The reason there is n MS monopoly is that there are effectively no good alternative for the desktop.
That simply isn't true. They became a monopoly despite competition that was as good or better. OS2, MacOS, and Amiga all were IMHO better than Windows 3.1. Windows 95 was a big jump, but it wasn't significantly better than MacOS and many would argue that it didn't surpass Amiga or OS2.
UI defaults, dialog/wizard locations, etc will change with no warning, rhyme, or reason.
The world seems to be handling the transition between XP and 7, which are pretty darned different. If you can go from XP to 7, you can handle XP to Gnome.
Poor documentation resulting in one person posting the same question in 20+ different forums.
The same thing happens with Windows questions. Seriously. Look up the error I'm currently dealing with: "This device cannot start. (Code 10)".
Now, don't get me wrong, the MS website has a big pile of useful information - and it is better than Ubuntu's community-oriented support. That said, Ubuntu is a non-profit organization and MS is a gazillion-dollar-profit organization. Presumably, if there were a competitive market, another company who sells something with Linux as their base kernel would have decent documentation.
Reliance on the CLI.
If Apple can tame FreeBSD, then someone can certainly tame Linux. Not too many Android functions force you to drop to the command line.
Excessive use of jargon.
Again, I don't think people find jargon to be an issue when using their Linux-based phones. I'm quite certain that it can be made desktop-friendly as well.
Installs where it either installs easily or one spends hours, days, even weeks trying to get it to work.
Few people install an OS. And frankly, if you had tried in the past few years you would find that installing Ubuntu is a cakewalk compared to installing Windows 7. And while things like wireless driver support still lag on Ubuntu, may God have mercy on your soul if you have hardware without drivers during a Windows 7 install.:) Ubuntu hardware support isn't as up-to-date as Windows 7, but if your hardware is supported the install process is actually easier on Ubuntu.
Because of these things, Linux has not and will not get a reasonable share of the desktop market.
I don't think those reasons are things that people consider when they buy a computer. Most of the time it is: "can I run this program that we have at work/school". Almost 100% of the time the computer at work is Windows and the computer at school is either Windows or a Mac.
I taught my daughter how to read musical scales and how each note represents a key on the piano and started her off with twinkle twinkle little star, a familiar "hello, world" song.
That's exactly my point - a piano can be a hell of a thing to master, but it is very simple to hack at - simpler even than a recorder. My point wasn't to use "fakey" things, but to introduce using things with instant gratification.
There is nothing analogous to a piano in the GUI programming world. That is, there is no language - no way to make "apps" - that is as simple as a piano and also as hard to master (yet as powerful) as a piano.
where is the real demand for this from these people the author is quoting
Teaching. When you introduce kids to music, you start with rhythm sticks and recorders - not a theremin. You don't ask them if they want to be introduced to music - you just start exposing them to it. Some will roll with it and some won't, but all will be more well-rounded for the exposure.
It's so commonly misused that I avoid it altogether; even if I use it correctly, about half my readers will misunderstand me.
I disagree that it is being misused, but I agree that it is useless. It has two meanings and two usages, and so it is useless except in a clear context. In the case of the summary - the use of "through" aside - it is not at all clear whether the submitter read the documents carefully or whether he skimmed them.
what real market would "Cloud LibreOffice" or "GIMPCloud" have?
To an individual? Nothing.
To an IT department? If they were "good enough", they could replace (or reduce) the need for local storage and backup, MS Office licenses, network drives, local machine application installation and configuration, etc. I don't think the average user cares what their "cloud" provider does behind the scenes, but an IT department might like to run something similar to Google Apps on their own hardware with full access to the code and configuration.
Linux does not have a shot at the desktop and never will. That is some/. nerd fantasy.
Maybe. But answer this question: will Windows have a desktop monopoly forever?
If your answer is "yes", then I have nothing further to say:)
If your answer is "no", then my next question is "what will compete with it?".
I think one obvious contender is MacOS. But with cost of entry in the $600 range, they will never have a monopoly - so that leaves a PC market open to chaotic competition... much like the cell phone and (maybe?) tablet market. I think you'll see companies hawking Linux-based systems just like Apple uses BSD. Why? It works well and is already written. In other words, Linux is one of the easiest ways to fill the gap left by a collapsed monopoly.
So no, desktop Linux isn't going to be the force that busts up the MS monopoly. But something will, and Linux will likely be there to grab a chunk of the share when that happens.
I wish Linux (or some open unix-like system) were popular. I prefer the Unix way to the MS way, but because of the MS monopoly you can't get any good commercial software for anything except Windows, and sometimes Mac. Right now the only way to get unix and a decent proprietary software selection is to run Mac, but the hardware is very limited and the Franken-Mac thing is too much work and not a sure thing.
I have a Mac laptop and a Windows desktop (and a Mac server and FreeBSD server in the basement), but I'd drop both if I could get MS Office, Photoshop, iTunes, etc, on a Linux/FreeBSD/whatever box. I'm hoping that the recent Mac resurgence breaks the Win monopoly. That would open the door to other competition. I bet Linux or some other open kernel could be as popular on the desktop as it is on cell phones.
The Xerox comparison wasn't mine, it was yours. I presumed you were talking about Apple's use of Xerox's GUI inventions in their computers, but perhaps you were just referencing the fact that they make copiers.
I have too little information on the Apple/Samsung case to even comment.
I know this company called Xerox I'd like to introduce you to.
I don't know enough about the Apple/Samsung feud to have an opinion, but I do know that Apple paid Xerox for the ideas they used in the Lisa (and then later in the Mac).
The problem with your quoted Democrat policy is that the ultimate conclusion of spending and collecting more is socialism.
It is perfectly legitimate to believe that the US should be more socialist, just as it is legitimate to believe that it should be less so.
Is this too hard to understand?
No, it is quite easy. It is also quite easy to understand how one might want to spend even more and tax appropriately. It's also quite easy to understand how one might want to keep spending about even and raise taxes appropriately. All combinations of spending level are very easy to understand, so long as taxes are lowered or raised to match the spending level.
What is hard to understand is the opinion that taxes and spending should be offset in the long term.
I don't know how it works for drinking water, but for sewage outfalls they have to put enough chlorine in to last for the entire length of the outflow pipe. Otherwise, green nasties grow in the outflow pipe. I imagine that with the age and condition of London's water pipes, they have a similar situation.
In other words, it's probably not the source that determines the amount of chlorine that has to be in the water when it hits your tap. Living further from the treatment site probably also improves things... and maybe something as simple as putting the water in a pitcher in the fridge would improve matters.
NYC has fairly heavy chlorine taste as well, and their water is pristine when it enters the city from the Catskills.
Sane economists and a few lawmakers want to increase government stimulus.
I'm going to call you on this one. None of the plans - even the ones being pushed by the Tea Party - actually reduce spending. The "cuts" are reductions in planned spending increases. Even then, most of the "cuts" come toward the end of the 10-year time period, so short term there will still be plenty of government "stimulus".
I personally wish they had agreed to simply freeze federal spending at current levels until the economy catches up with spending. Politically, the Democrats could claim to not be cutting any programs and the Republicans could claim to be attacking the deficit and holding the line on taxes.
Most people drink treated waste water. By the time the Mississippi gets to New Orleans, that water has been past many major cities, all drawing from it and dumping into it.
Much like fixing failing school systems or sick care systems, just dumping more money on the problem doesn't seem to help.
Nonsense! Much like school systems and healthcare, the answer lies with a standardized federal process! The only solution is The One solution, and it is best for all!
I happen to be on the side of "spend less", but it is a perfectly legitimate opinion to want to spend more AND collect more. The Democrats aren't advocating raising spending while lowering taxes. Frankly, that sounds like what the Repubs did under Bush II.
Unions aren't the answer until they find some way to better represent their constituents.
The teaching union in New Jersey could have accepted a pay freeze and saved their lowest-seniority workers, but instead they stuck to their contract and it forced the layoffs of many of the newer teachers. Not all unions do this - the neighboring union in PA is not taking the same stand, probably because they saw the backlash in NJ.
Unions in general are hell-bent on saving the jobs of their absolute worst workers. Save the weakest in the herd and it weakens the whole herd. You want to protect your members from personal vendettas and frivolous firing - but you also need to recognize that every person is not a keeper... you need a way to weed the garden. The unions would gain a lot of respect if the lower ranks weren't riddled with loafing incompetents.
I'm not fervently anti-union, but I have some close friends who were threatened by union goons for daring to make a living without their blessing, and this unfortunately seems very common. I have a lot of trouble respecting an institution that uses bullying and fear. I'm sure there are bad companies that employ similar tactics, and I'd be similarly hard on them. I think the way unions work needs to be reformed. I think historically unions have been very important, and even today they can protect workers against things like seasonal plant shutdowns and such. I just think their relevance has been reduced by their own actions more than the efforts of their enemies. Greed and corruption, stupidity and failed policies are just as common in union leadership as they are in corporate leadership - but at least in corporate leadership they don't pretend to be acting in anyone's best interest except the stockholders.
The same thing happens in the US - we have "unlimited ride" cards in many cities. Most of the time it works well - they anticipate demand properly and capacity isn't a problem. Once in a while something happens (breakdown, special event, etc) and demand exceeds supply. Then you end up with standing-room only, late trains as they take too long to load and unload, and even denial of service.
I happen to think the analogy is perfect:)
In all seriousness. I think for non-critical uses like home, the "unlimited ride" model is just fine. For a critical business, or if you are willing to pay for the luxury, then the "ticket" model is better. The key difference is that if the train company oversells your train, they have to compensate you in some way for the loss of service.
I'd love to see how the ISPs could lay their wire and cable without a "violent state".
Re:Could Someone Help Me Out With This?
on
Debt Deal Reached
·
· Score: 1
It's pretty clear that Clinton was the only president to break from this norm since then [wikipedia.org] and now we're shocked that our debt crises get worse and worse every term?
Bush the First should actually get credit as well. He was a one-termer in part because he raised taxes specifically to address the deficit, despite his infamous "read my lips" promise.
This is very basic math... so basic that when you're taught how to balance a checkbook in high school, they don't even teach it in Math class.
Surely you can see that it's more complicated than that, though. If someone gives you a loan for 0.25% interest, you would be foolish not to take that loan. Now, you'd want to do something pretty smart with it - say, build up your personal "infrastructure" a bit or something that helps you in the future. Hell, even just let it sit in an interest-bearing account.
Where the Feds have gone off the deep end is in WHAT they spend the borrowed money on. Not infrastructure. Not investments like education. They spend it on promises they made in the form of entitlements and they spend it on wars. I seriously doubt that either of those things will pay off in any big way.
I have no idea - that's part of what makes it exciting.
I don't think we'll get to "mass" unemployment - at least, nothing exceeding 10 or 15%. Maybe it will be entertainment, maybe service industry changes... I have no idea. If I did, I'd get in on the ground floor and get filthy rich.:)
Slashdot Mirror
The reason there is n MS monopoly is that there are effectively no good alternative for the desktop.
That simply isn't true. They became a monopoly despite competition that was as good or better. OS2, MacOS, and Amiga all were IMHO better than Windows 3.1. Windows 95 was a big jump, but it wasn't significantly better than MacOS and many would argue that it didn't surpass Amiga or OS2.
UI defaults, dialog/wizard locations, etc will change with no warning, rhyme, or reason.
The world seems to be handling the transition between XP and 7, which are pretty darned different. If you can go from XP to 7, you can handle XP to Gnome.
Poor documentation resulting in one person posting the same question in 20+ different forums.
The same thing happens with Windows questions. Seriously. Look up the error I'm currently dealing with: "This device cannot start. (Code 10)".
Now, don't get me wrong, the MS website has a big pile of useful information - and it is better than Ubuntu's community-oriented support. That said, Ubuntu is a non-profit organization and MS is a gazillion-dollar-profit organization. Presumably, if there were a competitive market, another company who sells something with Linux as their base kernel would have decent documentation.
Reliance on the CLI.
If Apple can tame FreeBSD, then someone can certainly tame Linux. Not too many Android functions force you to drop to the command line.
Excessive use of jargon.
Again, I don't think people find jargon to be an issue when using their Linux-based phones. I'm quite certain that it can be made desktop-friendly as well.
Installs where it either installs easily or one spends hours, days, even weeks trying to get it to work.
Few people install an OS. And frankly, if you had tried in the past few years you would find that installing Ubuntu is a cakewalk compared to installing Windows 7. And while things like wireless driver support still lag on Ubuntu, may God have mercy on your soul if you have hardware without drivers during a Windows 7 install. :) Ubuntu hardware support isn't as up-to-date as Windows 7, but if your hardware is supported the install process is actually easier on Ubuntu.
Because of these things, Linux has not and will not get a reasonable share of the desktop market.
I don't think those reasons are things that people consider when they buy a computer. Most of the time it is: "can I run this program that we have at work/school". Almost 100% of the time the computer at work is Windows and the computer at school is either Windows or a Mac.
I taught my daughter how to read musical scales and how each note represents a key on the piano and started her off with twinkle twinkle little star, a familiar "hello, world" song.
That's exactly my point - a piano can be a hell of a thing to master, but it is very simple to hack at - simpler even than a recorder. My point wasn't to use "fakey" things, but to introduce using things with instant gratification.
There is nothing analogous to a piano in the GUI programming world. That is, there is no language - no way to make "apps" - that is as simple as a piano and also as hard to master (yet as powerful) as a piano.
where is the real demand for this from these people the author is quoting
Teaching. When you introduce kids to music, you start with rhythm sticks and recorders - not a theremin. You don't ask them if they want to be introduced to music - you just start exposing them to it. Some will roll with it and some won't, but all will be more well-rounded for the exposure.
It's so commonly misused that I avoid it altogether; even if I use it correctly, about half my readers will misunderstand me.
I disagree that it is being misused, but I agree that it is useless. It has two meanings and two usages, and so it is useless except in a clear context. In the case of the summary - the use of "through" aside - it is not at all clear whether the submitter read the documents carefully or whether he skimmed them.
what real market would "Cloud LibreOffice" or "GIMPCloud" have?
To an individual? Nothing.
To an IT department? If they were "good enough", they could replace (or reduce) the need for local storage and backup, MS Office licenses, network drives, local machine application installation and configuration, etc. I don't think the average user cares what their "cloud" provider does behind the scenes, but an IT department might like to run something similar to Google Apps on their own hardware with full access to the code and configuration.
Linux does not have a shot at the desktop and never will. That is some /. nerd fantasy.
Maybe. But answer this question: will Windows have a desktop monopoly forever?
If your answer is "yes", then I have nothing further to say :)
If your answer is "no", then my next question is "what will compete with it?".
I think one obvious contender is MacOS. But with cost of entry in the $600 range, they will never have a monopoly - so that leaves a PC market open to chaotic competition... much like the cell phone and (maybe?) tablet market. I think you'll see companies hawking Linux-based systems just like Apple uses BSD. Why? It works well and is already written. In other words, Linux is one of the easiest ways to fill the gap left by a collapsed monopoly.
So no, desktop Linux isn't going to be the force that busts up the MS monopoly. But something will, and Linux will likely be there to grab a chunk of the share when that happens.
I wish Linux (or some open unix-like system) were popular. I prefer the Unix way to the MS way, but because of the MS monopoly you can't get any good commercial software for anything except Windows, and sometimes Mac. Right now the only way to get unix and a decent proprietary software selection is to run Mac, but the hardware is very limited and the Franken-Mac thing is too much work and not a sure thing.
I have a Mac laptop and a Windows desktop (and a Mac server and FreeBSD server in the basement), but I'd drop both if I could get MS Office, Photoshop, iTunes, etc, on a Linux/FreeBSD/whatever box. I'm hoping that the recent Mac resurgence breaks the Win monopoly. That would open the door to other competition. I bet Linux or some other open kernel could be as popular on the desktop as it is on cell phones.
The Xerox comparison wasn't mine, it was yours. I presumed you were talking about Apple's use of Xerox's GUI inventions in their computers, but perhaps you were just referencing the fact that they make copiers.
I have too little information on the Apple/Samsung case to even comment.
I know this company called Xerox I'd like to introduce you to.
I don't know enough about the Apple/Samsung feud to have an opinion, but I do know that Apple paid Xerox for the ideas they used in the Lisa (and then later in the Mac).
The problem with your quoted Democrat policy is that the ultimate conclusion of spending and collecting more is socialism.
It is perfectly legitimate to believe that the US should be more socialist, just as it is legitimate to believe that it should be less so.
Is this too hard to understand?
No, it is quite easy. It is also quite easy to understand how one might want to spend even more and tax appropriately. It's also quite easy to understand how one might want to keep spending about even and raise taxes appropriately. All combinations of spending level are very easy to understand, so long as taxes are lowered or raised to match the spending level.
What is hard to understand is the opinion that taxes and spending should be offset in the long term.
It was banned in the same bill that mandated intelligent computation.
I don't know how it works for drinking water, but for sewage outfalls they have to put enough chlorine in to last for the entire length of the outflow pipe. Otherwise, green nasties grow in the outflow pipe. I imagine that with the age and condition of London's water pipes, they have a similar situation.
In other words, it's probably not the source that determines the amount of chlorine that has to be in the water when it hits your tap. Living further from the treatment site probably also improves things... and maybe something as simple as putting the water in a pitcher in the fridge would improve matters.
NYC has fairly heavy chlorine taste as well, and their water is pristine when it enters the city from the Catskills.
The invisible hand is only the solution to banking crises.
Sane economists and a few lawmakers want to increase government stimulus.
I'm going to call you on this one. None of the plans - even the ones being pushed by the Tea Party - actually reduce spending. The "cuts" are reductions in planned spending increases. Even then, most of the "cuts" come toward the end of the 10-year time period, so short term there will still be plenty of government "stimulus".
I personally wish they had agreed to simply freeze federal spending at current levels until the economy catches up with spending. Politically, the Democrats could claim to not be cutting any programs and the Republicans could claim to be attacking the deficit and holding the line on taxes.
Most people drink treated waste water. By the time the Mississippi gets to New Orleans, that water has been past many major cities, all drawing from it and dumping into it.
Much like fixing failing school systems or sick care systems, just dumping more money on the problem doesn't seem to help.
Nonsense! Much like school systems and healthcare, the answer lies with a standardized federal process! The only solution is The One solution, and it is best for all!
I happen to be on the side of "spend less", but it is a perfectly legitimate opinion to want to spend more AND collect more. The Democrats aren't advocating raising spending while lowering taxes. Frankly, that sounds like what the Repubs did under Bush II.
Unions aren't the answer until they find some way to better represent their constituents.
The teaching union in New Jersey could have accepted a pay freeze and saved their lowest-seniority workers, but instead they stuck to their contract and it forced the layoffs of many of the newer teachers. Not all unions do this - the neighboring union in PA is not taking the same stand, probably because they saw the backlash in NJ.
Unions in general are hell-bent on saving the jobs of their absolute worst workers. Save the weakest in the herd and it weakens the whole herd. You want to protect your members from personal vendettas and frivolous firing - but you also need to recognize that every person is not a keeper... you need a way to weed the garden. The unions would gain a lot of respect if the lower ranks weren't riddled with loafing incompetents.
I'm not fervently anti-union, but I have some close friends who were threatened by union goons for daring to make a living without their blessing, and this unfortunately seems very common. I have a lot of trouble respecting an institution that uses bullying and fear. I'm sure there are bad companies that employ similar tactics, and I'd be similarly hard on them. I think the way unions work needs to be reformed. I think historically unions have been very important, and even today they can protect workers against things like seasonal plant shutdowns and such. I just think their relevance has been reduced by their own actions more than the efforts of their enemies. Greed and corruption, stupidity and failed policies are just as common in union leadership as they are in corporate leadership - but at least in corporate leadership they don't pretend to be acting in anyone's best interest except the stockholders.
That's a nice little rant there... Now back to insulin.
How is producing insulin evil? There ARE people trying to cure diabetes, and I'm guessing you aren't one of those people.
Yeah, those insulin-making fat-cats are just a bunch of societal parasites.
(Wow)
I believe they bring more trains online (yes/no?)
The same thing happens in the US - we have "unlimited ride" cards in many cities. Most of the time it works well - they anticipate demand properly and capacity isn't a problem. Once in a while something happens (breakdown, special event, etc) and demand exceeds supply. Then you end up with standing-room only, late trains as they take too long to load and unload, and even denial of service.
I happen to think the analogy is perfect :)
In all seriousness. I think for non-critical uses like home, the "unlimited ride" model is just fine. For a critical business, or if you are willing to pay for the luxury, then the "ticket" model is better. The key difference is that if the train company oversells your train, they have to compensate you in some way for the loss of service.
If I pay for a house of a given size, I own that house. I dont want people living there when the I'm off on holidays, it's my space.
Better analogy:
If I pay for a train ticket, I get to use a fraction of the capacity of the rail system for a limited period of time.
I'd love to see how the ISPs could lay their wire and cable without a "violent state".
It's pretty clear that Clinton was the only president to break from this norm since then [wikipedia.org] and now we're shocked that our debt crises get worse and worse every term?
Bush the First should actually get credit as well. He was a one-termer in part because he raised taxes specifically to address the deficit, despite his infamous "read my lips" promise.
This is very basic math ... so basic that when you're taught how to balance a checkbook in high school, they don't even teach it in Math class.
Surely you can see that it's more complicated than that, though. If someone gives you a loan for 0.25% interest, you would be foolish not to take that loan. Now, you'd want to do something pretty smart with it - say, build up your personal "infrastructure" a bit or something that helps you in the future. Hell, even just let it sit in an interest-bearing account.
Where the Feds have gone off the deep end is in WHAT they spend the borrowed money on. Not infrastructure. Not investments like education. They spend it on promises they made in the form of entitlements and they spend it on wars. I seriously doubt that either of those things will pay off in any big way.
I have no idea - that's part of what makes it exciting.
I don't think we'll get to "mass" unemployment - at least, nothing exceeding 10 or 15%. Maybe it will be entertainment, maybe service industry changes... I have no idea. If I did, I'd get in on the ground floor and get filthy rich. :)