Not to mention, Intuit's tight integration with your bank and their ability to force you to upgrade to the latest version when they decide to not allow your version to check your accounts anymore. This just happened to me...
What is the real requirement that would make you pick Macs over Linux or Windows?
A complete turn-key workstation with a more mature and integrated user interface, and software capable of allowing computer novices to perform their jobs...
Linux (I am sad to say) doesn't really have a dog in this fight yet. I do see the Linux platform advancing closer to this goal, but it is not quite there yet. I do promote Linux at my workplace, but I do see deficiencies and I try to fix them. Speaking for myself, I can see the "finish line" but it won't happen tomorrow, but real soon...
I will say that a cheap computer (or laptop) with linux (maybe ubuntu) pre-installed with openoffice, firefox, and thunderbird comes "pretty damn close". It's only when you add new hardware, or go beyond those three programs do you see the major cracks... Not to mention the quirky issues and the unfinished look and feel of OpenOffice and other popular Linux programs, but I digress..,
I know posting realistic views of Linux attracts flames, but what the hay?
And a lot of corporate users are on mid towers they also like to reuse displays from older systems and like to swap out hard disks / not have to send them off to have them replaced.
I understand what you are saying, but it doesn't really make sense any more. Sure 10 years ago when complete systems were expensive it was cost effective to replace individual components, but now -- why?
The following applies more to medium to large organizations:
You can lower department overhead by just swapping complete workstations. Just use an external drive with time machine to make automatic backups of the user's private files stored on his local machine while the company's data is stored on network drives. Now when a computer has a hardware issue, just swap it out with a spare iMac (the money you save with a smaller IT department should allow you to by a small number of swappable spares) and have the broken computer serviced by Apple or one of their authorized service centers. When the repaired unit returns, stick it in the swappable spare storage...
You save money on two fronts: 1) Smaller IT support staff (You still need them for software issues). 2) (*most importantly*) Smaller downtime for the employee who has the malfunctioning machine. The amount of money spent on idle labor and having a repair man greatly exceeds the amount of money spent on spares and outside hardware service.
Maybe (just maybe) the confusion began when the computer electronics industry applied SI prefixes to industry units. I mean come on, what harm could come from using base-10 prefixes with base-2 units? After all, it's only the folks in the hardware industry using this right?
Oh wait... Now that we have more users outside of the hardware industry using these machines and they are more familiar with the correct (base-10) usage of SI prefixes who could blame them for the confusion over quantity?
It is hard for us to imagine what a lay person comprehends when they see 1MB. For all they know, they received some free bonus memory after the initial 1,000,000 bytes.
Of course unit confusion can happen to people actually in the computer industry. I've lost count of the number of times I had to correct someone because they were off by a factor of 8 because they aren't accustomed to hardware capacities of memory components being measured in bits and not in bytes (octets)...
Anyway back to the topic of the article and this is not necessarily address to the parent post.
I'm old enough to remember when everything was advertised using base-2 units, and remember when hard-drive capacities began to be advertised using base-10 units. This happened a long time ago, and long before MP3 players made their appearance. So I am sceptical that any consumers where confused by the use of base-10 to sell hard drive capacities.
Besides most of the advertisements and the packaging of the retail versions of these drives have fine print stating the capacity is given in base-10 and the amount reported by the OS may be lower...
And it was, just a joke. I'm not into the whole "Open Source and save the planet and trees" mindset. I like Linux because it is a cool operating system, nothing more than that. It's free, and that's cool. And, there's some stuff about Windows that I like too.
Fancy that... an open source team releases a product on time, as promised, and delivers the feature sets they promised.. meanwhile, the leading closed source competitor.....
I know you were trying to make a humorous point, but...
Let me make some minor adjustments:
Fancy that... an open source team releases a product on time, as promised, and delivers the feature sets they promised [regardless of the quality of the release].. meanwhile, the leading closed source competitor [usually waits until most of the pressing issues are taken care of, and usually face ridicule for the bugs still released].....
So what was your point;)?
I use Ubuntu and I will wait and allow the early downloaders to report all the issues that haven't been ironed out yet before I update.
I'm a bigger fan of we will mark it released when it's ready, than the let's release it on an arbitrary date that fits within our version numbering system.
The ignorance of this statement is astonishing. There have been reports of a problem with OLPC keyboards. People have had success repairing the problem. You don't know anything about the service strategy of the OLPC (as witness your statement about the 30-day warranty, which is for G1G1 OLPCs, not end-user OLPCs).
OK. Let me modify my statement. The OLPC program thanks the people who purchase using the G1G1 program by providing them only with a 30 day warranty... Yea that's much better.
The idea of the laptop is to make schools and children responsible for and in control of their own technology, rather than being passively spoon fed technology.
So are you saying that the laptop is defective by design?
If we have any hope of saving the planet from being one giant landfill dump, then we really need to learn to fix electronic devices ourselves.
What? How is filling the landfill with defective keyboards being Earth friendly?
Face it. It looks like the OLPC didn't have enough testing at the manufacturing level before settling on the cheapest keyboard supplier. The other strange thing about this is that despite the laptop's intended market being people who would normally not have access to computers because of cost or location they only provide a 30 day warranty.
By giving only a 30 day warranty and manufacturing the laptop as cheaply as possible, they may have unintentionally relegated their product as the first truly disposable laptop (again not as Earth friendly as you would like).
If this is true, no open source software can be released for the iPhone.
Not true. Open source software can exist within a community of Apple SDK developers. If you want to download the source and modify it, just join the Apple developers program.
ISO had a opportunity to give the Ãoemarket placeà a chance but instead decided to assist a proven abusive and monopolistic company in it's bid to remain to moving target when it comes to being interoperable and compatible.
You *may* be putting too much value in ISO standards and its ability to stop a moving target and promoting interoperability. There is a difference between having a standard and having that standard enforced.
O Really? Don't get me wrong, because I prefer the GPL but I understand what the terms are.
Public Domain is the most free. Absolutely no restriction on how or what you have to distribute and no restriction on price. The users are free to manipulate the source code as they see fit. Since it gives the developers the most freedom, it gives the users no "freedom" when it comes to derived works. The users can only get access to the original source and not necessarily from the author of the derived work.
BSD is the second most free. It's like public domain, with some credit and advertising clause.
GPL is restrictive.
Basically the original developer gives up some freedoms, to protect the freedoms of the intended users.
GPL is mostly free in cost. The GPL doesn't require the author to give the program for free, instead it allows the users the freedom to share with others.
You have strict rules on how and what you distribute. Also, you now have rules on what types of hardware you can develop it for (re: Tivo).
The reason why I like the GPL is that I want to give my software out for free, and I like the restrictions that force others to contribute to the maintenance of my works. Not many boilerplate licenses have this feature and the acceptance by the community at large (thanks to the marketing done by FSF).
This is the irony that is GPL. It really has the most restrictions of most developer license, but people still see it as more free because of what it allows the end users.
However there are cases where GPL fails such as the iPhone SDK. There is the ability to share code with the developer community, and the ability to give the working applications to the end users for free. Unfortunately the restrictions dictated by the GPL may prevent any iPhone software (outside of unlocking) from being GPL.
GPL is just a generalized free software license, and is really not meant to be used in every situation. I know the FSF don't like to hear this, but there are more appropriate free licenses out there. Just pick the free license that best suits you and the distribution system that you want to utilize.
Just because it's not GPL compatible doesn't make it bad...
Hardware on the other hand, not so much. What's needed to develop on hardware should be license agnostic.
There are other hardware manufacturers. So if you don't like the terms required to support the iPhone, then help out the GPL compatible alternatives instead (eg. Nokia N810)..
No, "turning it into a reasonable standard" is stupid regardless, because we already have a reasonable standard -- namely, ODF -- and don't need a different one.
The job of the ISO is not to approve the one -and-only-one standard for a given task. Its job is to be a repository of standards that can be followed by all those whose wish to comply with said standard.
Ideally the bulk of the ISO's work should be to only accept standards that CAN be followed by others outside of the original submitter.
There is nothing wrong with the market leader of that application (ie. Microsoft and its Word) setting the standard. As long as that standard can be followed by those OUTSIDE of Microsoft.
The reason some open source enthusiasts are opposed to OOXML is because they would like to create a market for ODF through legislation rather than through competition. While others, such as myself, would be glad to have a document file format that is described well enough to be considered a standard which can be implemented by anyone regardless of the standard's author. We (well at least I) oppose OOXML solely on the merits of its documentation and the method that Microsoft has used to push the inadequate documentation through the standards process. Once OOXML gets its documentation up to shape, I see no reason for it not being accepted by the ISO.
You're correct. I just posted the first trial I found where Monsanto was fighting to protect it's IP rights. The parent post was just asking for trials and/or papers.
To start another line of thinking...
What would our reaction be if music studios created files that self propogated onto other network servers, and the RIAA actively pursued the server owners who tried to take advantage of the files found on their equipment?
My points being that (regardless of the facts in the case that I referenced):
1) Maybe Monsanto should protect its IP by engineering its products to minimize the possibility of spreading its genetic material to nearby crops. This would make its product more environmentally friendly.
2) Unless the farmer actually stole specimens from a neighbouring field, shouldn't he be allowed to manipulate the crops he owns as he sees fit?
Monsanto has won a legal battle against a Canadian farmer it accused of growing a form of genetically modified rapeseed it had patented without paying for it.
Canada's Supreme Court on Friday ruled that Percy Schmeiser, who was found to be growing the GM rapeseed in 1998, had breached Monsanto's patent.
He had denied planting Monsanto seeds, saying they took root on his land through natural cross-pollination.
The case became a cause celebre among opponents of GM crops.
They claimed that a decision in Monsanto's favour would expose all farmers whose crops became accidentally pollinated by GM plants to lawsuits.
It's obvious that the 50% figure is from using the "Right Hand Extraction" method (aka pulling it out of your...), but let's talk about your reasoning behind the number.
All kidding aside, the spammer only pays for access to the internet. He does not in any way,shape, or form subsidize your access to the internet.
When you pay your ISP for internet access, you are paying for a certain amount of bandwidth for data and certain amount of storage space on the mail server. When you receive spam, you are losing the value of your investment since spam takes space from your email account without providing you any benefit and lowers your carriers ability to provide you the bandwidth you desired due to the incoming spam taking effective bandwidth away from the internet.
A more accurate statement would be:
While a spammer pays a small cost for access to the internet. None of the money spent by the spammer is used to offset the resulting expense and loss of ROI experienced by the recipient and the recipient's ISP.
Slashdot Mirror
Not to mention, Intuit's tight integration with your bank and their ability to force you to upgrade to the latest version when they decide to not allow your version to check your accounts anymore. This just happened to me...
A complete turn-key workstation with a more mature and integrated user interface, and software capable of allowing computer novices to perform their jobs...
Linux (I am sad to say) doesn't really have a dog in this fight yet. I do see the Linux platform advancing closer to this goal, but it is not quite there yet. I do promote Linux at my workplace, but I do see deficiencies and I try to fix them. Speaking for myself, I can see the "finish line" but it won't happen tomorrow, but real soon...
I will say that a cheap computer (or laptop) with linux (maybe ubuntu) pre-installed with openoffice, firefox, and thunderbird comes "pretty damn close". It's only when you add new hardware, or go beyond those three programs do you see the major cracks... Not to mention the quirky issues and the unfinished look and feel of OpenOffice and other popular Linux programs, but I digress..,
I know posting realistic views of Linux attracts flames, but what the hay?
I understand what you are saying, but it doesn't really make sense any more. Sure 10 years ago when complete systems were expensive it was cost effective to replace individual components, but now -- why?
The following applies more to medium to large organizations:
You can lower department overhead by just swapping complete workstations. Just use an external drive with time machine to make automatic backups of the user's private files stored on his local machine while the company's data is stored on network drives. Now when a computer has a hardware issue, just swap it out with a spare iMac (the money you save with a smaller IT department should allow you to by a small number of swappable spares) and have the broken computer serviced by Apple or one of their authorized service centers. When the repaired unit returns, stick it in the swappable spare storage...
You save money on two fronts: 1) Smaller IT support staff (You still need them for software issues). 2) (*most importantly*) Smaller downtime for the employee who has the malfunctioning machine. The amount of money spent on idle labor and having a repair man greatly exceeds the amount of money spent on spares and outside hardware service.
Who is we?
Jeez, chill man.
Maybe (just maybe) the confusion began when the computer electronics industry applied SI prefixes to industry units. I mean come on, what harm could come from using base-10 prefixes with base-2 units? After all, it's only the folks in the hardware industry using this right?
Oh wait... Now that we have more users outside of the hardware industry using these machines and they are more familiar with the correct (base-10) usage of SI prefixes who could blame them for the confusion over quantity?
It is hard for us to imagine what a lay person comprehends when they see 1MB. For all they know, they received some free bonus memory after the initial 1,000,000 bytes.
Of course unit confusion can happen to people actually in the computer industry. I've lost count of the number of times I had to correct someone because they were off by a factor of 8 because they aren't accustomed to hardware capacities of memory components being measured in bits and not in bytes (octets)...
Anyway back to the topic of the article and this is not necessarily address to the parent post.
I'm old enough to remember when everything was advertised using base-2 units, and remember when hard-drive capacities began to be advertised using base-10 units. This happened a long time ago, and long before MP3 players made their appearance. So I am sceptical that any consumers where confused by the use of base-10 to sell hard drive capacities.
Besides most of the advertisements and the packaging of the retail versions of these drives have fine print stating the capacity is given in base-10 and the amount reported by the OS may be lower...
Cool. We're on the same wavelength.
I know you were trying to make a humorous point, but...
Let me make some minor adjustments:
Fancy that... an open source team releases a product on time, as promised, and delivers the feature sets they promised [regardless of the quality of the release].. meanwhile, the leading closed source competitor [usually waits until most of the pressing issues are taken care of, and usually face ridicule for the bugs still released].....
So what was your point ;)?
I use Ubuntu and I will wait and allow the early downloaders to report all the issues that haven't been ironed out yet before I update.
I'm a bigger fan of we will mark it released when it's ready, than the let's release it on an arbitrary date that fits within our version numbering system.
They could fast track it and say the program must print "12" on exit.
You may want to look at the way the Internet Engineering Task Force works.
They are the ones that manage the RFCs that we take for granted today...
OK. Let me modify my statement. The OLPC program thanks the people who purchase using the G1G1 program by providing them only with a 30 day warranty... Yea that's much better.
Whatever you do, don't let him play Black Betty....
So are you saying that the laptop is defective by design?
What? How is filling the landfill with defective keyboards being Earth friendly?
Face it. It looks like the OLPC didn't have enough testing at the manufacturing level before settling on the cheapest keyboard supplier. The other strange thing about this is that despite the laptop's intended market being people who would normally not have access to computers because of cost or location they only provide a 30 day warranty.
By giving only a 30 day warranty and manufacturing the laptop as cheaply as possible, they may have unintentionally relegated their product as the first truly disposable laptop (again not as Earth friendly as you would like).
I don't know what this has to do with being an employee of Apple, but ok...
Get your parent or legal guardian to agree to the terms on your behalf. Blame contract law in the US.
Can't help you there. I guess you will have to wait for the SDK to be released in your region.
Actually no. While your hyperbole is entertaining, it is most definitely mischaracterizing what I said.
1) You don't have to be employed by Apple to access the SDK or agree to any of its terms.
2) The definition of open source involves the source being available to the end user.
Not true. Open source software can exist within a community of Apple SDK developers. If you want to download the source and modify it, just join the Apple developers program.
You *may* be putting too much value in ISO standards and its ability to stop a moving target and promoting interoperability. There is a difference between having a standard and having that standard enforced.
Just look at ISO-15445 for example...
Actually you can have open source software without being GPL.
So "open source" not equal to "GPL".
O Really? Don't get me wrong, because I prefer the GPL but I understand what the terms are.
Public Domain is the most free. Absolutely no restriction on how or what you have to distribute and no restriction on price. The users are free to manipulate the source code as they see fit. Since it gives the developers the most freedom, it gives the users no "freedom" when it comes to derived works. The users can only get access to the original source and not necessarily from the author of the derived work.
BSD is the second most free. It's like public domain, with some credit and advertising clause.
GPL is restrictive.
Basically the original developer gives up some freedoms, to protect the freedoms of the intended users.
GPL is mostly free in cost. The GPL doesn't require the author to give the program for free, instead it allows the users the freedom to share with others.
You have strict rules on how and what you distribute. Also, you now have rules on what types of hardware you can develop it for (re: Tivo).
The reason why I like the GPL is that I want to give my software out for free, and I like the restrictions that force others to contribute to the maintenance of my works. Not many boilerplate licenses have this feature and the acceptance by the community at large (thanks to the marketing done by FSF).
This is the irony that is GPL. It really has the most restrictions of most developer license, but people still see it as more free because of what it allows the end users.
However there are cases where GPL fails such as the iPhone SDK. There is the ability to share code with the developer community, and the ability to give the working applications to the end users for free. Unfortunately the restrictions dictated by the GPL may prevent any iPhone software (outside of unlocking) from being GPL.
GPL is just a generalized free software license, and is really not meant to be used in every situation. I know the FSF don't like to hear this, but there are more appropriate free licenses out there. Just pick the free license that best suits you and the distribution system that you want to utilize.
Just because it's not GPL compatible doesn't make it bad...
There are other hardware manufacturers. So if you don't like the terms required to support the iPhone, then help out the GPL compatible alternatives instead (eg. Nokia N810)..
Yea that's why they are buying Circuit City...
It's slashdot... Just wait and see.. ;)
The job of the ISO is not to approve the one -and-only-one standard for a given task. Its job is to be a repository of standards that can be followed by all those whose wish to comply with said standard.
Ideally the bulk of the ISO's work should be to only accept standards that CAN be followed by others outside of the original submitter.
There is nothing wrong with the market leader of that application (ie. Microsoft and its Word) setting the standard. As long as that standard can be followed by those OUTSIDE of Microsoft.
The reason some open source enthusiasts are opposed to OOXML is because they would like to create a market for ODF through legislation rather than through competition. While others, such as myself, would be glad to have a document file format that is described well enough to be considered a standard which can be implemented by anyone regardless of the standard's author. We (well at least I) oppose OOXML solely on the merits of its documentation and the method that Microsoft has used to push the inadequate documentation through the standards process. Once OOXML gets its documentation up to shape, I see no reason for it not being accepted by the ISO.
You're correct. I just posted the first trial I found where Monsanto was fighting to protect it's IP rights. The parent post was just asking for trials and/or papers.
To start another line of thinking...
What would our reaction be if music studios created files that self propogated onto other network servers, and the RIAA actively pursued the server owners who tried to take advantage of the files found on their equipment?
My points being that (regardless of the facts in the case that I referenced):
1) Maybe Monsanto should protect its IP by engineering its products to minimize the possibility of spreading its genetic material to nearby crops. This would make its product more environmentally friendly.
2) Unless the farmer actually stole specimens from a neighbouring field, shouldn't he be allowed to manipulate the crops he owns as he sees fit?
Well..
1) He asked for a trial, I found him one.
2) May I refer you to another slashdot article Wikipedia Breeds Unwitting Trust (Says IT Professor) dated today ;) .
How about this for an actual trial?
From the BBC News (May 21, 2004):
It's obvious that the 50% figure is from using the "Right Hand Extraction" method (aka pulling it out of your...), but let's talk about your reasoning behind the number.
All kidding aside, the spammer only pays for access to the internet. He does not in any way,shape, or form subsidize your access to the internet.
When you pay your ISP for internet access, you are paying for a certain amount of bandwidth for data and certain amount of storage space on the mail server. When you receive spam, you are losing the value of your investment since spam takes space from your email account without providing you any benefit and lowers your carriers ability to provide you the bandwidth you desired due to the incoming spam taking effective bandwidth away from the internet.
A more accurate statement would be:
While a spammer pays a small cost for access to the internet. None of the money spent by the spammer is used to offset the resulting expense and loss of ROI experienced by the recipient and the recipient's ISP.