Bear in mind that the article is sourced from the Daily Mail, well known for spinning articles in interesting ways. (I recall they saw the introduction of a home test kit for chlamydia as a bad thing because it signalled a rise in chlamydia rates...nothing to do with going to an STD clinic being embarrassing, then).
Bear in mind that many elderly people have trouble understanding the workings of computers and the Internet (insert Ted Stevens joke here). This is more of a cover-your-ass routine so that people with little prior understanding of technology don't buy something completely unsuitable then come back ranting and raving.
I'm sure it's an inconvenience to elderly people who do understand the Internet and computers, but then I'm sure speed limits are an inconvenience to people who can safely and skilfully drive at 100mph.
To be honest, during the Osama/Iraq thing, the Bush administration at least attempted to give reasons (no matter how incorrect or spurious) to invade Iraq. This ad doesn't. It just says "Net neutrality is a bad."
It's also a handy way of completely avoiding defining net neutrality. It could mean "fluffy kittens and blankets for all!" but the ad doesn't make it clear what it actually is. All it says is "net neutrality is bad".
a) The page title is Untitled Page. Shows how much they know about the Internet. b) I'm so happy I live in the UK, where I'm spared ads like that. Even the worst ads here are nowhere near as dumbed down (that ad talks down to people on so many levels) or expressly politicised as that.
"If you're so funny then why are you on your own tonight? and if you're so clever then why are you on your own tonight? if you're so very entertaining then why are you on your own tonight? if you're so very good looking why do you sleep alone tonight? I know because tonight is just like any other night that's why you're on your own tonight with your triumphs and your charms while they are in each other's arms"
I trust you've never read twitter's version of those guidelines!
As a representative of the Linux community, it is your utmost duty to make everyone completely aware that Linux pwnz teh world and that Bill Gate$ drinks salty manspunk lol!1 Remember to push the idea that free software is suitable for business use while conducting yourself like a five year old.
Hyperbole and unsubstantiated claims are absolutely A-OK so long as they are used to either advocate or defend Linux or free software in general. If Microsoft makes a web page promoting its server OS though, remember to be there on the frontline attacking it for being the usual Microsoft FUD.
If someone took the time to respond to your post with hard facts, logic and reason, they must be on the payroll of Microsoft. Call them out and insult them.
Don't bite if offered flamebait. Be the one who spews the bullshit, then nobody else can.
Always remember that if you insult someone, it has to be for a good reason (e.g. they disagreed with you).
Bash the competition. Bash it hard, bash it good. If you haven't accused them of genocide, baby-raping and collusion with the Nazi government/Soviet Union yet, you've not bashed them enough.
If anyone's using Windows, they automatically have 2 million pieces of spyware and are hosting more trojan horses than the "ancient myths" shelf in a library. Be sure to call them, and anyone else using Windows, an idiot.
Using phrases like M$, pUrge and WiMP makes you witty and awesome. Chicks dig dollar signs, especially when used to refer to a software company.
Linux uber alles. If Linux doesn't solve your problem then the problem is your fault. Nothing is ever Linux's fault, ever. It's either Microsoft, hardware companies or users.
Linux is a panacea. It will cure AIDS and cancer, trigger world peace and make Jerry Falwell die. Microsoft wishes to stop all of the above.
I see why you are angry. Quirks - see any windoze GUI. Compiles? leave that for people who enjoy that kind of thing. If those are your only options you might be angry.
Nice way of ignoring EVERYTHING HE SAID, while still getting a chance to spout a load of bullshit.
He said, quite rightly, that Linux advocates (like you) think it's easier to either a) compile loads of stuff and put up with all of Linux's flaws and strangenesses or b) buy lots of new hardware to match Linux than it is to stay with Windows. And, for the most part, the Linux advocates are very very wrong. Nobody is willing to put up with that shit.
Oh, and you say it'll take "between one and five years" to get hardware supported under Linux. So, um, where's all this speed of development and alleged greatness that the free software model has? Most people don't want, in addition to the upheaval of changing operating systems/user interfaces (with all the backing up and restoring and whatnot that that entails), to either wait a few years for their webcam to be supported or have to buy a new webcam. It simply isn't worth the goddamn bother. Windows works for most people, it works with all their hardware, it works with all their games, it works with all their software...why should they bother changing if even the most hardcore zealots like you admit that it won't work with their stuff? Not everyone gets warm fuzzies from OSS.
It's not Ubuntu's fault that Broadcom refuses to let Linux developers work with their hardware
Ever read about the Linux Fault Threshold? "The Linux Fault Threshold is the point in any conversation about Linux at which your interlocutor stops talking about how your problem might be solved under Linux and starts talking about how it isn't Linux's fault that your problem cannot be solved under Linux."
I think it should be pointed out that the Arctic Monkeys didn't even know what MySpace was until after they became famous. MySpace played little, if any, part in their popularity.
Sony, obviously, knows how to make their hardware work which is why those things sort of work under Windoze.
Or it might be that Sony doesn't target their hardware at Linux users.
It would be nice of Sony to put their effort where the market is moving
The desktop market isn't moving where you think it's moving, i.e. towards Linux. Not gonna happen.
What you really should ask is why it's possible to buy that computer with Windoze but not with any of the much less expensive alternatives. That's right, the anti-trust violations M$ was busted for years ago.
Or that people don't WANT the alternatives. If lots of people didn't want Windows on laptops, they would buy from places that didn't sell Windows, or specifically request it. Outside of maybe 3% of desktop users, they don't.
Not even that. As I said before, he said "net revenue", which is about 12 billion. It would be very easy for the US to spend more than 12 billion, as a whole, on Microsoft software.
Even if all of those features aren't precisely "new", Microsoft has however improved and upgraded a lot of the auxiliary programs (with some either replaced or completely rewritten) which come with Windows and also done a fair bit of work under the hood. Nobody said everything had to be completely new to qualify as an improvement on an existing product.
Slashdot Mirror
Bear in mind that the article is sourced from the Daily Mail, well known for spinning articles in interesting ways. (I recall they saw the introduction of a home test kit for chlamydia as a bad thing because it signalled a rise in chlamydia rates...nothing to do with going to an STD clinic being embarrassing, then).
Bear in mind that many elderly people have trouble understanding the workings of computers and the Internet (insert Ted Stevens joke here). This is more of a cover-your-ass routine so that people with little prior understanding of technology don't buy something completely unsuitable then come back ranting and raving.
I'm sure it's an inconvenience to elderly people who do understand the Internet and computers, but then I'm sure speed limits are an inconvenience to people who can safely and skilfully drive at 100mph.
That's SOUTH Korea. In North Korea, only Kim Jong-Il uses email.
(srsly.)
That's only in Korea, though. ;)
To be honest, during the Osama/Iraq thing, the Bush administration at least attempted to give reasons (no matter how incorrect or spurious) to invade Iraq. This ad doesn't. It just says "Net neutrality is a bad."
It's also a handy way of completely avoiding defining net neutrality. It could mean "fluffy kittens and blankets for all!" but the ad doesn't make it clear what it actually is. All it says is "net neutrality is bad".
a) The page title is Untitled Page. Shows how much they know about the Internet.
b) I'm so happy I live in the UK, where I'm spared ads like that. Even the worst ads here are nowhere near as dumbed down (that ad talks down to people on so many levels) or expressly politicised as that.
[Really, this is not off topic I sware!]
It's bollocks, considering I'm a Brit.
Sorry, that just reminded me of this:
"If you're so funny
then why are you on your own tonight?
and if you're so clever
then why are you on your own tonight?
if you're so very entertaining
then why are you on your own tonight?
if you're so very good looking
why do you sleep alone tonight?
I know because tonight is just like any other night
that's why you're on your own tonight
with your triumphs and your charms
while they are in each other's arms"
The Smiths - I Know It's Over
There is nothing M$ can do to make non free software competitive
This would make much more sense if it were written about a company that wasn't the market leader in consumer OSes and office suites.
Thanks, Captain Obvious!
;)
In other news, Slashdot offers a submission facility for news stories to get content for the front page.
You can have the last laugh though; pay her alimony in Google Points.
"What, 2,000,000 Google Points isn't enough for you?! You're bleeding me dry you bitch!"
I see why you are angry. Quirks - see any windoze GUI. Compiles? leave that for people who enjoy that kind of thing. If those are your only options you might be angry.
Nice way of ignoring EVERYTHING HE SAID, while still getting a chance to spout a load of bullshit.
He said, quite rightly, that Linux advocates (like you) think it's easier to either a) compile loads of stuff and put up with all of Linux's flaws and strangenesses or b) buy lots of new hardware to match Linux than it is to stay with Windows. And, for the most part, the Linux advocates are very very wrong. Nobody is willing to put up with that shit.
Oh, and you say it'll take "between one and five years" to get hardware supported under Linux. So, um, where's all this speed of development and alleged greatness that the free software model has? Most people don't want, in addition to the upheaval of changing operating systems/user interfaces (with all the backing up and restoring and whatnot that that entails), to either wait a few years for their webcam to be supported or have to buy a new webcam. It simply isn't worth the goddamn bother. Windows works for most people, it works with all their hardware, it works with all their games, it works with all their software...why should they bother changing if even the most hardcore zealots like you admit that it won't work with their stuff? Not everyone gets warm fuzzies from OSS.
Is Amarok as easy as:
1) Look for song in music store
2) Click buy song
3) Plug in iPod, have it sync (with artwork)
4) Unplug iPod
No, it isn't. I like Amarok, but it isn't as easy to use as iTunes, especially not where syncing and buying music downloads are concerned.
By the way, what kind of drugs were you on when you wrote that last paragraph? You'd find more sense in a Cringely column.
More effort needs to be put in to reverse engineering, that or making a stable driver ABI so that Broadcom can release their own drivers.
It's not Ubuntu's fault that Broadcom refuses to let Linux developers work with their hardware
Ever read about the Linux Fault Threshold? "The Linux Fault Threshold is the point in any conversation about Linux at which your interlocutor stops talking about how your problem might be solved under Linux and starts talking about how it isn't Linux's fault that your problem cannot be solved under Linux."
Hee, I thought nofollow only applied to links in sigs :D nice.
That's why P2P is so popular: I don't see P2P users downloading songs and then not knowing where they put them!
No, it's because P2P doesn't cost anything. No other reason.
I think it should be pointed out that the Arctic Monkeys didn't even know what MySpace was until after they became famous. MySpace played little, if any, part in their popularity.
Was there any point to that post other than to spam Google with your link to "windows admin tools"?
You forgot:
4. I justify copying your lawnmower by saying I'll buy a lawnmower at some point in the future.
Sony, obviously, knows how to make their hardware work which is why those things sort of work under Windoze.
Or it might be that Sony doesn't target their hardware at Linux users.
It would be nice of Sony to put their effort where the market is moving
The desktop market isn't moving where you think it's moving, i.e. towards Linux. Not gonna happen.
What you really should ask is why it's possible to buy that computer with Windoze but not with any of the much less expensive alternatives. That's right, the anti-trust violations M$ was busted for years ago.
Or that people don't WANT the alternatives. If lots of people didn't want Windows on laptops, they would buy from places that didn't sell Windows, or specifically request it. Outside of maybe 3% of desktop users, they don't.
Not even that. As I said before, he said "net revenue", which is about 12 billion. It would be very easy for the US to spend more than 12 billion, as a whole, on Microsoft software.
Even if all of those features aren't precisely "new", Microsoft has however improved and upgraded a lot of the auxiliary programs (with some either replaced or completely rewritten) which come with Windows and also done a fair bit of work under the hood. Nobody said everything had to be completely new to qualify as an improvement on an existing product.