Doesn't the fact that a new Linux file selector dialog box becomes headline news really illustrate the state of the Linux GUI? I mean, that's like 4 years behind all the other GUI operating systems. What was the holdup?
Well, actually we sort of are. Pretty pictures often contain details that are of great interest to science. They just aren't taking pretty pictures of anything except flat landscape. Yet, anyway.
Um, no, scientists aren't trying to take pretty pictures. Detailed pictures and pretty pictures aren't always the same thing.
Further careful analysis of Viking Lander data revealed a Martian sky which is generally "butterscotch" (yellow/brownish) in color, except for the pink/red of sunset and sunrise. This was confirmed by Mars Pathfinder.
Fire your admins for not patching, using a configured firewall, or even using a freaking antivirus program. You think Linux wouldn't also be the target of viruses and worms if it was as widely used? Slashdot has already linked to a report in the past showing that Linux is the most breached operating system on the net. You do realize GNU/FSF, GNOME, Debian, and Gentoo were hacked, right? Nothing is perfect.
On the other hand, if you start to employ Linux professionals, who have access to newsgroups, developers and the source-code for the system they are maintaining, they'll only become MORE knowlegeable as time goes by, because of Linux's transparency.
Translation: There are tons of big, thick published books for all aspects of Windows administration. For Linux, you must turn to newsgroups and developer mailing lists, where you will be told to "RTFM."
When the chips are down, who do you want around? A monkey that can only say "I'll call MS-tech support, and they *might* get back to me" or someone who REALLY understands how the system works and can dive in and fix the problem?
Translation: You can call a company getting paid to help you, or you can turn to Linux IRC channels online that will respond with "RTFM."
It's a case of professionalism versus volunteerism.
What moron runs Outlook Express on his servers? How would things like "I Love You" affect a machine like that? Think a little before posting such gibberish.
Look at the number of patches released for Windows Server 2003 since release (what is it, TWO?) compared to the amount for each distro in a given week alone at LinuxSecurity.
The same way Slashdotters consider IBM-sponsored studies supporting Linux to be objective third-party studies.
Now for all the posters to act like this ad campagin is some big deal when it's just business as usual, as companies have been doing for decades. How you can fault a company for advertising that it is better than competitors is beyond me.
Jesus, congratulations on being predictable. The very second I saw the headline, I wondered how many posts it would take before someone made a "funny" remark about Microsoft's ISS. Because they have the same letters, LOLOL!
If linux for desktops wasn't gaining market share as fast as it is now, I doubt we would have seen this service pack this soon and this full of security updates.
Exactly how much market share is it gaining, and how fast? Or are you talking about the niche corporate workstation market, where all they're doing is replacing SGI and UNIX boxes?
Let's be fair here--KDE and GNOME do not compete as cohesive, stable desktop environments. I'm not talking stability as in crashing (though I have yet to see 2000/XP do such), but stability in the usability arena. I can't even cut-and-paste two-thirds of the time, and everything is so incredibly ugly and hard to read.
Given that 2003 is a server OS, I can draw two conclusions...it's a HORRIBLE server OS, because it's not frigging stable, or it's not meant to have graphics/sound because it's a server OS, and it's stable otherwise. WinXP has absolutely NO problems with my hardware at all.
Or, perhaps you just didn't follow the Windows Server 2003 Desktop guides correctly online, or your drivers weren't designed to run with an operating system like 2003?
The reason 2003 has incompatibilities with some things, including drivers, is because they changes enough of the kernel for security reasons that it broke compability. Being a server OS, it is more acceptable. Part of the reason Windows has been such a mess is all the backwards compability. But with the upcoming.NET completely replacing all of Win32 in Longhorn, that will be a thing of the past.
In the last article, people were readily accepting that p2p-sharing was HELPING the music industry simply because sales were up in Australia.
But mention that downloading goes down as the RIAA lawsuits go up, and suddenly "correlation does not equal causation."
Speaking of what you can't say
on
What You Can't Say
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
The infamous "Post" that got endlessly modbombed despite all the positive moderation it received. A lot of people to this day can't even moderate or anything, despite positive karma, simply because they posted in that thread.
You just illustrated exactly what I was talking about. You've justified it as a "free exchange of information" with "nothing to feel guilty about." You're so used to the convenience of doing it that you've removed any moral guilt you might have had, by labelling it freedom. Never mind legal guilt.
Because it's not free exchange of information, and once everyone just copies everything for each other for free, there won't be reason to make trilogies like Lord of the Rings because it won't even make enough money to cover initial expenses.
Do I really need to explain this to you, or are you just a troll?
Everybody I know, and everybody I went to college with, had literal stacks and stacks of burned CD-Rs. Probably hundreds upon hundreds of dollars no musicians will ever get to see, because you consider illegal downloading a "new forum for trading music." Which basically means a forum for putting up albums to download so you don't have to go the store to purchase them. Anything to justify the pang of guilt, eh?
But when I download the album, another situation appears. They may gain one, rather esotheric thing from me: Gratitude.
Wow, they "may" gain gratitude. A business model built on gratitude? Gee, you must be a business major.
Maybe I'll buy some crappy product of theirs, just to support them in the future, just to express my thanks.
Of course you won't. Society doesn't run on an honor system. Having a.RAR file of an album won't magically make someone think, "Wow, I like this and will express my thanks by paying for another album that's already available online!" No--they'll just download that other product as well.
Maybe I will buy "colector's edition" of what I copied earlier. Just because I like it so much.
Most people won't buy what they already have. You are a minority. Again, Slashdotters think they are in the majority all the time when they are not.
Under one condition: They can't piss me off before that. If I hear about stupid lawsuits, sites closed due to ridiculous copyright issues, evil marketing techniques - then, sorry. I'll gladly make a copy for my friends: "Hey, don't support that assholes with your money, get a copy instead!"
Stupid lawsuits = protecting your intellectual property being distributed freely online?
Ridiculous copyright issues = shutting down websites that track all the illegal downloads on eMule?
Evil marketing techniques = playing commercials and advertisements that you can just turn off if you want? How else do you expect to know about albums?
Meanwhile, nobody considers the human beings who rented the studio and spent a couple of months recording the album that you're downloading the fuck out of. What about them? They don't get to be paid for the music they're trying to make a living from? Or are they seeking your "gratitude" for making it available and having it end up online for greedy downloaders?
Bubble-Gum Pop and "Pseudo-Punk-My-Girlfriend-dumped-me-and-I-am-in-p ain" Overpriced Crap is all the Record industry has available in Record Stores because people keep burning CDs of the great music, so they stick with what is safe and will give them returns on their investments.
Yes, Virginia, you are effectively homogenizing the music business by making the risky music riskier.
As if all your "great music" isn't available in the online record stores or the websites of the bands themselves. But, hey, let's download the fuck out of everything!
Wow, you have self-deluded yourself into justifying all the mp3 downloading you to to alleviate the feelings of guilt.
I'll say it.:)
Sales wouldn't have gone up more if CD-Rs and mp3's were't available.
Wow, fucksl4shd0t has officially declared it! It must be true.
It's called "word of mouth" advertising, and has always been the way the bands with the most staying power became successful.
This is the most bullshit reason I've ever heard. Word-of-mouth advertising? Word-of-mouth advertising would be telling your friends about how great this band is and to go out and get the album. P2P sharing is about putting that album online to download for free. You're not advertising anything. It's already there for illegal downloading.
Metallica, the Who, Aerosmith, Pink Floyd, the list goes on and on full of bands that worked hard, became successful mostly through word of mouth, and then maintained top sales and top billing throughout the rest of their careers.
File-sharing wasn't around in their days. What on earth are you talking about? You've completely misdefined word-of-mouth advertising. P2P sharing is not "word-of-mouth advertising."
CDRs and mp3 file sharing represent word of mouth advertising.
Of course they don't.
Sure, maybe you won't buy that album you just got burned from a friend, at least, not right away, but if you really like it, you'll go after the musicians' other albums.
And here your argument falls flat because you admit someone won't buy an album they already have downloaded. You claim people will magically go out and buy the bands' other albums, when really what they'll do is just DOWNLOAD them. Geez.
I got my first copy of...And Justice For All as a tape recording from a CD. In the end, I bought hundreds of dollars worth of Metallica junk, including tickets to several concerts, and now I'm one of Metallica's anti-fans.:)
Congratulation. Your example had nothing to do with file-sharing.
The chances that I ever would have bought anything from them in the first place were slim and none without that initial "piracy".
There is a world of difference from a single friend giving you one tape ripped from his CD, and millions of people making all their CDs available all across the Internet.
Yeah, this is anecdotal evidence, but I'm not offering it as evidence.
Then why bother?
I'm offering it as explanation for what "word of mouth" advertising is in the record business and how it affects the bottom line.
You still haven't established illegal downloading of the albums as word-of-mouth advertising. How can you advertise something the user already has? Why would they pay for it if they already have it? You think all those millions of kids and college students all over the world downloading the fuck out of every album under the sun DOESN'T affect sales? You're naive, then.
So, yes, without CDRs and mp3 file sharing, word of mouth wouldn't have spread nearly as much music around as it did, and therefore wouldn't have even had opportunity to generate sales.
Completely wrong, CD-Rs and MP3s don't magically spread word of mouth. There are websites, messageboards, and IM programs that do that. We also have radio, TV, magazines, and fanzines. You do realize there is already a "word-of-mouth advertising" media already in place, right? Rather than offering entire albums online to download illegally.
Which is another interesting point, you never address the fact that it's both illegal and immoral. In fact, you seem to not acknowledge either. Very sad.
So, the only real danger to the record industry is in the long list of one-hit wonders and people who will only ever record one album, because then there is no back catalog to sell, and future sales won't be there because they're one
Slashdot Mirror
Doesn't the fact that a new Linux file selector dialog box becomes headline news really illustrate the state of the Linux GUI? I mean, that's like 4 years behind all the other GUI operating systems. What was the holdup?
People do realize this article is an old dupe, right? Just curious.
Especially since it's more ripping-off of Windows XP, when meanwhile the community claims to despise Windows.
Well, actually we sort of are. Pretty pictures often contain details that are of great interest to science. They just aren't taking pretty pictures of anything except flat landscape. Yet, anyway.
Um, no, scientists aren't trying to take pretty pictures. Detailed pictures and pretty pictures aren't always the same thing.
It's Richard Stallman. His Martian doppleganger.
Martians sunsets are "pink/red," not blue.
Further careful analysis of Viking Lander data revealed a Martian sky which is generally "butterscotch" (yellow/brownish) in color, except for the pink/red of sunset and sunrise. This was confirmed by Mars Pathfinder.
Fire your admins for not patching, using a configured firewall, or even using a freaking antivirus program. You think Linux wouldn't also be the target of viruses and worms if it was as widely used? Slashdot has already linked to a report in the past showing that Linux is the most breached operating system on the net. You do realize GNU/FSF, GNOME, Debian, and Gentoo were hacked, right? Nothing is perfect.
Oh, 1998 called--they want their "M$" back.
Did you know it's an AD CAMPAIGN? What did you expect?
Chill out. Why do Slashdotters take things personally over an ad campaign? All companies have them (including IBM...).
On the other hand, if you start to employ Linux professionals, who have access to newsgroups, developers and the source-code for the system they are maintaining, they'll only become MORE knowlegeable as time goes by, because of Linux's transparency.
Translation: There are tons of big, thick published books for all aspects of Windows administration. For Linux, you must turn to newsgroups and developer mailing lists, where you will be told to "RTFM."
When the chips are down, who do you want around? A monkey that can only say "I'll call MS-tech support, and they *might* get back to me" or someone who REALLY understands how the system works and can dive in and fix the problem?
Translation: You can call a company getting paid to help you, or you can turn to Linux IRC channels online that will respond with "RTFM."
It's a case of professionalism versus volunteerism.
What moron runs Outlook Express on his servers? How would things like "I Love You" affect a machine like that? Think a little before posting such gibberish.
Look at the number of patches released for Windows Server 2003 since release (what is it, TWO?) compared to the amount for each distro in a given week alone at LinuxSecurity.
The same way Slashdotters consider IBM-sponsored studies supporting Linux to be objective third-party studies.
Now for all the posters to act like this ad campagin is some big deal when it's just business as usual, as companies have been doing for decades. How you can fault a company for advertising that it is better than competitors is beyond me.
Jesus, congratulations on being predictable. The very second I saw the headline, I wondered how many posts it would take before someone made a "funny" remark about Microsoft's ISS. Because they have the same letters, LOLOL!
Somehow, it's not "Off-topic."
If linux for desktops wasn't gaining market share as fast as it is now, I doubt we would have seen this service pack this soon and this full of security updates.
Exactly how much market share is it gaining, and how fast? Or are you talking about the niche corporate workstation market, where all they're doing is replacing SGI and UNIX boxes?
Let's be fair here--KDE and GNOME do not compete as cohesive, stable desktop environments. I'm not talking stability as in crashing (though I have yet to see 2000/XP do such), but stability in the usability arena. I can't even cut-and-paste two-thirds of the time, and everything is so incredibly ugly and hard to read.
Given that 2003 is a server OS, I can draw two conclusions...it's a HORRIBLE server OS, because it's not frigging stable, or it's not meant to have graphics/sound because it's a server OS, and it's stable otherwise. WinXP has absolutely NO problems with my hardware at all.
.NET completely replacing all of Win32 in Longhorn, that will be a thing of the past.
Or, perhaps you just didn't follow the Windows Server 2003 Desktop guides correctly online, or your drivers weren't designed to run with an operating system like 2003?
The reason 2003 has incompatibilities with some things, including drivers, is because they changes enough of the kernel for security reasons that it broke compability. Being a server OS, it is more acceptable. Part of the reason Windows has been such a mess is all the backwards compability. But with the upcoming
Yeah, seeing as how Gentoo themselves got hacked, along with GNU/FSF, GNOME, and Debian.
In the last article, people were readily accepting that p2p-sharing was HELPING the music industry simply because sales were up in Australia.
But mention that downloading goes down as the RIAA lawsuits go up, and suddenly "correlation does not equal causation."
The infamous "Post" that got endlessly modbombed despite all the positive moderation it received. A lot of people to this day can't even moderate or anything, despite positive karma, simply because they posted in that thread.
Haven't we had at least two other articles by now on Microsoft phasing out their previous products? How many times can we re-discuss this AGAIN?
The MPAA considers DVD piracy a lost cause? Have you already forgotten what still goes on regarding DeCSS lawsuits?
You just illustrated exactly what I was talking about. You've justified it as a "free exchange of information" with "nothing to feel guilty about." You're so used to the convenience of doing it that you've removed any moral guilt you might have had, by labelling it freedom. Never mind legal guilt.
Because it's not free exchange of information, and once everyone just copies everything for each other for free, there won't be reason to make trilogies like Lord of the Rings because it won't even make enough money to cover initial expenses.
Do I really need to explain this to you, or are you just a troll?
Everybody I know, and everybody I went to college with, had literal stacks and stacks of burned CD-Rs. Probably hundreds upon hundreds of dollars no musicians will ever get to see, because you consider illegal downloading a "new forum for trading music." Which basically means a forum for putting up albums to download so you don't have to go the store to purchase them. Anything to justify the pang of guilt, eh?
But when I download the album, another situation appears. They may gain one, rather esotheric thing from me: Gratitude.
.RAR file of an album won't magically make someone think, "Wow, I like this and will express my thanks by paying for another album that's already available online!" No--they'll just download that other product as well.
Wow, they "may" gain gratitude. A business model built on gratitude? Gee, you must be a business major.
Maybe I'll buy some crappy product of theirs, just to support them in the future, just to express my thanks.
Of course you won't. Society doesn't run on an honor system. Having a
Maybe I will buy "colector's edition" of what I copied earlier. Just because I like it so much.
Most people won't buy what they already have. You are a minority. Again, Slashdotters think they are in the majority all the time when they are not.
Under one condition: They can't piss me off before that. If I hear about stupid lawsuits, sites closed due to ridiculous copyright issues, evil marketing techniques - then, sorry. I'll gladly make a copy for my friends: "Hey, don't support that assholes with your money, get a copy instead!"
Stupid lawsuits = protecting your intellectual property being distributed freely online?
Ridiculous copyright issues = shutting down websites that track all the illegal downloads on eMule?
Evil marketing techniques = playing commercials and advertisements that you can just turn off if you want? How else do you expect to know about albums?
Meanwhile, nobody considers the human beings who rented the studio and spent a couple of months recording the album that you're downloading the fuck out of. What about them? They don't get to be paid for the music they're trying to make a living from? Or are they seeking your "gratitude" for making it available and having it end up online for greedy downloaders?
Blech.
Bubble-Gum Pop and "Pseudo-Punk-My-Girlfriend-dumped-me-and-I-am-in-p ain" Overpriced Crap is all the Record industry has available in Record Stores because people keep burning CDs of the great music, so they stick with what is safe and will give them returns on their investments.
Yes, Virginia, you are effectively homogenizing the music business by making the risky music riskier.
As if all your "great music" isn't available in the online record stores or the websites of the bands themselves. But, hey, let's download the fuck out of everything!
Wow, you have self-deluded yourself into justifying all the mp3 downloading you to to alleviate the feelings of guilt.
:)
...And Justice For All as a tape recording from a CD. In the end, I bought hundreds of dollars worth of Metallica junk, including tickets to several concerts, and now I'm one of Metallica's anti-fans. :)
I'll say it.
Sales wouldn't have gone up more if CD-Rs and mp3's were't available.
Wow, fucksl4shd0t has officially declared it! It must be true.
It's called "word of mouth" advertising, and has always been the way the bands with the most staying power became successful.
This is the most bullshit reason I've ever heard. Word-of-mouth advertising? Word-of-mouth advertising would be telling your friends about how great this band is and to go out and get the album. P2P sharing is about putting that album online to download for free. You're not advertising anything. It's already there for illegal downloading.
Metallica, the Who, Aerosmith, Pink Floyd, the list goes on and on full of bands that worked hard, became successful mostly through word of mouth, and then maintained top sales and top billing throughout the rest of their careers.
File-sharing wasn't around in their days. What on earth are you talking about? You've completely misdefined word-of-mouth advertising. P2P sharing is not "word-of-mouth advertising."
CDRs and mp3 file sharing represent word of mouth advertising.
Of course they don't.
Sure, maybe you won't buy that album you just got burned from a friend, at least, not right away, but if you really like it, you'll go after the musicians' other albums.
And here your argument falls flat because you admit someone won't buy an album they already have downloaded. You claim people will magically go out and buy the bands' other albums, when really what they'll do is just DOWNLOAD them. Geez.
I got my first copy of
Congratulation. Your example had nothing to do with file-sharing.
The chances that I ever would have bought anything from them in the first place were slim and none without that initial "piracy".
There is a world of difference from a single friend giving you one tape ripped from his CD, and millions of people making all their CDs available all across the Internet.
Yeah, this is anecdotal evidence, but I'm not offering it as evidence.
Then why bother?
I'm offering it as explanation for what "word of mouth" advertising is in the record business and how it affects the bottom line.
You still haven't established illegal downloading of the albums as word-of-mouth advertising. How can you advertise something the user already has? Why would they pay for it if they already have it? You think all those millions of kids and college students all over the world downloading the fuck out of every album under the sun DOESN'T affect sales? You're naive, then.
So, yes, without CDRs and mp3 file sharing, word of mouth wouldn't have spread nearly as much music around as it did, and therefore wouldn't have even had opportunity to generate sales.
Completely wrong, CD-Rs and MP3s don't magically spread word of mouth. There are websites, messageboards, and IM programs that do that. We also have radio, TV, magazines, and fanzines. You do realize there is already a "word-of-mouth advertising" media already in place, right? Rather than offering entire albums online to download illegally.
Which is another interesting point, you never address the fact that it's both illegal and immoral. In fact, you seem to not acknowledge either. Very sad.
So, the only real danger to the record industry is in the long list of one-hit wonders and people who will only ever record one album, because then there is no back catalog to sell, and future sales won't be there because they're one