#1 was: Blu-Ray discs don't get scratched. Blu-ray discs do scratch and it is debatable whether the harder surface of the Blu-ray disc is a benefit to the consumer.
HD-DVD media is made of the same material used in standard DVD media. It is pretty cheap and easy for the average person to resurface a DVD. When a Blu-ray disc does get scratched, it is far more difficult to fix. If you try to use a DVD-doctor on a Blu-ray disc it doesn't help. The only fix I've heard for a scratched BD is to trash it and purchase a new one.
Does anyone know of a cheap, easy and reliable way for consumers to resurface scratched Blu-ray discs?
"One key reason that OSS has a hard time penetrating the commercial world is that there is typically no guarantee that the product will always be around, and kept updated."
Because everyone knows that commercially supported products like:
Adobe LiveMotion Aldus PhotoStyler Central Point PC Tools GeCad RAV Anti-Virus GreatPlains Microsoft Internet Explorer for Mac
If anyone is surprised by this move, they weren't paying attention.
MoFo/MoCo are owned in a serious financial way by Google. Remember the Mozilla Suite was dumped in a similar, though worse, manner just a few years ago when Google poored money all over the cash strapped Mozilla that AOL left behind. Google wasn't interested in financing the suite. Google probably stipulates that their financing only go to Firefox development, where Google is front and center in the users face. Google isn't likely to help finance a mail client where they don't see any return on investment. Google wants you to use Gmail for the ads.
The funds Mozilla had before the Google deal were likely diverted from the suite to Thunderbird and other applications. Mozilla has likely exhausted those funds now. Thunderbird developers should join the SeaMonkey community. Together the community and the projects might survive this.
Future prediction of a friend: When the government cracks down on MoFo's shady tax history, MoFo will go under and Google will likely buy MoCo and spin it as if they saved Mozilla.
At least you can install RealOne. AFAIK, the last RealPlayer for Linux was RealPlayer8 not RealOne.
Now real.com assumes you are running MS Windows and gives all users a MS Windows executable. For a company so worried about Microsoft's monopoly power they sure aren't doing much to prevent Microsoft from maintaining monopoly status in the OS market.
I don't think it is so weak of a response. Anyone can name some piece of hardware or some function that any given operating system will not support, especially "out of the box". Plus, the items you mentioned are specialty items in the sense that the majority of users do not have them.
"When they buy the newest game or some random piece of hardware, they expect it to work. "
This is likely true, the problem is that it doesn't just work in any system out there. If you buy Apple hardware for an Apple computer it will just work, but any random piece of hardware? No. In MS Windows most hardware is supposed to work, but how often have you heard of it not working out of the box?
What do you do when it doesn't work? Call the support department? Return it when you are unsuccessful?
That is pretty much exactly what I do when buying products for any of the OS's I support. It is up to the hardware manufacturer to make their product work.
I just think that RedHat should stick to answering for their own products instead of generalizing their products as the state of Linux in general. They evaluated their system and found that it wasn't good for the desktop. Therefore they make a press release that Linux is not ready for the desktop, but they will let us all know when it is. They didn't evaluate all Linux desktops to determine this. They evaluated RedHat Linux as a desktop to determine that all Linux is not ready, which is not a fair evaluation of Linux on the desktop. RedHat Linux is not the only Linux. Wouldn't it make more sense to let us know when they have their product ready for the desktop?
Even if you don't think Linux is ready now, don't you think it is reasonable to say that someone besides RedHat could have desktop linux ready before RedHat? Is RedHat going to let us all know when someone else has it ready or when there product is ready?
Hope you understand where I'm coming from. I've been a user of RedHat Linux since 4.0 and I still use it as a server; however, I stopped trying to use it as a desktop a long time ago.
BTW: I don't have an ipod so I don't know first hand, but the ipod pretty well works without much problems I hear. Lindows is supposed to have a one click install and debian testing can use:
When RedHat states that "Linux is not ready for the desktop" what they should be saying is "RedHat is not ready for the desktop". RedHat is fine as a server, but the fact remains that RedHat can't build a desktop; however, as RedHat places the dagger in the backs of those building great Linux desktops they turn around and give us such insightful reading material as this.
"To me Linux advocates bashing Linux advocates does Microsoft's work for them. It plays into the FUD that we are an angry mob."
From where I sit it looks like the shoe is on the other foot. If RedHat's brass truly believe this, then perhaps they should rethink all of their statements about desktop Linux.
"Not really. Not yet, anyway. I tend to look outside the community for the enemy and we've got bigger, imminent threats right now. So do they, for that matter and everyone else too busy kicking our shins to notice."
No!, RedHat the linux community is not kicking your shins and no one is nipping at your heels either. You suck as a desktop. Just admit that you don't know how to build one instead of kicking the shins of those that have succeeded in building great Linux desktops.
gnuwin.org has not released a new CD in some time now. I'm glad to see a new CD like this from another group. I have not downloaded this CD yet and I'm sure they have spent a lot of time trying to package these programs up neatly for end-users. I love giving people choices in what software they can use, but why do all of these so called Open CD's that contain sofware for Closed Systems contain software that can only be found on that closed platform?
I really like FileZilla, but it is not based on Mozilla as one might think and it is not available on any platform other than a closed one. Once you get them hooked on this excellent FTP program, what do you say for yourself when the only reason they won't try another system is because their favorite FTP program is not available there?
Slashdot Mirror
and you won't have this problem affecting your revenue stream.
I think one should be asking what makes people want to trade in a game after just one week of ownership.
Plus users get paid.
http://scour.com/
If you like use my invite code.
http://scour.com/invite/mmcguigan/
HD-DVD media is made of the same material used in standard DVD media. It is pretty cheap and easy for the average person to resurface a DVD. When a Blu-ray disc does get scratched, it is far more difficult to fix. If you try to use a DVD-doctor on a Blu-ray disc it doesn't help. The only fix I've heard for a scratched BD is to trash it and purchase a new one.
Does anyone know of a cheap, easy and reliable way for consumers to resurface scratched Blu-ray discs?
"One key reason that OSS has a hard time penetrating the commercial world is that there is typically no guarantee that the product will always be around, and kept updated."
Because everyone knows that commercially supported products like:
Adobe LiveMotion
Aldus PhotoStyler
Central Point PC Tools
GeCad RAV Anti-Virus
GreatPlains
Microsoft Internet Explorer for Mac
never suddenly die.
If anyone is surprised by this move, they weren't paying attention.
MoFo/MoCo are owned in a serious financial way by Google. Remember the Mozilla Suite was dumped in a similar, though worse, manner just a few years ago when Google poored money all over the cash strapped Mozilla that AOL left behind. Google wasn't interested in financing the suite. Google probably stipulates that their financing only go to Firefox development, where Google is front and center in the users face. Google isn't likely to help finance a mail client where they don't see any return on investment. Google wants you to use Gmail for the ads.
The funds Mozilla had before the Google deal were likely diverted from the suite to Thunderbird and other applications. Mozilla has likely exhausted those funds now. Thunderbird developers should join the SeaMonkey community. Together the community and the projects might survive this.
Future prediction of a friend: When the government cracks down on MoFo's shady tax history, MoFo will go under and Google will likely buy MoCo and spin it as if they saved Mozilla.
http://www.scroogle.org/mozilla.html
Yeah it sucks. Here is what it says for Mac OS X:
Unsupported Browser
AMCAS supports only the following web browsers for MacOS:
Internet Explorer 5.1.7
Internet Explorer 5.2 Get it here
Netscape 7 Get it here
what is "shellacing"? Would't turn up results at dictionary.com
I mispelling. Try "shellacking".
Where are the moderator points when you need them?
At least you can install RealOne. AFAIK, the last RealPlayer for Linux was RealPlayer8 not RealOne.
Now real.com assumes you are running MS Windows and gives all users a MS Windows executable. For a company so worried about Microsoft's monopoly power they sure aren't doing much to prevent Microsoft from maintaining monopoly status in the OS market.
I don't think it is so weak of a response. Anyone can name some piece of hardware or some function that any given operating system will not support, especially "out of the box". Plus, the items you mentioned are specialty items in the sense that the majority of users do not have them.
"When they buy the newest game or some random piece of hardware, they expect it to work. "
This is likely true, the problem is that it doesn't just work in any system out there. If you buy Apple hardware for an Apple computer it will just work, but any random piece of hardware? No. In MS Windows most hardware is supposed to work, but how often have you heard of it not working out of the box?
What do you do when it doesn't work? Call the support department? Return it when you are unsuccessful?
That is pretty much exactly what I do when buying products for any of the OS's I support. It is up to the hardware manufacturer to make their product work.
I just think that RedHat should stick to answering for their own products instead of generalizing their products as the state of Linux in general. They evaluated their system and found that it wasn't good for the desktop. Therefore they make a press release that Linux is not ready for the desktop, but they will let us all know when it is. They didn't evaluate all Linux desktops to determine this. They evaluated RedHat Linux as a desktop to determine that all Linux is not ready, which is not a fair evaluation of Linux on the desktop. RedHat Linux is not the only Linux. Wouldn't it make more sense to let us know when they have their product ready for the desktop?
Even if you don't think Linux is ready now, don't you think it is reasonable to say that someone besides RedHat could have desktop linux ready before RedHat? Is RedHat going to let us all know when someone else has it ready or when there product is ready?
Hope you understand where I'm coming from. I've been a user of RedHat Linux since 4.0 and I still use it as a server; however, I stopped trying to use it as a desktop a long time ago.
BTW: I don't have an ipod so I don't know first hand, but the ipod pretty well works without much problems I hear. Lindows is supposed to have a one click install and debian testing can use:
apt-get install gtkpod
No single system works for everyone and every purpose. If that were how we determined desktop readiness, then no system is ready for the desktop.
"What was your point again?"
Thought I made it clear the first time. Oh well. Here you go:
[point]It is ready. RedHat is not.[/point]
When RedHat states that "Linux is not ready for the desktop" what they should be saying is "RedHat is not ready for the desktop". RedHat is fine as a server, but the fact remains that RedHat can't build a desktop; however, as RedHat places the dagger in the backs of those building great Linux desktops they turn around and give us such insightful reading material as this.
"To me Linux advocates bashing Linux advocates does Microsoft's work for them. It plays into the FUD that we are an angry mob."
From where I sit it looks like the shoe is on the other foot. If RedHat's brass truly believe this, then perhaps they should rethink all of their statements about desktop Linux.
"Not really. Not yet, anyway. I tend to look outside the community for the enemy and we've got bigger, imminent threats right now. So do they, for that matter and everyone else too busy kicking our shins to notice."
No!, RedHat the linux community is not kicking your shins and no one is nipping at your heels either. You suck as a desktop. Just admit that you don't know how to build one instead of kicking the shins of those that have succeeded in building great Linux desktops.
gnuwin.org has not released a new CD in some time now. I'm glad to see a new CD like this from another group. I have not downloaded this CD yet and I'm sure they have spent a lot of time trying to package these programs up neatly for end-users. I love giving people choices in what software they can use, but why do all of these so called Open CD's that contain sofware for Closed Systems contain software that can only be found on that closed platform?
I really like FileZilla, but it is not based on Mozilla as one might think and it is not available on any platform other than a closed one. Once you get them hooked on this excellent FTP program, what do you say for yourself when the only reason they won't try another system is because their favorite FTP program is not available there?
Is this CD really open?