No, not really. What windows can do Is a far cry from what this technology offers. The windows remote assistance feature lets another user take over your machine and operate it as if it were their own. You can see what they are doing on your screen. However, there is certainly no projection of that person on your screen allowing you to see them physically touch and interact with your system. This adds a whole new level of interactivity.
Like you said, this isn't a Windows Mac pissing contest. Its a cool new technology, might as well face it.
Amazing, I'm getting modded troll. I think this just proves my point. I was simply trying to point out that a new perspective was needed to help Linux spread. I actually got modded as Troll for that. How much you want to bet that the people who modded me troll are Linux developers.
Let me guess: Flamebait
For people that consider computers a hobby, the CLI provides a powerful tool to explore the inner workings of the machine. What you have to realize, though, is that for most people it has become an appliance. Like you said, it is no different than a toaster or a fridge for these people. Tell me, do you know how to repair your fridge if something goes wrong. I would guess that you would call someone to fix it for you. Now if cooling systems were your hobby, you might know the internal workings of the system and fix it yourself.
Back in the days of DOS (and much earlier) computers were only used in a very limited capacity by most people. When I was nine (I'm 26 now) very few people actually knew how to use a computer (i chose this date becuase it is when I actually got my own computer). Very few people actually bothered using a computer. It was used to a limited extent in offices for word processing, and some spreadsheet applications. However, it was far from ubiquotous as it is today. Therefore, back then the computer was primarily a hobbyist item. So many people who used computer were actually interested in learning the workings of the machine, since it was primarily for that purpose that they owned one.
The computer is now an appliance like any other. It has to be as easy to use, and as intuitive, as any other appiance. The simple fact of the matter is that Linux can not succeed in the appliance marketplace untill it starts to behave like an appliance. The computer is complex enough that hobbyists will staill beable to have their fun. The CLI will persist, however It should be well hidden from the user.
You just don't get it. People are no longer accustomed to typing commands to get their computer to do something. The only thing people use their keyboards for is entering text (or in some cases keyboard shortcuts). It doesn't matter how easy it is to install, if it can't be done through a GUI its useless.
This is the thing Linux users have to get over. Normal people will not learn commands, they simply won't. Why should they. They don't type DVD:play:chapter:003 into their remote to play a DVD. They just press play and press forward untill chapter three. If there are powerful GUI's availible that can do everything your arcane CLI commands can do, why should people fuck around with something thats counter intuitive.
Say what you will, but downloading a piece of software from a website and dragging its icon to the applications folder is more intuitive than typing some bullshit into the CLI.
I sincerely believe that what is keeping Linux off the desktop is Linux developers themselves. Their focus is completely wrong. Take a company like Apple for example. When they develop any piece of software, their primary focus is the interface. They first try to make the GUI as easy to use as possible, so a normal user can access all the functions of the software in an intuitive manner. The software is then written to facilitate the GUI. Howerver, first and foremost, it is Apples policy that a user should NEVER have to see a CLI.
Linux developers, on the other hand, have the opposite approach. They write software to perform a certain function, without much concern for the GUI. The GUI is later added out of necessity, with a clumsy attempt to twist it so that it can acommodate software that was written primarily with the CLI in mind. This is one of the reasons Linux users turn to the CLI so often. The GUI simply fails to do what it should do at times.
I personally find it unbelievable that in the year 2004, there is still an operating system where you actually have to use a CLI to install a device driver. I mean, I haven't had to do that since the days of DOS. Linux may be a great OS, but there has to be a complete reversal in the approach to designing software if it is to be accepted in the general population.
Look at OS X. A fully functional UNIX CLI exists. However, most Mac users will never see it. It is as transparent as it was in the days of OS 9 (when there was no CLI). As long as Linux is a OS developed by geeks for geeks it will never penetrate the desktop market.
What happened to the Web as a medium for conveying information
hmm, lets see. It fucking evolved. Is there a law somewhere that says that the web is only a means of conveying information. Maybe we should stop using the web for VOIP, IM, music distribution, video distribution, online gaming, etc... The web is not a medium for conveying information. It is a fucking data transmission infrastructure. It also happens to be the cheapest infrastructure in the world. It is also well on its way to replacing all other infrastructures for the transmission of anything that can be broken into 1's and 0's.
If you want to use the intenet solely for the purpose of posting on Slashdot (about the internet itself) then go ahead. Just don't expect the rest of the world to be that stupid.
I guess that depends on what your definition of "just like IE is". To me IE is a piece of software that has defied cross platform standards, and as such has forced lage parts of the Internet to become less compatible with non-windows platforms. I don't have a problem with integrating the internet into the desktop. I even think it could be quite useful. As it is, many peoples use of their computer centers around the internet in on way or another. Forcefully confining the internet to the browser seems unwise.
However, If a group of companies comes up with a way to add cross platform functionality to your computer through better integration with the internet, I believe its a good thing. Yes, they should take care to avoid the security risks inherant in this approach. Unlike MS though, they have the benifit of hindsight and experiance. This is a completely new technology being devised from scratch, that can be built with security in mind.
So I really don't think this is a situation of IE over again. For one, this technology will be open for all platforms to benefit from. So as such, it can be treated as a standard. Also, if well designed, it shouldn't prove to be a security risk like IE/ActiveX is.
I think its a good thing that more commercial software is starting to become availible on Linux. Who cares if it doesn't have source code. I think one of the reasons companies are reluctant to release applications on Linux is that perception that all Linux apps have to be free and have source code included. Linux may be open source, but that doesn't mean all Linux apps have to be. If Linux users actually start paying for software, and stop bitching about source code, you might actually see some major titles being ported.
Maybe if Ford made every effort to drive any dealership that offered a BMW out of business.
Maybe if Ford refused to update their new cars safety features, when it was known that newly built roads could turn their cars into healh hazards.
Maybe if Ford designed there cars in such a way that roads had to be rebuilt for them, ensuring that no other car could drive on those roads.
I, too, am completely baffled by this association that Americans make between the Internet and work. First of all, how does having internet access while you're travelling mean that your employer can get more work out of you. Many peoples work involves interaction with people. Having a computer on hand with internet access will not facilitate them in working while they are travelling.
Even if you have a job where most of your work involves sitting infront of a computer screen, how will having internet access allow your employer to give you more work. I mean, if he really wanted to be that much of a prick, he could just tell you what he wanted done while youre on the plane (train, boat, whatever) and ask you to email it to him when you arrive at your destination. I don't think there are too many jobs that would require you to be online in realtime to get work done.
The only exception to this that I can think of is a sys. admin sort of a job. Yes, it would suck royally if you were a sys. admin and your company expected you to be monitoring/maintaining the network while travelling cross country. As for everyone else here, I think you're just bitching.
This completely ignores the fact that current grammer check technologies leaves a lot to be desired. Additionally, a few spelling mistakes don't indicate someone is illiterate They could just be typos becuase the email was written quickly. I seriously doubt that this technique could be applied with any reasonable level of success.
Well, for one there really isn't any precidence for the way Apple is implementing smart folders. BeOS had something like this, but I'm not sure if the feature was as powerful. The "smart folders" name is derived from the iTunes "smart playlists". So since they are inventing this feature, they can call it whatever they want. Perhaps they should call them "fuck you troll" folders.
Imagine a world where you won't have to buy your own car. A world where you will be able to use public transport in most metropolitan cities to get where you want to go. Where you won't have to bother with things like oil changes, putting gas in your car, and insurance. Are you imagining. Well keep imagining, it ain't going to happen even though the infrastructure is there. People will own cars becuase people like the concept of possession even though its a pain in the ass sometimes. I like computers. I want a computer. I may use this sort of a system if I'm somewhere where I can't get access to my computer, but I'm still going to keep my fucking laptop with me when I can.
I don't have a problem with FPS format as such. What I do have a problem with is the way the genre seems to have been reduced to mindless violence. There have been some great FPS games over the years.
NOLF2 is one of the best games I've ever played. However, It wasn't your typical FPS game. It had a great story (with some excellent humor) and some unique gameplay elements that aren't found in other FPS's.
Jedi Knight is another unique FPS that comes to mind. It broke the mold by letting you use force powers and a lightsaber. You could still choose to play the game using the typical, blow everything up, method. However, it was intirely possible to play the entire game with just a lighsaber and your force powers. Playing the game in this way, you were treated to some unique gameplay and fantastic fight sequences.
I guess the problem is that for every unique FPS that comes out, you have 200 useless, steriotypical FPS's. However, this is pretty much the case with any genre. I'm looking forward to Doom 3 becuase it will take the suspense and fear element of AVP2 (another great FPS) to a new level and combine it with state of the art graphics.
The FPS format is peerless when it comes to creating a sense of suspense. Theres nothing like not knowing whats around the corner, or whats emerging from the fog. You'll notice that a lot of horror/suspense movies also switch to first person to enhance the sense of presence and fear.
He was not getting "tech support" from Bill. He spoke to him regarding the marketing and distribution of the software package. As far as who he is. Well, he's obviously important enough to get business advice from Bill Gates.
See, this problamatic situation for software companies. A very large percentage of the world population has no concept of what intellectual property is. I, for example, am from Pakistan. Over here everything is pirated including music, movies, software, and books. This isn't only happening in the consumer arena, but also on a corporate level. Only very few companies actually use legal copies of any software. You will find that the same situation exists in China, India, Russia, Thailand, and a multitude of other countries. In fact, I would say that the only regions of the world where intellectual property has any value are North America and the EU.
One of the obvious reasons for rampant piracy in these regions is average income. Apart from this, you have to understand that it's very difficult to actually get legal software in many countries. In Pakistan it's impossible to find legal software (the only exeption being MS software and Oracle). So for most people this is the only way software is distributed.
Keeping this in mind, I can tell you with certainty that if it became impossible to pirate software people would simply stop buying it. 400 US dollars is about Rs. 24,000. For most people this is shitload of money. 24,000 rupees is a middle management salary in Pakistan. The marketing manager at my ISP is making about that much every month. My system admin (who's the top guy there) was making about 32,000/month. A lot of people start their careers (after a bachelors or masters) making about 6-10,000 rupees. The average that people spend on computers in Pakistan (including the monitor) is about 10-15,000 rupees.
So this is the quandry that software companies, particularly MS, are in. If MS was to make it impossible to pirate Windows and Office, more than half of the world population would simply start using Linux and OpenOffice. That would pretty much end their dominance overnight. So they have to walk a thin line. I'm not quite sure what the solution is.
The funny thing is that Bill Gates feels exactly the same way. Someone my parents know recnetly spoke to Bill for advice regading a software package his company is developeing. Bill esentially said that his big mistake was to charge people on a one time per license basis. He said something to the effect that he's now having to include useless bells and whistles in his software to try to get people to upgrade, but it isn't working. He's now trying desperately to move on to a subscription based model for most of his software (wow, thats original). Anyway, just thought slashdotters might find that interesting.
This could be considered offtopic, but I think not. This is where the software industry should look when trying to account for their losses.
I have often heard people say that Linux and OS X are more secure due to obscurity. I was just wodering if one can, perhaps, look at the situation from a different perspective. Geeks have hated MS for a long time, and they are the ones who have the technical skills to exploit Windows vulneribilities. The internet has finally given them a way to attack MS with their limited resources.
One is often made to believe that Windows viruses and trojans are primarily the work of scrip kiddies and that windows is simply targetted becuase it is the dominant platform. Is it possible that we are seeing the beginning of something more incideous than this. Perhaps a large percentage of these attacks are the work of people who simply want to hard Windows public image.
I know some of this may sound obvious (a "no shit sherlock" situation). However, I have never really seen the problem discussed from this perspective. I know that most responsible Geeks on this forum condemn computer viruses. However, there are a lot of pissed off people out there and this is the easiest way to hit MS. It just takes a bit of decent code (in the evil sense) and you can cause the loss of countless millions to the customers of MS.
I think that if this is the case, then Windows will eventually fall. Nobody will be able to create an OS that can withstand the combined wrath of the world Geeks. Just food for thought.
LOL, how did this post manage to get modded insightful. It is just the typical Linux Zelot rant. Look, the truth of the matter is that for all non-geek home users the CLI doesn't even exist. The persoanal computer only really started to take off after the advent of the GUI. Most people that use computers these days have never even seen a command line in their lifes. It is viewed as archaic, something that, at best, they used to have to use back in the days of DOS.
Please explain to my why I would want to bother with the hassles of the CLI when many modern OS's (Windows and OS X) allow me to do everything I want through a user friendly GUI (ok, with Windows one is using user friendly very liberally). This stupid "look at the pretty pictures" attitude that Linux Zelots seem to have is quite irritating. Truth of the matter is that you have to keep going to the CLI in Linux becuase its UI is deficient.
I can only hope that people working on Linux development have more sense than the average slashdot poster. One has to realize that for something to succeed on a consumer level, it has to have a sensible, powerful, GUI. When was the last time you used a CLI to change channnels on your TV. Does your DVD player expect you to know CLI commands to press play. No, it is pre-programmed so that you can just press a button to play. For most people a computer is not much different.
It can be done. People have been doing it since 1984. Apple did it with a Unix based kernal four years ago. When the hell will Linnux developers get their head out of their ass and do it.
The iPod will only be forgotten if Apple stops innovating with the design and features. As you can see with the introduction of the mini, this is not about to happen. Say what you will about the iPod, but the clickwheel is absolutely ingenious. Its becuase of Apples focus on making things as simple as possible that the iPod is selling well. Its not a coincidence that players with more features are unable to make a dent in the iPods market share. People don't give a damn if the player has a mic or not. They want to use it to listen to music, they want it to be styligh, and they want it to be as simple to use as possible. Nobody has come close to Apple in these three prime areas. If someone wants to compete with Apple, it has to be in these three areas. Features be damned.
(PS. not many players have integrated PDA functionality and built in games like the iPod.)
You stupid fuck, people aren't getting excited about indexing here. Indexing in Windows, and Mac OS (prior to Tiger), essentially only created an index of the content (words) inside documents. What Apple is not introducing is full metadata support. The OS maintains a large realtime XML database that has a variety of information about each file. It has information like when you last viewed the file, who sent it to you, its contents, its file kind, size, who the author is, etc... This list is certainly not exhaustive. This allows for you to use complex search criteria to find your files. Can you tell Windows, "find the PowerPoint presentation by Phil that I opened last week". No, didn't fucking think so. This was actually one of the examples Steve used to show the power of Spotlight. You can actually search using regular english sentences with complex search criteria. These searches can also be saved as folders which automatically update themselves in realtime. Does Windows have that. No it doesn't. After reading this thread, one would think you would fucking understand what the fuck everyone is talking about.
Plasmas are in now way better than Projectors for the purpose of video. If you are talking about crappy LCD projectors, perhaps. But there is no comparision between the quality of a good CRT projector and any Plasma display. CRT's are still held by videophiles to be peerless in the projection of motion picture. They have superb black level contrast, something that is missing is almost all digital projectors and televisions (including single chip DLP's). They have rich saturated colors in both bright and dark scenes.
If you spend enough money on a CRT projector and a high end line interpolater, you can get HD resolution without any of the artifacts associated with low end line multipliers. Even a $10,000 CRT projector with a built in line doubler will put any Plasma to shame.
I have always viewed plasmas as silly toys for people who either don't know much about the shoices availible, or just want one becuase it looks cool. If you really want to spend plasma screen sorts of money, you are better off spending it on a CRT projector.
Of course, CRT's do have several disadvantages. They aren't very bright, so cant be used effectively with high levels of of environmental lighting (ideally there should be none). They are big and bulky, and a pain in the ass to physically install. They are not plug and play. The tubes, as well as various other things, have to be calibrated on installation. In all likelihood the supplier would be the one doing this for you. However, Even if you feel that a CRT projector is not for you, you are better off going for a good CRT TV than a plasma screen.
Slashdot Mirror
No, not really. What windows can do Is a far cry from what this technology offers. The windows remote assistance feature lets another user take over your machine and operate it as if it were their own. You can see what they are doing on your screen. However, there is certainly no projection of that person on your screen allowing you to see them physically touch and interact with your system. This adds a whole new level of interactivity.
Like you said, this isn't a Windows Mac pissing contest. Its a cool new technology, might as well face it.
Amazing, I'm getting modded troll. I think this just proves my point. I was simply trying to point out that a new perspective was needed to help Linux spread. I actually got modded as Troll for that. How much you want to bet that the people who modded me troll are Linux developers. Let me guess: Flamebait
For people that consider computers a hobby, the CLI provides a powerful tool to explore the inner workings of the machine. What you have to realize, though, is that for most people it has become an appliance. Like you said, it is no different than a toaster or a fridge for these people. Tell me, do you know how to repair your fridge if something goes wrong. I would guess that you would call someone to fix it for you. Now if cooling systems were your hobby, you might know the internal workings of the system and fix it yourself.
Back in the days of DOS (and much earlier) computers were only used in a very limited capacity by most people. When I was nine (I'm 26 now) very few people actually knew how to use a computer (i chose this date becuase it is when I actually got my own computer). Very few people actually bothered using a computer. It was used to a limited extent in offices for word processing, and some spreadsheet applications. However, it was far from ubiquotous as it is today. Therefore, back then the computer was primarily a hobbyist item. So many people who used computer were actually interested in learning the workings of the machine, since it was primarily for that purpose that they owned one.
The computer is now an appliance like any other. It has to be as easy to use, and as intuitive, as any other appiance. The simple fact of the matter is that Linux can not succeed in the appliance marketplace untill it starts to behave like an appliance. The computer is complex enough that hobbyists will staill beable to have their fun. The CLI will persist, however It should be well hidden from the user.
You just don't get it. People are no longer accustomed to typing commands to get their computer to do something. The only thing people use their keyboards for is entering text (or in some cases keyboard shortcuts). It doesn't matter how easy it is to install, if it can't be done through a GUI its useless.
This is the thing Linux users have to get over. Normal people will not learn commands, they simply won't. Why should they. They don't type DVD:play:chapter:003 into their remote to play a DVD. They just press play and press forward untill chapter three. If there are powerful GUI's availible that can do everything your arcane CLI commands can do, why should people fuck around with something thats counter intuitive.
Say what you will, but downloading a piece of software from a website and dragging its icon to the applications folder is more intuitive than typing some bullshit into the CLI.
I sincerely believe that what is keeping Linux off the desktop is Linux developers themselves. Their focus is completely wrong. Take a company like Apple for example. When they develop any piece of software, their primary focus is the interface. They first try to make the GUI as easy to use as possible, so a normal user can access all the functions of the software in an intuitive manner. The software is then written to facilitate the GUI. Howerver, first and foremost, it is Apples policy that a user should NEVER have to see a CLI.
Linux developers, on the other hand, have the opposite approach. They write software to perform a certain function, without much concern for the GUI. The GUI is later added out of necessity, with a clumsy attempt to twist it so that it can acommodate software that was written primarily with the CLI in mind. This is one of the reasons Linux users turn to the CLI so often. The GUI simply fails to do what it should do at times.
I personally find it unbelievable that in the year 2004, there is still an operating system where you actually have to use a CLI to install a device driver. I mean, I haven't had to do that since the days of DOS. Linux may be a great OS, but there has to be a complete reversal in the approach to designing software if it is to be accepted in the general population.
Look at OS X. A fully functional UNIX CLI exists. However, most Mac users will never see it. It is as transparent as it was in the days of OS 9 (when there was no CLI). As long as Linux is a OS developed by geeks for geeks it will never penetrate the desktop market.
What happened to the Web as a medium for conveying information
hmm, lets see. It fucking evolved. Is there a law somewhere that says that the web is only a means of conveying information. Maybe we should stop using the web for VOIP, IM, music distribution, video distribution, online gaming, etc... The web is not a medium for conveying information. It is a fucking data transmission infrastructure. It also happens to be the cheapest infrastructure in the world. It is also well on its way to replacing all other infrastructures for the transmission of anything that can be broken into 1's and 0's.
If you want to use the intenet solely for the purpose of posting on Slashdot (about the internet itself) then go ahead. Just don't expect the rest of the world to be that stupid.
I guess that depends on what your definition of "just like IE is". To me IE is a piece of software that has defied cross platform standards, and as such has forced lage parts of the Internet to become less compatible with non-windows platforms. I don't have a problem with integrating the internet into the desktop. I even think it could be quite useful. As it is, many peoples use of their computer centers around the internet in on way or another. Forcefully confining the internet to the browser seems unwise. However, If a group of companies comes up with a way to add cross platform functionality to your computer through better integration with the internet, I believe its a good thing. Yes, they should take care to avoid the security risks inherant in this approach. Unlike MS though, they have the benifit of hindsight and experiance. This is a completely new technology being devised from scratch, that can be built with security in mind. So I really don't think this is a situation of IE over again. For one, this technology will be open for all platforms to benefit from. So as such, it can be treated as a standard. Also, if well designed, it shouldn't prove to be a security risk like IE/ActiveX is.
I think its a good thing that more commercial software is starting to become availible on Linux. Who cares if it doesn't have source code. I think one of the reasons companies are reluctant to release applications on Linux is that perception that all Linux apps have to be free and have source code included. Linux may be open source, but that doesn't mean all Linux apps have to be. If Linux users actually start paying for software, and stop bitching about source code, you might actually see some major titles being ported.
Maybe if Ford made every effort to drive any dealership that offered a BMW out of business. Maybe if Ford refused to update their new cars safety features, when it was known that newly built roads could turn their cars into healh hazards. Maybe if Ford designed there cars in such a way that roads had to be rebuilt for them, ensuring that no other car could drive on those roads.
I, too, am completely baffled by this association that Americans make between the Internet and work. First of all, how does having internet access while you're travelling mean that your employer can get more work out of you. Many peoples work involves interaction with people. Having a computer on hand with internet access will not facilitate them in working while they are travelling.
Even if you have a job where most of your work involves sitting infront of a computer screen, how will having internet access allow your employer to give you more work. I mean, if he really wanted to be that much of a prick, he could just tell you what he wanted done while youre on the plane (train, boat, whatever) and ask you to email it to him when you arrive at your destination. I don't think there are too many jobs that would require you to be online in realtime to get work done.
The only exception to this that I can think of is a sys. admin sort of a job. Yes, it would suck royally if you were a sys. admin and your company expected you to be monitoring/maintaining the network while travelling cross country. As for everyone else here, I think you're just bitching.
This completely ignores the fact that current grammer check technologies leaves a lot to be desired. Additionally, a few spelling mistakes don't indicate someone is illiterate They could just be typos becuase the email was written quickly. I seriously doubt that this technique could be applied with any reasonable level of success.
Well, for one there really isn't any precidence for the way Apple is implementing smart folders. BeOS had something like this, but I'm not sure if the feature was as powerful. The "smart folders" name is derived from the iTunes "smart playlists". So since they are inventing this feature, they can call it whatever they want. Perhaps they should call them "fuck you troll" folders.
Actually, it makes perfect sense. Sqeeze the left and right one, suck the one in the center. mmmmmmm, that sounds good.
Imagine a world where you won't have to buy your own car. A world where you will be able to use public transport in most metropolitan cities to get where you want to go. Where you won't have to bother with things like oil changes, putting gas in your car, and insurance. Are you imagining. Well keep imagining, it ain't going to happen even though the infrastructure is there. People will own cars becuase people like the concept of possession even though its a pain in the ass sometimes. I like computers. I want a computer. I may use this sort of a system if I'm somewhere where I can't get access to my computer, but I'm still going to keep my fucking laptop with me when I can.
I don't have a problem with FPS format as such. What I do have a problem with is the way the genre seems to have been reduced to mindless violence. There have been some great FPS games over the years.
NOLF2 is one of the best games I've ever played. However, It wasn't your typical FPS game. It had a great story (with some excellent humor) and some unique gameplay elements that aren't found in other FPS's.
Jedi Knight is another unique FPS that comes to mind. It broke the mold by letting you use force powers and a lightsaber. You could still choose to play the game using the typical, blow everything up, method. However, it was intirely possible to play the entire game with just a lighsaber and your force powers. Playing the game in this way, you were treated to some unique gameplay and fantastic fight sequences.
I guess the problem is that for every unique FPS that comes out, you have 200 useless, steriotypical FPS's. However, this is pretty much the case with any genre. I'm looking forward to Doom 3 becuase it will take the suspense and fear element of AVP2 (another great FPS) to a new level and combine it with state of the art graphics.
The FPS format is peerless when it comes to creating a sense of suspense. Theres nothing like not knowing whats around the corner, or whats emerging from the fog. You'll notice that a lot of horror/suspense movies also switch to first person to enhance the sense of presence and fear.
He was not getting "tech support" from Bill. He spoke to him regarding the marketing and distribution of the software package. As far as who he is. Well, he's obviously important enough to get business advice from Bill Gates.
See, this problamatic situation for software companies. A very large percentage of the world population has no concept of what intellectual property is. I, for example, am from Pakistan. Over here everything is pirated including music, movies, software, and books. This isn't only happening in the consumer arena, but also on a corporate level. Only very few companies actually use legal copies of any software. You will find that the same situation exists in China, India, Russia, Thailand, and a multitude of other countries. In fact, I would say that the only regions of the world where intellectual property has any value are North America and the EU.
One of the obvious reasons for rampant piracy in these regions is average income. Apart from this, you have to understand that it's very difficult to actually get legal software in many countries. In Pakistan it's impossible to find legal software (the only exeption being MS software and Oracle). So for most people this is the only way software is distributed.
Keeping this in mind, I can tell you with certainty that if it became impossible to pirate software people would simply stop buying it. 400 US dollars is about Rs. 24,000. For most people this is shitload of money. 24,000 rupees is a middle management salary in Pakistan. The marketing manager at my ISP is making about that much every month. My system admin (who's the top guy there) was making about 32,000/month. A lot of people start their careers (after a bachelors or masters) making about 6-10,000 rupees. The average that people spend on computers in Pakistan (including the monitor) is about 10-15,000 rupees.
So this is the quandry that software companies, particularly MS, are in. If MS was to make it impossible to pirate Windows and Office, more than half of the world population would simply start using Linux and OpenOffice. That would pretty much end their dominance overnight. So they have to walk a thin line. I'm not quite sure what the solution is.
The funny thing is that Bill Gates feels exactly the same way. Someone my parents know recnetly spoke to Bill for advice regading a software package his company is developeing. Bill esentially said that his big mistake was to charge people on a one time per license basis. He said something to the effect that he's now having to include useless bells and whistles in his software to try to get people to upgrade, but it isn't working. He's now trying desperately to move on to a subscription based model for most of his software (wow, thats original). Anyway, just thought slashdotters might find that interesting.
This could be considered offtopic, but I think not. This is where the software industry should look when trying to account for their losses.
want to hard Windows public image. uhh, that was supposed to be "hurt Windows pulic image"
I have often heard people say that Linux and OS X are more secure due to obscurity. I was just wodering if one can, perhaps, look at the situation from a different perspective. Geeks have hated MS for a long time, and they are the ones who have the technical skills to exploit Windows vulneribilities. The internet has finally given them a way to attack MS with their limited resources.
One is often made to believe that Windows viruses and trojans are primarily the work of scrip kiddies and that windows is simply targetted becuase it is the dominant platform. Is it possible that we are seeing the beginning of something more incideous than this. Perhaps a large percentage of these attacks are the work of people who simply want to hard Windows public image.
I know some of this may sound obvious (a "no shit sherlock" situation). However, I have never really seen the problem discussed from this perspective. I know that most responsible Geeks on this forum condemn computer viruses. However, there are a lot of pissed off people out there and this is the easiest way to hit MS. It just takes a bit of decent code (in the evil sense) and you can cause the loss of countless millions to the customers of MS.
I think that if this is the case, then Windows will eventually fall. Nobody will be able to create an OS that can withstand the combined wrath of the world Geeks. Just food for thought.
LOL, how did this post manage to get modded insightful. It is just the typical Linux Zelot rant. Look, the truth of the matter is that for all non-geek home users the CLI doesn't even exist. The persoanal computer only really started to take off after the advent of the GUI. Most people that use computers these days have never even seen a command line in their lifes. It is viewed as archaic, something that, at best, they used to have to use back in the days of DOS.
Please explain to my why I would want to bother with the hassles of the CLI when many modern OS's (Windows and OS X) allow me to do everything I want through a user friendly GUI (ok, with Windows one is using user friendly very liberally). This stupid "look at the pretty pictures" attitude that Linux Zelots seem to have is quite irritating. Truth of the matter is that you have to keep going to the CLI in Linux becuase its UI is deficient.
I can only hope that people working on Linux development have more sense than the average slashdot poster. One has to realize that for something to succeed on a consumer level, it has to have a sensible, powerful, GUI. When was the last time you used a CLI to change channnels on your TV. Does your DVD player expect you to know CLI commands to press play. No, it is pre-programmed so that you can just press a button to play. For most people a computer is not much different.
It can be done. People have been doing it since 1984. Apple did it with a Unix based kernal four years ago. When the hell will Linnux developers get their head out of their ass and do it.
The iPod will only be forgotten if Apple stops innovating with the design and features. As you can see with the introduction of the mini, this is not about to happen. Say what you will about the iPod, but the clickwheel is absolutely ingenious. Its becuase of Apples focus on making things as simple as possible that the iPod is selling well. Its not a coincidence that players with more features are unable to make a dent in the iPods market share. People don't give a damn if the player has a mic or not. They want to use it to listen to music, they want it to be styligh, and they want it to be as simple to use as possible. Nobody has come close to Apple in these three prime areas. If someone wants to compete with Apple, it has to be in these three areas. Features be damned. (PS. not many players have integrated PDA functionality and built in games like the iPod.)
You stupid fuck, people aren't getting excited about indexing here. Indexing in Windows, and Mac OS (prior to Tiger), essentially only created an index of the content (words) inside documents. What Apple is not introducing is full metadata support. The OS maintains a large realtime XML database that has a variety of information about each file. It has information like when you last viewed the file, who sent it to you, its contents, its file kind, size, who the author is, etc... This list is certainly not exhaustive. This allows for you to use complex search criteria to find your files. Can you tell Windows, "find the PowerPoint presentation by Phil that I opened last week". No, didn't fucking think so. This was actually one of the examples Steve used to show the power of Spotlight. You can actually search using regular english sentences with complex search criteria. These searches can also be saved as folders which automatically update themselves in realtime. Does Windows have that. No it doesn't. After reading this thread, one would think you would fucking understand what the fuck everyone is talking about.
Plasmas are in now way better than Projectors for the purpose of video. If you are talking about crappy LCD projectors, perhaps. But there is no comparision between the quality of a good CRT projector and any Plasma display. CRT's are still held by videophiles to be peerless in the projection of motion picture. They have superb black level contrast, something that is missing is almost all digital projectors and televisions (including single chip DLP's). They have rich saturated colors in both bright and dark scenes.
If you spend enough money on a CRT projector and a high end line interpolater, you can get HD resolution without any of the artifacts associated with low end line multipliers. Even a $10,000 CRT projector with a built in line doubler will put any Plasma to shame.
I have always viewed plasmas as silly toys for people who either don't know much about the shoices availible, or just want one becuase it looks cool. If you really want to spend plasma screen sorts of money, you are better off spending it on a CRT projector.
Of course, CRT's do have several disadvantages. They aren't very bright, so cant be used effectively with high levels of of environmental lighting (ideally there should be none). They are big and bulky, and a pain in the ass to physically install. They are not plug and play. The tubes, as well as various other things, have to be calibrated on installation. In all likelihood the supplier would be the one doing this for you. However, Even if you feel that a CRT projector is not for you, you are better off going for a good CRT TV than a plasma screen.
Just one piece of advice. Remember not to pick up the soap.