A feature to the wealthy 10-20% of the population, a bug for the rest. It will become more apparent as the rich percentile gets lower and wealthier, forcing the rest to suffer more. I hope that by the "feature" statement you weren't indicating approval. Hopefully it won't take *too* much longer for everyone to get fed up enough to start protesting/boycotting more, thereby helping to fuel competition while concurrently informing monopolistic/criminal companies that their actions aren't tolerated and that their client base cares more about credibility and technical innovation than marketing schemes and business size.
Do you know how many times I've heard LEO or judges say "ignorance of the law is no excuse" or some such? I suppose that only applies to petty/poor criminals as well. All though I don't feel it is an exactly fair outlook I do believe the law should be applied fairly to everyone regardless number of lawyers, total income or position in society.
It doesn't get defended more? How many of the people who so passionately defend M$ would even think twice about or feel sorry for a drug dealer who gives a small few the option to hurt themselves rather than intentionally lie to/mislead great masses into hurting themselves or forcing them out of business (and their employees out of income)? Because they are rich the completely apathetic/complacent beliefs our society has come to embrace pretty much gives them right to get away with whatever they want? Because a bunch of people got screwed repeatedly growing up it becomes an accepted fact of life to be embraced as long as you are doing the screwing or someone else is getting screwed? This endorsement of abuse of authority will screw everyone in the long run, not just the few you hear about. We are all be silently screwed whether we like to admit it and defending it only exacerbates the problem until enough people voice their opinions and demand action.
In the mean time, MS and the like are helping to create more individuals who are more likely to become desperate to the point of committing crime (just look at the piracy caused by overpriced software and the potential poverty inflicted on the families of employees of businesses they screwed). Since they are more desperate and have fewer options they seem more likely to be indiscriminate and therefore more of a personal threat which I suspect is why so many people who dismiss MS's more harmful actions hold the petty crooks with such contempt...
The simple fact of the matter is such monopolistic practices cost way more damage and affect way more people than the crimes of many people who are spending decades in prison and it's a total injustice for so many people to defend them.
The guy who started this thread may be modded as a troll, but he isn't the one who burned most of the bridges, charges $200 tolls for the one he lives under and attempts to kill anyone who tries to build more
Going off into space isn't instantaneous, if it were, it probably wouldn't help so much alone but there are a lot of technological innovations that have arisen from our previous and present efforts at space travel that benefit us currently. Not only would further strides in space exploration/colonization produce further innovations to help benefit us here on earth, but it could also help stimulate the economy by producing jobs and help prove that dreams actually are attainable as more people go to space or get jobs that help put people there.
I'm fairly certain that all of those factors could help reduce crime and improve society at least on some level.
I think it's ironic that so many people defend microsoft's illegal practices and policies. It's funny how people can see things in shades of grey when associated with a big entity (government or corporation) but everything is black and white when it comes to individuals.
Just because MS products are more popular and it may seem easier to use/support MS in some cases doesn't make it more justified. They are a giant corporation who can afford to "lose" some money to competition which is why it's more outrageous when they break the law. Why is their management punished so much less than someone who robs a bank or sells drugs out of desperation? That person who robbed the bank/sold drugs is always considered a criminal eventhough they almost always had way fewer options than a big entity does, eventhough in the long run the robbery/drugs affects way fewer people and the criminal has way fewer options.
Why does the big entity get defended more? Is it because the big entity is less criminal or because more people think it's in their own best interest to defend them?
Universities get plenty of government grants and free labor as well as tuition (not to mention profits from bookstores some of which have very jacked-up costs). Also, don't forget the fact that probably half of that sum is going out the Window for MS licensing (albeit discounted). I wouldn't be surprised to find a college is paid over a million every year by MS to teach their curriculum and *still* end up owing them money.
I've also noticed a big difference in how many businesses and colleges use/teach MS in east/west coast. I wonder how much of that is related to state funding...
Which only illustrates the point that the two main parties who rule.us are conservative (aka predominately corrupt) and considering they are the ones with most power, most americans feel that voting is simply an issue of choosing the lesser of the two evils [who is most likely to win].
A majority of american voters who actually care about issues and other citizens (ie they don't choose vote blindly on partisanship or popularity with friends) have major issues with most candidates of both parties and are resigned to the belief that that only one of those two parties stand a chance at winning.
I don't know for sure about to many others, but personally I was rejected over a year-old marijuana conviction upon my attempt to enter Canada after a three-day drive to the border. After which, I was immediately strip-searched and scolded over a copy of Backtrack in the gf's laptop upon re-entry and I know of at least one or two similar cases... I wouldn't doubt similar experience might have had a deterring effect on others who attempted to leave the country.
Funny how all of those who are always screaming for us to leave the country (rather than attempt to make this one better) simultaneously go out of their way to pressure other countries into legislation to further restrict our freedoms and make such an exit that much more difficult.
(Actually, I wasn't definitively planning to immigrate but strongly considering it if I could find work. The main point of that particular trip was to meet the gf's parents)
...Although it is apparent even to myself that I haven't properly grasped the concept of previewing a post or inserting /> tags when replying to posts on here, haha
One thing that you and many of the repliers to your comment seem to be neglecting is many of the phenomenon illustrated/discovered by the application/research of quantum physics which is, to my understanding (which I admit is limited), more or less the culmination of most mathematical studies as well as various realms of physics and cosmology. I mention this because it re-iterates the same philosophical question mentioned earlier of whether or not the apple truly exists when we are not there to perceive it.There is the possibility that it exists as something completely different when we aren't looking or that it doesn't exist in our universe at all until some cascading combination of very random factors collide with our perception to manifest it as an apple, hexagon, etc
Please don't flame me too bad, I never made it past 8th grade in school and can barely grasp basic algebra, it just seems odd to a simple laymen such as myself that you who seem to be professing a very solid grasp of mathematics by incorporating it into the fabric of reality seem to be dismissing what many great philosophers throughout time and modern physicists (and crashfrog) all seem to think are very valid questions/points. Much of the universe manifests itself based on our perception of it, both collective and individual. Insulting this guy (and in essence much of what many our race's greatest minds) because you think your particular understanding/perception is more valid seems a bit pompous, IMO.
I really suck at math and barely have a conceptual/laymen's understanding of these things which I am sure will be pointed out is apparent, but I just thought I'd throw in my two cents and point out the irony (assuming my primitive mind has at least grasped that concept properly and applied the term correctly).
Insightful?
I believe most of the people complaining about the price being only $50 cheaper and not worth the switch are those who dislike Linux and consider it a failure anyway unless I'm sorely mistaken
I believe you are mistaken in your conclusion and most of your supporting statements. I installed kubuntu for my 12 year old sister over a year ago (she's 13 now) and have only had to help her with a few minor problems like upgrading to Flash 9 before there was a package ready.
Many, if not most, Windows applications can be installed and used easily enough with wine. When my ex-girlfriend's Windows crashed and her 'recovery' cds weren't good enough to recover, I gave her a kubuntu cd to try. She had it installed in 30 minutes and the first thing she said was "I can't use this without the official YIM client" (paraphrased, but that's the jist of it). I told her I don't DO proprietary software and wasn't sure how to go about installing it on kde/ubuntu.
Within 5-10 minutes she had found simple and comprehensive documentation on how to install and setup all of her favorite and necessary Windows applications in ubuntu. Another 30-40 minutes, and she had Word, IE, YIM and several other Windows programs installed with icons and menu entries. I am still not sure how she did it.
My ex had 0 experience with Linux except what I had told her, which was pretty much just stuff about the opensource philosophy and some features I had mentioned. One of the biggest/best advantages of linux is how easily support and documentation can be found and used.
As for the other shortcomings you mentioned, they are shortcomings of the sites and those who developed them, not Ubuntu or Linux. Keep in mind which software/OSes are compliant to standards and which aren't. The question was: "Is Ubuntu good?", not "Is Ubuntu good at viewing substandard websites or running proprietary software for another OS out of the box?". Since it provides alternatives to most of the proprietary software you mentioned and clearly marks their function, as well as can be easily modified to run the proprietary counterparts, the answer to this question should be "Yes".
Most of the focus of the Linux is on the server and desktop market which is where most of the developers have the most experience and interest. Most aren't getting paid, why would they learn something they have no interest in and code something for scratch for free? Would you really trust an car mechanic to build you a plane from scratch? You'd be stupid for flying in it and he'd be stupid for trying to build it in the first place unless he had a real interest and/or aptitude for it or was at least getting compensated heavily for learning, implementing and testing everything needed. Windows developers develop more business software because (big surprise) they are the ones who are interested in money and invest time learning how such matters work.
ericcartman: Just curious, where are you from? I don't know if you know this, but the government and educational segments are really about the only places where Linux is actually taking off. Many countries have already abandoned MS *entirely*, both in their government and the school system. In other countries MS never had a foothold to begin with because hardware and software were both too expensive until recently. That isn't the only reason why governments are using Linux, mind you, but it is a very important factor in developing countries and in countries that want to most efficiently use their citizen's money and actually keep their data safe.
They teach MS Office and Photoshop at community colleges as well. One *could* argue that it is because their instructors & directors are too dumb to know better or too lazy to even care about alternatives. That argument could be applicable to universities as well as technical colleges and sounds just as plausible as 'MS software must be better because it is what the teachers teach with'. I was originally taught addition with an abacus, but that doesn't mean it is better than a calculator.
Ummm... all package managers have some sort of search functionality to search through package names & descriptions. These search filters are even more advanced in their graphical frontends. It is as easy, if not easier, than searching google and sifting through results for Windows software.
Not just Ubuntu. There have been graphical frontends to every major package management system available for years. Since the late 90's it has been just as easy to get about with a GUI in Linux since late 90's early 2000's 90% of the time, and the better/free software offset the few cases where it really might be necessary to touch the command line to install or fix a given application. Keep in mind that in the remain 10% of cases, there is easily available documentation to reference or other free alternatives to try before consulting the docs if one wishes. If you are desperate and want, you can use mailing lists or forums or irc channels with dozens, hundreds or even thousands of knowledgable volunteers who are willing to help.
In contrast, in Windows-land, documentation is much more sparse and harder to find. When you encounter a problem, you *can't* try to debug it from the command line if you want. You must wait on the vendor to get around to finding a solution and supplying a fix of some sort, sift through thousands of sites with half-functional shareware, sift through sites proclaiming to have free software that is never really free until you find an alternative that really is free or has the functionality you want in shareware version, or actually risk buying new replacement software and having the same thing happen again. There are way fewer support avenues or documentation most of the time because it necessitates *gasp* letting someone know how their software works. Sometimes there is tech support lines you can call where the clueless operators will try to read a script for ya and maybe take down your name and notify you in 2-4 weeks with a url for the fix.
Just because command line exists doesn't mean anyone is forced to use it. It is there for those who aren't too lazy/dumb/unmotivated to use google 5 minutes and copy/paste some commands as well as advanced users.
Regarding competitive business:
One of the fundamental characteristics of capitalism and free trade is that competition promotes innovation and growth. Just because an opensource project uses some of the same code doesn't mean it's bad or isn't innovative. One of the beauties of opensource is that you are free to take the parts of existing code and use them and modify/improve the rest to your specifications. As I was told quite often in my programming classes: Why re-invent the wheel? Especially when you can take a pre-existing wheel and modify it a little to produce a better one. It is always necessary to start everything from scratch. Most people never do start from scratch, even commercial developers, unless certain innovations make it necessary. If it isn't necessary, they use any preexisting code they have and/or modify it to fit their needs.
With opensource projects, there just happens to be a MUCH bigger repository of code to choose from because of the other opensource projects. You can learn from their code and incorporate it in your own.
I was stating that it inspires innovation and such between competitors. That is the essence of competition, doing better than your competitors. When I see noone is buying my product because you have a better one, then i strive that much harder to make mine better.
Regarding photoshop:
People wouldn't be buying it if there was a cheaper solution that worked as well (or if they knew about one).
Another reason why I personally recommend it is because a lot of open projects are just that: more open, better documented, etc. Because of this, a lot of the time, more of the users understand how it works and can help to support other users. Many open software projects have forums and/or chat rooms where users can go and ask questions directly from software developers and designers who helped develop the software. This is not very often the case with commercial software from what I've seen.
On top of this, I personally try to use only open software whenever possible. Therefore I don't even know how to help anyone out with most closed solutions I might have heard of and suggested. However in many cases I have had experience with an open solution for the same thing, and can be of help with it, so I recommend it rather than the closed solution because I know they will probably come to me for help with whatever I recommend them, heh.
If you know that software A is more efficient, faster, simpler, etc, how is it a bad thing to recommend it over software B? Recommending a better solution to any problem/task isn't a "liberal" attribute, it is a "nice person" attribute.
Of course, opensource isn't *always* the best solution and if your software truly is better, then most "liberal" opensource advocates will realize this and not bug you so much about switching. The only time I usually see an open source advocate trying to push their opinion on anyone is when the person they're talking to obviously doesn't understand the technical reasons why the open solution is better so they think the closed one is, they believe open solutions are communist, or they're just too close minded to even see if they might like it.
It is nothing like christianity being forced down people's throats. Most open source advocates don't really suggest solutions to people unless they ask about a solution or are bitching about a problem with a current solution. I've rarely seen one who just out of the blue started recommending accepting Linus or RMS as the messiah and handing out pamphlets to random people, or going door-to-door and reading x.org source code to whoever opens the door and try to discuss it with them. THAT is forcing something down people's throats, not recommending a solution to a problem.
By creating more competition amongst developers, they are all forced to put more thought into their code and pay more attention to what their user's want/need. That is why microsoft has sucked for so long...for years there was no adequate competition so many of their programs were just thrown out there without adequate testing or full regard to user needs.
The end result of spreading software use across the board is that all of the vendors start having developing better programs to sway users away from their competitors and they often become more innovative, careful, etc. This means that users of proprietary software are more likely to get their money's worth and that users of opensource software get even better software, comparable to proprietary solutions, for free:).
This also has the added advantage of encouraging the commercial software developers to lower the prices for their software, which is often very expensive. Not to mention it drives user's towards opensource projects which are need more users because their software is free and often are only supported via user donations. Because they're opensource and contribute to the knowledge of the community, it is generally more of a public service to get them more users in hopes that some of them will donate something to help sustain the opensource project(s) as long as possible.
It's messed that some states are starting to tax merchandise bought online but this is is outright absurd. I wonder what if you're paying for an anti-virus solution and you have to continually download new definitions or some other form of update/upgrade for previously paid for software? Is he saying that you have to pay for *all* downloads or just downloads you're supposed to pay for? what if they downloads are homed, created and purchased from aonther state? That is just stupid!
afaik, they're already going to add anti-viral software, they just want to charge for it. if he said something other than 'Antivirus is not a thing you build in', then people would ask why they have to pay extra for it, etc. it's all about the $$
it's hard to imagine that anyone with half a brain could unintentionally write code so buggy and insecure, especially if they're getting six figures & sponsered by a multi-billion dollar company.
i admit that the popularity of windows makes it a bigger target, but that same popularity is what gives them the $$ to hire a half-decent staff & do good r&d and is the prime reason to design with security in mind. apparently they haven't done much of either. even their security patches have security flaws. when was the last time they distributed a patch that wasn't vulnerable to attack or buggy and didn't require another patch to fix it? i've never patched anything in linux with the same disasterous results.
if the people who do it for free can do it faster, with better performance, better security and no capital, why can't m$?
other oses are secure enough to NOT NEED IT. when you design/distribute somethin *THAT* faulty it should come with some form of protection. the aforementioned auto-safety analogy is a good one.
is it ok for auto-manufacturers to distribute cars without seatbelts and that don't take keys when you live in harlem, it's the weekend and your car alarm doesn't work?
Slashdot Mirror
A feature to the wealthy 10-20% of the population, a bug for the rest. It will become more apparent as the rich percentile gets lower and wealthier, forcing the rest to suffer more. I hope that by the "feature" statement you weren't indicating approval. Hopefully it won't take *too* much longer for everyone to get fed up enough to start protesting/boycotting more, thereby helping to fuel competition while concurrently informing monopolistic/criminal companies that their actions aren't tolerated and that their client base cares more about credibility and technical innovation than marketing schemes and business size.
Do you know how many times I've heard LEO or judges say "ignorance of the law is no excuse" or some such? I suppose that only applies to petty/poor criminals as well. All though I don't feel it is an exactly fair outlook I do believe the law should be applied fairly to everyone regardless number of lawyers, total income or position in society.
It doesn't get defended more? How many of the people who so passionately defend M$ would even think twice about or feel sorry for a drug dealer who gives a small few the option to hurt themselves rather than intentionally lie to/mislead great masses into hurting themselves or forcing them out of business (and their employees out of income)? Because they are rich the completely apathetic/complacent beliefs our society has come to embrace pretty much gives them right to get away with whatever they want? Because a bunch of people got screwed repeatedly growing up it becomes an accepted fact of life to be embraced as long as you are doing the screwing or someone else is getting screwed? This endorsement of abuse of authority will screw everyone in the long run, not just the few you hear about. We are all be silently screwed whether we like to admit it and defending it only exacerbates the problem until enough people voice their opinions and demand action.
In the mean time, MS and the like are helping to create more individuals who are more likely to become desperate to the point of committing crime (just look at the piracy caused by overpriced software and the potential poverty inflicted on the families of employees of businesses they screwed). Since they are more desperate and have fewer options they seem more likely to be indiscriminate and therefore more of a personal threat which I suspect is why so many people who dismiss MS's more harmful actions hold the petty crooks with such contempt...
The simple fact of the matter is such monopolistic practices cost way more damage and affect way more people than the crimes of many people who are spending decades in prison and it's a total injustice for so many people to defend them.
The guy who started this thread may be modded as a troll, but he isn't the one who burned most of the bridges, charges $200 tolls for the one he lives under and attempts to kill anyone who tries to build more
Going off into space isn't instantaneous, if it were, it probably wouldn't help so much alone but there are a lot of technological innovations that have arisen from our previous and present efforts at space travel that benefit us currently. Not only would further strides in space exploration/colonization produce further innovations to help benefit us here on earth, but it could also help stimulate the economy by producing jobs and help prove that dreams actually are attainable as more people go to space or get jobs that help put people there.
I'm fairly certain that all of those factors could help reduce crime and improve society at least on some level.
I *really* need to stop posting these so zealously and preview/format appropratiely, haha. Let's just pretend the paragraph breaks are there ;)
I think it's ironic that so many people defend microsoft's illegal practices and policies. It's funny how people can see things in shades of grey when associated with a big entity (government or corporation) but everything is black and white when it comes to individuals. Just because MS products are more popular and it may seem easier to use/support MS in some cases doesn't make it more justified. They are a giant corporation who can afford to "lose" some money to competition which is why it's more outrageous when they break the law. Why is their management punished so much less than someone who robs a bank or sells drugs out of desperation? That person who robbed the bank/sold drugs is always considered a criminal eventhough they almost always had way fewer options than a big entity does, eventhough in the long run the robbery/drugs affects way fewer people and the criminal has way fewer options. Why does the big entity get defended more? Is it because the big entity is less criminal or because more people think it's in their own best interest to defend them?
Universities get plenty of government grants and free labor as well as tuition (not to mention profits from bookstores some of which have very jacked-up costs). Also, don't forget the fact that probably half of that sum is going out the Window for MS licensing (albeit discounted). I wouldn't be surprised to find a college is paid over a million every year by MS to teach their curriculum and *still* end up owing them money. I've also noticed a big difference in how many businesses and colleges use/teach MS in east/west coast. I wonder how much of that is related to state funding...
Which only illustrates the point that the two main parties who rule .us are conservative (aka predominately corrupt) and considering they are the ones with most power, most americans feel that voting is simply an issue of choosing the lesser of the two evils [who is most likely to win].
A majority of american voters who actually care about issues and other citizens (ie they don't choose vote blindly on partisanship or popularity with friends) have major issues with most candidates of both parties and are resigned to the belief that that only one of those two parties stand a chance at winning.
I don't know for sure about to many others, but personally I was rejected over a year-old marijuana conviction upon my attempt to enter Canada after a three-day drive to the border. After which, I was immediately strip-searched and scolded over a copy of Backtrack in the gf's laptop upon re-entry and I know of at least one or two similar cases... I wouldn't doubt similar experience might have had a deterring effect on others who attempted to leave the country. Funny how all of those who are always screaming for us to leave the country (rather than attempt to make this one better) simultaneously go out of their way to pressure other countries into legislation to further restrict our freedoms and make such an exit that much more difficult. (Actually, I wasn't definitively planning to immigrate but strongly considering it if I could find work. The main point of that particular trip was to meet the gf's parents)
...Although it is apparent even to myself that I haven't properly grasped the concept of previewing a post or inserting/> tags when replying to posts on here, haha
One thing that you and many of the repliers to your comment seem to be neglecting is many of the phenomenon illustrated/discovered by the application/research of quantum physics which is, to my understanding (which I admit is limited), more or less the culmination of most mathematical studies as well as various realms of physics and cosmology. I mention this because it re-iterates the same philosophical question mentioned earlier of whether or not the apple truly exists when we are not there to perceive it.There is the possibility that it exists as something completely different when we aren't looking or that it doesn't exist in our universe at all until some cascading combination of very random factors collide with our perception to manifest it as an apple, hexagon, etc Please don't flame me too bad, I never made it past 8th grade in school and can barely grasp basic algebra, it just seems odd to a simple laymen such as myself that you who seem to be professing a very solid grasp of mathematics by incorporating it into the fabric of reality seem to be dismissing what many great philosophers throughout time and modern physicists (and crashfrog) all seem to think are very valid questions/points. Much of the universe manifests itself based on our perception of it, both collective and individual. Insulting this guy (and in essence much of what many our race's greatest minds) because you think your particular understanding/perception is more valid seems a bit pompous, IMO. I really suck at math and barely have a conceptual/laymen's understanding of these things which I am sure will be pointed out is apparent, but I just thought I'd throw in my two cents and point out the irony (assuming my primitive mind has at least grasped that concept properly and applied the term correctly).
Insightful? I believe most of the people complaining about the price being only $50 cheaper and not worth the switch are those who dislike Linux and consider it a failure anyway unless I'm sorely mistaken
I believe you are mistaken in your conclusion and most of your supporting statements. I installed kubuntu for my 12 year old sister over a year ago (she's 13 now) and have only had to help her with a few minor problems like upgrading to Flash 9 before there was a package ready.
Many, if not most, Windows applications can be installed and used easily enough with wine. When my ex-girlfriend's Windows crashed and her 'recovery' cds weren't good enough to recover, I gave her a kubuntu cd to try. She had it installed in 30 minutes and the first thing she said was "I can't use this without the official YIM client" (paraphrased, but that's the jist of it). I told her I don't DO proprietary software and wasn't sure how to go about installing it on kde/ubuntu.
Within 5-10 minutes she had found simple and comprehensive documentation on how to install and setup all of her favorite and necessary Windows applications in ubuntu. Another 30-40 minutes, and she had Word, IE, YIM and several other Windows programs installed with icons and menu entries. I am still not sure how she did it.
My ex had 0 experience with Linux except what I had told her, which was pretty much just stuff about the opensource philosophy and some features I had mentioned. One of the biggest/best advantages of linux is how easily support and documentation can be found and used.
As for the other shortcomings you mentioned, they are shortcomings of the sites and those who developed them, not Ubuntu or Linux. Keep in mind which software/OSes are compliant to standards and which aren't. The question was: "Is Ubuntu good?", not "Is Ubuntu good at viewing substandard websites or running proprietary software for another OS out of the box?". Since it provides alternatives to most of the proprietary software you mentioned and clearly marks their function, as well as can be easily modified to run the proprietary counterparts, the answer to this question should be "Yes".
http://www.dellideastorm.com/article/show/64210/Ge t_Linux_certified_by_a_wellestablished_FOSS_compan y_whose_motives_are_clear
Most of the focus of the Linux is on the server and desktop market which is where most of the developers have the most experience and interest. Most aren't getting paid, why would they learn something they have no interest in and code something for scratch for free? Would you really trust an car mechanic to build you a plane from scratch? You'd be stupid for flying in it and he'd be stupid for trying to build it in the first place unless he had a real interest and/or aptitude for it or was at least getting compensated heavily for learning, implementing and testing everything needed. Windows developers develop more business software because (big surprise) they are the ones who are interested in money and invest time learning how such matters work.
ericcartman: Just curious, where are you from? I don't know if you know this, but the government and educational segments are really about the only places where Linux is actually taking off. Many countries have already abandoned MS *entirely*, both in their government and the school system. In other countries MS never had a foothold to begin with because hardware and software were both too expensive until recently. That isn't the only reason why governments are using Linux, mind you, but it is a very important factor in developing countries and in countries that want to most efficiently use their citizen's money and actually keep their data safe.
They teach MS Office and Photoshop at community colleges as well. One *could* argue that it is because their instructors & directors are too dumb to know better or too lazy to even care about alternatives. That argument could be applicable to universities as well as technical colleges and sounds just as plausible as 'MS software must be better because it is what the teachers teach with'. I was originally taught addition with an abacus, but that doesn't mean it is better than a calculator.
Ummm... all package managers have some sort of search functionality to search through package names & descriptions. These search filters are even more advanced in their graphical frontends. It is as easy, if not easier, than searching google and sifting through results for Windows software.
Not just Ubuntu. There have been graphical frontends to every major package management system available for years. Since the late 90's it has been just as easy to get about with a GUI in Linux since late 90's early 2000's 90% of the time, and the better/free software offset the few cases where it really might be necessary to touch the command line to install or fix a given application. Keep in mind that in the remain 10% of cases, there is easily available documentation to reference or other free alternatives to try before consulting the docs if one wishes. If you are desperate and want, you can use mailing lists or forums or irc channels with dozens, hundreds or even thousands of knowledgable volunteers who are willing to help. In contrast, in Windows-land, documentation is much more sparse and harder to find. When you encounter a problem, you *can't* try to debug it from the command line if you want. You must wait on the vendor to get around to finding a solution and supplying a fix of some sort, sift through thousands of sites with half-functional shareware, sift through sites proclaiming to have free software that is never really free until you find an alternative that really is free or has the functionality you want in shareware version, or actually risk buying new replacement software and having the same thing happen again. There are way fewer support avenues or documentation most of the time because it necessitates *gasp* letting someone know how their software works. Sometimes there is tech support lines you can call where the clueless operators will try to read a script for ya and maybe take down your name and notify you in 2-4 weeks with a url for the fix. Just because command line exists doesn't mean anyone is forced to use it. It is there for those who aren't too lazy/dumb/unmotivated to use google 5 minutes and copy/paste some commands as well as advanced users.
Regarding competitive business:
One of the fundamental characteristics of capitalism and free trade is that competition promotes innovation and growth. Just because an opensource project uses some of the same code doesn't mean it's bad or isn't innovative. One of the beauties of opensource is that you are free to take the parts of existing code and use them and modify/improve the rest to your specifications. As I was told quite often in my programming classes: Why re-invent the wheel? Especially when you can take a pre-existing wheel and modify it a little to produce a better one. It is always necessary to start everything from scratch. Most people never do start from scratch, even commercial developers, unless certain innovations make it necessary. If it isn't necessary, they use any preexisting code they have and/or modify it to fit their needs. With opensource projects, there just happens to be a MUCH bigger repository of code to choose from because of the other opensource projects. You can learn from their code and incorporate it in your own.
I was stating that it inspires innovation and such between competitors. That is the essence of competition, doing better than your competitors. When I see noone is buying my product because you have a better one, then i strive that much harder to make mine better.
Regarding photoshop:
People wouldn't be buying it if there was a cheaper solution that worked as well (or if they knew about one).
Another reason why I personally recommend it is because a lot of open projects are just that: more open, better documented, etc. Because of this, a lot of the time, more of the users understand how it works and can help to support other users. Many open software projects have forums and/or chat rooms where users can go and ask questions directly from software developers and designers who helped develop the software. This is not very often the case with commercial software from what I've seen. On top of this, I personally try to use only open software whenever possible. Therefore I don't even know how to help anyone out with most closed solutions I might have heard of and suggested. However in many cases I have had experience with an open solution for the same thing, and can be of help with it, so I recommend it rather than the closed solution because I know they will probably come to me for help with whatever I recommend them, heh.
If you know that software A is more efficient, faster, simpler, etc, how is it a bad thing to recommend it over software B? Recommending a better solution to any problem/task isn't a "liberal" attribute, it is a "nice person" attribute. Of course, opensource isn't *always* the best solution and if your software truly is better, then most "liberal" opensource advocates will realize this and not bug you so much about switching. The only time I usually see an open source advocate trying to push their opinion on anyone is when the person they're talking to obviously doesn't understand the technical reasons why the open solution is better so they think the closed one is, they believe open solutions are communist, or they're just too close minded to even see if they might like it. It is nothing like christianity being forced down people's throats. Most open source advocates don't really suggest solutions to people unless they ask about a solution or are bitching about a problem with a current solution. I've rarely seen one who just out of the blue started recommending accepting Linus or RMS as the messiah and handing out pamphlets to random people, or going door-to-door and reading x.org source code to whoever opens the door and try to discuss it with them. THAT is forcing something down people's throats, not recommending a solution to a problem.
By creating more competition amongst developers, they are all forced to put more thought into their code and pay more attention to what their user's want/need. That is why microsoft has sucked for so long...for years there was no adequate competition so many of their programs were just thrown out there without adequate testing or full regard to user needs.
:).
The end result of spreading software use across the board is that all of the vendors start having developing better programs to sway users away from their competitors and they often become more innovative, careful, etc. This means that users of proprietary software are more likely to get their money's worth and that users of opensource software get even better software, comparable to proprietary solutions, for free
This also has the added advantage of encouraging the commercial software developers to lower the prices for their software, which is often very expensive. Not to mention it drives user's towards opensource projects which are need more users because their software is free and often are only supported via user donations. Because they're opensource and contribute to the knowledge of the community, it is generally more of a public service to get them more users in hopes that some of them will donate something to help sustain the opensource project(s) as long as possible.
It's messed that some states are starting to tax merchandise bought online but this is is outright absurd. I wonder what if you're paying for an anti-virus solution and you have to continually download new definitions or some other form of update/upgrade for previously paid for software? Is he saying that you have to pay for *all* downloads or just downloads you're supposed to pay for? what if they downloads are homed, created and purchased from aonther state? That is just stupid!
afaik, they're already going to add anti-viral software, they just want to charge for it. if he said something other than 'Antivirus is not a thing you build in', then people would ask why they have to pay extra for it, etc. it's all about the $$
it's hard to imagine that anyone with half a brain could unintentionally write code so buggy and insecure, especially if they're getting six figures & sponsered by a multi-billion dollar company. i admit that the popularity of windows makes it a bigger target, but that same popularity is what gives them the $$ to hire a half-decent staff & do good r&d and is the prime reason to design with security in mind. apparently they haven't done much of either. even their security patches have security flaws. when was the last time they distributed a patch that wasn't vulnerable to attack or buggy and didn't require another patch to fix it? i've never patched anything in linux with the same disasterous results. if the people who do it for free can do it faster, with better performance, better security and no capital, why can't m$?
other oses are secure enough to NOT NEED IT. when you design/distribute somethin *THAT* faulty it should come with some form of protection. the aforementioned auto-safety analogy is a good one.
is it ok for auto-manufacturers to distribute cars without seatbelts and that don't take keys when you live in harlem, it's the weekend and your car alarm doesn't work?