyway) a premeditated decision to offer the full-featured version for free at first but with a definite (but not public) plan to switch to a paid method later on.
Tiggs
Re:DRM doesn't happen at the codec level
on
XVID 1.0 Released
·
· Score: 1
Not precisely. It depends on what's being encoded. For Anime, most still seem to favour DivX. For live-action, XviD seems to be preferred. This isn't quiet hard-and-fast though. especially when some people work with both types, they tend to use one constantly.
Though I've seen a fair bit of OGM out there - apparently XviD for the video side. And quite a few Matroska too - not sure what most people use for the codecs, but as wrappers go it seems pretty sweet.
And, of course, there's always those who insist on using Latest and Greatest the moment it's released. Though I find that FFDshow in Windows (and whatever it's equivalent in Linux is) handles all of the MPEG-4 derivatives very well on the decode side, and require updating a lot less frequently than the actual DivX/XviD codes do when trying to play back the latest encodes.
Also don't forget that many people still encode TV-rips in pure MPEG(-2?).
I love these, as my dirt-cheap DVD player handles MPEG fine.
Slashdot Mirror
It's not even pirate copies that really make them lose out on some films.
One kid's film (I freely admit it, it was Digimon: the Movie) followed the usual trick of "release it the main holiday after the one in America" - giving a lag-time of about four or finve months between the US and UK releases. I picked up the R1 DVD at an Anime Convention before the film was even finished in it's Cinema run.
Now had they actually releaseed in in november instead of February, I might have actually seen it in the cinema. but I didn't. I bought a legitimate copy, but the local industry didn't get a penny out of me.
True, I might have possibly paid the cinema to see it on a bigger screen in surround.... had a local Anime fan I was friends with not had a surround+widescreen TV.
Easier said than done. The timings aren't always consistent.
Sometimes it's 10 minutes of comnmercials before they even start with the trailers.
But occasionally you get in only 5 minutes after advertised time and they're already in the opening credits.
I think originally they were going to release it everywhere this Friday. But this current week is the half-term break - meaning just about every kid in the country is off school, and many parents are going to be taking them out.
So releasing HP3 this Monday (also a Bank Holiday, by the way) made perfect sense. Why bring it out for a weekend and a school week, when you can bring it out for a non-school week instead?
I'm also guessing (pure speculation) that they made that decision too late to put the worldwide release a week earlier, and nowhere else would make quite the killing on profits this week unless they too were off school. (And I'm assuming USA isn't...)
Now if I'm right about this, I can't figure out why they didn't factor in the UK Half-Term first and do worldwide release last Friday. Would have made much more sense.
TiggsYes. Very true. But that's not the problem.
TiggsLegitimate viewers are now being made to feel like they're being automatically suspected of being movie-pirates. That's not on. Not any way you justify it.
I don't record stuff in the movie theatre. I don't buy DVDs from dodgy sources. Therefore I don't want to be forced to sit through warnings against activities I don't participate in. I'd say that's fair, wouldn't you?
WTF!!??!??
They cannot be serious, can they?
OK, I wouldn't necessarily be too surprised if terrorist organisations funded themselves by selling pirate copies of stuff. However, I'd imagine it to be Digital Quality Rips (either from DVDs or digital cinemas) not from Bloke with a Camcorder Enterprises copies.
More of this FUD and I'll stop attending the cinema. DVD releases are often better. Problem is they're starting to have too many warnings ("this DVD is for sale only, not for rental...." on unskippable) so if anything they're making me more likely to await the inevitable high-quality DVD-rip.
Why can't they see that their "anti-piracy" measure are going to be counter-productive in the long term?
TiggsSeriously, I think that's a really good idea. I hate the warnings they give. They don't stop the people they're supposed to, and make the rest of us feel like we're being treated as criminals. They make me want to get out a comcorder at that point just in spite.
I really would love to see a showing of a film (any film) where when the FACT warning screen comes up, over three-quarters of the audience immedately get out camcorders.
TiggsIt'd be funny if nothing else.
I wouldn't advise looking at the latest Linux Kernel releases, then. Both the 2.2 and 2.4 branches are at 2.x.26 at the moment.
Not only using two-digit numbers after the dot, but actually having 2 dots.
I guess it just requires adjusting to the fact that software-versioning although looking like a decimal number, often isn't a decimal number and therefore can't really be parsed as same.
TiggsMany people have said "Maybe you didn't take the customer's needs into account" - but that's only one half of it. (Besides, only you know whether you did or not. We don't. For all the rest of us know, you already did your homework thoroughly.)
The competitor's site, does it work? Does it do the job? And does it have flash, or any code that breaks other browsers, or takes an age to download? (Also ask the same questions about your site)
Now if it's a well-written easily-loadable site, then maybe you have a problem. If it's an "All style, no substance" site then it's they (and your client) who has the problem.
I've seen so many (commercial) websites out there which look good, but either contain too much information (flash, etc) or not enough (the "Merely a list of e-mail addresses" scenario). Maybe it's just the Geek in me, but both of those kind of site are prone to make me start checking out competitors' sites. And let's not forget the "This site requires IEx.0 or higher" and refuse to load in another Browser situation.
I suppose the best thing to do is do a "Style and Substance" comparison chart on both your site and the competitor, and also weigh each up against whether it does it's job. Also take into account scalability. If their's scores higher, then maybe you should rethink your design. If yours scores higher, then write something stating all the reasons why your design is the more appropriate - but be prepared to rethink anyway if they won't budge.
TiggsTo be honest on the other side...
I've had problems where Linux has locked up unexpectedly. Sometimes I can still ssh in and either kill the X-Session or at least force a clean reboot, sometimes it requires cycling the power.
Similarly I've had problems in Windows which are the hardware's fault - I know this as Linux had fallen over at similar points.
True, Windows has a habit of tripping over more often. Often for no reason, and often running straight into hardware issues without stopping... (until stopping dead, that is). True, Linux tends to be more tolerant of these issues, and often easier to recover from. (Crashes are less fatal, if not less frequent)
Personally I think it's to do with the Many Eyes aspect of Linux coding. Or at least it's close-cousin Many Hardware-Combinations.
Windows Devs (comercial) are probably running on top-spec hardware. Linux Kernel-hackers aren't always. And if they run into a problem, they might see if they can code around it, and if they can then submit a patch.
I think Windows is getting more stable. Just the politics of DRM and Activation far outweigh the improvements in amny cases. Similarly I don't think linux is perfect or bullet-proof, but the benefits (price, freedom, choice) can often outweigh the problems it does have.
I still think Windows main (technical) flaw, however, is it needing a reboot after every little change. I like Linux's approach where you many need to restart a service, but apart from the Kernel (oh, and new hardware...) there's very little that requires the entire system rebooting.
TiggsI think you have a point there (and with desktops as well as laptops). Also, especially as people keep bringing up some sort of hard-limit that will get hit, hurtling full-speed (no pun intended...) towards it seems rather short-sighted of the manufacturers.
I know the CPU manufacturers want to keep pushing up "the numbers" so that people will but more new stuff, but maybe it's time they slowed down that side of things for a while.
Yes, for some things more raw CPU power is an advantage. But it's not the only bottleneck. In laptops there's power-consumptions (mentioned already - especially in non-CPU components). In graphics/media/gaming platforms then ramping up the GPU can have quite an effect. Heck, even just having software that makes better use of the hardware can be damned impressive.
If anything, increasing the efficiency (SMP?) rather than the raw power/speed of a CPU is what's needed. Also working on the graphics, and the local bus. Having a 10GHz CPU will only increase performance so much, mainly getting held back by the power and speed of the graphics, memory, and motherboards.
TiggsOf course (as you mentioned above) "We have a lower clock-speed but can still get the job done more efficiently" simply won't sell units. Especially when many non-technical buyers will go around the shops saying that "This one here has 3.2 gigabytes (sic) whereas this one here only has 2.8 in it."
Hmmmmmm. That's a shame. Especially for large organisations, using a blacklist on the score-system seems like a good idea. Is there any way of somehow cacheing a local copy of a blacklist (updated daily) and then modifrying SA's rules to check locally?
No, I don't run a mailserver. But if I did I'd want to run combinations of checks, not replying purely on one method.
TiggsI think SMTP in it's current form is on it's last legs. I've seen it said in /. comments before, and kind of laughed it off - but I'm thinking these days that they have a point.
E-Mail isn't going away. Simple. It's being used mroe and mroe often. Back in the day, a Simple Mail Transfer Protocol was sufficient. Nothing too complex was required, as there was less rubbish and also people would (sensibly) use otehr protocols for sending larger files.
These days, however, there is Spam, viruses, and people who (rightly or wrongly) insist on sending out large files via e-mail. If anything what's needed now is a Secure Mail Transfer Protocol. So that only legitimate mail-servers can send messages out, and that these require at least some semblance of authentication from the client. Plus some way of identifying the source-machine's authenticity would be nice.
Now on the technical side of things I admit I haven't got the slightest clue how to go about it. And I've no idea whether a from-scratch-replacement protocol would be any better than extensions to the existing SMTP-spec.
TiggsBut I do think that more-secure and less-simple is the way to go.
It could be the range. Or it could be as simple as the poster already having Bluetooth capability on the system and deciding to go with what's already there instead of adding Yet Another Wireless Transmitter. Plus if there isn't an ideal integrated solution, seperate BT appliances will sitll just use the same one adaptor on the PC.
I guess the problem is that the phonecalls always (obviously) go to the front-line support. The ones who basically take you through the basics, and only have as much info as is on their screens.They're not actually the tech-department.
Now, where the real problems come in here is that they often won't pass you onto the actual techincal department until they've made sure it's not any of the obvious stuff that non-technical users can (and will) run into problems with.
When you are technical yourself, however, this can be annoying. I know myself I've often not even looked at the phone until I've tried all the obvious tricks. Power cycling. Cable checking. (And yes, I admit I've caught more than the odd one or two errors merely by checking the cables on my own systems...) Problem is then I finally pluck up the courage to make a phonecall (I'm one of those people to whom calling someone I don't know is near-physically uncomfortable), and I get asked all of the things I've already checked.
Now rationally I know it's not the fault of the guys on the end of the phone. Often they're working with not enough information and dealing with people who are either non-techincal or irate (or both).
And too often the information on their screens is woefully inadequate. Their "State of the network" readout says everything's fine.
Still, sometimes I find myself wishing even the front-line people were people who actually had a clue about the technology they're trying to field problems about.
Me: I'm having problems accessing the newsgroups. Is there someone up with the NNTP server?
Them: I don't think so. Is that something to do with your e-mail?
OK. Technologically close, but not exactly encouraging.
TiggsThe GoogleBar-equivalent for Moz/Firefox is third-party, because Google didn't do one themselves. However, it was possible to search quickly in Mozilla before it was via IE's toolbar.
TiggsI'm reasonably sure that the address bar had Search for $term$ in $Search-Engine$ before the Googlebar appeared on IE - and Google was one of the options. Plus it had the sidebar.
Yes, but Blogger had Blog This! before Google had Blogger.
The the point is accurate, but not necessarily indicative.
Plus the APIs were, I'm guessing, merely publishing stuff that they already had.
TiggsI'm not doubting that it's useful. Plus it gdes scew the count. It potentially reduces the amount of thigns they need to do themselves, yet encouages things that may not have got done otehrwise.
OK. Let me restate myself in plain English...
If you don't want any browser, media player, or have your own particular favourite alternative, you can actually exclude the application from your installation setup. If you don't like GNOME/KDE you can install an alternative. Either at install, or later.
Yes, the common UIs these days do try to simplify things, but all of the "old-fashioned methods" of the Command Line and the Plaintext Configuration Files are still there.
You can turn off all of the graphical extravagances, use a simple WM, and even forgo apt/yum and build everything from source yourself.
True, some things you are "forced" to install owing to dependencies dictated by exactly how the distro is set up. But if you don't like it, you can try another distro, try Gentoo (too complex for me, but some people swear by it's freedom), defect to *BSD, or even compile your own system entirely.
All of the low-level control is still there behind Linux - and you're encouraged to use it. Maybe it is in Windows, but you're discouraged from it.
I also use FC1. I can't deny that GNOME does seem to suffer from the "Windows Effect" at times - but so far it hasn't stopped me doing anything I couldn't do in older distros. Plus you can get rid of the RHN alerts. You don't have to have them there, or even install anything from them.
To sum up...
True, but the keyword is "common". Like I said above, there are alternatives. In Windows there aren't. Not completely. And certainly not officially. And Linux doesn't (yet) try to hide the existance of the command line.
tiggsAah, but Microsoft themselves try to make Windows so that "any damn fool off the street" can use it out of the box. True, we geek-types know it doesn't end up that way, but as Windows is meant to be that way some of us treat it like that.
Linux isn't means to be easy. So we tinker, we learn, and for some of us it takes a long time. (I'm no expert, just someone who can get the bloody thing running) But we're encouraged to do so.
In Windows they discourage you from tinkering.
Plus there is one major difference - in Linux's favour...
In Linux, (and other systems) we know to not install anything we don't particularly need or that might prove a security risk. In Windows they don't give you any fucking choice. IE/OE/WMP - you have to lock them down and download shit-loads of patches for software packages we neither use nor even want on the bloody system!
TiggsWould the same hold true of a Bit Torrent tracker?
I'm not asking for any ulterior motive. More that it seems like one of the more grey areas like this case seems to be. .torrent file is merely a glorified pointer to a list of where the file is - but never actually contains part of the file itself.
'Cos technically a Tracker never holds a copy of the file, and the
I'm under no illusions as to whether it affect the legality of Bit Torrent itself - in that it depends very much on what file it is at the time. "Linux ISO"[*] vs "WinXP ISO" for example. I'm just curious as the the legality of the tracker and torrent-files - even when the particular download is blatantly infringing copyright.
Tiggs[*] Yes, I know that SCO would have us believe that this one isn't much better...
Aah, that would explain a lot.
I've always wondered why red text in subtitles looks really bad. I'm guessing this doesn't help.
I can't remember seeing any examples in blue, but I'll keep my eyes open.
Not all Blogs are quite like that, though. OK, far too many are, but far from all of them.
Certainly my personal site-blog (using Blogger, btw) isn't often used for that purpose. (I have LJ for that - and, to keep this vaguely on-topic, I gladly pay for my account to access better features)
On my site I mainly try to write about deeper things (often I admit I fail...), or site-updates, or link to intriguing articles. (I wonder where else does that...)
Sometimes blogging is merely a lightweight way of trying to automate site updates when we don't have the required skill-level to use a full-blown CMS solution (yet).
Nothing wrong with that.
TiggsProblem is that the "more features" are ones that were originally for-free. That never goes down well - not unless it was clearly stated somewhere that is either could or would happen. In this case it seems it was a bit of a surprise - and as a result hasn't gone down at all well.
So you're saying that maybe you'll be more likely to get a job if you're full of...
Tiggs - at workNot precisely. It depends on what's being encoded. For Anime, most still seem to favour DivX. For live-action, XviD seems to be preferred. This isn't quiet hard-and-fast though. especially when some people work with both types, they tend to use one constantly.
Though I've seen a fair bit of OGM out there - apparently XviD for the video side. And quite a few Matroska too - not sure what most people use for the codecs, but as wrappers go it seems pretty sweet.
And, of course, there's always those who insist on using Latest and Greatest the moment it's released. Though I find that FFDshow in Windows (and whatever it's equivalent in Linux is) handles all of the MPEG-4 derivatives very well on the decode side, and require updating a lot less frequently than the actual DivX/XviD codes do when trying to play back the latest encodes.
Also don't forget that many people still encode TV-rips in pure MPEG(-2?).
TiggsI love these, as my dirt-cheap DVD player handles MPEG fine.