As long as they follow their business model they've always had - tying software to hardware - they'll never achieve enough market penetration to be Microsoft.
When Apple allows OSX to be installed on commodity PCs Apple will go out of business, seeing as how Apple makes money from selling hardware.
They could have very microsoft-ish market share if they'd sell OS/X for commodity hardware
Apple tried that, at one tyme Apple allowed Mac clones however they found out they lost more in hardware sells than they made in licensing the Mac OS.
They could have beat Microsoft the first time around if they weren't locking hardware and sofware developers out of their platform.
Apple locks out hardware develpers? Duh, Apple makes it's own hardware, computers. Apple locks out software developers? Try tellign that to members of Apple Developer Connection.
Want to tweak your os/x gui? Apple keeps breaking the interface with each update _on purpose_ in order to freeze out customization apps.
Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely. It's only a matter of time (and regulation).
And regulation removes power.
Regulations don't remove power when it's those who will be regulated who write the regulations. And in the case of the current US admin, Bush has appointed industry insiders to positions in which they can write the regulations.
Of course a company can take more "pro consumer" policies, and donate to charity, but it has to justify those policies as working towards generating profits. If it can be reasonably shown that the officers aren't acting in the best financial interests of all the shareholders, any of them can sue, regardless of the desires of the majority.
While I agree a company can make and use more "pro consumer" policies, they don't have to justify them as a method to generate profits. Whole Foods Markets is one company that was started on the primary goal of helping the community and stakeholders. Here's a page on thier core values.
Apple has the market on MP3 plays though, but I doubt they will have an increase in mac users any time soon.
Apple has already seen an increase in switchers to Macs. The First quarter growth of portable Macs was 65% year over year and was 3 tymes what the financial industry expected. Of the past 9 quarters, Apple has increased it's growth beyond expectations in all but one quarter. Sure, as compared to Windows users it's not much but it's wrong to say there hasn't been and won't be an increase in mac users.
This was also before I learned how Apple ganked it from Xerox
Apple didn't steal the GUI from Xerox PARC. In return for an investment in Apple Xerox invited Steve Jobs to Palo Alto Research Center, PARC, in 1979. There he saw some of the technology Xerox was working on there. Seeing the gui Xerox came up with he took the idea back to Apple where the Woz, Steve Wozniak, had a team work on the Lisa which became the Macintosh.
Now here I am 12 years later, typing on an AMD based computer running Windows XP, with my semi-new Mac Book Pro getting more and more use each day; I'm trying to "switch"(back). Much of this desire to switch is fueled by Microsoft's political moves, and not their technology. 2 examples...
For the past 10 years I've used Windows PCs 99%+ of the tyme however I too am switching because of Microsoft. Because of MS's policy of requiring Activation as well as WGA/WPA a few months ago I got a desktop PC with Linux preinstalled and hopefully rsn I'll be getting a Macbook Pro as my laptop.
In my perfect world, Microsoft, Apple, and a major Linux distribution each get 1/3 of the market share, with plenty of room for new up-and-coming OS's.
The British East India Company or the Dutch East India Company? The Dutch company preceded the British company by about 100 years, and was one of the first businesses to be granted a corporate charter. The Dutch started granting corporate charters to shipping companies to limit the liability of the shipping business. Prior to corporate charters being granted when a ship sank, otherwise was lost, or lost the cargo the owner of the company was held liable which discouraged people from shipping. To spur shipping the Dutch crown authorized corporations to form wherein an invester could only loose the amount of thier investment. As a result the Netherlands became the biggest traders for a while.
The problem is that Apple doesn't offer a regular-sized, consumer-level Core2Duo-based tower computer. The Mac Pro certainly doesn't count because it's Xeon-based, high-end workstation hardware and you pay for that.
That was a mistake Apple made when they got rid of thier mid range Macs. Apple needs to bring back a Mac between the iMac or Mac Mini and the Mac Pro. Why they got rid of the mid range Macs I don't know or can fantom.
Nobody except Apple is allowed to make any money from anything Apple related: you can only buy Apple stuff at the Apple Store or at Apple.com, businesses can only purchase hardware or software for Apples through Apple, and Apple makes sure it's stuff only works with Apple stuff:
I call BS! I know of a number of places, stores, I can legally buy Apple merchandize from. I know of two stores that legally sell Apple stuff, computers and iPods, peripherals, software for Macs, and accessories for iPod exclusively. They not only sell these but also offer Apple authorized repairs and services, one is not more than 10 minutes walk for me. Though I wouldn't buy one there, peolle can even buy Macbooks; iMacs, Mac Minis, and Mac Pros; Apple Cinema displays; or iPods from Best Buy. I can think of other national retailers that also sell Apple stuff. Simply, saying users can only buy Macs, iPods, and other Apple stuff from Apple is pure BS!
Well the real bitch of the create more jobs is the fact that businesses aren't held liable by their home nation for what they do overseas. If all of the trade nations got together and agreed to hold companies based in their lands liable for acts they commit elsewhere, and agree to only do business with nations that do that, we would be in alot better shape. No more Union Carbides and such
Actuaklly there is a way for foreigners to hold US businesses accountable though not many know about it, The Alien Tort Claims Act of 1789, and it has and is being used. In Colombia groups have filed lawsuits against Coke in US courts for supporting the paramilitary and death squads. In Indonesia, people have sued Exxon for supporting military units that torture people. Now, that I know of the act has not been used against Union Carbide, which I'd imagine is the perfect case to be used in.
No personal information may be stored on a computer accessable to an external nextwork except:
1) For up to 24 hours after recieving the information.
2) For up to 24 hours after the information is needed in a business transaction
3) For no more than 72 hours consecutive for any reason
4) For no more than 1 in 3 hours over any given timeframe of 216 hours or larger, except where initiated by the person to whom the data describes
And
5) No personal data can be taken outside of the secured data storage facility except via protected mechanisms for secure backup purposes (and the backups must be in a similarly secure facility). I.E. Joe Schmoe can take the data home on his laptop.
A problem with this as I see it is people wouldn't be able to access their credit reports online then. However if credit reports and FICO scores weren't as important as they are it wouldn't matter.
If people in general did not have the easy mortgages available, the highest price that they could pay for a property would be lower and the laws of supply and demand would dictate lower housing prices.
If mortgages were harder to get then less people would own qa home and would instead be renters which makes their credit worse. As microcredit has shown throughout the world the more people who have credit the better they do and the economy gets. As I said before it's not the ease of getting a morgage that's the problem, the problem is creditors extending too much credit, ie offering mortgages too big.
One of the most egregious mortgages I've seen available are the negative amortization loans where you don't even pay off the amount of interest accrued that month. In this case, you are truly gambling that your house's value will increase since your monthly payments, while lower, do not even cover the interest, so the amount you owe increases as time goes on.
Those that get such a mortgage are the ones at fault. If only people would learn more about finance and how to live within their means, admittedly that is hard for the working poor.
SSNs should be public info, not a closely guarded secrets. It's quite a good identifier but SUCKS as authenticator. Something like government-issued smart cards would be MUCH better.
SSNs should be abolished, not made public info or hidden secret. The federal government shouldn't be issuing any ids except passports.
I don't think people would go for that. Most people wouldn't want a different number for:
1) Their "normal" bank
2) Their mortgage lender
3) Each of their credit cards (if they have any)
4) Their employer
5) Their school/university
6) The credit report companies(?)
And the credit report companies wouldn't want that confusion either, nor would the government. It'd be too confusing to figure things out. In the latter cases, it make tax avoidance much easier, and probably make the IRS even bigger, as if it wasn't overstuffed as it is.
I've already had a bunch of numbers besides my ssn. I've got my driver's license number, one credit card and one debit card number, and I used to have three different bank account numbers. Having one number, the ssn, for all financial records makes it eqsier to steal ids. Credit bureaus may not want more than one number but that's because it's easier to track people with only one, however they have the ability to work with more. Government shouldn't be tracking people period! The IRS and income taxes should be abolished. Get rid of all of the federal agencies, departments, offices, ad nauseum that are not specifically authorized by the USA Constitution and there woudln't need to be any federal income tax.
I voted for Ron Paul for president the first tyme he was a candidate, back in 1988, though he ran as a Libertarian. It's because he ran that I learned of the Libertarian Party. Though I'm registered independent now if I have to I'll change my party affiliation to Republican just so I can vote for him in the primary.
Go look up how many people voted for the PATRIOT act
Ron Paul was one of two members of the House of Reps that voted against the PATRIOT Act. Or was the other person a Senator? I recall when congress was supposedly "debating" the act Ralph Nader issued a challenge to congress. He offered to pay $10,000 to any charity the member of congress chose if they would take a test on what is in the act and pass it. Not one member took the test.
If it were not so easy to get mortgage, especially the more ridiculous ones like the interest-only or the negative amortization loans (in which you don't even pay off the interest acrued each month!), people would have said "I can't possibily pay any more" a lot sooner. Then, the market would simply have risen more sanely and not overextended so much.
The problem isn't "easy" to get morgages, the problem is getting morgages that are too big for home buyers. After buying a home, unless the buyer gets an ARM morgage, and they get a good morgage thier housing cost will stay the same excepting maintainance. However renters will pay more and more every year. When they move they don't have any property to show for it, whereas a new homeowner that buys a starter home after a few years can sale the home and move into a little bigger home which they can use because their family has grown. Even better is if they can get a multiunit building. If the buyer can swing it they may be able to buy a duplex or triplex. Then they can live in one unit while renting out the other(s).
I believe unemployment and welfare have their places, but of all of the welfare cases I have seen only ONE actually used it as it was meant...to get back on their feet and get the hell off welfare, the rest just became leeches on the system raising taxes for the rest of us because they could get free handouts.
That's part of the problem with the welfare system in the USA, it's meant to keep people down. Someone who's on welfare can loose it if they try to improve their lives leaving them is worse shape. Instead of penalizing people for getting a job for instance, they should be given the resources to get a job and keep it. I recall years ago I was working fulltime however my employer didn't offer health insurance so I looked into getting my own. The health insurance I found would of cost me one third of my income however it was suggested I check into getting government assistance. So I did and I found out I made too much to qualify for assistance. I've met others who've lost thier food stamp benefits when they were finally able to find work, some continued to work and some quit, with children their welfare was about what they made working fulltime. And they had health coverage under welfare but no coverage from work.
Then again I want to go back to a Constitutionally limited government. Get rid of all of the unauthorized agencies, bureaus, departments, and offices then income tax could be abolished and replaced with a national sales tax as well as user fees. Then more businesses can create more jobs paying better wages and offer more benefits. With more people making more money civil society will be in a better position to help those who slip through the cracks.
I know they argue that the lack of certain applications and / or drivers is hindering adoption of free software and there is certainly some thruth to it. Well, I don't know. I think as long as I have the choice to exclude the proprietary repositories I'll be fine with it. But I probably wouldn't encourage people to install Ubuntu first, like I did in the past, but instead point them to Fedora.
Why wouldn't you encourage people to use software, whether an app, a driver, or an OS, that just works and allows the user to do what they want to use a computer for? Most people don't live for computers, instead they use computers to make their job and or life easier and more enjoyable.
I don't want access to proprietary software and codecs. I run Linux to use free software. I want open codecs, and GPL'd DVD player software et. al
That's your choice. Others just want a computer that works for them. They want to be able to legally play a movie, or like me use Photoshop to edit my photos. Though I have a desktop Linux PC I plan to get a Macbook Pro, then if I need to I can use Photoshop. Before I get PS I'll tryout different FOOS graphics apps but if they won't do what I want then when I can I'll get PS. Simply, though I'd like to be a Linux power user, I don't see why I should have to be one to use a computer. And the typical Joe/Jill can use Linspire as well as Ubuntu without needing to be a guru.
Debian's goal is general-purpose distro that consists entirely of Free software, while Ubuntu's goal is to have desktop and server distros that are highly-polished and ready for the non-technical end user. Hence, the default menus and such differ signficantly between Ubuntu and Debian. So it's a bit disingenious to say that Linspire continue to be based on Debian.
Linspire is pretty much a desktop that's polished and ready for use by nontechnical people now. It looks like Windows with "My Computer" and "My Documents" on the desktop and the ubiguous start button which Linspire calls "Launch" instead of "Start", probably for legal reasons. Where Linspire differs from Ubuntu is that while Ubuntu has as you say a server distro Linspire is specifically for the desktop mass market. A few months ago I got a new desktop, tower really, PC with Linspire preinstalled however I also would like to install Ubuntu and start working with servers.
Also check out Paint.net Its a program called Paint.net Its free and may suit your needs. Its a decent free photoediting/painting program.
Thanks, Paint.net looks interesting however it's Windows, XP or Vista, only and I'm switching to Linux and Mac OSX. Another thing, looking through the info and searching the forum it looks like it only has an 8 bit colour depth. I want at least 16 bit colour depth.
Slashdot Mirror
As long as they follow their business model they've always had - tying software to hardware - they'll never achieve enough market penetration to be Microsoft.
When Apple allows OSX to be installed on commodity PCs Apple will go out of business, seeing as how Apple makes money from selling hardware.
They could have very microsoft-ish market share if they'd sell OS/X for commodity hardware
Apple tried that, at one tyme Apple allowed Mac clones however they found out they lost more in hardware sells than they made in licensing the Mac OS.
FalconThey could have beat Microsoft the first time around if they weren't locking hardware and sofware developers out of their platform.
Apple locks out hardware develpers? Duh, Apple makes it's own hardware, computers. Apple locks out software developers? Try tellign that to members of Apple Developer Connection.
Want to tweak your os/x gui? Apple keeps breaking the interface with each update _on purpose_ in order to freeze out customization apps.
And Microsoft doesn't?
FalconPower corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely. It's only a matter of time (and regulation).
And regulation removes power.
Regulations don't remove power when it's those who will be regulated who write the regulations. And in the case of the current US admin, Bush has appointed industry insiders to positions in which they can write the regulations.
FalconOf course a company can take more "pro consumer" policies, and donate to charity, but it has to justify those policies as working towards generating profits. If it can be reasonably shown that the officers aren't acting in the best financial interests of all the shareholders, any of them can sue, regardless of the desires of the majority.
While I agree a company can make and use more "pro consumer" policies, they don't have to justify them as a method to generate profits. Whole Foods Markets is one company that was started on the primary goal of helping the community and stakeholders. Here's a page on thier core values.
FalconApple has the market on MP3 plays though, but I doubt they will have an increase in mac users any time soon.
Apple has already seen an increase in switchers to Macs. The First quarter growth of portable Macs was 65% year over year and was 3 tymes what the financial industry expected. Of the past 9 quarters, Apple has increased it's growth beyond expectations in all but one quarter. Sure, as compared to Windows users it's not much but it's wrong to say there hasn't been and won't be an increase in mac users.
FalconThis was also before I learned how Apple ganked it from Xerox
Apple didn't steal the GUI from Xerox PARC. In return for an investment in Apple Xerox invited Steve Jobs to Palo Alto Research Center, PARC, in 1979. There he saw some of the technology Xerox was working on there. Seeing the gui Xerox came up with he took the idea back to Apple where the Woz, Steve Wozniak, had a team work on the Lisa which became the Macintosh.
Now here I am 12 years later, typing on an AMD based computer running Windows XP, with my semi-new Mac Book Pro getting more and more use each day; I'm trying to "switch"(back). Much of this desire to switch is fueled by Microsoft's political moves, and not their technology. 2 examples...
For the past 10 years I've used Windows PCs 99%+ of the tyme however I too am switching because of Microsoft. Because of MS's policy of requiring Activation as well as WGA/WPA a few months ago I got a desktop PC with Linux preinstalled and hopefully rsn I'll be getting a Macbook Pro as my laptop.
In my perfect world, Microsoft, Apple, and a major Linux distribution each get 1/3 of the market share, with plenty of room for new up-and-coming OS's.
I'd add interoperability.
FalconThe British East India Company or the Dutch East India Company? The Dutch company preceded the British company by about 100 years, and was one of the first businesses to be granted a corporate charter. The Dutch started granting corporate charters to shipping companies to limit the liability of the shipping business. Prior to corporate charters being granted when a ship sank, otherwise was lost, or lost the cargo the owner of the company was held liable which discouraged people from shipping. To spur shipping the Dutch crown authorized corporations to form wherein an invester could only loose the amount of thier investment. As a result the Netherlands became the biggest traders for a while.
FalconThe problem is that Apple doesn't offer a regular-sized, consumer-level Core2Duo-based tower computer. The Mac Pro certainly doesn't count because it's Xeon-based, high-end workstation hardware and you pay for that.
That was a mistake Apple made when they got rid of thier mid range Macs. Apple needs to bring back a Mac between the iMac or Mac Mini and the Mac Pro. Why they got rid of the mid range Macs I don't know or can fantom.
FalconNobody except Apple is allowed to make any money from anything Apple related: you can only buy Apple stuff at the Apple Store or at Apple.com, businesses can only purchase hardware or software for Apples through Apple, and Apple makes sure it's stuff only works with Apple stuff:
I call BS! I know of a number of places, stores, I can legally buy Apple merchandize from. I know of two stores that legally sell Apple stuff, computers and iPods, peripherals, software for Macs, and accessories for iPod exclusively. They not only sell these but also offer Apple authorized repairs and services, one is not more than 10 minutes walk for me. Though I wouldn't buy one there, peolle can even buy Macbooks; iMacs, Mac Minis, and Mac Pros; Apple Cinema displays; or iPods from Best Buy. I can think of other national retailers that also sell Apple stuff. Simply, saying users can only buy Macs, iPods, and other Apple stuff from Apple is pure BS!
FalconWell the real bitch of the create more jobs is the fact that businesses aren't held liable by their home nation for what they do overseas. If all of the trade nations got together and agreed to hold companies based in their lands liable for acts they commit elsewhere, and agree to only do business with nations that do that, we would be in alot better shape. No more Union Carbides and such
Actuaklly there is a way for foreigners to hold US businesses accountable though not many know about it, The Alien Tort Claims Act of 1789, and it has and is being used. In Colombia groups have filed lawsuits against Coke in US courts for supporting the paramilitary and death squads. In Indonesia, people have sued Exxon for supporting military units that torture people. Now, that I know of the act has not been used against Union Carbide, which I'd imagine is the perfect case to be used in.
Falconwhy not add the following as well:
No personal information may be stored on a computer accessable to an external nextwork except:
1) For up to 24 hours after recieving the information.
2) For up to 24 hours after the information is needed in a business transaction
3) For no more than 72 hours consecutive for any reason
4) For no more than 1 in 3 hours over any given timeframe of 216 hours or larger, except where initiated by the person to whom the data describes
And
5) No personal data can be taken outside of the secured data storage facility except via protected mechanisms for secure backup purposes (and the backups must be in a similarly secure facility). I.E. Joe Schmoe can take the data home on his laptop.
A problem with this as I see it is people wouldn't be able to access their credit reports online then. However if credit reports and FICO scores weren't as important as they are it wouldn't matter.
Falcon
If people in general did not have the easy mortgages available, the highest price that they could pay for a property would be lower and the laws of supply and demand would dictate lower housing prices.
If mortgages were harder to get then less people would own qa home and would instead be renters which makes their credit worse. As microcredit has shown throughout the world the more people who have credit the better they do and the economy gets. As I said before it's not the ease of getting a morgage that's the problem, the problem is creditors extending too much credit, ie offering mortgages too big.
One of the most egregious mortgages I've seen available are the negative amortization loans where you don't even pay off the amount of interest accrued that month. In this case, you are truly gambling that your house's value will increase since your monthly payments, while lower, do not even cover the interest, so the amount you owe increases as time goes on.
Those that get such a mortgage are the ones at fault. If only people would learn more about finance and how to live within their means, admittedly that is hard for the working poor.
FalconSSNs should be public info, not a closely guarded secrets. It's quite a good identifier but SUCKS as authenticator. Something like government-issued smart cards would be MUCH better.
SSNs should be abolished, not made public info or hidden secret. The federal government shouldn't be issuing any ids except passports.
FalconThe SSN should be only considered as a gov't assigned userid
Get rid of the SSN period!
FalconI don't think people would go for that. Most people wouldn't want a different number for:
1) Their "normal" bank
2) Their mortgage lender
3) Each of their credit cards (if they have any)
4) Their employer
5) Their school/university
6) The credit report companies(?)
And the credit report companies wouldn't want that confusion either, nor would the government. It'd be too confusing to figure things out. In the latter cases, it make tax avoidance much easier, and probably make the IRS even bigger, as if it wasn't overstuffed as it is.
I've already had a bunch of numbers besides my ssn. I've got my driver's license number, one credit card and one debit card number, and I used to have three different bank account numbers. Having one number, the ssn, for all financial records makes it eqsier to steal ids. Credit bureaus may not want more than one number but that's because it's easier to track people with only one, however they have the ability to work with more. Government shouldn't be tracking people period! The IRS and income taxes should be abolished. Get rid of all of the federal agencies, departments, offices, ad nauseum that are not specifically authorized by the USA Constitution and there woudln't need to be any federal income tax.
FalconI voted for Ron Paul for president the first tyme he was a candidate, back in 1988, though he ran as a Libertarian. It's because he ran that I learned of the Libertarian Party. Though I'm registered independent now if I have to I'll change my party affiliation to Republican just so I can vote for him in the primary.
Go look up how many people voted for the PATRIOT act
Ron Paul was one of two members of the House of Reps that voted against the PATRIOT Act. Or was the other person a Senator? I recall when congress was supposedly "debating" the act Ralph Nader issued a challenge to congress. He offered to pay $10,000 to any charity the member of congress chose if they would take a test on what is in the act and pass it. Not one member took the test.
FalconIf it were not so easy to get mortgage, especially the more ridiculous ones like the interest-only or the negative amortization loans (in which you don't even pay off the interest acrued each month!), people would have said "I can't possibily pay any more" a lot sooner. Then, the market would simply have risen more sanely and not overextended so much.
The problem isn't "easy" to get morgages, the problem is getting morgages that are too big for home buyers. After buying a home, unless the buyer gets an ARM morgage, and they get a good morgage thier housing cost will stay the same excepting maintainance. However renters will pay more and more every year. When they move they don't have any property to show for it, whereas a new homeowner that buys a starter home after a few years can sale the home and move into a little bigger home which they can use because their family has grown. Even better is if they can get a multiunit building. If the buyer can swing it they may be able to buy a duplex or triplex. Then they can live in one unit while renting out the other(s).
FalconI believe unemployment and welfare have their places, but of all of the welfare cases I have seen only ONE actually used it as it was meant...to get back on their feet and get the hell off welfare, the rest just became leeches on the system raising taxes for the rest of us because they could get free handouts.
That's part of the problem with the welfare system in the USA, it's meant to keep people down. Someone who's on welfare can loose it if they try to improve their lives leaving them is worse shape. Instead of penalizing people for getting a job for instance, they should be given the resources to get a job and keep it. I recall years ago I was working fulltime however my employer didn't offer health insurance so I looked into getting my own. The health insurance I found would of cost me one third of my income however it was suggested I check into getting government assistance. So I did and I found out I made too much to qualify for assistance. I've met others who've lost thier food stamp benefits when they were finally able to find work, some continued to work and some quit, with children their welfare was about what they made working fulltime. And they had health coverage under welfare but no coverage from work.
Then again I want to go back to a Constitutionally limited government. Get rid of all of the unauthorized agencies, bureaus, departments, and offices then income tax could be abolished and replaced with a national sales tax as well as user fees. Then more businesses can create more jobs paying better wages and offer more benefits. With more people making more money civil society will be in a better position to help those who slip through the cracks.
Falconchoice
It's only a choice for most of the poor if who you're parents are is a choice. I don't ever recall having a choice as to who my parents will be.
FalconCurrent "Republicans" are for increasing big business and Democrats for big government.
Current Republicans are just as pro big government as Democrats, the only difference is what part of government would be bigger.
FalconAre you saying that the US government has jumped the shark?
Government is the shark!
FalconI know they argue that the lack of certain applications and / or drivers is hindering adoption of free software and there is certainly some thruth to it. Well, I don't know. I think as long as I have the choice to exclude the proprietary repositories I'll be fine with it. But I probably wouldn't encourage people to install Ubuntu first, like I did in the past, but instead point them to Fedora.
Why wouldn't you encourage people to use software, whether an app, a driver, or an OS, that just works and allows the user to do what they want to use a computer for? Most people don't live for computers, instead they use computers to make their job and or life easier and more enjoyable.
FalconI don't want access to proprietary software and codecs. I run Linux to use free software. I want open codecs, and GPL'd DVD player software et. al
That's your choice. Others just want a computer that works for them. They want to be able to legally play a movie, or like me use Photoshop to edit my photos. Though I have a desktop Linux PC I plan to get a Macbook Pro, then if I need to I can use Photoshop. Before I get PS I'll tryout different FOOS graphics apps but if they won't do what I want then when I can I'll get PS. Simply, though I'd like to be a Linux power user, I don't see why I should have to be one to use a computer. And the typical Joe/Jill can use Linspire as well as Ubuntu without needing to be a guru.
Debian's goal is general-purpose distro that consists entirely of Free software, while Ubuntu's goal is to have desktop and server distros that are highly-polished and ready for the non-technical end user. Hence, the default menus and such differ signficantly between Ubuntu and Debian. So it's a bit disingenious to say that Linspire continue to be based on Debian.
Linspire is pretty much a desktop that's polished and ready for use by nontechnical people now. It looks like Windows with "My Computer" and "My Documents" on the desktop and the ubiguous start button which Linspire calls "Launch" instead of "Start", probably for legal reasons. Where Linspire differs from Ubuntu is that while Ubuntu has as you say a server distro Linspire is specifically for the desktop mass market. A few months ago I got a new desktop, tower really, PC with Linspire preinstalled however I also would like to install Ubuntu and start working with servers.
FalconAlso check out Paint.net Its a program called Paint.net Its free and may suit your needs. Its a decent free photoediting/painting program.
Thanks, Paint.net looks interesting however it's Windows, XP or Vista, only and I'm switching to Linux and Mac OSX. Another thing, looking through the info and searching the forum it looks like it only has an 8 bit colour depth. I want at least 16 bit colour depth.
Falcon