I think a standard *for* a GUI would be nice, from the programming perspective anyway. Something like one single API that anyone could use, but then different desktop environments could handle it in whatever way they like. One thing I don't like about some of the "standard" toolkits right now is the obvious gtk+ works best with Gnome, and qt works best with KDE.
I like both desktop environments, personally, but I don't like the separation like that. Is there anything we could do like that, other than have window manager/desktop environment/tk wars?
IANAL, and I don't know this stuff too well, but from what I've heard, isn't it that something that was produced in another state than the one purchased in, covered only by interstate trade laws, and state laws don't apply? I don't know for sure at all, but does anyone else know anything about this?
IANAL, but from what I've heard, isn't this state adoption of this act completely pointless? If you buy a product from a state where it was not manufactured, isn't that governed only by interstate trade laws, and not state laws? Wouldn't you have to buy a Virginia manufactured product *in* Virginia to make that law apply? Even if you lived in a state where they accepted the act, wouldn't only federal trace regulations apply?
Well, if what sells software is the user interface, then the company that wants to sell software should make their own. Say, if RedHat or Corel, or whoever want a nicer user interface for application foo, then they should write a front end. Then, they can sell the front end, make money off of it, and give away the meat for free. That way, the end-user gets his easy-to-use-gui, the corporation gets their money, and the OSS program stays free. The user gets the choice (does he want 's interface, or 's interface, or does he want the default) so all freedoms are there. Freedom to make money, freedom of choice, and freedom of software. Make sense?
I mean, sure, it's not so great they can track everything we do, but also look at it this way. If they start calling my house trying to sell me something, they're basically wasting my time. Same if they start cluttering my mailbox(both e- and snail) I delete it/throw it away--I already do that. However, if they're doing something like trying to find out what sorts of things I am personally interested in, let them. Wouldn't you much rather receive adds that you might possibly be interested in, rather than aluminum siding adds when you live in a dorm, or coupons for an oil change when you ride a bike to work/school, or internet web server tools when you don't have or want your own web site? (Okay, now I sound like an IBM/Lotus commercial)
I mean, seriously... ad companies specialize in one thing, ads. They don't want to blackmail you because you've been buying diamond jewlery online for your mistress, and buying your wife cheap wal-mart stuff. They want more effective advertising. Plus, by showing them what we like, then the businesses trying to make goods we'll buy will concentrate on what people want, rather than what everyone things people want. It's not really anything to be paranoid about. I'm sure half the companies in the world already have my name and address because I've bought something, but I don't care. Let them. Then they can see what I buy, and what I like. Who cares if Doubleclick has access to them now? It's all the better for us, if you ask me.
I agree, patents are necessary. Even software patents. If you spend every minute of your spare time working on something amazing, say some super compression that doesn't use up much CPU time, or some amazing encryption, or what have you, and after a couple of years of work, you finally finished it, you would probably want to be paid back for your effort.
Now, if you get a patent, then you're set. No one can copy and sell your encryption method without your consent. However, if you can't, and you attempt to sell it to a large corporation, maybe they buy into it at the beginning, but then they could easily steal your idea, saying it was theirs in the first place, and you have no way to prove it. Besides, it doesn't matter, since there are no patents to protect it. Then big corporation makes tons of money off of *your* work, and you end up with nothing.
Patents are necessary, whether you like them or not. We need them to protect the ones who created the things in the first place. People like you and me. Sure, then can go wrong, but generally they're a good thing. Sure, we all want everything to be open source and free, but we have to feed ourselves. Cola, beer, pizza, chips, etc. isn't exactly free, and I for one wouldn't want to be a poor OS developer working at McDonalds to pay for my food. So think it from other points of view when you think of patents.
Re:My laptop thinks it is 1980
on
Apocalypse Not
·
· Score: 1
I don't know about the leap year. I checked it in a 486 with the 1980 rollover problem, and it was okay, but not on the older ones. The only advice I can give is pretty much common sense--watch for it on Feb. 29th and reset it if necessary.
Re:My laptop thinks it is 1980
on
Apocalypse Not
·
· Score: 1
Well, most older bioses (pre 1995 or somewhere around then) roll over to 1980, but if you reboot, go into the bios setup, change it to 2000, then you won't have any more problems. I even have some 286's, and even an XT I've tried this on, so it's no big deal, really.
Well, if you put it in roman numerals it doesn't really look right for 2001 being the start of the next millennium. (Even though I believe it is, so I'm not flaming or anything, just pointing something that I see out.)
If you turned Roman numerals into something like this: C = century M = millennium
When 1999 = MCMXCIX and 2000 = MM and 2001 = MMI which looks like just another year in the millennium
Doesn't it look like MM = millennium * 2, or as in second millennium? (Of course, it would be the beginning of the *third* millennium) So... you can't really use Roman numerals to say that, because it doesn't look right. It seems like it's gonna be impossible to convince those non-believers that it starts on 2001. Sorry, Arthur.
Well, perhaps it is freedom. But it still kind of pisses me off that I can't get more than 100KBps throughput downloading a big file even though we have a T-1. and it's partially due to the fact that out customer service people are more often IM'ing each other than answering calls. I guess all I'm saying is that I wish the big companies such as MS and AOL didn't try to push net access so much, so that kind of thing would be kept to a minimum. Not restricting anyone from using the 'net to do whatever they want, but not advertising it as a place for that kind of stuff. I mean, chatting within AOL is one thing, but does Timmy have to suffer on his little ISP with mostly people sending Yahoo pager messages to each other?
I'm just bitter, I suppose, because I can't utilize this bandwidth the way I want to.:)
This message is opinion only, and should not be taken as fact. Thank you.
I think a big problem with the confusion over this story is the definition of a PC. A lot of people think of a PC as your computer you have at home and you mess around with. But as the article pointed out, they were referring to the PC as the IBM compatible (now Intel based) computers. Non mainframes, minicomputers, supercomputers, etc. Just little boxes at max 4 feet tall and a 8" wide or some such. That includes servers, workstations, and desktops/home computers that can run anything from Linux to *BSD* to BeOS to NT to Win9x and more.
The question is, really, is this a good or bad thing? Is the internet as it is today much better as it was in '90 or '95 or even a year ago? Is it a good thing to have a lot of bandwidth gobbled up by people sending instant messages(of any sort, AOL, MS, Yahoo, etc.), porn, spam, and going to sites that don't enrich anyone's life?
IMHO, a good internet user is one who uses the internet for some good, be it to further their knowledge, save the environment, upload a patch for an opensource project, etc.
But this article is something I wouldn't expect to find on Slashdot. This is news for nerds, not propaganda for newbies. Most of us are know what we need to know about this sort of thing. Don't try to start pointless debates on whether or not PC's are the reason the internet is where it is today. Let's get back to posting stuff that actually interests and applies to the reader base.
I live in ABQ as well, and though I haven't looked yet (Too broke Christmas shopping to endulge in my own pleasures) most Loki games have shown up at CompUSA, and even Hastings. Well, the other Linux Quakes have been at Hastings. So they may have some as well. But, like I said, I haven't looked yet. I'll go check around today.
One big reason that at least newer monitors work with Win9X so well, is that they're plug and play monitors. They just tell Windows what timings they need for each resolution, and then it works. Of course, you need a PNP monitor, and possibly a recent graphics card, but it's still a breeze.
XFree needs PNP monitor support (Unless 3.9.x/4.x has/will have it) as well as some sort of user submitted modeline database for old monitors. I think a user submitted modeline database that could be included in a distro would be great. So that if Joe Average has some crappy no-name 14" (8.5" viewable:) and maybe Jenny Linux Girl tried it before, and submitted the modeline(s), then Joe Average has it easy. What does anyone else think?
You know, back in the day this was actually a pretty common thing. My boss was telling me some story of how 20 years ago, if you needed a specific program, you'd call up a company, they'd write you the code that you specifically needed, you paid them for it, and they gave you the code. The code was yours. If you wanted them to fix a bug, you'd pay them again. Is this really any different?
Well, this is just my opinion, but do you need a review and comparison? Do the non-newbies need to know which is a "better" linux distro? Most likely you have your own favorite. Newbies need some sort of idea where to start. With Windows, there's really only one choice. Windows. (Sure there's 95, 98, 98SE, but they usually just go for the newest) I mean the average person who wants to check out Linux needs a good starting place. If reviews say RedHat, let them try RedHat. If they don't like it, they can try the second on the list, or ask someone they know that uses Linux.
Advanced users don't need reviews. I mean, if you're a hardcore Debian user, are you going to care whether or not CNet or ZDNet or anybody says RedHat is best? No, you'll still use Debian because that's what you like. If you like Slackware, that's what you're going to use. If you like SuSE, that's what you'll use. The only real reason you should even care what a review says is to convince your boss to switch to Linux.:)
We need to stop the distro wars. Everyone is different, and are logically going to have different taste when it comes to something like this. Do you argue over Pizza toppings the same way? Do you tell people that pepperoni is too mainstream, and they should get hamburger because it's more pure? Do you tell your friends the only real topping is GNU/italian sausage?
The only thing that comes from this bickering is people are being turned off from Linux. Who wants that? Do you want software that says "Requires RedHat Linux"? Distros may look different, or have a different feel or installer, but it comes down to this: all distributions are created equal; no matter which you choose, it's still Linux. It's time to treat them that way.
Well, it won't provide more music. Both record companies and the musicians are happy with the amount of music a CD can hold. They'd much rather sell three CD's with 13 or 14 songs than one with 45 songs. For one, nobody's going to pay $40 to listen to one or two songs they like, not sure of the others, so you can potentially make more money by selling it in smaller quantities. So, the logical answer is what everyone else is saying. Higher sampling rates, better sound depth, etc. But I don't really think they want larger music capacity. Except maybe in some situations.
Don't forget that those left on the planet eventually all died from a disease contracted from a dirty telephone... and also don't forget that the B ship ended up on Earth and is where the human race started:)
But seriously, I am getting really sick of these marketing people. You can't really go anywhere and get a reliable objective review. Usually someone's posting anonymously or has been paid to give good reviews. Sigh.
Well, think about it. If Windows was open-sourced, and became stable, it would only be a good thing. If Windows had been stable, or if Windows had been free or open-sourced from the beginning, there wouldn't really be any need for the "Alternative."
The issue isn't something like "Linux vs. Windows" or "BSD vs. Windows" or "etc. vs. Windows" but it's free open-sourced software vs. closed-source software. and especially about freedom of choice. If M$ had the idea like "Windows is just one choice among many... we just try to make it the best." rather than "Windows is the only choice. You have to put up with whatever we give you." then I could stand it.
Open source is great because it promotes excellence through programmers egos--coders want a peice of the pie, and writing bad code isn't going to get them a slice--where closed-source builds egos through the secrecy, it doesn't matter if your chunk of code sucks, nobody has to know anything more than you worked on this major program.
Well, I suppose that was about $0.02 worth of words.
Re:so what is the right pronunciation?
on
Linux on Jeopardy
·
· Score: 2
I call it Line-ux as well, because when I first saw the word, my brain made this simple association. Linus, in the US, usually pronounced Line-us. Linux, spelled almost the same, replacing the s with x, therefore it should be pronounced the same. Thus, Line-ux. Do you pronounce Linus Lynn-us?
It will always be thus in my mind. No matter what anyone says. If you say Lynn-us follows the rules of English or some such more closely, remember this. Linus, who named the damn thing in the first place, doesn't speak english as his first language. Anyhoo.
Well, this whole case was really about the desktop, wasn't it? It originally started because M$ bundled IE with Win9x. Maybe NT workstation could come into play, but it's really about monopolizing the desktop. M$ really doesn't monopolize the server market, because you've got *many* choices when it comes to that, Commercial Unices(Many of them), NT, NetWare, etc. This is really only where Linux could be considered a threat to M$, and that's why Linux shouldn't be considered a competitor to Win9x.
The penguin is nice, but it doesn't really tell you anything about Linux. (Does linux need a cold room to work?) You need something that illustrates it's features and or it's versatility.
Show something somewhat abstract looking, like a small network diagram, with an overlapped screen shot of the GIMP working on a colorful photo. Throw in some command line stuff showing server configuring and it's Un*x like style, then show some clips of a word processor and a browser displaying a nice web page. Then top it off with a tad of 3D images, in a freely available modeller, or some such, and throw all that together into a beautiful peice of artwork. Show off features, rather than just a penguin. (If you put Tux in, throw him one of the screen shots, like an embedded graphic in the word processor or something.)
Well, those are my ideas. If you need any help, don't hesitate to e-mail me.:)
I'm sure there are a lot of people (like me) who don't buy movies because they would get bored with them quickly. I like to rent a movie, then maybe a few months later, rent it again. At say $3 a movie, that's only $6 rather than spending $20 to buy it. I don't really like watching movies 27 times in a row.
Another thing, even if there are a lot of pirates out there, are people going to buy some movie from a stranger with a DVD-R disc? If I was going to buy a movie, I would go in to a nice video store and buy one there. Also, some people actually have a conscience(I know those corporate types probably don't:) and they would feel at least a little guilty buying an illegal copy.
I mean really, has movie piracy been a big deal before? It's not like it's really that hard to copy a VHS tape. But anyone I know that may have a bogus copy of a movie has ONE movie, and doesn't have a big collection. They're protecting something that doesn't need protection. Computer games are easily copied, and they still make lots of money. Music CD's can be easily copied, and again, they still make plenty of money.
Slashdot Mirror
I think a standard *for* a GUI would be nice, from the programming perspective anyway. Something like one single API that anyone could use, but then different desktop environments could handle it in whatever way they like. One thing I don't like about some of the "standard" toolkits right now is the obvious gtk+ works best with Gnome, and qt works best with KDE.
I like both desktop environments, personally, but I don't like the separation like that. Is there anything we could do like that, other than have window manager/desktop environment/tk wars?
IANAL, and I don't know this stuff too well, but from what I've heard, isn't it that something that was produced in another state than the one purchased in, covered only by interstate trade laws, and state laws don't apply? I don't know for sure at all, but does anyone else know anything about this?
IANAL, but from what I've heard, isn't this state adoption of this act completely pointless? If you buy a product from a state where it was not manufactured, isn't that governed only by interstate trade laws, and not state laws? Wouldn't you have to buy a Virginia manufactured product *in* Virginia to make that law apply? Even if you lived in a state where they accepted the act, wouldn't only federal trace regulations apply?
Well, if what sells software is the user interface, then the company that wants to sell software should make their own. Say, if RedHat or Corel, or whoever want a nicer user interface for application foo, then they should write a front end. Then, they can sell the front end, make money off of it, and give away the meat for free. That way, the end-user gets his easy-to-use-gui, the corporation gets their money, and the OSS program stays free. The user gets the choice (does he want 's interface, or 's interface, or does he want the default) so all freedoms are there. Freedom to make money, freedom of choice, and freedom of software. Make sense?
I mean, sure, it's not so great they can track everything we do, but also look at it this way. If they start calling my house trying to sell me something, they're basically wasting my time. Same if they start cluttering my mailbox(both e- and snail) I delete it/throw it away--I already do that. However, if they're doing something like trying to find out what sorts of things I am personally interested in, let them. Wouldn't you much rather receive adds that you might possibly be interested in, rather than aluminum siding adds when you live in a dorm, or coupons for an oil change when you ride a bike to work/school, or internet web server tools when you don't have or want your own web site? (Okay, now I sound like an IBM/Lotus commercial)
I mean, seriously... ad companies specialize in one thing, ads. They don't want to blackmail you because you've been buying diamond jewlery online for your mistress, and buying your wife cheap wal-mart stuff. They want more effective advertising. Plus, by showing them what we like, then the businesses trying to make goods we'll buy will concentrate on what people want, rather than what everyone things people want. It's not really anything to be paranoid about. I'm sure half the companies in the world already have my name and address because I've bought something, but I don't care. Let them. Then they can see what I buy, and what I like. Who cares if Doubleclick has access to them now? It's all the better for us, if you ask me.
I agree, patents are necessary. Even software patents. If you spend every minute of your spare time working on something amazing, say some super compression that doesn't use up much CPU time, or some amazing encryption, or what have you, and after a couple of years of work, you finally finished it, you would probably want to be paid back for your effort.
Now, if you get a patent, then you're set. No one can copy and sell your encryption method without your consent. However, if you can't, and you attempt to sell it to a large corporation, maybe they buy into it at the beginning, but then they could easily steal your idea, saying it was theirs in the first place, and you have no way to prove it. Besides, it doesn't matter, since there are no patents to protect it. Then big corporation makes tons of money off of *your* work, and you end up with nothing.
Patents are necessary, whether you like them or not. We need them to protect the ones who created the things in the first place. People like you and me. Sure, then can go wrong, but generally they're a good thing. Sure, we all want everything to be open source and free, but we have to feed ourselves. Cola, beer, pizza, chips, etc. isn't exactly free, and I for one wouldn't want to be a poor OS developer working at McDonalds to pay for my food. So think it from other points of view when you think of patents.
I don't know about the leap year. I checked it in a 486 with the 1980 rollover problem, and it was okay, but not on the older ones. The only advice I can give is pretty much common sense--watch for it on Feb. 29th and reset it if necessary.
Well, most older bioses (pre 1995 or somewhere around then) roll over to 1980, but if you reboot, go into the bios setup, change it to 2000, then you won't have any more problems. I even have some 286's, and even an XT I've tried this on, so it's no big deal, really.
I've seen some financial software packages for Linux around. You just have to look for them.
Well, if you put it in roman numerals it doesn't really look right for 2001 being the start of the next millennium. (Even though I believe it is, so I'm not flaming or anything, just pointing something that I see out.)
If you turned Roman numerals into something like this:
C = century
M = millennium
When 1999 = MCMXCIX
and 2000 = MM
and 2001 = MMI which looks like just another year
in the millennium
Doesn't it look like MM = millennium * 2, or as in second millennium? (Of course, it would be the beginning of the *third* millennium) So... you can't really use Roman numerals to say that, because it doesn't look right. It seems like it's gonna be impossible to convince those non-believers that it starts on 2001. Sorry, Arthur.
Well, perhaps it is freedom. But it still kind of pisses me off that I can't get more than 100KBps throughput downloading a big file even though we have a T-1. and it's partially due to the fact that out customer service people are more often IM'ing each other than answering calls. I guess all I'm saying is that I wish the big companies such as MS and AOL didn't try to push net access so much, so that kind of thing would be kept to a minimum. Not restricting anyone from using the 'net to do whatever they want, but not advertising it as a place for that kind of stuff. I mean, chatting within AOL is one thing, but does Timmy have to suffer on his little ISP with mostly people sending Yahoo pager messages to each other?
:)
I'm just bitter, I suppose, because I can't utilize this bandwidth the way I want to.
This message is opinion only, and should not be taken as fact. Thank you.
I think a big problem with the confusion over this story is the definition of a PC. A lot of people think of a PC as your computer you have at home and you mess around with. But as the article pointed out, they were referring to the PC as the IBM compatible (now Intel based) computers. Non mainframes, minicomputers, supercomputers, etc. Just little boxes at max 4 feet tall and a 8" wide or some such. That includes servers, workstations, and desktops/home computers that can run anything from Linux to *BSD* to BeOS to NT to Win9x and more.
The question is, really, is this a good or bad thing? Is the internet as it is today much better as it was in '90 or '95 or even a year ago? Is it a good thing to have a lot of bandwidth gobbled up by people sending instant messages(of any sort, AOL, MS, Yahoo, etc.), porn, spam, and going to sites that don't enrich anyone's life?
IMHO, a good internet user is one who uses the internet for some good, be it to further their knowledge, save the environment, upload a patch for an opensource project, etc.
But this article is something I wouldn't expect to find on Slashdot. This is news for nerds, not propaganda for newbies. Most of us are know what we need to know about this sort of thing. Don't try to start pointless debates on whether or not PC's are the reason the internet is where it is today. Let's get back to posting stuff that actually interests and applies to the reader base.
I live in ABQ as well, and though I haven't looked yet (Too broke Christmas shopping to endulge in my own pleasures) most Loki games have shown up at CompUSA, and even Hastings. Well, the other Linux Quakes have been at Hastings. So they may have some as well. But, like I said, I haven't looked yet. I'll go check around today.
A unified theory of everything would certianly be a Good Thing(TM), but I really doubt anyone could discover that yet.
But still, if they got cold fusion to work, that would be cool. Nice, efficent, clean, virtually unlimited power. Mmmm. I'm hungry.
One big reason that at least newer monitors work with Win9X so well, is that they're plug and play monitors. They just tell Windows what timings they need for each resolution, and then it works. Of course, you need a PNP monitor, and possibly a recent graphics card, but it's still a breeze.
:) and maybe Jenny Linux Girl tried it before, and submitted the modeline(s), then Joe Average has it easy. What does anyone else think?
XFree needs PNP monitor support (Unless 3.9.x/4.x has/will have it) as well as some sort of user submitted modeline database for old monitors. I think a user submitted modeline database that could be included in a distro would be great. So that if Joe Average has some crappy no-name 14" (8.5" viewable
Will it pick up my computer cables off the floor and vacuum under them? ...or is it just going to eat them?
You know, back in the day this was actually a pretty common thing. My boss was telling me some story of how 20 years ago, if you needed a specific program, you'd call up a company, they'd write you the code that you specifically needed, you paid them for it, and they gave you the code. The code was yours. If you wanted them to fix a bug, you'd pay them again. Is this really any different?
Well, this is just my opinion, but do you need a review and comparison? Do the non-newbies need to know which is a "better" linux distro? Most likely you have your own favorite. Newbies need some sort of idea where to start. With Windows, there's really only one choice. Windows. (Sure there's 95, 98, 98SE, but they usually just go for the newest) I mean the average person who wants to check out Linux needs a good starting place. If reviews say RedHat, let them try RedHat. If they don't like it, they can try the second on the list, or ask someone they know that uses Linux.
:)
Advanced users don't need reviews. I mean, if you're a hardcore Debian user, are you going to care whether or not CNet or ZDNet or anybody says RedHat is best? No, you'll still use Debian because that's what you like. If you like Slackware, that's what you're going to use. If you like SuSE, that's what you'll use. The only real reason you should even care what a review says is to convince your boss to switch to Linux.
We need to stop the distro wars. Everyone is different, and are logically going to have different taste when it comes to something like this. Do you argue over Pizza toppings the same way? Do you tell people that pepperoni is too mainstream, and they should get hamburger because it's more pure? Do you tell your friends the only real topping is GNU/italian sausage?
The only thing that comes from this bickering is people are being turned off from Linux. Who wants that? Do you want software that says "Requires RedHat Linux"? Distros may look different, or have a different feel or installer, but it comes down to this: all distributions are created equal; no matter which you choose, it's still Linux. It's time to treat them that way.
Well, it won't provide more music. Both record companies and the musicians are happy with the amount of music a CD can hold. They'd much rather sell three CD's with 13 or 14 songs than one with 45 songs. For one, nobody's going to pay $40 to listen to one or two songs they like, not sure of the others, so you can potentially make more money by selling it in smaller quantities. So, the logical answer is what everyone else is saying. Higher sampling rates, better sound depth, etc. But I don't really think they want larger music capacity. Except maybe in some situations.
Don't forget that those left on the planet eventually all died from a disease contracted from a dirty telephone... and also don't forget that the B ship ended up on Earth and is where the human race started :)
But seriously, I am getting really sick of these marketing people. You can't really go anywhere and get a reliable objective review. Usually someone's posting anonymously or has been paid to give good reviews. Sigh.
Well, think about it. If Windows was open-sourced, and became stable, it would only be a good thing. If Windows had been stable, or if Windows had been free or open-sourced from the beginning, there wouldn't really be any need for the "Alternative."
The issue isn't something like "Linux vs. Windows" or "BSD vs. Windows" or "etc. vs. Windows" but it's free open-sourced software vs. closed-source software. and especially about freedom of choice. If M$ had the idea like "Windows is just one choice among many... we just try to make it the best." rather than "Windows is the only choice. You have to put up with whatever we give you." then I could stand it.
Open source is great because it promotes excellence through programmers egos--coders want a peice of the pie, and writing bad code isn't going to get them a slice--where closed-source builds egos through the secrecy, it doesn't matter if your chunk of code sucks, nobody has to know anything more than you worked on this major program.
Well, I suppose that was about $0.02 worth of words.
I call it Line-ux as well, because when I first saw the word, my brain made this simple association. Linus, in the US, usually pronounced Line-us. Linux, spelled almost the same, replacing the s with x, therefore it should be pronounced the same. Thus, Line-ux. Do you pronounce Linus Lynn-us?
It will always be thus in my mind. No matter what anyone says. If you say Lynn-us follows the rules of English or some such more closely, remember this. Linus, who named the damn thing in the first place, doesn't speak english as his first language. Anyhoo.
Well, this whole case was really about the desktop, wasn't it? It originally started because M$ bundled IE with Win9x. Maybe NT workstation could come into play, but it's really about monopolizing the desktop. M$ really doesn't monopolize the server market, because you've got *many* choices when it comes to that, Commercial Unices(Many of them), NT, NetWare, etc. This is really only where Linux could be considered a threat to M$, and that's why Linux shouldn't be considered a competitor to Win9x.
The penguin is nice, but it doesn't really tell you anything about Linux. (Does linux need a cold room to work?) You need something that illustrates it's features and or it's versatility.
:)
Show something somewhat abstract looking, like a small network diagram, with an overlapped screen shot of the GIMP working on a colorful photo. Throw in some command line stuff showing server configuring and it's Un*x like style, then show some clips of a word processor and a browser displaying a nice web page. Then top it off with a tad of 3D images, in a freely available modeller, or some such, and throw all that together into a beautiful peice of artwork. Show off features, rather than just a penguin. (If you put Tux in, throw him one of the screen shots, like an embedded graphic in the word processor or something.)
Well, those are my ideas. If you need any help, don't hesitate to e-mail me.
I'm sure there are a lot of people (like me) who don't buy movies because they would get bored with them quickly. I like to rent a movie, then maybe a few months later, rent it again. At say $3 a movie, that's only $6 rather than spending $20 to buy it. I don't really like watching movies 27 times in a row.
:) and they would feel at least a little guilty buying an illegal copy.
Another thing, even if there are a lot of pirates out there, are people going to buy some movie from a stranger with a DVD-R disc? If I was going to buy a movie, I would go in to a nice video store and buy one there. Also, some people actually have a conscience(I know those corporate types probably don't
I mean really, has movie piracy been a big deal before? It's not like it's really that hard to copy a VHS tape. But anyone I know that may have a bogus copy of a movie has ONE movie, and doesn't have a big collection. They're protecting something that doesn't need protection. Computer games are easily copied, and they still make lots of money. Music CD's can be easily copied, and again, they still make plenty of money.
So.. I think they should really give it a rest.