While I think most people would agree that there is a distinction between porn or sexual content on the Internet which is "OK" and that which is "over the line", legislators, religious leaders and technologists alike have failed to come up with any sort of objective standard for what is good and bad. I have a feeling that "Truthfulness" on the Internet is going to have as many or even more problems coming up with a way to judge content. That's sort of the heart of the Internet, or even of Free Speech itself -- the belief that, for any one subject, there are many different points of view, and no one has a monopoly on the truth. The more opinions that are allowed to be voiced, even if some of those opinions turn out to be false or baseless, the better the chance that we will actually find the truth in there somewhere.
Thanks! I'll check out the link.
The one trick might be finding a package for DSL. I have a feeling there is a problem with the hard drive in that laptop, since it's a little flaky, so I'm tempted to leave well enough alone. However, if I rebuild it some time, I'll try out MPD or some similar package.
Uh.... a PII or PIII is a LOT older than 6 months. You are probably talking in the 200/300MHz range, and some might not even be able to hold more than 256Meg RAM. That's a lowly worm in comparison to your 4 year old 1.8GHz!
You might actually be able to use those PIII computers, if they have a decent amount of RAM, but I wouldn't even go close to the PII for anything more than a Web Browser. (I doubt you can even get OpenOffice.org to start on it.)
I have an old PII/266 which runs DSL (Damn Small Linux) very nicely. I put XMMS on it, and hooked the speaker out to one of the alternate audio inputs on my stereo. It's not phenomenally high quality stereo, but at least better than most FM reception, and you've got hundreds (thousands?) of online radio stations to pick from.
DSL has some problems, such as shutting down the system if I close the lid on the laptop, and then not recovering the ethernet connection when I open it up again, but for the most part, it's better than tossing out the laptop. It's a lot smaller and cleaner looking than trying to get a full blown system with a monitor and keyboard to do the same thing.
Holy Typesetters, Batman!! The judge took a grand total of 17 lines of text (one and a half pages) for his entire opinion, excluding the footnotes. I guess he must not have thought the RIAA's arguments were worth much discussion.
(I've got a piece of tissue paper that'll hold more water than that.)
There is a big difference, I think, between releasing something like a worm to patch un-patched boxes -- i.e., computers that haven't been "broken" yet, but potentially could be, and hijacking an EXISTING botnet to inject a "self destruct" update into it. I have some problems with doinking with other people's computers if they aren't infected yet (there are a lot of critical things that you could break, and there may be other reasons why they haven't updated some particular part of the OS which you don't know about). I have much less problem with counter-attacking an existing threat. If someone's computer is already "owned", then they are definitely already part of the problem, and they are a direct threat to the rest of the Internet community.
OK, so it really is a matter of degrees. Some people might say that the existence of a Microsoft OS is already a state of being "infected," but I'd draw the line at being a member of an existing, identified and wide spread botnet.
Fingerprints? Keep a nice soft glasses lens cleaning cloth handy!;-) I also find that both types of screens tend to develop scuff marks from the laptop keys when it gets closed, so I try to remember to stick the lens cloth over the keyboard (i.e., between it and the screen) when I close it.
I have an Asus "asmobile" with a 1680x1050 screen (15.4 diagonal), and I LOVE it. Yea, I get some reflection, but the screen is bright enough that I don't notice is much -- or at least no more than I did with my previous Dell laptop with the mat finish screen. I couldn't see that one at all if I was outside.
I think it's more a matter of the display technology BEHIND the mat/glossy finish than it is how reflective the finish is.
I found it interesting that the minister took the recent addition of several new African countries to the ISO process with a very different spin. Many of us simply saw these new additions as evidence that Microsoft was "buying" votes to try to ram their OOXML through ISO. I still think this is the case, but the Minister saw a different outcome. Her hope was that, as these nations have become involved with the International Standards process, they will continue to be involved in the future. Rather than just seeing themselves as passive bystanders, these nations can dig in and start to be participating members. Of course, that assumes a lot in terms of developing their own experts who really have some sort of idea of what they are talking about (as opposed to parroting their Microsoft handlers), but there's nothing like jumping in with both feet to start having your voice be heard.
I'm no Apple fanboy, but the original article was moronic. The premise was that people hate big companies BECAUSE they are big and powerful. I think there will always be people who hate large companies simply because they are large, but the REAL problem is as you say -- big, powerful companies tend to forget what got them to that position in the first place, namely quality products and value to their customers. Somewhere along the way to reaching the top, their mentality changes from Being the Best, to Being the Biggest, and crushing their competition takes over the number one priority spot. This is the point where your customers start to become simply income streams, and they start hating you. Microsoft is hated because everyone knows that their attitude is, "You will buy our products because you are our slaves."
Look at companies like IBM and Oracle. They are still HUGE, and certainly on lots of people's BAD lists. However, I don't think that either of them engender the same kind of hatred that companies like Microsoft do (or the old IBM did).
If Apple and Google follow the same course and start squishing their customers, then they will be hated too. Apple is certainly going down that path with their hardware and software lock-in, and Google is showing plenty of signs of being Evil, but they haven't forgotten their roots yet.
However, trying to write off people's hatred of big companies as simply fickle customers is foolish and condescending.
An interesting point is that, if Web based applications such as Google Docs start to take hold, I think you will find that there is a sudden reversal in the complexity of most documents. One of the things about both ODF and OOXML is that they define HUGELY complicated document formats. (ODF hides a lot of its complexity by referencing other standards. OOXML is just, well, ridiculously complicated, with four or five different ways to do any one action.) On the other hand, if you look at what you can do with Google Docs, you are really quite constrained in terms of complexity. My question is, In most cases, is that complexity REALLY NEEDED? Certainly it is in some cases, but probably 99.99% of the documents you see every day could get by with a couple of paragraph types, simple outline numbering and bullet lists with a couple of different levels. Throw in a couple of embedded types (tables, drawings and images), and you've got it covered.
OOXML is like using a nuclear submarine to cross a small stream. ODF is more like using a 100ft yacht to cross the same stream. Google Docs is crossing the stream by tossing across a few 2x12's and walking. If they all get you to the other side, which one really works best?
When you look at your contacts page, does it show up in one column, or do you see three columns -- one for groups, one for "search results", and one for the actual information for the contact? If it's in three columns, that's the newer version. If the names are in one column, then it's probably the older version. In the upper right corner, there should be a link to "use older version", or "use newer version". That's how you can toggle back and forth.
Are you on Linux or Windows? I haven't tried it on Windows.
I may be missing something, but at least in the Linux version, seems to still have the problem in GMail where the the Contacts page doesn't display any names when you do a search. This is something that appeared when Google released a new version of their email app. I'm not sure if it's a problem in the Google code or if it's a rendering problem in Firefox. I tried to test it with Opera, but unfortunately, when you use Opera, it falls back to the older version of GMail, which doesn't have the problem.
(The current, non-Beta version of Firefox does NOT have this problem.)
I think the biggest thing D&D added which other games (some of which are still excellent!) couldn't was the removal of boundaries, and letting the gamers run free with their imagination. If you had a good Game Master (which is a big IF), you could go in pretty much any direction you wanted to go in. There were constraints of course, some of which were pretty arbitrary, for the sake of playability and balance, but the game really was limited only by the combined imagination of the group.
The only down side I can think of to the game would be the "moral choices" part, since the choices you made in the game were rarely linked to real consequences. Your actions might affect the other people in the group, but there was a lot of "wild living" going on in some of the games that I played which had no real consequences like they might have in real life.
(How many of you had Evil DM's that actually made you roll "save-vs-STD" for every encounter with a bawdy barmaid?;-)
Funny -- I never played D&D as a teen, possibly because Gary hadn't written it yet (I don't remember the dates of when it first came out), so I did all my role playing as an adult. Some of my closest friends are still people I used to game with, both in face to face sessions, and in email based games. It's DEFINITELY true that it developed a lot of my imagination, as well as my skills in storytelling -- a pastime I have cherished ever since then.
I think people like Tolkien and C.S. Lewis and others developed the genre of Fantasy and stories of magic in our culture, but it was Gary Gygax and D&D that turned it into something that ALL of us could participate in.
I don't know. I once bought a cheap replica sword on an auction. There were several similar items, and it was pretty low quality, so I actually ended up being the only bidder at a whopping $0.99. (Yes, that's 99 cents.) I was fully aware of the "quality" of the sword, and it was exactly what I was looking for.
However, the thing was still several pounds, and more than four feet long. The seller put it in a reasonably well packaged box, and it arrived quickly and without any problems. The auction clearly listed a shipping price of $15, so I wasn't at all surprised to have to pay that amount. Yea, the shipping was 1500% of the selling price. Sounds ridiculous, but given the situation, I think it was reasonable.
Now, paying $12 to ship a single computer peripheral card (such as a video card) seems like the seller is really trying to gouge an extra few bucks out of the buyer, but again, as long as it's clearly marked on the auction, I'm not going to whine about it. Shipping prices *DO* affect which auctions I bid on!!
> OTOH, fast prototyping can just as easily cause a lot problems.
I always called those things, "Un-dead Prototypes." You know -- the ones that were never intended to do more than demonstrate some functionality, but they somehow morph into "production" applications, and it's the IT department that's left cleaning up all the gore and trying to keep it running. Had a couple of those hung around my neck in my days.....
> One can only hope that they will be using this to replace the database that comes in Open Office.
Actually, it's not the database itself that sucks in OOo "Base", it's the interface. I use the OpenOffice Base program to connect to a REAL database (PostgreSQL), and it still sucks. The reporting tool is goofy beyond imagination, and it either crashes, or just plain loses track of the database on a regular basis. Don't EVER try to define a table through the Base interface -- you can't really modify anything in the table or column definitions. Well, you can try, but they don't work. You can neither import or export data in any form whatsoever (huh???), and you can't cut-n-paste anything into a spreadsheet except as an entire table or view. The forms editor is completely useless. The built in database isn't intended for any kind of large data storage, but that's not the real problem. It's just that you can't really DO anything interesting with the data.
Suffice it to say the OpenOffice.org Base application is just plain immature. OO Writer is great; OO Draw is beyond anything MS Office has; OO Base is a really poor substitute for Access, and OO Impress is... well... not very impressive. Give them time and they will eventually become something useful. The database program definitely has the longest way to go though.
(a) You are correct that online documentation introduces a whole new class of security risks.
(b) Laptops aren't one of them.
I think the real risk isn't that some Google employee will store the data on their laptop and then loose it. More likely, the [fill-in-the-blank] employee will develop an application that links your document information into some sort of search application, or sells that information to someone else. Or, someone will intercept the document in mid-transit. If you are going to store your documentation on someone else's server, then you bloody well better trust that person and their company! It is left as an exercise for the reader as to whether or not Google is worthy of your trust.
Another interesting question, which neither of us have mentioned is, who is protecting the security of the server, either on your site or on Google's site? I ask you, who do you think does a better job of security, protecting someone from breaking in and stealing all the data on that box or networkt? Again, this is going to depend on who you are talking to, but it's something you had better be thinking about!
More money means what exactly? Presumably, more money to throw at the problem. The original NY Times article mentioned the fact that Google has lots of money, which is one reason why Microsoft is going to find it harder to smack them down.
More interesting to me though is the mind share that Google has, and the fact that they (Google) are creating an entirely new market, one which is going to start sucking the oxygen out of Microsoft's market pretty quickly. Add to that the fact that it's still a free solution, and you're going to find a lot of people unwilling to go out and spend $400USD on something they can just point their browser at and start using for free.
The really funny part is that, while Microsoft probably COULD create a better online office suite than what Google has now, they don't WANT to, simply because they'd be shooting themselves in the foot. So, they're stuck with trying to convince people that online apps reallu suck, while at the same time, they're trying to sell how great it is to be able to use your Microsoft apps online. They're really in a bind now...;-)
(I'm actually playing around with the applications now. The calendar is great, the word processor is weak, and the presentation app is lame, but I have a lot of confidence that they are going to get better very quickly.)
Uh... I've worked in IT for many years, and backup policies are freaking NEVER "extremely basic". You're assuming a ubiquitous, homogeneous, strictly controlled environment, where you can always know what software people have installed on their systems, and where every machine is. In reality, you've got machines all over the place, and with the increasing use of laptops in business today, you don't know where they are, or when they are on the network. Worse yet, you don't know if the disks are secure, or if some joker just left his 160Gig hard drive loaded with sensitive corporate information unlocked in the back seat of his car.
As has been noted elsewhere, online documents are not for everyone, but anyone who really sits down for a while and starts thinking about what kinds of possibilities an online service opens up, especially in flexibility of "place", as well as on-line collaboration, will start to see some very interesting options suddenly opening up.
Interesting.... to strain the analogy even more: I buy a Swiss Army Knife (or Multi-Tool), I don't need to sharpen all the blades. If I'm buying a Linux powered super-computer while I'm wearing that Linux powered wrist watch (or more likely, checking my invoice on my Linux powered cell phone), I probably didn't recompile the kernel on either of them. The vendor does the "sharpening" for me.
Slashdot Mirror
While I think most people would agree that there is a distinction between porn or sexual content on the Internet which is "OK" and that which is "over the line", legislators, religious leaders and technologists alike have failed to come up with any sort of objective standard for what is good and bad. I have a feeling that "Truthfulness" on the Internet is going to have as many or even more problems coming up with a way to judge content. That's sort of the heart of the Internet, or even of Free Speech itself -- the belief that, for any one subject, there are many different points of view, and no one has a monopoly on the truth. The more opinions that are allowed to be voiced, even if some of those opinions turn out to be false or baseless, the better the chance that we will actually find the truth in there somewhere.
(Remember, that's the HOT CHICK Linux [from the Novel spoofs] sauntering by...)
Thanks! I'll check out the link. The one trick might be finding a package for DSL. I have a feeling there is a problem with the hard drive in that laptop, since it's a little flaky, so I'm tempted to leave well enough alone. However, if I rebuild it some time, I'll try out MPD or some similar package.
Uh.... a PII or PIII is a LOT older than 6 months. You are probably talking in the 200/300MHz range, and some might not even be able to hold more than 256Meg RAM. That's a lowly worm in comparison to your 4 year old 1.8GHz!
You might actually be able to use those PIII computers, if they have a decent amount of RAM, but I wouldn't even go close to the PII for anything more than a Web Browser. (I doubt you can even get OpenOffice.org to start on it.)
I have an old PII/266 which runs DSL (Damn Small Linux) very nicely. I put XMMS on it, and hooked the speaker out to one of the alternate audio inputs on my stereo. It's not phenomenally high quality stereo, but at least better than most FM reception, and you've got hundreds (thousands?) of online radio stations to pick from.
DSL has some problems, such as shutting down the system if I close the lid on the laptop, and then not recovering the ethernet connection when I open it up again, but for the most part, it's better than tossing out the laptop. It's a lot smaller and cleaner looking than trying to get a full blown system with a monitor and keyboard to do the same thing.
Holy Typesetters, Batman!! The judge took a grand total of 17 lines of text (one and a half pages) for his entire opinion, excluding the footnotes. I guess he must not have thought the RIAA's arguments were worth much discussion.
(I've got a piece of tissue paper that'll hold more water than that.)
There is a big difference, I think, between releasing something like a worm to patch un-patched boxes -- i.e., computers that haven't been "broken" yet, but potentially could be, and hijacking an EXISTING botnet to inject a "self destruct" update into it. I have some problems with doinking with other people's computers if they aren't infected yet (there are a lot of critical things that you could break, and there may be other reasons why they haven't updated some particular part of the OS which you don't know about). I have much less problem with counter-attacking an existing threat. If someone's computer is already "owned", then they are definitely already part of the problem, and they are a direct threat to the rest of the Internet community.
OK, so it really is a matter of degrees. Some people might say that the existence of a Microsoft OS is already a state of being "infected," but I'd draw the line at being a member of an existing, identified and wide spread botnet.
Fingerprints? Keep a nice soft glasses lens cleaning cloth handy! ;-) I also find that both types of screens tend to develop scuff marks from the laptop keys when it gets closed, so I try to remember to stick the lens cloth over the keyboard (i.e., between it and the screen) when I close it.
I have an Asus "asmobile" with a 1680x1050 screen (15.4 diagonal), and I LOVE it. Yea, I get some reflection, but the screen is bright enough that I don't notice is much -- or at least no more than I did with my previous Dell laptop with the mat finish screen. I couldn't see that one at all if I was outside.
I think it's more a matter of the display technology BEHIND the mat/glossy finish than it is how reflective the finish is.
I found it interesting that the minister took the recent addition of several new African countries to the ISO process with a very different spin. Many of us simply saw these new additions as evidence that Microsoft was "buying" votes to try to ram their OOXML through ISO. I still think this is the case, but the Minister saw a different outcome. Her hope was that, as these nations have become involved with the International Standards process, they will continue to be involved in the future. Rather than just seeing themselves as passive bystanders, these nations can dig in and start to be participating members. Of course, that assumes a lot in terms of developing their own experts who really have some sort of idea of what they are talking about (as opposed to parroting their Microsoft handlers), but there's nothing like jumping in with both feet to start having your voice be heard.
Look at companies like IBM and Oracle. They are still HUGE, and certainly on lots of people's BAD lists. However, I don't think that either of them engender the same kind of hatred that companies like Microsoft do (or the old IBM did).
If Apple and Google follow the same course and start squishing their customers, then they will be hated too. Apple is certainly going down that path with their hardware and software lock-in, and Google is showing plenty of signs of being Evil, but they haven't forgotten their roots yet.
However, trying to write off people's hatred of big companies as simply fickle customers is foolish and condescending.
An interesting point is that, if Web based applications such as Google Docs start to take hold, I think you will find that there is a sudden reversal in the complexity of most documents. One of the things about both ODF and OOXML is that they define HUGELY complicated document formats. (ODF hides a lot of its complexity by referencing other standards. OOXML is just, well, ridiculously complicated, with four or five different ways to do any one action.) On the other hand, if you look at what you can do with Google Docs, you are really quite constrained in terms of complexity. My question is, In most cases, is that complexity REALLY NEEDED? Certainly it is in some cases, but probably 99.99% of the documents you see every day could get by with a couple of paragraph types, simple outline numbering and bullet lists with a couple of different levels. Throw in a couple of embedded types (tables, drawings and images), and you've got it covered.
OOXML is like using a nuclear submarine to cross a small stream. ODF is more like using a 100ft yacht to cross the same stream. Google Docs is crossing the stream by tossing across a few 2x12's and walking. If they all get you to the other side, which one really works best?
When you look at your contacts page, does it show up in one column, or do you see three columns -- one for groups, one for "search results", and one for the actual information for the contact? If it's in three columns, that's the newer version. If the names are in one column, then it's probably the older version. In the upper right corner, there should be a link to "use older version", or "use newer version". That's how you can toggle back and forth. Are you on Linux or Windows? I haven't tried it on Windows.
... and you've turned off your flashlight (or let the batteries run out).
OK... I did the same thing, on Linux (OpenSUSE 10.3)
PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEM TIME+ COMMAND
13995 ctryon 15 0 324m 138m 27m R 0 6.8 1:17.93 firefox-bin
I've even got several other tabs open. Doesn't look much like a leak here, but then I haven't been using it for hours....
I may be missing something, but at least in the Linux version, seems to still have the problem in GMail where the the Contacts page doesn't display any names when you do a search. This is something that appeared when Google released a new version of their email app. I'm not sure if it's a problem in the Google code or if it's a rendering problem in Firefox. I tried to test it with Opera, but unfortunately, when you use Opera, it falls back to the older version of GMail, which doesn't have the problem.
(The current, non-Beta version of Firefox does NOT have this problem.)
I think the biggest thing D&D added which other games (some of which are still excellent!) couldn't was the removal of boundaries, and letting the gamers run free with their imagination. If you had a good Game Master (which is a big IF), you could go in pretty much any direction you wanted to go in. There were constraints of course, some of which were pretty arbitrary, for the sake of playability and balance, but the game really was limited only by the combined imagination of the group.
The only down side I can think of to the game would be the "moral choices" part, since the choices you made in the game were rarely linked to real consequences. Your actions might affect the other people in the group, but there was a lot of "wild living" going on in some of the games that I played which had no real consequences like they might have in real life.
(How many of you had Evil DM's that actually made you roll "save-vs-STD" for every encounter with a bawdy barmaid? ;-)
Funny -- I never played D&D as a teen, possibly because Gary hadn't written it yet (I don't remember the dates of when it first came out), so I did all my role playing as an adult. Some of my closest friends are still people I used to game with, both in face to face sessions, and in email based games. It's DEFINITELY true that it developed a lot of my imagination, as well as my skills in storytelling -- a pastime I have cherished ever since then.
I think people like Tolkien and C.S. Lewis and others developed the genre of Fantasy and stories of magic in our culture, but it was Gary Gygax and D&D that turned it into something that ALL of us could participate in.
Stories and Stuff at: http://www.bbaggins.net/Stuff.html
I don't know. I once bought a cheap replica sword on an auction. There were several similar items, and it was pretty low quality, so I actually ended up being the only bidder at a whopping $0.99. (Yes, that's 99 cents.) I was fully aware of the "quality" of the sword, and it was exactly what I was looking for. However, the thing was still several pounds, and more than four feet long. The seller put it in a reasonably well packaged box, and it arrived quickly and without any problems. The auction clearly listed a shipping price of $15, so I wasn't at all surprised to have to pay that amount. Yea, the shipping was 1500% of the selling price. Sounds ridiculous, but given the situation, I think it was reasonable. Now, paying $12 to ship a single computer peripheral card (such as a video card) seems like the seller is really trying to gouge an extra few bucks out of the buyer, but again, as long as it's clearly marked on the auction, I'm not going to whine about it. Shipping prices *DO* affect which auctions I bid on!!
I always called those things, "Un-dead Prototypes." You know -- the ones that were never intended to do more than demonstrate some functionality, but they somehow morph into "production" applications, and it's the IT department that's left cleaning up all the gore and trying to keep it running. Had a couple of those hung around my neck in my days.....
Actually, it's not the database itself that sucks in OOo "Base", it's the interface. I use the OpenOffice Base program to connect to a REAL database (PostgreSQL), and it still sucks. The reporting tool is goofy beyond imagination, and it either crashes, or just plain loses track of the database on a regular basis. Don't EVER try to define a table through the Base interface -- you can't really modify anything in the table or column definitions. Well, you can try, but they don't work. You can neither import or export data in any form whatsoever (huh???), and you can't cut-n-paste anything into a spreadsheet except as an entire table or view. The forms editor is completely useless. The built in database isn't intended for any kind of large data storage, but that's not the real problem. It's just that you can't really DO anything interesting with the data.
Suffice it to say the OpenOffice.org Base application is just plain immature. OO Writer is great; OO Draw is beyond anything MS Office has; OO Base is a really poor substitute for Access, and OO Impress is... well... not very impressive. Give them time and they will eventually become something useful. The database program definitely has the longest way to go though.
(a) You are correct that online documentation introduces a whole new class of security risks.
(b) Laptops aren't one of them.
I think the real risk isn't that some Google employee will store the data on their laptop and then loose it. More likely, the [fill-in-the-blank] employee will develop an application that links your document information into some sort of search application, or sells that information to someone else. Or, someone will intercept the document in mid-transit. If you are going to store your documentation on someone else's server, then you bloody well better trust that person and their company! It is left as an exercise for the reader as to whether or not Google is worthy of your trust.
Another interesting question, which neither of us have mentioned is, who is protecting the security of the server, either on your site or on Google's site? I ask you, who do you think does a better job of security, protecting someone from breaking in and stealing all the data on that box or networkt? Again, this is going to depend on who you are talking to, but it's something you had better be thinking about!
More money means what exactly? Presumably, more money to throw at the problem. The original NY Times article mentioned the fact that Google has lots of money, which is one reason why Microsoft is going to find it harder to smack them down.
More interesting to me though is the mind share that Google has, and the fact that they (Google) are creating an entirely new market, one which is going to start sucking the oxygen out of Microsoft's market pretty quickly. Add to that the fact that it's still a free solution, and you're going to find a lot of people unwilling to go out and spend $400USD on something they can just point their browser at and start using for free.
The really funny part is that, while Microsoft probably COULD create a better online office suite than what Google has now, they don't WANT to, simply because they'd be shooting themselves in the foot. So, they're stuck with trying to convince people that online apps reallu suck, while at the same time, they're trying to sell how great it is to be able to use your Microsoft apps online. They're really in a bind now... ;-)
(I'm actually playing around with the applications now. The calendar is great, the word processor is weak, and the presentation app is lame, but I have a lot of confidence that they are going to get better very quickly.)
As has been noted elsewhere, online documents are not for everyone, but anyone who really sits down for a while and starts thinking about what kinds of possibilities an online service opens up, especially in flexibility of "place", as well as on-line collaboration, will start to see some very interesting options suddenly opening up.
Interesting.... to strain the analogy even more: I buy a Swiss Army Knife (or Multi-Tool), I don't need to sharpen all the blades. If I'm buying a Linux powered super-computer while I'm wearing that Linux powered wrist watch (or more likely, checking my invoice on my Linux powered cell phone), I probably didn't recompile the kernel on either of them. The vendor does the "sharpening" for me.