The only reason I don't use Ogg Vorbis is that no (cheap) hardware players support it. That's the only drawback for me. Otherwise I'd rip any of my own purchases to OGG.
Similarly the only reason I get annoyed when I find things in OGG format is that I can't play them on my hardware kit.
But the.ogg files I do have are of a very high standard. I like them. And I like the fact that the format is more open. besides, end-users don't really care about the format as long as it plays, and that it doesn't sound rubbish. If Ogg Vorbis files turned up everywhere but could be played everywhere then people really wouldn't complain. (And it's shut up us in the geek-crowd).
"Target demographics" (and falling outside them) are often a part of the proble, though. being a geek who can't stand sport and hase an incredible eclectic taste in music and TV (but one which doesn't usually correspond with what's mainstream) then I find myself always outside someone's target demographic.
But this doesn't really encourage me to want to play ball. It's hard to want to support entertainment industries that show me very little advantage. especially here in the UK, my interests are quite often catered for as an afterthought with a grossly inflated pricetag.
They sell for too much with extra features I don't need or want. Yet won't go for a decent (and robust/high-quality) budget option most of the time.
What good is a backup that's been compressed into a heavily lossy format?
Better than nothing.
If I were a musician and lost all the files on my disc, I'd personally be glad of anything that meant that I dind't have to start again form memory. It'd be a total pain to try and rebuild an album from memory. But with something even as lossy as an MP3 (or a MIDI, or even scribbled notes on manuscript) then at least you've got the basics from which to start again.
Yes, high-quality backups, and raw-data backups, and so forth are the preferred method when you lose everything. But something that can count as notes to speed the process of redoing it all is useful.
'Cos when it's really all hit the fan, you're grateful of anything to work from. (Even the lip-stick notes on the shotglass)
It's not increasingly useless, its that companies are ignoring it, thinking it unnecessary.
But this is causing problems.
I know at least two people who still use dial-up, and don't need anything faster. Trying to support one of them is tricky, as stuff like Windows update just doesn't have a viable option for dial-up. But you shouldn't have to go broadband simply to clear up errors in the software.
The other is my parents. They don't use the internet enough to justify either the cost of broadband for their part of the house, or for wiring up Cat5 up to my rooms (or getting WiFi).
Yep, dial-up for them is actually mroe cost-effective than getting wired into the already-existing broadband in the house. It's just lucky that I can easily bring it upstairs to keep it patched myself.
Far be it from me (a non-coder) to normally tell software people how they should do things, but isn't one of the first rules of Internet Content to never make assumptions about the end-user's systems? Hence they really need to provide an easy way of obtaining such updates on CD/DVD. Especially on things that MS flag up as "critical".
One could say that techies learn to keep backups because sometimes computers crash, but honestly I don't think it's learned thing- it's more of a personality thing. I mean, I kept backups of lots of things before I ever got into technology. It's a way of thinking.
I'd say part-learned, part personality. I've certainly learned the virtues of keeping backup copies, never deleting until a mobile copy has reached its destination, etc, the hard way. Mainly by losing data that, had I bothered to think beforehand, I'd have kept a spare copy of.
However, being a techie means I've learned from this. (Mainly 'cos I don't want to lose-data/look-dumb again) But I've seen people who never seem to learn.
I think the main thing is that techies tend to learn the lessons from the unimportant stuff (multimedia clips and downloads being relatively unimportant compared to work-data), so we get into good habits before the important stuff. Non-techies tend to learn when they lose their dissertation/lesson-plan/big-presentation.
Of course it's not quite that simple. I've seen techies who don't backup work-servers, and also people who don't really "get" computers beyond Word and MSN who have levels of redundancy that'd make a geek proud.
Although technically always keep a backup is a rule to live by, it isn't always as simple as that.
"Murphy's Law" although largely seen as a joke can (and often does) strike at times like this. Like your hard-drive dying during a major backup. Or your software crashing just before you're about to do your regular save.
Plus keeping your work on a site like MP3.com could be seen as an implementation of "off-site backup". And the chances of an archive site and your hard-drive losing your files at the same time is very slim. Not impossible, but still slim.
These things happen, and it's easy to point out the mistakes that someone else made. But it's also easier than you'd think to make the same mistakes.
You are supposed to be *working*, not surfing friends web pages..
I work as tech-support for a college project at a local community centre. The college did not get to choose the Internet Connection, so it came with the default strict filtering in place. (RM SafetyNet, by the way. They won't pay extra for SafetyNetPLUS)
The filtering gets in the way of my work!! I either have to use workaround or research things in my own time at home because of how strict it is.
Some sites are blocked due to content - possibly 'cos they have links/tips to do with hacking and stuff. Sadly, these also tend to be the sites which directly answer tech-problems I'm trying to solve. They've also blocked using the Google-cache. And although I know full-well that's a way people use to bypass things, it also has a legitimate use. Like when the only site with an answer has moved/changed/vanished/slashdotted.
Just because someone wants to bypass filtering doesn't automatically mean they aren't actually trying to get work done.
It's apparent what you want isn't Linux, but Windows. I urge you to go out, buy a Windows CD, and install it.
Whenever people cite Windows-style suggestions for Linux, this is the answer that always gets thrown about. But I don't think it's necessarily true.
If what people wanted was Windows, they wouldn't be trying out other OSes.
Though I would hazard a guess that what many people want is Windows, only without MS's irritating intervensitons, and with a lot more stability.
Yes, a lot of GUI stuff looks Windows-esque. That doesn't mean that people want Windows. Just that the visual style works. And the ease of use is convenient (when it works...)
I think what many people really want is a version of Linux that works like Windows - or a version of Windows that works, like Linux.
Graphical. Pretty. Easy-ish. Works with most things going. But also has easy CLI options for when it all hits the fan (or you simply like tweaking...), and where crashes only nuke the program or maybe the login session - not cause the entire OS to bomb-out.
It's just unlikely that there'll ever be a MSWin/Linux, so of course people are going to want to take what they see as Windows/ redeeming features and get them ported to GNU/Linux.
People are sick of a lot of what Windows carries with it. But that doesn't mean there ain't useful things that they/we would like to see replicated elsewhere. And it also doesn't mean that there aren't aspects of Linux that seem unnecessarily difficult.
No. But if all Linux software have a GUI-option that also said exactly what options file it was altering then it'd be very close.
The GUI tool itself might not be as flexible as editing the file, but if it identified the file then it'd be a Godsend to Joe Memory-Like-Seive (i.e. "me") who knows what options he wants to tweak but can't remember what file and directory for toffee.
I've gotta say, Webmin does a grwat job of this. OK, it's more for admins than users, but it does the job. It simplifies the config, but often also identifies the file (and even lists an editable version) that is actually being tweaked.
If there were a standard backend this could actually be more useful than many people would think.
File-downloaders would just need to download the version they wanted (hopefully from the clearly-labelled dependencies list on the page).
Also it's be a lot easier to point yum/apt/whatever at a single repositary source, and know that it could figure out for itself the vairous dependencies.
There really is a wall at which point the learning curve takes a sharp inclince, and this is in installation. I'm (slowly) getting to grips with it myself. Being able to find my way around dependency-limbo, or struggle with source-compilation. But it's taken a few years to get to this point. 'Cos I'm not a great coder - though I wish I was. If I look at an application, it's 'cos I want to use it. If I can't get it working in a matter of minutes/hours/days (depending on importance) then I'm simply not interested.
That said, even though less things (for me) seem to work straight-off in Linux than Windows, I do find it a lot easy to work around the Linux problems than the ones in Windows.
I guess it's just a trade-off. Linux installations have more obstacles, but ones I can get over. Windows programs have less obstaces, but the ones I encounter tend to stop me dead.
Yeah, I hate this one myself. I hate spending ages downloading something, then realising that I've still got several components to hunt down and install/reinstall/upgrade first.
apt-get really is your friend in these situations. OK, it's only as good as the repositories for whatever distro you're running. But if it contains the program you're after, it'll contain the dependencies, too. Then it just does the whole thing foe you.
(But in a rather nice verbose way so it actually tells you what changes it's making. Maybe not essential for newbies, but I certainly appreciate learning these things.)
Or list the deps on your website or Sourceforge page.
Actually, I'm finding that an increasing number of projects are actually doing this. And not only do they list the dependencies, but quite often they link to the Project Page for the dependency in question.
Heck, considering the obscene amount of hard drive space most of us have, why not just offer a statically compiled version for download?
That would be nice, too. If for nothing else than for use in "If all else fails" scenarios. I'm not sure how viable it'd be, though. Both technically and license-wise.
Plus, for the things that do get static binaries, statis packages would be nice. Or at least an install-script. Actually, the latter would be nice. You can run it and get the work done for you, but then you can also look at the script and see exactly where what things are being put.
Slashdot is not an anti-Microsoft organization. Slashdot is a forum where people get together and talk about technology. There is no Slashdot charter that states that Microsoft is the devil and no one should use Microsoft products. Microsoft products have their place. Let them spend their money keeping Slashdot alive.
I just find it amusing that the "Windows has a lower TCO than Linux" always seems to pop up on top of articles saying the opposite.
Either someone at OSDN has a sense of humour, or the random scripts just have high comedy timing.
As it stands, you can only buy online music if you use Windows or Mac OS X --a set up that accounts for 98% of computer users, maybe, but obviously the remaining 2% (Unix/Linux users) know how to code.
I think they keep forgetting this bit. I've said it before, and God knows I'll probably say it again, but they've got to start taking the geek-market more seriously.Unix/Linux/Whatever-alternative-OS users may not be a huge market-share financially, but it's a market you want on your side rather than working against you.
Plus too many shops not only assume Windows use, but assume IE use too.
Whilst reading this thread, I thought I'd try putting my money where my mouth is and supporting legitimate online music services. I took a look at OD2, and on every link to their supported stored, I was hit by some This site requires IE5 or better bullshit. Sorry guys, I use Mozilla. So I guess they won't be getting my money after all.
Some kid breaks the DRM mechanism, and everyone jumps to his defence, because all they really want is FREE (gratis) music. All that talk about buying songs was just that: talk.
Bullshit!
I want to buy music digitally(*). Currently I can't easily. But I still buy CDs. Hell, bought two classics by The Pixies last week. I could easily of grabbed all the songs and more off P2P. But I didn't.
That said, I'm anti-DRM. At least, DRM that's tied to platform lockin.
(*) I did use the Bleep/Warp store to buy some Aphex Twin. The only thing stopping me using them more is their lack of music I'm in a hurry to get. Again, I could easily fire up my P2P program and grab whole albums, but when whole-albums are involved I really do prefer actually buying them.
iTMS looks almost perfect to me. They have a lot of stuff available. Probably more than anyone else. Problem is, by the time they get the European copyright issues or whatever's holding them up over here sorted out and can actually open over here, I'll have defected more from Windows than I already have.
(Yes, I know we have the "MyCokeMusic" over here. I just had a look. The main page then launches a Flash window to do the actualy browsing in.
Errrrrrrrrm. No!)
Unless Apple bring out official iTunes/iPod support to Linux, then the only way I'd be able to use their service would be by some sort of circumvention method. And I'm pretty certain I'm not the only one.
And seeing that, unlike me, some people can actually code, then there will always be people who will right workarounds for themselves. And then, inevitably, make them available.
It's no different to Region-coding and CSS in DVDs to me. If I buy something, I don't want people telling me on what platforms I can and can't watch them on. It doesn't necessarily mean I'll download stuff for free instead. It just means I'll either find a hack, or go without.
And the amusing (to me) thing is that the companies would probably rather I did the latter. But its the former that allows me to buy stuff and put money in their pockets.
But I'd have to say I come down with Apple this time. They've been trying to come up with some sort of way to control copying (The RIAA won't license them all their music otherwise, so as much as Apple probably doesn't want DRM, they've been forced into it) that's acceptable to everyone. You can still un-DRM iTMS songs by burn/rip, and you don't see Apple running around randomly suing.001% of the people who have a CD burner.
It's not the copy-control that's really the problem though. It's the fact that it's tied into player/platform/hardware locking that is the problem.
Want to easily play a song you've bought in [insert player of choice]? Tough luck.
Want to play a song you've bought when running Linux? No chance.
Want to easily import the music you've bought on a non-iPod player? Not gonna happen.
These just provide extra incentive for people wanting to circumvent the DRM. If iTunes natively supported other platforms, other portables, and interfaced easily with players such as WinAmp then less people would bother trying to break the DRM.
There'll always be someone wanting to circumvent it for less-than-noble reasons, but whilst FairPlay locks you into Apple software 7 iPods then you also add the people with more honest reasons working hard on a "problem" that doesn't need to exist.
Yes, I know you can burn/re-rip. But that wouldn't always be a viable option. Were iTMS available here in the UK, it'd not be viable for me unless I could circumvent the format without having to burn/rip. My main MP3 player is a CD/MP3-player. It probably wouldn't play iTMS tracks from a CDR, but burning to CD to rip so I can burn a CD of MP3s would just seem wasteful. Especially seeing I'd have to burn several CDs just to get enough tracks to burn to MP3-CDR. (If I wanted to rip from Audio-CDs, I'd just buy them in the sales in a store)
I know Apple are trying their hardest here. And, although they've still not opened their damned iTunes store here in the UK, they seem to be genuinely trying to provide a reasonable online music service.
But as long as they have platform-lockin tied into their DRM, they just increase the number of people wanting to get around it. Copy-protection is starting to be seen as a necessary evil. But player-restrictions will probably never be seen that way.
That last sentence I do agree with. I've no problem with AdWords, however, as long as they are unobstructive (no pop-ups) and properly distinguished from the content, which it doesn't look like these will be. What's the alternative? Subscription Google?
Maybe someone will find a way to enable content to be shared without the need for advertising or subscriptions.
OK, OK, perhaps it's a total pipe-dream. But I find even AdWords annoying. The simple reason is that I'm relatively clued in enough to already know what I do and don't want.
Same as when I'm in a shop I want the slaes-staff to answer any direct queries. I don't want them pestering me when I'm merely browsing. I know my product-interets, and have very little interest in people trying to tell me what I want. About the only thing I ever use adverts at all for these days is to simply find out when sonmething's finally available. And even then, I already know this from the Internet.
I don't want adverts, I want content. If I wanted constant ads I'd be paying for the advertising mags, and not for broadband.
I get the feeling that they genuinely don't realise that a lot of their music is lousy. After all, it sells well and it gets top radio-play...
...which is to say that kids (on the money they get from their parents) buy it, and the radio staions they heavily fund play the records.
The fact that the people who have to spend their own earned/saved/limited money habe more discerning tastes might not even factor into their calculations.
Similarly I don't think that they realise that their prices are unacceptable. To them the prices make perfect sense. Cover your costs (including mass marketing & hype), and also try to make a bigger profit than last year. And like many industries, I don't think they realise that sometimes you reach a profit-ceiling where growth becomes a lot harder.
Rightly or wrongly the perceived value of physical albums has dropped. And there's no way around that. And even if the costs involved are justifiable (I'm not in the music industry, so I honestly couldn't say one way or the other), people just aren't going to spend more than they think something is worth.
Heck, the music and mobile-phone industries here in the UK are proof enough of that. For the former, the queues when you have sailes that push priced below a tenner are intimidating. And for the latter, if phones weren't highly subsidised by call-costs, then there's no way they'd be as popular.
Rightly or wrongly you've got to pitch your prices closer to what the customers think is a suitable price than what you think they're worth.
re: cross-platform capability:
Strange, I would expect web designers who care about that to at least follow the w3c recommendations. However, I hardly see any website that does.
Yes, but remember that many designers might care about it, but that doesn't eman that their management/clients do. And that's one of the problem. If Joe Customer or the PHB says that "The site absolutely has to have [feature that only works n Browser X]", then the designer is kind of stuck working to those restrictions.
And there is also the fact that the W3C recommentations are sometimes not actually followed in the Browsers themselves. You can follow the specs to the letter, and you'll probably still find Browsers (including modern ones) that don't implement it properly.
1: Is there anyone on Slashdot that honestly feels there's even the slightest probability that SCO will win?
Unfortunately, yes I do. Yes, I think it's only a slight probability (and it'd be the wrong outcome), but the problem is that it all rests with the Lawyers now. Well, and the courts. But bein ghe cynical bastard that I am, and having no trust is lawyers or fath in the legal system of any country, I can't dismiss the possibility that SCO may well win.
Doesn't stop me sharing the belief that they're talking out of their arses and that their claims are all unfounded.
It also doesn't make me believe for one second that should the courts find SCO right that Linux can easily be stopped. One way or another Linux will survive. I'm just too cynical to automatically assume that SCO will lose.
No, I think you (and the entire Industry) have missed the point.
People (especially the geek-types who are likely to code around things) are not going to have choices forced on them about exactly how they can play their purchases.
Why am I going to pay for a format which won't play on my software or platform of choice, and only plays on a portable device which costs an arm and a leg - when I already have 2 cheapass players which play MP3s fine.
Plus, by the time ITMS finally shows up in the UK, my Windows/Linux timesharing will probably have flipped around. And damned if I'm going to buy music that I can't play on my own system.
Pleasing the record companies by adding DRM is only one side of the marketing coin that Apple (or anyone else) should have to deal with.
They have to do things that make it easy for the geeks.
If Joe Average-User finds out that their music purchases only work on certain hardware, they'll either buy the gizmo or go with out. But if Joe Coder is faced with the same problem, they're more likely to try and find a way to get it to work on what they want.
Oh, and not forgetting Joe Cheapass who'd buy it if it was convenient, and hit P2P otherwise.
I know it's simply not what the corporate-types want to hear. They want control, and the ability to charge one person several times for the same piece of music.
Hell, it's been happening for years. Look at consoles and DVDs. For well over a decade there have been people who have simply refused to bow to any sort of enforced lockin. The problem is that they've tied their DRM into a certain platform. And anyone who already has their preference of software or hardware player is either going to avoid ITMS, or circumvent the FairPlay.
All Apple really have to do is release Linux ports of iTunes and/or official input plugins for WinAmp[*]/XMMS/whatever-else-people-use, and also allow more hardware support.
I know it's unlikely, but if they absolutely have to put in DRM restrictions, make sure that hardware/software restrictions aren't there as well. 'Cos if I really have to limit myself to 3 locations to play a song, I damn well want more choice of what those 3 places can be.
[*] I mean come on. Would an on official Apple-released in_fairplay for WinAmp be too much to ask?
The only advantage of a software vending machine to the consumer is that they always get the latest version of the software. In any reasonably stocked computer store this shouldn't be an issue anyway.
Yes and no.
The ability to buy your game or program on a phiyical CD from the shop, and to know you've got the latest patches/driver/DirectX/signature-file would be rather nice.
AntiVirus software bought with the most recent signatures would be a major advantage - especially for those who still buy stuff off the shelf.
And although MS don't want to paly ball, wouldn't it be nice to be able to purchase a copy of Windows or Office and know that it's got all of the latest available Service Packs and Security Fixes out of the box?
Slashdot Mirror
The only reason I don't use Ogg Vorbis is that no (cheap) hardware players support it. That's the only drawback for me. Otherwise I'd rip any of my own purchases to OGG.
Similarly the only reason I get annoyed when I find things in OGG format is that I can't play them on my hardware kit. .ogg files I do have are of a very high standard. I like them. And I like the fact that the format is more open. besides, end-users don't really care about the format as long as it plays, and that it doesn't sound rubbish. If Ogg Vorbis files turned up everywhere but could be played everywhere then people really wouldn't complain. (And it's shut up us in the geek-crowd).
TiggsBut the
"Target demographics" (and falling outside them) are often a part of the proble, though. being a geek who can't stand sport and hase an incredible eclectic taste in music and TV (but one which doesn't usually correspond with what's mainstream) then I find myself always outside someone's target demographic.
But this doesn't really encourage me to want to play ball. It's hard to want to support entertainment industries that show me very little advantage. especially here in the UK, my interests are quite often catered for as an afterthought with a grossly inflated pricetag.
They sell for too much with extra features I don't need or want. Yet won't go for a decent (and robust/high-quality) budget option most of the time.
TiggsSo, the one at the bottom would be a guy with a hat and a lasso on his knees then?
Better than nothing.
If I were a musician and lost all the files on my disc, I'd personally be glad of anything that meant that I dind't have to start again form memory. It'd be a total pain to try and rebuild an album from memory. But with something even as lossy as an MP3 (or a MIDI, or even scribbled notes on manuscript) then at least you've got the basics from which to start again.
Yes, high-quality backups, and raw-data backups, and so forth are the preferred method when you lose everything. But something that can count as notes to speed the process of redoing it all is useful.
Tiggs'Cos when it's really all hit the fan, you're grateful of anything to work from. (Even the lip-stick notes on the shotglass)
It's not increasingly useless, its that companies are ignoring it, thinking it unnecessary.
But this is causing problems.
I know at least two people who still use dial-up, and don't need anything faster. Trying to support one of them is tricky, as stuff like Windows update just doesn't have a viable option for dial-up. But you shouldn't have to go broadband simply to clear up errors in the software.
The other is my parents. They don't use the internet enough to justify either the cost of broadband for their part of the house, or for wiring up Cat5 up to my rooms (or getting WiFi).
Yep, dial-up for them is actually mroe cost-effective than getting wired into the already-existing broadband in the house. It's just lucky that I can easily bring it upstairs to keep it patched myself.
Far be it from me (a non-coder) to normally tell software people how they should do things, but isn't one of the first rules of Internet Content to never make assumptions about the end-user's systems? Hence they really need to provide an easy way of obtaining such updates on CD/DVD. Especially on things that MS flag up as "critical".
TiggsI'd say part-learned, part personality. I've certainly learned the virtues of keeping backup copies, never deleting until a mobile copy has reached its destination, etc, the hard way. Mainly by losing data that, had I bothered to think beforehand, I'd have kept a spare copy of.
However, being a techie means I've learned from this. (Mainly 'cos I don't want to lose-data/look-dumb again) But I've seen people who never seem to learn.
I think the main thing is that techies tend to learn the lessons from the unimportant stuff (multimedia clips and downloads being relatively unimportant compared to work-data), so we get into good habits before the important stuff. Non-techies tend to learn when they lose their dissertation/lesson-plan/big-presentation.
Of course it's not quite that simple. I've seen techies who don't backup work-servers, and also people who don't really "get" computers beyond Word and MSN who have levels of redundancy that'd make a geek proud.
Although technically always keep a backup is a rule to live by, it isn't always as simple as that.
"Murphy's Law" although largely seen as a joke can (and often does) strike at times like this. Like your hard-drive dying during a major backup. Or your software crashing just before you're about to do your regular save.
Plus keeping your work on a site like MP3.com could be seen as an implementation of "off-site backup". And the chances of an archive site and your hard-drive losing your files at the same time is very slim. Not impossible, but still slim.
These things happen, and it's easy to point out the mistakes that someone else made. But it's also easier than you'd think to make the same mistakes.
I work as tech-support for a college project at a local community centre. The college did not get to choose the Internet Connection, so it came with the default strict filtering in place. (RM SafetyNet, by the way. They won't pay extra for SafetyNetPLUS)
The filtering gets in the way of my work!! I either have to use workaround or research things in my own time at home because of how strict it is.
Some sites are blocked due to content - possibly 'cos they have links/tips to do with hacking and stuff. Sadly, these also tend to be the sites which directly answer tech-problems I'm trying to solve. They've also blocked using the Google-cache. And although I know full-well that's a way people use to bypass things, it also has a legitimate use. Like when the only site with an answer has moved/changed/vanished/slashdotted.
Just because someone wants to bypass filtering doesn't automatically mean they aren't actually trying to get work done.
TiggsWhenever people cite Windows-style suggestions for Linux, this is the answer that always gets thrown about. But I don't think it's necessarily true.
If what people wanted was Windows, they wouldn't be trying out other OSes.
Though I would hazard a guess that what many people want is Windows, only without MS's irritating intervensitons, and with a lot more stability.
Yes, a lot of GUI stuff looks Windows-esque. That doesn't mean that people want Windows. Just that the visual style works. And the ease of use is convenient (when it works...)
I think what many people really want is a version of Linux that works like Windows - or a version of Windows that works, like Linux.
Graphical. Pretty. Easy-ish. Works with most things going. But also has easy CLI options for when it all hits the fan (or you simply like tweaking...), and where crashes only nuke the program or maybe the login session - not cause the entire OS to bomb-out.
It's just unlikely that there'll ever be a MSWin/Linux, so of course people are going to want to take what they see as Windows/ redeeming features and get them ported to GNU/Linux.
People are sick of a lot of what Windows carries with it. But that doesn't mean there ain't useful things that they/we would like to see replicated elsewhere. And it also doesn't mean that there aren't aspects of Linux that seem unnecessarily difficult.
TiggsNo. But if all Linux software have a GUI-option that also said exactly what options file it was altering then it'd be very close.
The GUI tool itself might not be as flexible as editing the file, but if it identified the file then it'd be a Godsend to Joe Memory-Like-Seive (i.e. "me") who knows what options he wants to tweak but can't remember what file and directory for toffee.
I've gotta say, Webmin does a grwat job of this. OK, it's more for admins than users, but it does the job. It simplifies the config, but often also identifies the file (and even lists an editable version) that is actually being tweaked.
TiggsIf there were a standard backend this could actually be more useful than many people would think.
File-downloaders would just need to download the version they wanted (hopefully from the clearly-labelled dependencies list on the page).
Also it's be a lot easier to point yum/apt/whatever at a single repositary source, and know that it could figure out for itself the vairous dependencies.
There really is a wall at which point the learning curve takes a sharp inclince, and this is in installation. I'm (slowly) getting to grips with it myself. Being able to find my way around dependency-limbo, or struggle with source-compilation. But it's taken a few years to get to this point. 'Cos I'm not a great coder - though I wish I was. If I look at an application, it's 'cos I want to use it. If I can't get it working in a matter of minutes/hours/days (depending on importance) then I'm simply not interested.
That said, even though less things (for me) seem to work straight-off in Linux than Windows, I do find it a lot easy to work around the Linux problems than the ones in Windows.
TiggsI guess it's just a trade-off. Linux installations have more obstacles, but ones I can get over. Windows programs have less obstaces, but the ones I encounter tend to stop me dead.
Actually, I find that man pages tend to fall into two main categories.
And nothing else.
It's all very well telling people to RTFM, but it's no use if TFM doesn't actually yield the information easily.
TiggsYeah, I hate this one myself. I hate spending ages downloading something, then realising that I've still got several components to hunt down and install/reinstall/upgrade first.
apt-get really is your friend in these situations. OK, it's only as good as the repositories for whatever distro you're running. But if it contains the program you're after, it'll contain the dependencies, too. Then it just does the whole thing foe you.
(But in a rather nice verbose way so it actually tells you what changes it's making. Maybe not essential for newbies, but I certainly appreciate learning these things.)
Actually, I'm finding that an increasing number of projects are actually doing this. And not only do they list the dependencies, but quite often they link to the Project Page for the dependency in question.
That would be nice, too. If for nothing else than for use in "If all else fails" scenarios. I'm not sure how viable it'd be, though. Both technically and license-wise.
TiggsPlus, for the things that do get static binaries, statis packages would be nice. Or at least an install-script. Actually, the latter would be nice. You can run it and get the work done for you, but then you can also look at the script and see exactly where what things are being put.
I just find it amusing that the "Windows has a lower TCO than Linux" always seems to pop up on top of articles saying the opposite.
Either someone at OSDN has a sense of humour, or the random scripts just have high comedy timing.
The same could be said about "FairPlay."
I think they keep forgetting this bit. I've said it before, and God knows I'll probably say it again, but they've got to start taking the geek-market more seriously.Unix/Linux/Whatever-alternative-OS users may not be a huge market-share financially, but it's a market you want on your side rather than working against you.
Plus too many shops not only assume Windows use, but assume IE use too.
Whilst reading this thread, I thought I'd try putting my money where my mouth is and supporting legitimate online music services. I took a look at OD2, and on every link to their supported stored, I was hit by some This site requires IE5 or better bullshit. Sorry guys, I use Mozilla. So I guess they won't be getting my money after all.
OK. So to create a single MP3-mix-CD someone should have to burn to 5 or more audio-CDs, rip them, then burn the resulting MP3s?
Bullshit!
I want to buy music digitally(*). Currently I can't easily. But I still buy CDs. Hell, bought two classics by The Pixies last week. I could easily of grabbed all the songs and more off P2P. But I didn't.
That said, I'm anti-DRM. At least, DRM that's tied to platform lockin.
(*) I did use the Bleep/Warp store to buy some Aphex Twin. The only thing stopping me using them more is their lack of music I'm in a hurry to get. Again, I could easily fire up my P2P program and grab whole albums, but when whole-albums are involved I really do prefer actually buying them.
iTMS looks almost perfect to me. They have a lot of stuff available. Probably more than anyone else. Problem is, by the time they get the European copyright issues or whatever's holding them up over here sorted out and can actually open over here, I'll have defected more from Windows than I already have.
(Yes, I know we have the "MyCokeMusic" over here. I just had a look. The main page then launches a Flash window to do the actualy browsing in.
Errrrrrrrrm. No!)
Unless Apple bring out official iTunes/iPod support to Linux, then the only way I'd be able to use their service would be by some sort of circumvention method. And I'm pretty certain I'm not the only one.
And seeing that, unlike me, some people can actually code, then there will always be people who will right workarounds for themselves. And then, inevitably, make them available.
It's no different to Region-coding and CSS in DVDs to me. If I buy something, I don't want people telling me on what platforms I can and can't watch them on. It doesn't necessarily mean I'll download stuff for free instead. It just means I'll either find a hack, or go without.
TiggsAnd the amusing (to me) thing is that the companies would probably rather I did the latter. But its the former that allows me to buy stuff and put money in their pockets.
It's not the copy-control that's really the problem though. It's the fact that it's tied into player/platform/hardware locking that is the problem.
Want to easily play a song you've bought in [insert player of choice]? Tough luck.
Want to play a song you've bought when running Linux? No chance.
Want to easily import the music you've bought on a non-iPod player? Not gonna happen.
These just provide extra incentive for people wanting to circumvent the DRM. If iTunes natively supported other platforms, other portables, and interfaced easily with players such as WinAmp then less people would bother trying to break the DRM.
There'll always be someone wanting to circumvent it for less-than-noble reasons, but whilst FairPlay locks you into Apple software 7 iPods then you also add the people with more honest reasons working hard on a "problem" that doesn't need to exist.
Yes, I know you can burn/re-rip. But that wouldn't always be a viable option. Were iTMS available here in the UK, it'd not be viable for me unless I could circumvent the format without having to burn/rip. My main MP3 player is a CD/MP3-player. It probably wouldn't play iTMS tracks from a CDR, but burning to CD to rip so I can burn a CD of MP3s would just seem wasteful. Especially seeing I'd have to burn several CDs just to get enough tracks to burn to MP3-CDR. (If I wanted to rip from Audio-CDs, I'd just buy them in the sales in a store)
I know Apple are trying their hardest here. And, although they've still not opened their damned iTunes store here in the UK, they seem to be genuinely trying to provide a reasonable online music service.
TiggsBut as long as they have platform-lockin tied into their DRM, they just increase the number of people wanting to get around it. Copy-protection is starting to be seen as a necessary evil. But player-restrictions will probably never be seen that way.
Maybe someone will find a way to enable content to be shared without the need for advertising or subscriptions.
OK, OK, perhaps it's a total pipe-dream. But I find even AdWords annoying. The simple reason is that I'm relatively clued in enough to already know what I do and don't want.
Same as when I'm in a shop I want the slaes-staff to answer any direct queries. I don't want them pestering me when I'm merely browsing. I know my product-interets, and have very little interest in people trying to tell me what I want. About the only thing I ever use adverts at all for these days is to simply find out when sonmething's finally available. And even then, I already know this from the Internet.
I don't want adverts, I want content. If I wanted constant ads I'd be paying for the advertising mags, and not for broadband.
TiggsI get the feeling that they genuinely don't realise that a lot of their music is lousy. After all, it sells well and it gets top radio-play...
...which is to say that kids (on the money they get from their parents) buy it, and the radio staions they heavily fund play the records.
The fact that the people who have to spend their own earned/saved/limited money habe more discerning tastes might not even factor into their calculations.
Similarly I don't think that they realise that their prices are unacceptable. To them the prices make perfect sense. Cover your costs (including mass marketing & hype), and also try to make a bigger profit than last year. And like many industries, I don't think they realise that sometimes you reach a profit-ceiling where growth becomes a lot harder.
Rightly or wrongly the perceived value of physical albums has dropped. And there's no way around that. And even if the costs involved are justifiable (I'm not in the music industry, so I honestly couldn't say one way or the other), people just aren't going to spend more than they think something is worth.
Heck, the music and mobile-phone industries here in the UK are proof enough of that. For the former, the queues when you have sailes that push priced below a tenner are intimidating. And for the latter, if phones weren't highly subsidised by call-costs, then there's no way they'd be as popular.
TiggsRightly or wrongly you've got to pitch your prices closer to what the customers think is a suitable price than what you think they're worth.
Yes, but remember that many designers might care about it, but that doesn't eman that their management/clients do. And that's one of the problem. If Joe Customer or the PHB says that "The site absolutely has to have [feature that only works n Browser X]", then the designer is kind of stuck working to those restrictions.
And there is also the fact that the W3C recommentations are sometimes not actually followed in the Browsers themselves. You can follow the specs to the letter, and you'll probably still find Browsers (including modern ones) that don't implement it properly.
TiggsUnfortunately, yes I do. Yes, I think it's only a slight probability (and it'd be the wrong outcome), but the problem is that it all rests with the Lawyers now. Well, and the courts. But bein ghe cynical bastard that I am, and having no trust is lawyers or fath in the legal system of any country, I can't dismiss the possibility that SCO may well win.
Doesn't stop me sharing the belief that they're talking out of their arses and that their claims are all unfounded.
It also doesn't make me believe for one second that should the courts find SCO right that Linux can easily be stopped. One way or another Linux will survive. I'm just too cynical to automatically assume that SCO will lose.
No, I think you (and the entire Industry) have missed the point.
People (especially the geek-types who are likely to code around things) are not going to have choices forced on them about exactly how they can play their purchases.
Why am I going to pay for a format which won't play on my software or platform of choice, and only plays on a portable device which costs an arm and a leg - when I already have 2 cheapass players which play MP3s fine.
Plus, by the time ITMS finally shows up in the UK, my Windows/Linux timesharing will probably have flipped around. And damned if I'm going to buy music that I can't play on my own system.
Pleasing the record companies by adding DRM is only one side of the marketing coin that Apple (or anyone else) should have to deal with.
They have to do things that make it easy for the geeks.
If Joe Average-User finds out that their music purchases only work on certain hardware, they'll either buy the gizmo or go with out. But if Joe Coder is faced with the same problem, they're more likely to try and find a way to get it to work on what they want.
Oh, and not forgetting Joe Cheapass who'd buy it if it was convenient, and hit P2P otherwise.
I know it's simply not what the corporate-types want to hear. They want control, and the ability to charge one person several times for the same piece of music.
Hell, it's been happening for years. Look at consoles and DVDs. For well over a decade there have been people who have simply refused to bow to any sort of enforced lockin. The problem is that they've tied their DRM into a certain platform. And anyone who already has their preference of software or hardware player is either going to avoid ITMS, or circumvent the FairPlay.
All Apple really have to do is release Linux ports of iTunes and/or official input plugins for WinAmp[*]/XMMS/whatever-else-people-use, and also allow more hardware support.
I know it's unlikely, but if they absolutely have to put in DRM restrictions, make sure that hardware/software restrictions aren't there as well. 'Cos if I really have to limit myself to 3 locations to play a song, I damn well want more choice of what those 3 places can be.
[*] I mean come on. Would an on official Apple-released in_fairplay for WinAmp be too much to ask?
TiggsYes and no.
The ability to buy your game or program on a phiyical CD from the shop, and to know you've got the latest patches/driver/DirectX/signature-file would be rather nice.
AntiVirus software bought with the most recent signatures would be a major advantage - especially for those who still buy stuff off the shelf.
TiggsAnd although MS don't want to paly ball, wouldn't it be nice to be able to purchase a copy of Windows or Office and know that it's got all of the latest available Service Packs and Security Fixes out of the box?