With Microsoft releasing.NET in the way that they are, the browser is an ESSENTIAL tool in their arsenal to have. And IE market share only furthers the use of.NET in a corporate setting, and that prolongs the life of Microsoft being used with the dominance they have been..NET is easy to develop, works in a web browser (so users don't have to install software), and is cross OS compliant (since it's thru a browser).
The unfortunate part for Microsoft is, if they lose the browser war or at least, let another competitor have CREDENCE in the marketplace, they too will be forced to update the.NET framework to support those existances because the environment demands it.
However much I LOVE Firefox... I don't see Microsoft sitting down and taking a beating. They do have talented engineers there... they just need to focus their bearings, get what people asked for INTO IE, and then play the catchup game of security against Firefox. It's going to be a long hard road for both browsers, but to say the fight is irrelevant is missing the whole point of web-enabled technologies. Good thing that so many corporate enterprises are investing into Firefox:) Amazon, Google, and now O'Reilly... they may not be giving money to Mozilla, but they are doing the advertising for free... and that's a great step forward.
The core of Microsoft has been based on piracy in general. Kids in high school and college 'get a copy' of Windows from a friend, get a copy of Office from a friend, then put it on their PCs and learn to integrate it into their normal daily lives. When they leave school and eventually enter the workforce, their knowledge from using this software translates into what they recommend for their businesses to use, as well as what they WANT to use.
It's amazing to me that Microsoft has yet to realize the shortcomings in its long term business plan, especially with regard to market penetration -- they are simply removing themselves from the equation. I know when I was in high school I got a copy of Windows 95 and graduated to get a copy of Visual Studio, and taught myself Visual Basic. That helped me to land my first job, and I know I'm not the only one. My knowledge in MS products makes me a valuable asset. What will happen a few generations from now when companies find themselves struggling to support their Microsoft based environment because they have to spend big bucks on training for their employees, as well as having a general lack of people with that knowledge entering the workforce? I'll tell you what they will do -- they will switch. The money alone will necessitate it.
I'm not saying that Microsoft isn't right in their stance -- they totally are. There are people (like myself) who have pirated their software years ago and gained great knowledge by doing that. I made myself an asset when I entered the workforce and found a job within a Microsoft environment. But if I don't pay for their software, they shouldn't have to update/support it. However, Microsoft's primary source of income is not from a kid like myself, but from the corporations that buy licenses for each seat and user they have, in addition to training classes and the like. There will be a point of no return, and with a hardline stance on piracy, it's going to come sooner rather than later.
Then you will find companies like Red Hat that offer Fedora free to learn Linux becoming more appealing. Software like OpenOffice will become more heavily developed and at some point, equals or greater than their Microsoft counterparts in terms of usability and feature richness. I do not see Mac becoming too big in market penetration because of their proprietary standards with regard to their hardware, and exorbitant pricing. For that $500 Mac Mini, I can't play a SINGLE game well, even if it were OSX Compatible. I need to buy a much more beefy Mac if I want to use it for every day use -- and my use goes beyond "checking my email", and this is just going to be a common trend as computers become more a part of our lives.
So what I'm trying to say is that... while Microsoft is right in what they WANT to do, they shouldn't do it because the amount of money they will recover is going to be pennies compared to what they will lose in the long term.
I had to GRADUATE from college to start reading at all, and I've read four books nearly non-stop, and with a good attention span to boot!
The article in question doesn't draw the line between novels and learning -- novels are stories, and if it's a good story it can be very engrossing, though as my experience can prove -- it's not a task taken up by every person, nor easily taken up, especially with my own propensity to watch TV rather than read because it's easier.
I think this article refers more to younger kids learning, but since kids have a propensity to learn much faster and much better than adults, logic would follow that a computer game that uses some algorithms to determine how fast a person is say, learning to do arithmetic, can pace that child and accelerate his learning as compared to traditional books. And since the introduction to technology is generally a learning experience in itself.. it just opens a child's mind more and makes them better 'learners'. This is a great example of why each generation tends to be smarter and more productive than the previous one, though I'm convinced that my generation (24 years old here) is probably the laziest generation -- but we are still damn smart.
But I am convinced there will be hell on earth soon.. I have already made preparations.......
Re:For someone who is not completely clueless, whi
on
Netscape Reborn?
·
· Score: 1
If you're not completely clueless, you will already know Netscape is part of AOL, and that AOL sucks, which would move you away from this altogether:)
Re:What does this mean for Netscape the ISP?
on
Netscape Reborn?
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Most people know however, that Netscape was 'defeated'.
Why would you market a browser brand name that was already defeated handily by Internet Exploder? Most people know this, and others will simply ask their friends "Is Netscape any good?" with the simple reply, "I don't know, but I use Internet Exploder."
What do you think people will buy into more easily?
From what I extrapolated... AOL is going to take the Firefox codebase and try to make their own unique browser, INSTEAD of doing what you and I both suggest -- just invest in Firefox itself and then rebrand it with AOL logos.
They could then have the 'Firefox Powered by AOL' or some such tagline which leaves intact the Firefox marque and positive PR, and removes the association of AOL's prior stupid business moves.
Why would AOL decide to invest again in Netscape when time and time again, it's only shown to be a pig? The smarter thing to do would be to give the funding to the Mozilla corporation as well as lending expertise and then, instead of making Netscape their project again, they simply use the open source nature of Firefox to rebrand a browser that is getting great.
However given AOL's history of stupidity this comes as no suprise. Firefox has momentum, it has great praise for its features and stability, it has speed, and it has -- more than anything else -- good PR going for it. The idiocy of AOL starting competition against a program now that has a poor history (even if Firefox is based on the Netscape code) is not good. It's like Yugo coming out with a new automobile when they see Hyundai doing well -- their history is so poor that it will be shunned by the community -- even if it's based on the same product.
Sorry at my frustration... but AOL has a history of bad business moves and this just adds to that wonderful history. No point in going 'smart' now... it would ruin their record.
The comment made "we're not going to build a browser" does not mean they won't release Firefox with Google extensions pre-installed. They won't be building a browser and that's 100% truthful to what Schmidt said, however they could be releasing Firefox extensions which only reinforces on the article posted yesterday on/. about how developers can use the plugin engine of Firefox to develop rich web applications.
Personally I'd love to see some good Google extensions for Firefox. I would NOT like them to build a browser, or even take Firefox and rebrand it. Let Firefox remain in the realm of open source and in Mozilla's guiding hands, and Google can simply contribute to the open source movement AND capture market share at the same time.
I rarely search my PC for any files, because I know where everythign is and it's faster for me just to browse a directory than type in the search requirements.
I am not one to judge whether MySQL is inferior or superior to any given database.. all I know is that for my needs (my website) it's free, it works, and doesn't seem slow but then again, I only get ~5-7 million hits a month... not daily:)
Or does it seem rather amusing that IE, a poorly written browser with many security holes that *brilliantly* links into the OS (not), allows poor code not to crash it...
Then again... properly written code it seems to have problems with.
Well with the onslaught of Gmail users.. Google has the opportunity to extend their email IDs by going with Jabber. This makes it effortless for existing Gmail users to use a new IM client, since they have already signed up and have an ID and password.
Google could monitor our chat using software, and then when we use our email, deliver more targeted ads to the accounts. I know this isn't going to be a popular idea -- but it's harmless and gives them profit -- which is what a business is designed to do. And if I can keep using Trillian, then I'll be a happy camper.
Because almost EVERY IM client out there is a total piece of trash and spyware. I am a huge fan of Trillian, and having a Google IM client that finally makes Jabber mainstream will be a great thing -- not to mention I should be able to use Trillian to connect and chat with contacts.
Now if only Google would allow me to use Gmail in my Outlook... I could replace my ISP email entirely:)
No, I don't think so. The reason OSX does so well now, is because its stability is quite good. In Anandtech's review (and my own experience), OSX and Windows had about the same amount of crashes and lockups, but OSX could recover from most where Windows sometimes could not.
That said... Windows runs on THOUSANDS of configurations. OSX is designed to work with specific hardware. If OSX started supporting multiple chipsets, RAM, video cards, etc... it would not be NEARLY as stable as it is today -- that's just a simple fact. And I'm not saying it can't be done... but Apple simply doesn't have the resources to do it. They don't have the manpower nor the capital to start supporting drivers for each piece of hardware on the market, like Microsoft does.
However, if a way was found around the budget and human constraints for Apple (perhaps other capital, more investment, etc), then this could be feasible in the future. And to that end, would be great for the end-users because it would cause both companies to innovate and develop software APIs that are friendly to developers of all kinds. For me, a Mac is useless because I am a heavy gamer and not much else -- and for that, the Mac lags behind in both variety and support of games. If however, Apple's OSX API was better to develop for than say, Direct X, and allowed more functionality and less code -- developers could make it happen.
And that's what I'd LOVE to see. I don't care about it being Mac or Windows -- if it doesn't play my games, it isn't worth shit. Period.
Unlimited downloads per month, flat rate price. Currently the record industry makes $.80 per song on $.99 charged, then the music store has to subtract overhead like bandwith and server costs, and then is left with a miniscule profit. It's obscene and the RIAA is just trying to run a cartel with the music industry. People will continue to pirate if there's still a premium on soft copy of music -- at the same price hijaack that we complain about CDs. If you buy 12 songs (or one CD) it's $12, and you can buy the actual CD with cover art and all for the same price -- there's no discount even though you're missing all the extras.
Secondly... there *has* to be a LAUNCHcast type service (from Yahoo!, it ROCKS). It's an online radio station that lets you -- get this! -- skip songs you don't like and rate what you do like, and the radio will customize to let you listen to what you may like.
I don't personally care if they use a 'protected' format, as long as the quality is good. AAC seems to be great, and OGG is obviously great, but the record companies want security, so let them have it. Just give up on overpriced music -- consumers can decide for themselves what is good and what is not. I'd pay $15 a month for unlimited downloads that I can burn to CD and put in my car. It encourages artists to go and sign up with this service (at least for GOOD artists) because people will be more likely to go see their concerts -- and anybody who knows music, knows that musicians make most money from touring, not from crap record deals. It's only the artists that won't be around long (ala Nstink, Backdoor Boys, etc) that need those CD sales because whatever money they get... won't last, and every penny counts for their short lived careers.
is how a video card can cost upwards of $400, and a processor AND motherboard that run faster and involve more R&D can cost less than that combined.
I have a 9800 Pro that I bought for $198, and I am certain that will carry me thru for another year or so until the x800 XT becomes $200, then I'll upgrade to the 'midrange' card again. I don't need bleeding edge technology -- I can suffice by lowering the quality settings to play games. If I am playing single player, I can turn up the eyecandy because FPS don't really matter, and if I'm playing online, then I turn them down to get the high FPS.
There's really no need to buy a $400 graphics card, and no need for them to cost that much. It's just for players who need the extra 5 or 10FPS when they are already in the 50 FPS range... which is damn stupid.
Give me a break. Linux is great, but if the applications, databases, etc... run in a Windows environment it's going to be a HUGE undertaking (not to mention cost) to convert over to Linux.
The problem with Windows is, that it requires good sysadmins who keep on top of patches, on top of virus updates, implement firewalls properly at the internet edge, and lock down the domain to ensure that nobody can do anything stupid at their workstation. At my work, the second the JPEG vulnerability was found out about, we disabled.JPG, and.JPEG files at the firewall level. We ensured patches were updated to protect us, and we have a three week 'cooling off' before we reinstitute jpegs to have access to the network.
The Colorado DMV is just an example of poor system administration. This is not a Windows or Linux/Unix problem, it's a problem of idiocy. And if you are a stupid sysadmin, then Linux or Windows -- you are going to get nailed. It's just funny how when Windows gets nailed/.ers are happy to jump on the "Windows Sucks" bandwagon but when it's Linux... must be something else. I have respect for both OSes, but both have to be administered right to work to their effective levels.
There used to be a pretty tried and true idea, that people are willing to pay for what they get. It's not true universally, but it's relatively speaking, pretty true.
I still, suprisingly buy music. I do too, also pirate some, but they are deleted in short order. It's the nature of the industry nowadays -- most artists know they won't last longer than a few years and the goal is to get every penny they can. Look at Metallica, now winding down their career (because it was downhill anyway) -- they started out singing against the 'man', 'halls of justice painted green, money talkin', and then use the same method they preached against to get damages awarded because they don't want to tour as much and have real shitty music they now sell.
But I digress... the music industry can't demand money for what people don't want to pay. Everybody now knows it doesn't cost $15 to make and package a CD, especially with the explosion in technology and the price cuts it has brought for the creation and distribution of everything. When a CD costs pennies to make and distribute, all you are saying is that, when customers don't want to pay the money to buy a CD with 1 good song on it, and further, don't want to pay $1 for a single song because it's missing a 'hard' copy and isn't really a discount well... you are being stubborn and you are going to get nailed. And the industry is getting nailed, by piraters everywhere. If music labels started doing a 'LaunchCast' type service (which I *love*), then all would be well. You subscribe monthly for say, $10.00, and people download and listen to all the music they want.
Slashdot Mirror
Too bad they still ship a one button mouse.
What a bunch of morons -- just on idiotic principle they leave out oodles of usability.
With Microsoft releasing .NET in the way that they are, the browser is an ESSENTIAL tool in their arsenal to have. And IE market share only furthers the use of .NET in a corporate setting, and that prolongs the life of Microsoft being used with the dominance they have been. .NET is easy to develop, works in a web browser (so users don't have to install software), and is cross OS compliant (since it's thru a browser).
.NET framework to support those existances because the environment demands it.
:) Amazon, Google, and now O'Reilly... they may not be giving money to Mozilla, but they are doing the advertising for free... and that's a great step forward.
The unfortunate part for Microsoft is, if they lose the browser war or at least, let another competitor have CREDENCE in the marketplace, they too will be forced to update the
However much I LOVE Firefox... I don't see Microsoft sitting down and taking a beating. They do have talented engineers there... they just need to focus their bearings, get what people asked for INTO IE, and then play the catchup game of security against Firefox. It's going to be a long hard road for both browsers, but to say the fight is irrelevant is missing the whole point of web-enabled technologies. Good thing that so many corporate enterprises are investing into Firefox
The core of Microsoft has been based on piracy in general. Kids in high school and college 'get a copy' of Windows from a friend, get a copy of Office from a friend, then put it on their PCs and learn to integrate it into their normal daily lives. When they leave school and eventually enter the workforce, their knowledge from using this software translates into what they recommend for their businesses to use, as well as what they WANT to use.
... while Microsoft is right in what they WANT to do, they shouldn't do it because the amount of money they will recover is going to be pennies compared to what they will lose in the long term.
It's amazing to me that Microsoft has yet to realize the shortcomings in its long term business plan, especially with regard to market penetration -- they are simply removing themselves from the equation. I know when I was in high school I got a copy of Windows 95 and graduated to get a copy of Visual Studio, and taught myself Visual Basic. That helped me to land my first job, and I know I'm not the only one. My knowledge in MS products makes me a valuable asset. What will happen a few generations from now when companies find themselves struggling to support their Microsoft based environment because they have to spend big bucks on training for their employees, as well as having a general lack of people with that knowledge entering the workforce? I'll tell you what they will do -- they will switch. The money alone will necessitate it.
I'm not saying that Microsoft isn't right in their stance -- they totally are. There are people (like myself) who have pirated their software years ago and gained great knowledge by doing that. I made myself an asset when I entered the workforce and found a job within a Microsoft environment. But if I don't pay for their software, they shouldn't have to update/support it. However, Microsoft's primary source of income is not from a kid like myself, but from the corporations that buy licenses for each seat and user they have, in addition to training classes and the like. There will be a point of no return, and with a hardline stance on piracy, it's going to come sooner rather than later.
Then you will find companies like Red Hat that offer Fedora free to learn Linux becoming more appealing. Software like OpenOffice will become more heavily developed and at some point, equals or greater than their Microsoft counterparts in terms of usability and feature richness. I do not see Mac becoming too big in market penetration because of their proprietary standards with regard to their hardware, and exorbitant pricing. For that $500 Mac Mini, I can't play a SINGLE game well, even if it were OSX Compatible. I need to buy a much more beefy Mac if I want to use it for every day use -- and my use goes beyond "checking my email", and this is just going to be a common trend as computers become more a part of our lives.
So what I'm trying to say is that
That game taught me that if I sucked... I would die.
I guess the Romans sux0r3d.
I had to GRADUATE from college to start reading at all, and I've read four books nearly non-stop, and with a good attention span to boot!
The article in question doesn't draw the line between novels and learning -- novels are stories, and if it's a good story it can be very engrossing, though as my experience can prove -- it's not a task taken up by every person, nor easily taken up, especially with my own propensity to watch TV rather than read because it's easier.
I think this article refers more to younger kids learning, but since kids have a propensity to learn much faster and much better than adults, logic would follow that a computer game that uses some algorithms to determine how fast a person is say, learning to do arithmetic, can pace that child and accelerate his learning as compared to traditional books. And since the introduction to technology is generally a learning experience in itself.. it just opens a child's mind more and makes them better 'learners'. This is a great example of why each generation tends to be smarter and more productive than the previous one, though I'm convinced that my generation (24 years old here) is probably the laziest generation -- but we are still damn smart.
But I am convinced there will be hell on earth soon.. I have already made preparations.......
If you're not completely clueless, you will already know Netscape is part of AOL, and that AOL sucks, which would move you away from this altogether :)
Most people know however, that Netscape was 'defeated'.
Why would you market a browser brand name that was already defeated handily by Internet Exploder? Most people know this, and others will simply ask their friends "Is Netscape any good?" with the simple reply, "I don't know, but I use Internet Exploder."
What do you think people will buy into more easily?
From what I extrapolated... AOL is going to take the Firefox codebase and try to make their own unique browser, INSTEAD of doing what you and I both suggest -- just invest in Firefox itself and then rebrand it with AOL logos.
They could then have the 'Firefox Powered by AOL' or some such tagline which leaves intact the Firefox marque and positive PR, and removes the association of AOL's prior stupid business moves.
Why would AOL decide to invest again in Netscape when time and time again, it's only shown to be a pig? The smarter thing to do would be to give the funding to the Mozilla corporation as well as lending expertise and then, instead of making Netscape their project again, they simply use the open source nature of Firefox to rebrand a browser that is getting great.
However given AOL's history of stupidity this comes as no suprise. Firefox has momentum, it has great praise for its features and stability, it has speed, and it has -- more than anything else -- good PR going for it. The idiocy of AOL starting competition against a program now that has a poor history (even if Firefox is based on the Netscape code) is not good. It's like Yugo coming out with a new automobile when they see Hyundai doing well -- their history is so poor that it will be shunned by the community -- even if it's based on the same product.
Sorry at my frustration... but AOL has a history of bad business moves and this just adds to that wonderful history. No point in going 'smart' now... it would ruin their record.
The comment made "we're not going to build a browser" does not mean they won't release Firefox with Google extensions pre-installed. They won't be building a browser and that's 100% truthful to what Schmidt said, however they could be releasing Firefox extensions which only reinforces on the article posted yesterday on /. about how developers can use the plugin engine of Firefox to develop rich web applications.
Personally I'd love to see some good Google extensions for Firefox. I would NOT like them to build a browser, or even take Firefox and rebrand it. Let Firefox remain in the realm of open source and in Mozilla's guiding hands, and Google can simply contribute to the open source movement AND capture market share at the same time.
Do no evil indeed.
I rarely search my PC for any files, because I know where everythign is and it's faster for me just to browse a directory than type in the search requirements.
Hey, I was just curious :)
:)
I am not one to judge whether MySQL is inferior or superior to any given database.. all I know is that for my needs (my website) it's free, it works, and doesn't seem slow but then again, I only get ~5-7 million hits a month... not daily
In what type of application do they use it? I would not imagine as a primary database, do they?
Or does it seem rather amusing that IE, a poorly written browser with many security holes that *brilliantly* links into the OS (not), allows poor code not to crash it...
Then again... properly written code it seems to have problems with.
Oh well.. I guess that's what you get.
I used my mod points in another thread :P
Besides, I can't use them in threads I'm active in.
Well with the onslaught of Gmail users.. Google has the opportunity to extend their email IDs by going with Jabber. This makes it effortless for existing Gmail users to use a new IM client, since they have already signed up and have an ID and password.
Google could monitor our chat using software, and then when we use our email, deliver more targeted ads to the accounts. I know this isn't going to be a popular idea -- but it's harmless and gives them profit -- which is what a business is designed to do. And if I can keep using Trillian, then I'll be a happy camper.
Because almost EVERY IM client out there is a total piece of trash and spyware. I am a huge fan of Trillian, and having a Google IM client that finally makes Jabber mainstream will be a great thing -- not to mention I should be able to use Trillian to connect and chat with contacts.
:)
Now if only Google would allow me to use Gmail in my Outlook... I could replace my ISP email entirely
No, I don't think so. The reason OSX does so well now, is because its stability is quite good. In Anandtech's review (and my own experience), OSX and Windows had about the same amount of crashes and lockups, but OSX could recover from most where Windows sometimes could not.
That said... Windows runs on THOUSANDS of configurations. OSX is designed to work with specific hardware. If OSX started supporting multiple chipsets, RAM, video cards, etc... it would not be NEARLY as stable as it is today -- that's just a simple fact. And I'm not saying it can't be done... but Apple simply doesn't have the resources to do it. They don't have the manpower nor the capital to start supporting drivers for each piece of hardware on the market, like Microsoft does.
However, if a way was found around the budget and human constraints for Apple (perhaps other capital, more investment, etc), then this could be feasible in the future. And to that end, would be great for the end-users because it would cause both companies to innovate and develop software APIs that are friendly to developers of all kinds. For me, a Mac is useless because I am a heavy gamer and not much else -- and for that, the Mac lags behind in both variety and support of games. If however, Apple's OSX API was better to develop for than say, Direct X, and allowed more functionality and less code -- developers could make it happen.
And that's what I'd LOVE to see. I don't care about it being Mac or Windows -- if it doesn't play my games, it isn't worth shit. Period.
WTF is a wiki? I hear about it all day long on /.
Unlimited downloads per month, flat rate price. Currently the record industry makes $.80 per song on $.99 charged, then the music store has to subtract overhead like bandwith and server costs, and then is left with a miniscule profit. It's obscene and the RIAA is just trying to run a cartel with the music industry. People will continue to pirate if there's still a premium on soft copy of music -- at the same price hijaack that we complain about CDs. If you buy 12 songs (or one CD) it's $12, and you can buy the actual CD with cover art and all for the same price -- there's no discount even though you're missing all the extras.
Secondly... there *has* to be a LAUNCHcast type service (from Yahoo!, it ROCKS). It's an online radio station that lets you -- get this! -- skip songs you don't like and rate what you do like, and the radio will customize to let you listen to what you may like.
I don't personally care if they use a 'protected' format, as long as the quality is good. AAC seems to be great, and OGG is obviously great, but the record companies want security, so let them have it. Just give up on overpriced music -- consumers can decide for themselves what is good and what is not. I'd pay $15 a month for unlimited downloads that I can burn to CD and put in my car. It encourages artists to go and sign up with this service (at least for GOOD artists) because people will be more likely to go see their concerts -- and anybody who knows music, knows that musicians make most money from touring, not from crap record deals. It's only the artists that won't be around long (ala Nstink, Backdoor Boys, etc) that need those CD sales because whatever money they get... won't last, and every penny counts for their short lived careers.
is how a video card can cost upwards of $400, and a processor AND motherboard that run faster and involve more R&D can cost less than that combined.
I have a 9800 Pro that I bought for $198, and I am certain that will carry me thru for another year or so until the x800 XT becomes $200, then I'll upgrade to the 'midrange' card again. I don't need bleeding edge technology -- I can suffice by lowering the quality settings to play games. If I am playing single player, I can turn up the eyecandy because FPS don't really matter, and if I'm playing online, then I turn them down to get the high FPS.
There's really no need to buy a $400 graphics card, and no need for them to cost that much. It's just for players who need the extra 5 or 10FPS when they are already in the 50 FPS range... which is damn stupid.
that a good sysadmin can make even a Windows system shine. I know I do :)
"Install linux".
.JPG, and .JPEG files at the firewall level. We ensured patches were updated to protect us, and we have a three week 'cooling off' before we reinstitute jpegs to have access to the network.
/.ers are happy to jump on the "Windows Sucks" bandwagon but when it's Linux... must be something else. I have respect for both OSes, but both have to be administered right to work to their effective levels.
Give me a break. Linux is great, but if the applications, databases, etc... run in a Windows environment it's going to be a HUGE undertaking (not to mention cost) to convert over to Linux.
The problem with Windows is, that it requires good sysadmins who keep on top of patches, on top of virus updates, implement firewalls properly at the internet edge, and lock down the domain to ensure that nobody can do anything stupid at their workstation. At my work, the second the JPEG vulnerability was found out about, we disabled
The Colorado DMV is just an example of poor system administration. This is not a Windows or Linux/Unix problem, it's a problem of idiocy. And if you are a stupid sysadmin, then Linux or Windows -- you are going to get nailed. It's just funny how when Windows gets nailed
There used to be a pretty tried and true idea, that people are willing to pay for what they get. It's not true universally, but it's relatively speaking, pretty true.
I still, suprisingly buy music. I do too, also pirate some, but they are deleted in short order. It's the nature of the industry nowadays -- most artists know they won't last longer than a few years and the goal is to get every penny they can. Look at Metallica, now winding down their career (because it was downhill anyway) -- they started out singing against the 'man', 'halls of justice painted green, money talkin', and then use the same method they preached against to get damages awarded because they don't want to tour as much and have real shitty music they now sell.
But I digress... the music industry can't demand money for what people don't want to pay. Everybody now knows it doesn't cost $15 to make and package a CD, especially with the explosion in technology and the price cuts it has brought for the creation and distribution of everything. When a CD costs pennies to make and distribute, all you are saying is that, when customers don't want to pay the money to buy a CD with 1 good song on it, and further, don't want to pay $1 for a single song because it's missing a 'hard' copy and isn't really a discount well... you are being stubborn and you are going to get nailed. And the industry is getting nailed, by piraters everywhere. If music labels started doing a 'LaunchCast' type service (which I *love*), then all would be well. You subscribe monthly for say, $10.00, and people download and listen to all the music they want.