I know you're exaggerating, but I'm using my Debian-running laptop right now to type this message. I dual-boot between Win2k Pro and Linux, if you can call it a dual-boot; I can't remember the last time I booted to Windows. My Windows partition is only 4GB - just enough to make it usable for short periods of time, which is what I use it for (a handful of times per year).
it just doesn't have the intuitive point-n-click of a Mac or the games offerings of Windows.
First I'll say that I'm not a gamer, so that issue doesn't bother me.
Maybe my computer isn't intuitive to my Windows and Mac-using friends, but it sure is to me. Is there a learning curve? Hell yes. Is it worth it? In my opinion, yes. Most computer users will go through their lives never knowing what a regular expression is. And that kind of stuff takes time to learn. But part of the fun of Linux (and other non-mainstream OSes) is getting that extra functionality out of the system.
I've been saying for years that E was eye-candy and that development efforts were better focused on the shortcomings Linux has on high-end server machines such as quality NFS support, a standardized email package and high uptimes.
1. What's wrong with NFS? I use it daily, and it just works.
2. Why do we need a standardized email package? I think it's important to note the difference between "good" and "standardized" here. If a Linux user wants to use Evolution that's fine, but why should it inherently be a problem that I use mutt?
3. Does Linux have a problem with uptimes that I'm not aware of? How often do your Linux machines go down, other than for hardware or kernel upgrades, or for a power outage?
I see what you're saying about the power of Linux on server applications, and I agree. But to dismiss it as impractical on the desktop doesn't do it justice.
Why? Because I feel confident that you know about stable/testing/woody, and therefore you probably know that getting Debian with the latest-and-greatest software is as easy as making a few modifications to the sources.list and running an apt-get dist-upgrade. You don't even really have to know what to put in your sources.list, there are hundreds of them floating around online. You can just pick and choose the parts you want.
Heaven forbid Debian's "default" release be meticulously stable. Shouldn't they include more cutting-edge software as opposed to the tried-and-true stuff? Wait, that doesn't make any sense. That's like arguing that distributions should ship with every desireable service enabled. Personally, I'm glad Debian doesn't ship with "iffy" software. If I want to take that risk, I'll spend two minutes adjusting my system to suit me.
Tom's Hardware Guide has a pretty nifty video on installing a water-cooling system in a traditional, desktop system. IIRC, it not only cools the CPU, but also the GPU (graphics processing unit) as well as the motherboard's chipset.
Telocity is great. I have nothing bad to say about them.
I'll echo that. I've had my DSL for about a year, and although things were a little shaky in the first couple of months (when DirecTV was taking over), it's been solid ever since. I get good speeds, it's reliable, they offer a static IP, and they don't mind if you hook up a small LAN or run a small webserver.
But if you make a copy of that CD so that you can listen to it and still lend it out to friends, that is not fair use, and is illegal. In the same fashion, if you pay $1 to legally download an MP3, you can lend your computer to a friend and he can listen to said MP3. You can also transfer the MP3 to him and remove it from your computer. What you can't do is set up a server so that others can take possession of that MP3 without the consent of the copyright holder.
So corporate networks are illegal now thanks to the RIAA.
Please. You and everybody else who read the article can clearly see that your quote about networks being illegal is taken out of context. Let's look at a relevant sentence in the preceeding paragraph:
In April, the RIAA announced a settlement with an Arizona company that allegedly let employees trade MP3 files over an internal network.
If you're ever involved in a debate about the ethics of the RIAA, please do us a favor and don't attempt to fabricate this sort of "evidence." Reasonable people see right through it. Besides, it's not as if you need to make up anything about the RIAA, there's plenty of stuff that they do right out in the open.
Networked MP3s is the key here. If you're sharng your collection with people who don't own those CDs, that's illegal. Whether or not it's unethical is an exercise left to the reader, but I don't think anybody can logically debate the legality.
I know the kneejerk reaction is to scream "But MP3 is just a file format!" If what you say is true, that you're not allowing others to access your music, then you have nothing to worry about - you're covered under fair use.
So if the market's still so healthy, why can't they sell parts?
I'll tell you my theory, which is just that - a theory. I don't have numbers to back this up, it's just based on what I perceive.
Gone are the days that we drool over our friend's new rig with oodles of megahertz and megabytes. A 400 MHz machine with 128 MB of RAM and a 15 GB hard drive will run pretty much anything a consumer requires, save for games. Before everybody you know had a computer, the machine you bought two years ago isn't fast enough now (meaning 2 years after you bought it) to run those productivity apps that really would make a difference in the way you work.
Add to that the fact that the low-end PC market has become hugely competitive, with computers down into the sub-$400 range. Profit margins are lowered, and while methods of reducing costs have been introduced, they haven't kept pace with the dropping "going rate" for an entry-level computer.
It used to be that $3000 would buy you a nice machine that would be a top performer, even in terms of 3D graphics. The Dell sitting next to me was about $3300 back in April '98, and it was definitely one of the nicer desktops available at the time. But to get similar performance relative to current technology now, I'd only need to spend about $2000. And there are lots of ways (including lots of companies) to arrive at that price.
This reminds me of something that was on The Man Show a few years ago. In the event of an untimely death, a (made-up) company could be enlisted to "correct" some things for you. The team came in and replaced items such as Playboy centerfolds, a bong, porn videos, and a - let's just call it a "sexual device" - with pictures of your family, Bibles, and other such things.
They showed a "with and without" sequence, where one's parents came to their dead son's apartment to discover the two different scenarios. It was pretty funny, and encouraged me to say to my roommate, "You know that bottom drawer of my dresser? If I die, burn everything in it."
"If it doesn't spit out an error message, it must be done correctly, right?"
Well, that IS how they teach people to do it in college...
You're right, and it's a shame. In all of the programming courses I've had, the grading criteria are simply "Are there any errors generated?" and "Does the output look correct?" Nobody takes into account that a programmer might have done something sloppily, inefficiently, or even in a way that might be dangerous.
Programming classes at my university need to concentrate more on programming theory than on correct syntax. We can pick the syntax up along the way, but bad programming style will stick for a lifetime.
I agree. Musicians are under no obligation to license their works to major labels, they choose to do so. Yes, I think said labels use and abuse their artists. If the artist's work isn't profitable, the label will drop them in a heartbeat. It sucks, but it happens because there is a market for it. The artist and the musician sign a contract because they both feel that it is to their benefit. Sometimes both are wrong. Sometimes one of them is wrong. And very rarely, both of them are right.
Likewise, the price of these copyrighted works is set by demand. The fact that someone may feel that the price is too high, or that the RIAA is evil absolutely does not entitle that person to violate the IP rights of the owner. We are not a captive group; it's not like the RIAA has a monopoly on clean water.
But what if the Gov't bans the sale of games to minors? That decision places a lot of weight on me that I don't need.
What kind of weight does such a bill place on you? Are we talking about the fact that you have to go out and buy the game yourself?
Let me parent my kids, don't make the decisions for me.
So should we do away with any law that pertains to a minor? This would mean not only can those under 18 go to any movie they wish or buy any video game they want (neither of which do I have that much of a problem with), but they would also be able to buy weapons, cigarettes, alcohol, drive cars, not attend any school, etc. Will you be responsible for any actions taken by your child under such lenient laws?
You probably are a good parent, and therefore you can see the problems that such a situation would present. If you think that this bill means the government is taking your place as a parent, you're way off.
People who run red-lights risk my life, and yours, not just their own. I watch people run red lights EVERY DAY. At some intersections I have been nearly hit by people running redlights while I was a pedestrian. I don't expect I would have survived had I been hit.
So you'd rather have a fine-based deterrent system rather than an engineering solution to the problem? And on top of that, you're willing to allow people who stand to profit from such a system to set the rules for the system?
Without knowing the facts it's easy to dismiss opponents of red light cameras as vigilantes who just want to get away with violating traffic laws. But there's really much more to it than that. If a city wants to generate revenue while maintaining the facade of caring about public safety, they install red light cameras. It's the no-brainer solution; just plug them in and watch the cash come in. No pesky scientific analysis required.
A public safety issue? I think you're being too naive. It's a profit issue. Red light cameras provide a disincentive to fixing the problem because the existence of the problem generates revenue.
Indeed. Several years ago I recall a light that would hold yellow for a good 4 or 5 seconds. Many a time I would be driving next to (or close) to another car, the light would turn yellow and he would stop. Knowing that they light held yellow for so long, I'd continue through and make it through easily. A much better solution is to have a standard length for yellow, and then adjust the delay for the other direction's green.
Speaking of better solutions, what about a police car actually pulling over red light runners? They don't have to catch everybody, but every driver who sees someone get pulled over will take notice. The fact that some states/cities choose to use cameras to ticket simply proves that they are more interested in ticket revenue than in the public's safety.
I am thinking that creating 'imitation' child pornography is not any better. Somewhat like robbing a store with a fake gun.
I don't think you thought through your analogy fully. The owner of the store that is robbed is victimized by the robber. But if some pervert wants to look at cartoon 12 year-olds having sex, there are no victims.
Is it right to do either of those two things? In my opnion, no. But can you punish someone for fantasizing about committing a crime? I don't think so. And if having that fantasy available keeps an individual from acting on it (and therefore committing a non-victimless crime), then I don't see a problem.
I'm a little late to be adding comments that I expect to get read, but this is what jumped out at me:
How much had did that lady spend on music last year before discovering Kazaa?
If your answer was "zero", explain how the RIAA can have "lost" any money from her non purchases this year.
I didn't go to a movie last night, but if I really want to see a movie that's out and I download it instead of paying to see it, that's lost revenue. The key is that the past is not a definite indication of the future. Sure, you could say that it's unlikely that she would have bought that music (assuming she didn't buy any last year), but it's far from impossible.
Thanks for the link, I missed a lot of the commercials during the actual game.
Anybody else notice than the anti-drug, anti-terror ads got some of the lowest ratings by ifilm viewers? Maybe people don't like the fact that the government is trying to blame innocent Americans for the terrorist activities of September 11.
Slashdot Mirror
Nobody is using Linux as a desktop system
I know you're exaggerating, but I'm using my Debian-running laptop right now to type this message. I dual-boot between Win2k Pro and Linux, if you can call it a dual-boot; I can't remember the last time I booted to Windows. My Windows partition is only 4GB - just enough to make it usable for short periods of time, which is what I use it for (a handful of times per year).
it just doesn't have the intuitive point-n-click of a Mac or the games offerings of Windows.
First I'll say that I'm not a gamer, so that issue doesn't bother me.
Maybe my computer isn't intuitive to my Windows and Mac-using friends, but it sure is to me. Is there a learning curve? Hell yes. Is it worth it? In my opinion, yes. Most computer users will go through their lives never knowing what a regular expression is. And that kind of stuff takes time to learn. But part of the fun of Linux (and other non-mainstream OSes) is getting that extra functionality out of the system.
I've been saying for years that E was eye-candy and that development efforts were better focused on the shortcomings Linux has on high-end server machines such as quality NFS support, a standardized email package and high uptimes.
1. What's wrong with NFS? I use it daily, and it just works.
2. Why do we need a standardized email package? I think it's important to note the difference between "good" and "standardized" here. If a Linux user wants to use Evolution that's fine, but why should it inherently be a problem that I use mutt?
3. Does Linux have a problem with uptimes that I'm not aware of? How often do your Linux machines go down, other than for hardware or kernel upgrades, or for a power outage?
I see what you're saying about the power of Linux on server applications, and I agree. But to dismiss it as impractical on the desktop doesn't do it justice.
Hope this isn't modded as flamebait.
If I had modpoints, it probably would be.
Why? Because I feel confident that you know about stable/testing/woody, and therefore you probably know that getting Debian with the latest-and-greatest software is as easy as making a few modifications to the sources.list and running an apt-get dist-upgrade. You don't even really have to know what to put in your sources.list, there are hundreds of them floating around online. You can just pick and choose the parts you want.
Heaven forbid Debian's "default" release be meticulously stable. Shouldn't they include more cutting-edge software as opposed to the tried-and-true stuff? Wait, that doesn't make any sense. That's like arguing that distributions should ship with every desireable service enabled. Personally, I'm glad Debian doesn't ship with "iffy" software. If I want to take that risk, I'll spend two minutes adjusting my system to suit me.
Dboyles, you might want to check that link, its going somewhere else.
You are correct; my mistake.
Tom's Hardware Guide has a pretty nifty video on installing a water-cooling system in a traditional, desktop system. IIRC, it not only cools the CPU, but also the GPU (graphics processing unit) as well as the motherboard's chipset.
Said video can be found here
here
Can you still be a karma whore even when you're at the cap?
Telocity is great. I have nothing bad to say about them.
I'll echo that. I've had my DSL for about a year, and although things were a little shaky in the first couple of months (when DirecTV was taking over), it's been solid ever since. I get good speeds, it's reliable, they offer a static IP, and they don't mind if you hook up a small LAN or run a small webserver.
So it's illegal for me to lend someone a CD?
No.
But if you make a copy of that CD so that you can listen to it and still lend it out to friends, that is not fair use, and is illegal. In the same fashion, if you pay $1 to legally download an MP3, you can lend your computer to a friend and he can listen to said MP3. You can also transfer the MP3 to him and remove it from your computer. What you can't do is set up a server so that others can take possession of that MP3 without the consent of the copyright holder.
Make sense?
So corporate networks are illegal now thanks to the RIAA.
Please. You and everybody else who read the article can clearly see that your quote about networks being illegal is taken out of context. Let's look at a relevant sentence in the preceeding paragraph:
In April, the RIAA announced a settlement with an Arizona company that allegedly let employees trade MP3 files over an internal network.
If you're ever involved in a debate about the ethics of the RIAA, please do us a favor and don't attempt to fabricate this sort of "evidence." Reasonable people see right through it. Besides, it's not as if you need to make up anything about the RIAA, there's plenty of stuff that they do right out in the open.
Networked MP3s is the key here. If you're sharng your collection with people who don't own those CDs, that's illegal. Whether or not it's unethical is an exercise left to the reader, but I don't think anybody can logically debate the legality.
I know the kneejerk reaction is to scream "But MP3 is just a file format!" If what you say is true, that you're not allowing others to access your music, then you have nothing to worry about - you're covered under fair use.
So if the market's still so healthy, why can't they sell parts?
I'll tell you my theory, which is just that - a theory. I don't have numbers to back this up, it's just based on what I perceive.
Gone are the days that we drool over our friend's new rig with oodles of megahertz and megabytes. A 400 MHz machine with 128 MB of RAM and a 15 GB hard drive will run pretty much anything a consumer requires, save for games. Before everybody you know had a computer, the machine you bought two years ago isn't fast enough now (meaning 2 years after you bought it) to run those productivity apps that really would make a difference in the way you work.
Add to that the fact that the low-end PC market has become hugely competitive, with computers down into the sub-$400 range. Profit margins are lowered, and while methods of reducing costs have been introduced, they haven't kept pace with the dropping "going rate" for an entry-level computer.
It used to be that $3000 would buy you a nice machine that would be a top performer, even in terms of 3D graphics. The Dell sitting next to me was about $3300 back in April '98, and it was definitely one of the nicer desktops available at the time. But to get similar performance relative to current technology now, I'd only need to spend about $2000. And there are lots of ways (including lots of companies) to arrive at that price.
This reminds me of something that was on The Man Show a few years ago. In the event of an untimely death, a (made-up) company could be enlisted to "correct" some things for you. The team came in and replaced items such as Playboy centerfolds, a bong, porn videos, and a - let's just call it a "sexual device" - with pictures of your family, Bibles, and other such things.
They showed a "with and without" sequence, where one's parents came to their dead son's apartment to discover the two different scenarios. It was pretty funny, and encouraged me to say to my roommate, "You know that bottom drawer of my dresser? If I die, burn everything in it."
You're right, and it's a shame. In all of the programming courses I've had, the grading criteria are simply "Are there any errors generated?" and "Does the output look correct?" Nobody takes into account that a programmer might have done something sloppily, inefficiently, or even in a way that might be dangerous.
Programming classes at my university need to concentrate more on programming theory than on correct syntax. We can pick the syntax up along the way, but bad programming style will stick for a lifetime.
I agree. Musicians are under no obligation to license their works to major labels, they choose to do so. Yes, I think said labels use and abuse their artists. If the artist's work isn't profitable, the label will drop them in a heartbeat. It sucks, but it happens because there is a market for it. The artist and the musician sign a contract because they both feel that it is to their benefit. Sometimes both are wrong. Sometimes one of them is wrong. And very rarely, both of them are right.
Likewise, the price of these copyrighted works is set by demand. The fact that someone may feel that the price is too high, or that the RIAA is evil absolutely does not entitle that person to violate the IP rights of the owner. We are not a captive group; it's not like the RIAA has a monopoly on clean water.
Thoughtful discussion on this topic is welcome.
I disagree.
My Inspiron 5000e has an 800 MHz PIII chip in it, and you could boil water on the right side of the keypad under a heavy CPU load.
On the contrary, I think this thing looks like an expensive hand warmer that doubles as a PDA.
What are the chances this Ask Slashdot is from a marketing troll at ThinkGeek, for example?
Slim to none. You've been reading Slashdot too much...
winning the fastest desktop in the world competition is like winning the 'most luxurious kia' award.
You're just jealous of my underbody neon light setup.
In order to gain marketshare, Linux must acquire NEW users, and avoid infighting.
How does this rebate offer dissuade new users from adopting Linux? Red Hat, SuSe, and Mandrake still cost the same to them.
Having 3 or 4 distribs or 2 or more desktops is the best way to promote competition and to ensure fitness.
So to promote competition, Red Hat should not exercise competitive business practices? I don't follow.
But what if the Gov't bans the sale of games to minors? That decision places a lot of weight on me that I don't need.
What kind of weight does such a bill place on you? Are we talking about the fact that you have to go out and buy the game yourself?
Let me parent my kids, don't make the decisions for me.
So should we do away with any law that pertains to a minor? This would mean not only can those under 18 go to any movie they wish or buy any video game they want (neither of which do I have that much of a problem with), but they would also be able to buy weapons, cigarettes, alcohol, drive cars, not attend any school, etc. Will you be responsible for any actions taken by your child under such lenient laws?
You probably are a good parent, and therefore you can see the problems that such a situation would present. If you think that this bill means the government is taking your place as a parent, you're way off.
"NOTE: Because this tool acts as a fake Klez to fool the real worm,some AV monitor maybe cry when you run it."
We're going to be screwed when a native English speaker decides to propagate a virus.
"I send you this file in order to have your advice."
People who run red-lights risk my life, and yours, not just their own.
I watch people run red lights EVERY DAY. At some intersections I have been nearly hit by people running redlights while I was a pedestrian. I don't expect I would have survived had I been hit.
So you'd rather have a fine-based deterrent system rather than an engineering solution to the problem? And on top of that, you're willing to allow people who stand to profit from such a system to set the rules for the system?
Without knowing the facts it's easy to dismiss opponents of red light cameras as vigilantes who just want to get away with violating traffic laws. But there's really much more to it than that. If a city wants to generate revenue while maintaining the facade of caring about public safety, they install red light cameras. It's the no-brainer solution; just plug them in and watch the cash come in. No pesky scientific analysis required.
A public safety issue? I think you're being too naive. It's a profit issue. Red light cameras provide a disincentive to fixing the problem because the existence of the problem generates revenue.
You might want to check out The Truth About Red Light Cameras for a little more information on this.
Indeed. Several years ago I recall a light that would hold yellow for a good 4 or 5 seconds. Many a time I would be driving next to (or close) to another car, the light would turn yellow and he would stop. Knowing that they light held yellow for so long, I'd continue through and make it through easily. A much better solution is to have a standard length for yellow, and then adjust the delay for the other direction's green.
Speaking of better solutions, what about a police car actually pulling over red light runners? They don't have to catch everybody, but every driver who sees someone get pulled over will take notice. The fact that some states/cities choose to use cameras to ticket simply proves that they are more interested in ticket revenue than in the public's safety.
I am thinking that creating 'imitation' child pornography is not any better. Somewhat like robbing a store with a fake gun.
I don't think you thought through your analogy fully. The owner of the store that is robbed is victimized by the robber. But if some pervert wants to look at cartoon 12 year-olds having sex, there are no victims.
Is it right to do either of those two things? In my opnion, no. But can you punish someone for fantasizing about committing a crime? I don't think so. And if having that fantasy available keeps an individual from acting on it (and therefore committing a non-victimless crime), then I don't see a problem.
I'm a little late to be adding comments that I expect to get read, but this is what jumped out at me:
How much had did that lady spend on music last year before discovering Kazaa?
If your answer was "zero", explain how the RIAA can have "lost" any money from her non purchases this year.
I didn't go to a movie last night, but if I really want to see a movie that's out and I download it instead of paying to see it, that's lost revenue. The key is that the past is not a definite indication of the future. Sure, you could say that it's unlikely that she would have bought that music (assuming she didn't buy any last year), but it's far from impossible.
Thanks for the link, I missed a lot of the commercials during the actual game.
Anybody else notice than the anti-drug, anti-terror ads got some of the lowest ratings by ifilm viewers? Maybe people don't like the fact that the government is trying to blame innocent Americans for the terrorist activities of September 11.