Linux is easy to download, and easy to install as long as you understand how to burn a disk from an ISO and install an operating system. Do you know how to partition hard drives? Do you know how much swap space you need? You might, but does your grandmother? Could your grandmother get 3d acceleration working with Xorg?
Further, if Dell sells Desktop machines with Linux pre-installed, that means they'll also support Linux (to some degree). This means that they'll probably put some amount of pressure on their hardware suppliers to support Linux. Also, Dell supporting Linux means they'll also have an economic incentive to support the Linux community, and will likely provide some economic support to some programmers to provide the functionality and fixes that Dell needs.
Now, of course, I use words like "probably" and "likely" and "some", which will lead some people to comment. "Dell might not put pressure on hardware vendors," or "Dell might provide some economic support, but probably not much!" Well, I don't know how much, but at the very least, Dell shipping Linux would help the Linux community and increase Linux adoption in several small ways.
And let's not forget that large companies that are invested in the success of Linux have been a big component of Linux's success so far. Not long ago, there was a submission to Slashdot that demonstrated that companies like Redhat, IBM, and Novell do, in fact help fund Linux development. (I always thought that point was obvious, but some people don't believe it)
Well, the fact is that there are lots of suitable hardware configurations-- being such a large OEM, the Linux community actively seeks to support Dell machines already. Most Dells you buy will run Linux, so Dell would just have to check hardware support and make sure they aren't offering Linux with hardware that doesn't offer Linux support. That shouldn't take too long.
Support seems like a bigger problem. Sure, they could sell the machines without supporting them, but what's the sense in that? If you are willing to buy a Linux machine without any support, then surely you can buy a machine without an OS and install Linux yourself.
Personally, if I were Dell, I'd be looking into making their own Dell-Linux distribution. Sure, it would probably be Debian-based with a little rebranding, but the point is that they could have the software under their own control. They'd be able to optimize it for their own hardware and drop support for whatever they don't want to support, or whatever.
...but most large commercial stations aren't interested in promoting small independent acts from other markets, especially if the act doesn't tour and appear in that station's coverage area.
That's funny. I didn't realize that the broadcasters were in the business of promoting bands. I thought they made their money selling advertising, and therefore tried to find good music to keep listeners. So does that mean record companies are paying broadcasters to promote these bands?
...forces propogate at the speed of light in their reference frame...
...Thirdly massless particles have no reference frame of their own.
Given that the quote says "their reference frame" and not "their own reference frame", perhaps the poster intended to indicate they "propogate at the speed of light in reference to their frame, whichever frame you choose". Admittedly, it's confusing to use the word "their", but is it really necessary to go after someone for bad word-choice?
Why do you doubt it's profitable? Apple has a relatively small market-share, yes, but that's still an awful lot of computers, and I would say that most Mac users have a copy of Office. There are lots of other companies who make money developing Mac software, probably making fewer sales of the product per Mac sold.
Worthwhile from a Microsoft point of view of course.
Exactly me point: the only reason it wouldn't be worth it is if the company developing it were a corrupt monopolistic company trying to stifle all competition (illegally). So, yes, perhaps from Microsoft's point of view, it's not "worthwhile".
In many ways, MS has given Apple ten years to get its shit together from a MS perspective (ie. be a worthwhile platform for MS to support) but has this really happened?
Worthwhile from which point of view? From the standpoint of a monopoly that wants to maintain that monopoly at any cost? Maybe not, since no matter what kind of profits they making selling Office, Apple is still a potential threat to Windows. However, if Office for OSX was made by an independent developer with no interest in seeing Apple fail, would it be worthwhile to continue developing for the platform? Why wouldn't it be? It's profitable.
I fail to see the problem. Should Microsoft be _forced_ to sell a product that doesn't benefit them? I think not.
What do you mean by "benefit"? See, you might have a point if MS Office for Mac was simply "not profitable", and so Microsoft didn't want to operate at a loss. However, if it's a profitable business, then the product is most certainly "benefitting" them. On the other hand, if the product was very profitable, then Microsoft Office would also be failing to lock consumers in to Windows, and therefore could be detrimental to the MS monopoly. Therefore, dropping the profitable product in order to destroy Apple would be almost a textbook example, AFIAK (IANAL), of monopolistic abuse.
First of all, forget OpenOffice for the Mac. The OpenOffice port, requiring X11, is not something most tech-savvy people want to run, let alone standard users. At the very least, you're talking about NeoOffice. Now, for all the great work done by the NeoOffice people, they don't get the level of help and support that OpenOffice has, let alone the sort of funding that Microsoft has. NeoOffice is making good progress, but it's still far from perfect.
Even ignoring all that, it can be hard to avoid MS Office. OpenOffice doesn't always have all the features you might need. Exchange connectivity, for example. Also, OpenOffice still has its problems. It loads slowly, for example, and doesn't always read/write Word documents perfectly. Now, of course, that last one can't be blamed on OpenOffice developers, but it's true none the less.
I'm not trying to badmouth OpenOffice, and I am, in fact, very glad for the work done by the OpenOffice/NeoOffice communities. However, I can't pretend that there are no good reasons to choose Microsoft Office for OSX.
Or, relevant to the topic of Macintoshes, NeoOffice. I'm not in any way associated with the project, but I always like to bring it into discussions of Macs and office suites. They're doing a great job porting OpenOffice to OSX, a job that the OpenOffice people seem unwilling to do, and I hope they get the suppor they need.
I think the point the GP was trying to make is, Apple isn't hindering anyone's ability to manufacture their own hardware, but instead limiting their own software to only work on certain hardware. It might seem a minor distinction, but it's not without a difference. Essentially, They aren't limiting other companies, but only limiting their own product. Apple isn't hindering others from creating competing products, but only preventing other companies from competing against Apple with Apple's own product.
Well, duh. It's a form of lockdown that Microsoft dreams of -- the entire system is one, shiny package, and there is no competition for any part of it.?
What do you mean no competition for any part of it? Apple sells computers, software, and peripherals. For computers they're competing with Dell/HP, they're fighting Microsoft/Adobe/Avid on the software front, and competing against other peripherals on an open field. The only thing you aren't allowed to do is run certain parts of their software on non-Apple hardware. And why is this such an unreasonable restriction? Am I able to run Cisco router software on my WatchGuard firewall? Am I allowed to take make TiVO software run on my non-TiVO DVR?
Yes, I think that if Apple wants to move into the business market, there are two inroads. First, if they could get performance up on the xServes, and put together an alternative to Exchange that was a bit more open/interoperable, they might really have something.
The other way they could get in is through the back door-- i.e. if they can keep getting mainstream attention, they might capture the interest of some of the executives. Ultimately, IT people don't like to change and like homogeneity, and shifting over to OSX is a big deal. There's resistance, and rightly so. However, there's always an executive high enough up that, if he wants a Mac, he gets a Mac. If his assistant wants a Mac, he gets a Mac too. Then, all the other executives get jealous and they demand Macs too. Eventually, every manager "needs" a Mac for some reason. Pretty soon, IT people are supporting Macs anyway, so they start officially allowing Macs.
At least, that's how it was with Blackberries. A couple execs got them, and there was a trickle-down of envy until every middle-management type just had to have one.
What, you mean like "My Documents", "My Computer", and "My Network Places", and them make "Desktop" the apparent root directory and stick everything under it? Best idea I've heard all day! (snigger)
Ummm.... no. I can understand how you'd be confused because... umm.... actually I can't understand how you'd be confused. I didn't say anything remotely like that. Did I say the file system should have dumb directory names and a retarded structure? No. Just that maybe they should be renamed to reflect what's actually kept in that directory rather than being misnamed because of convention.
If you think the reason they names are kept obscure is to "keep users from poking around," then you're... a bit slow. Users can be locked up as tight as you want by setting your permissions up properly. I understand that it might be a lot of work to rearrange all the system folders, and the pay-off isn't huge. Still, I was wondering if people had considered it a real possibility, or if anyone was actually working on any other structured.
I can't think of a more damaging relevation to the Wikipedian ideal than this one, and even if it isn't a death blow to Wikipedia, scholars and researchers EVERYWHERE will have a field day with this; college professors will point to this as an example of why they don't accept citations from Wikipedia
Wait, wait... are you suggesting that citations from the Wikipedia should be acceptable for academic research? Even without this case of someone contributing with fraudulent credentials, the Wikipedia just isn't authoritative enough to cite.
Don't get me wrong. I love the Wikipedia. It's incredibly useful and it's a great example for people to understand the power of mass-collaboration that the internet allows. When someone brings up a topic I'm not familiar with, the Wikipedia is often the first place I look to get an overview. However, there is nothing, absolutely nothing, which certifies that any given fact in the Wikipedia is going to be correct at any given time. Sure, the general ideas are probably correct (excepting cases of vandalism, which happens too), and incorrect facts are likely to get fixed sooner or later. However, there isn't any authority that is even attempting to make sure that the page you're about to load will be absolutely correct at the exact moment you load it.
College professors refuse to accept citations from Wikipedia are right to refuse. This is especially true given that they're dealing with fricken college students. If you're a college student, it's your job to do research. You have few responsibilities other than to ensure that your research is reliable, and if you can't handle that, then what the hell are you doing in college?
I know change = bad, but hasn't anyone ever thought to restructure the Unix filesystem to, you know, actually fit how things are being used today? I don't know whether this story of yours is true, but it did confuse me, when I first saw "usr", that I couldn't figure out what was in there had to do with users. I assumed later that it was because they weren't quite base-system files, so they were being categorized as "user files".
But seriously, has anyone thought that, as Linux becomes more of a desktop OS, that the filesystem might be reorganized a bit to be more clear? At the vary least, rename the directories so that someone without Unix experience might possibly be able to guess what the directories mean?
Personally, I find the OSX root-level breakdown (Applications, Library, System, Users) a bit more sensible. Still, even then they're just hiding the ugly Unix directories (etc, bin, dev, usr, var, and tmp).
It is very ordinary for a company (or government agency) to adopt a "wait and see" attitude toward new software. Most companies I've worked for will not install a new OS, new software, new firmware, new drivers or whatever until they've gone through at least one revision.
It is ordinary for a company to put off upgrading on products until the impact can be assessed, yes. However, the company I worked for a few years ago, slow moving as it was, was falling all over themselves to upgrade from Windows 98 to Windows 2000, and also from MacOS 9 to OSX. These upgrades offered tangible benefits to users and to the IT staff. I'm not saying they rolled out updates on day 1, but they had already formulated an update plan shortly after release. "We'll update when X happens." Even some subsequent updates to OSX were planned, even rushed, because of perceived benefits with a low risk of problems.
However, migration from Windows 2000 to Windows XP, and now XP to Vista, are very slow moving. There's no real benefit. For most business purposes, Vista provides nothing anyone needs that Windows 2000 doesn't already have.
I wonder if they could scan for license keys and activate them all so that Microsoft can't sell an unactivated key without generating entirely new keys. (a fun prospect)
I think that, since they took so fricken long to release it, they should have put some more work into driver compatibility, or at least worked with hardware vendors to make sure most old devices would be supported out of the box. What do you think?
One of my big qualms (and I'm surprised it gets so little attention) is that I don't like or trust "activation" schemes. Maybe it's included in your "DRM crippled to the extreme" bullet point.
I work for a company that has to use a couple media programs that require activation and iLok keys and such, and there's no end to the headaches, even when you're using these products legally. It limits your ability to image machines or reallocate IT assets. Each of these systems randomly break and we have to go through a lot of hoopla just to get things working again. The idea of not being able to get a corporate version of Windows that lets me bypass all this activation nonsense in my OS-- Frankly, it makes me want to run for the hills. It's a deal-breaker; there will be no Vista installations at my company until Windows XP just stops working.
I always find it surprising when people on Slashdot assume that all GPLed software is written by some random guy, after work, out of a love of coding and altruistic humanitarianism. Yes, yes, that happens too, but it's like some weird tall tale, that there's some bearded 39 year-old, still living in his parents' basement, who coded the entire Linux kernel on his own while watching a ST:TOS marathon. Next week, he'll be watching LoTR, so let's hope he gets Beryl stabilized!!
Of course there's a lot of corporate funding behind GNU/Linux. That should be obvious to anyone who isn't a complete fanatic.
Yeah, I don't really see what the problem here is. Did Dell establish this site so that people would talk about how Dell is evil? My impression was, no, they were asking for ideas on how to keep their customers happy. If you want to spread the word about why you hate Dell, try registering whyihatedell.com and run your own site.
Well it also leads me to question how often Wikipedia arguments are settled by authority. Even if he was a professor, professors can be wrong. In fact, PhDs can be complete dumbasses.
I'm not saying you can't appeal to authority in an argument. "Authority" is tricky business. People of authority can often be wrong, just like a random guy from the street, so you'd like to think that some greater degree of analysis is taking place. On the other hand, since no one can know everything, and no one can study any issue completely, pretty much all "facts", sooner or later, require trusting the person who's reporting them to you.
Well, I'm not talking about a specific site here. I'm saying that, if you want to promote DRM-free indie stuff, with all the little indie labels and all the different little stores, there really needs to be a way for the common consumer to find something he/she likes. Personally, my tastes are pretty random across genres. If you were to look at my music collection, you'd find some hip-hop, rock, jazz, country, pop, folk, rockabilly, blues, R&B, punk, grunge, and other random stuff. Genres do me absolutely no good. I don't care what genre of music it is, I just want to know if I'll like it.
So I'm really just suggesting that the problem with some of these sites and some of these smaller labels is, even if you're interested in looking there, they're too scattered about. You need someone to direct people, "Oh, you like this sort of music? Look here. You like [Band A]? Well, you might like [Band B] too!" Because I like music, but I don't have the patience to spend all day looking on obscure music sites.
Slashdot Mirror
Linux is easy to download, and easy to install as long as you understand how to burn a disk from an ISO and install an operating system. Do you know how to partition hard drives? Do you know how much swap space you need? You might, but does your grandmother? Could your grandmother get 3d acceleration working with Xorg?
Further, if Dell sells Desktop machines with Linux pre-installed, that means they'll also support Linux (to some degree). This means that they'll probably put some amount of pressure on their hardware suppliers to support Linux. Also, Dell supporting Linux means they'll also have an economic incentive to support the Linux community, and will likely provide some economic support to some programmers to provide the functionality and fixes that Dell needs.
Now, of course, I use words like "probably" and "likely" and "some", which will lead some people to comment. "Dell might not put pressure on hardware vendors," or "Dell might provide some economic support, but probably not much!" Well, I don't know how much, but at the very least, Dell shipping Linux would help the Linux community and increase Linux adoption in several small ways.
And let's not forget that large companies that are invested in the success of Linux have been a big component of Linux's success so far. Not long ago, there was a submission to Slashdot that demonstrated that companies like Redhat, IBM, and Novell do, in fact help fund Linux development. (I always thought that point was obvious, but some people don't believe it)
Well, the fact is that there are lots of suitable hardware configurations-- being such a large OEM, the Linux community actively seeks to support Dell machines already. Most Dells you buy will run Linux, so Dell would just have to check hardware support and make sure they aren't offering Linux with hardware that doesn't offer Linux support. That shouldn't take too long.
Support seems like a bigger problem. Sure, they could sell the machines without supporting them, but what's the sense in that? If you are willing to buy a Linux machine without any support, then surely you can buy a machine without an OS and install Linux yourself.
Personally, if I were Dell, I'd be looking into making their own Dell-Linux distribution. Sure, it would probably be Debian-based with a little rebranding, but the point is that they could have the software under their own control. They'd be able to optimize it for their own hardware and drop support for whatever they don't want to support, or whatever.
That's funny. I didn't realize that the broadcasters were in the business of promoting bands. I thought they made their money selling advertising, and therefore tried to find good music to keep listeners. So does that mean record companies are paying broadcasters to promote these bands?
By the way, what's payola?
Given that the quote says "their reference frame" and not "their own reference frame", perhaps the poster intended to indicate they "propogate at the speed of light in reference to their frame, whichever frame you choose". Admittedly, it's confusing to use the word "their", but is it really necessary to go after someone for bad word-choice?
Why do you doubt it's profitable? Apple has a relatively small market-share, yes, but that's still an awful lot of computers, and I would say that most Mac users have a copy of Office. There are lots of other companies who make money developing Mac software, probably making fewer sales of the product per Mac sold.
Exactly me point: the only reason it wouldn't be worth it is if the company developing it were a corrupt monopolistic company trying to stifle all competition (illegally). So, yes, perhaps from Microsoft's point of view, it's not "worthwhile".
Worthwhile from which point of view? From the standpoint of a monopoly that wants to maintain that monopoly at any cost? Maybe not, since no matter what kind of profits they making selling Office, Apple is still a potential threat to Windows. However, if Office for OSX was made by an independent developer with no interest in seeing Apple fail, would it be worthwhile to continue developing for the platform? Why wouldn't it be? It's profitable.
I fail to see the problem. Should Microsoft be _forced_ to sell a product that doesn't benefit them? I think not.
What do you mean by "benefit"? See, you might have a point if MS Office for Mac was simply "not profitable", and so Microsoft didn't want to operate at a loss. However, if it's a profitable business, then the product is most certainly "benefitting" them. On the other hand, if the product was very profitable, then Microsoft Office would also be failing to lock consumers in to Windows, and therefore could be detrimental to the MS monopoly. Therefore, dropping the profitable product in order to destroy Apple would be almost a textbook example, AFIAK (IANAL), of monopolistic abuse.
I would call that a problem. Wouldn't you?
First of all, forget OpenOffice for the Mac. The OpenOffice port, requiring X11, is not something most tech-savvy people want to run, let alone standard users. At the very least, you're talking about NeoOffice. Now, for all the great work done by the NeoOffice people, they don't get the level of help and support that OpenOffice has, let alone the sort of funding that Microsoft has. NeoOffice is making good progress, but it's still far from perfect.
Even ignoring all that, it can be hard to avoid MS Office. OpenOffice doesn't always have all the features you might need. Exchange connectivity, for example. Also, OpenOffice still has its problems. It loads slowly, for example, and doesn't always read/write Word documents perfectly. Now, of course, that last one can't be blamed on OpenOffice developers, but it's true none the less.
I'm not trying to badmouth OpenOffice, and I am, in fact, very glad for the work done by the OpenOffice/NeoOffice communities. However, I can't pretend that there are no good reasons to choose Microsoft Office for OSX.
Or, relevant to the topic of Macintoshes, NeoOffice. I'm not in any way associated with the project, but I always like to bring it into discussions of Macs and office suites. They're doing a great job porting OpenOffice to OSX, a job that the OpenOffice people seem unwilling to do, and I hope they get the suppor they need.
How is different?
I think the point the GP was trying to make is, Apple isn't hindering anyone's ability to manufacture their own hardware, but instead limiting their own software to only work on certain hardware. It might seem a minor distinction, but it's not without a difference. Essentially, They aren't limiting other companies, but only limiting their own product. Apple isn't hindering others from creating competing products, but only preventing other companies from competing against Apple with Apple's own product.
Well, duh. It's a form of lockdown that Microsoft dreams of -- the entire system is one, shiny package, and there is no competition for any part of it.?
What do you mean no competition for any part of it? Apple sells computers, software, and peripherals. For computers they're competing with Dell/HP, they're fighting Microsoft/Adobe/Avid on the software front, and competing against other peripherals on an open field. The only thing you aren't allowed to do is run certain parts of their software on non-Apple hardware. And why is this such an unreasonable restriction? Am I able to run Cisco router software on my WatchGuard firewall? Am I allowed to take make TiVO software run on my non-TiVO DVR?
Yes, I think that if Apple wants to move into the business market, there are two inroads. First, if they could get performance up on the xServes, and put together an alternative to Exchange that was a bit more open/interoperable, they might really have something.
The other way they could get in is through the back door-- i.e. if they can keep getting mainstream attention, they might capture the interest of some of the executives. Ultimately, IT people don't like to change and like homogeneity, and shifting over to OSX is a big deal. There's resistance, and rightly so. However, there's always an executive high enough up that, if he wants a Mac, he gets a Mac. If his assistant wants a Mac, he gets a Mac too. Then, all the other executives get jealous and they demand Macs too. Eventually, every manager "needs" a Mac for some reason. Pretty soon, IT people are supporting Macs anyway, so they start officially allowing Macs.
At least, that's how it was with Blackberries. A couple execs got them, and there was a trickle-down of envy until every middle-management type just had to have one.
What, you mean like "My Documents", "My Computer", and "My Network Places", and them make "Desktop" the apparent root directory and stick everything under it? Best idea I've heard all day! (snigger)
Ummm.... no. I can understand how you'd be confused because... umm.... actually I can't understand how you'd be confused. I didn't say anything remotely like that. Did I say the file system should have dumb directory names and a retarded structure? No. Just that maybe they should be renamed to reflect what's actually kept in that directory rather than being misnamed because of convention.
If you think the reason they names are kept obscure is to "keep users from poking around," then you're... a bit slow. Users can be locked up as tight as you want by setting your permissions up properly. I understand that it might be a lot of work to rearrange all the system folders, and the pay-off isn't huge. Still, I was wondering if people had considered it a real possibility, or if anyone was actually working on any other structured.
I can't think of a more damaging relevation to the Wikipedian ideal than this one, and even if it isn't a death blow to Wikipedia, scholars and researchers EVERYWHERE will have a field day with this; college professors will point to this as an example of why they don't accept citations from Wikipedia
Wait, wait... are you suggesting that citations from the Wikipedia should be acceptable for academic research? Even without this case of someone contributing with fraudulent credentials, the Wikipedia just isn't authoritative enough to cite.
Don't get me wrong. I love the Wikipedia. It's incredibly useful and it's a great example for people to understand the power of mass-collaboration that the internet allows. When someone brings up a topic I'm not familiar with, the Wikipedia is often the first place I look to get an overview. However, there is nothing, absolutely nothing, which certifies that any given fact in the Wikipedia is going to be correct at any given time. Sure, the general ideas are probably correct (excepting cases of vandalism, which happens too), and incorrect facts are likely to get fixed sooner or later. However, there isn't any authority that is even attempting to make sure that the page you're about to load will be absolutely correct at the exact moment you load it.
College professors refuse to accept citations from Wikipedia are right to refuse. This is especially true given that they're dealing with fricken college students. If you're a college student, it's your job to do research. You have few responsibilities other than to ensure that your research is reliable, and if you can't handle that, then what the hell are you doing in college?
I know change = bad, but hasn't anyone ever thought to restructure the Unix filesystem to, you know, actually fit how things are being used today? I don't know whether this story of yours is true, but it did confuse me, when I first saw "usr", that I couldn't figure out what was in there had to do with users. I assumed later that it was because they weren't quite base-system files, so they were being categorized as "user files".
But seriously, has anyone thought that, as Linux becomes more of a desktop OS, that the filesystem might be reorganized a bit to be more clear? At the vary least, rename the directories so that someone without Unix experience might possibly be able to guess what the directories mean?
Personally, I find the OSX root-level breakdown (Applications, Library, System, Users) a bit more sensible. Still, even then they're just hiding the ugly Unix directories (etc, bin, dev, usr, var, and tmp).
It is very ordinary for a company (or government agency) to adopt a "wait and see" attitude toward new software. Most companies I've worked for will not install a new OS, new software, new firmware, new drivers or whatever until they've gone through at least one revision.
It is ordinary for a company to put off upgrading on products until the impact can be assessed, yes. However, the company I worked for a few years ago, slow moving as it was, was falling all over themselves to upgrade from Windows 98 to Windows 2000, and also from MacOS 9 to OSX. These upgrades offered tangible benefits to users and to the IT staff. I'm not saying they rolled out updates on day 1, but they had already formulated an update plan shortly after release. "We'll update when X happens." Even some subsequent updates to OSX were planned, even rushed, because of perceived benefits with a low risk of problems.
However, migration from Windows 2000 to Windows XP, and now XP to Vista, are very slow moving. There's no real benefit. For most business purposes, Vista provides nothing anyone needs that Windows 2000 doesn't already have.
I wonder if they could scan for license keys and activate them all so that Microsoft can't sell an unactivated key without generating entirely new keys. (a fun prospect)
In which case, people stop using Windows, forcing Microsoft to change their ways or go out of business. Again, it's a positive result.
I think that, since they took so fricken long to release it, they should have put some more work into driver compatibility, or at least worked with hardware vendors to make sure most old devices would be supported out of the box. What do you think?
One of my big qualms (and I'm surprised it gets so little attention) is that I don't like or trust "activation" schemes. Maybe it's included in your "DRM crippled to the extreme" bullet point.
I work for a company that has to use a couple media programs that require activation and iLok keys and such, and there's no end to the headaches, even when you're using these products legally. It limits your ability to image machines or reallocate IT assets. Each of these systems randomly break and we have to go through a lot of hoopla just to get things working again. The idea of not being able to get a corporate version of Windows that lets me bypass all this activation nonsense in my OS-- Frankly, it makes me want to run for the hills. It's a deal-breaker; there will be no Vista installations at my company until Windows XP just stops working.
I always find it surprising when people on Slashdot assume that all GPLed software is written by some random guy, after work, out of a love of coding and altruistic humanitarianism. Yes, yes, that happens too, but it's like some weird tall tale, that there's some bearded 39 year-old, still living in his parents' basement, who coded the entire Linux kernel on his own while watching a ST:TOS marathon. Next week, he'll be watching LoTR, so let's hope he gets Beryl stabilized!!
Of course there's a lot of corporate funding behind GNU/Linux. That should be obvious to anyone who isn't a complete fanatic.
Yeah, I don't really see what the problem here is. Did Dell establish this site so that people would talk about how Dell is evil? My impression was, no, they were asking for ideas on how to keep their customers happy. If you want to spread the word about why you hate Dell, try registering whyihatedell.com and run your own site.
Well it also leads me to question how often Wikipedia arguments are settled by authority. Even if he was a professor, professors can be wrong. In fact, PhDs can be complete dumbasses.
I'm not saying you can't appeal to authority in an argument. "Authority" is tricky business. People of authority can often be wrong, just like a random guy from the street, so you'd like to think that some greater degree of analysis is taking place. On the other hand, since no one can know everything, and no one can study any issue completely, pretty much all "facts", sooner or later, require trusting the person who's reporting them to you.
Well, I'm not talking about a specific site here. I'm saying that, if you want to promote DRM-free indie stuff, with all the little indie labels and all the different little stores, there really needs to be a way for the common consumer to find something he/she likes. Personally, my tastes are pretty random across genres. If you were to look at my music collection, you'd find some hip-hop, rock, jazz, country, pop, folk, rockabilly, blues, R&B, punk, grunge, and other random stuff. Genres do me absolutely no good. I don't care what genre of music it is, I just want to know if I'll like it.
So I'm really just suggesting that the problem with some of these sites and some of these smaller labels is, even if you're interested in looking there, they're too scattered about. You need someone to direct people, "Oh, you like this sort of music? Look here. You like [Band A]? Well, you might like [Band B] too!" Because I like music, but I don't have the patience to spend all day looking on obscure music sites.