You are exactly right. People are idiots. And a good marketing and management team knows it. Your post points out that people don't think about the consequenses of their purchase. Its all based on the nature of marketing. The product has nothing to do with it.
Another example that bizarely imitates this issue: McDonalds makes the absolutely worst hamburgers of any fast food chain by a huge margin. Out of all the chains its the only one that keeps burgers under lights instead of making them fresh. They also outsell every competitor. Their competitors, practically all of them, make better burgers. SOme cheaper, some more expensive. Thats called good marketing and management.
A good marketing team thinks the product doesn't mean jack. Many companies have the marketing teams define and sell a product before development even begins, before they even know if its possible to make. These guys get stinking rich for it.
You mean... You purchase tiger - you install 11 illegal copies - you illegally give copies to friends - friends illegally install on 12 computers
*wow, thats a lot of jail + punitive damages* If you land in a state penn, its probably a free case of aids too.
Product keys and phoning home have little to do with the end user license. They are techniques of enforcement. If your case is people should use Apple because its easier to pirate, then I have no comment.
After reading some of the other responses to your post I'm going to throw MHO out. Assuming by open-ness, you mean stuff written in the language.
I think it has more to do with the nature of the language. The "new skool" interpreted languages allow for cross platform development. This means a larger pool of developers will be writing code. You don't see a lot of open source smalltalk and VB.
Also, these languages tend to have a shorter learning curve. This means more people will spend the time to learn before giving up. Also increaing the developer pool.
Windows fans who are fed up with the licensing
Forgive me but it generally appears that Apple is much more extreme than MS in regards to licensing. Microsoft might have a closed mind about their software licenses but, Apple is extreme and paranoid. Granted, I think they both suck.
As for the most remarkable thing Jobs has done... I'd say its keeping Apple out of bankruptcy while still making crappy business decisions and treating his customers and fans like crap.
If Apple had some decent management (not even great, just decent) they would knock MS down to 30% market share. They have great developers and designers. They have a solid fanatical customer base. They have a reputation for good hardware. But, instead of doing something useful, they whine and sue. They put out commercials that say get an Apple, its designed to be so easy a moron can use it, basically insulting a potential customer before they chose to buy.
They did a decent job with the iPod but, they don't even understand WHY they succeeded with it. It didn't succeed because of the interface or its capabilities. It succeeded because it looked good and was expensive (but, not too expensive). It became what the kids now call bling bling.
People don't want to buy something thats marketed as *easy to use*. Because if they do, they will worry that their friends will see it and think, "oh, he's not smart enough for the other brand". Look at tools and hardware, the best selling products are labeled "professional", "contractor grade". If you market a computer as "for Professionals only" or "Expert System" people will line up to buy, especially when they aren't really at that level. They just want people to think they are. Look at the Linux phenomena. More people *use* linux than have installed it, because they think it makes them look smart.
So, if Apple really wants a big market they should STOP telling people how easy their computer is. Let people find out. They should focus on the professionals who use the system. Make it have a "professional" conotation. Forget "ease of use". If yahoo's buy the computer because of image, and then find it easy to use, they'll become a big supporter because they will feel *smart* (hey look, I use a professional system).
The other obvious problem with their marketing is mixing "ease of use" with a bigger price tag.
If you go to Sears and look at drills, you expect the easier to use ones to cost less. You expect the expert quality one to be more expensive.
So, Apple in their wisdom says look, "its easy". The consumer hears "toy", then they see a big price tag. Then they see the computer they use at work and a small price tag. Big surprise what comes next.
Apple should say, its the best (not easiest to use), and its used by professionals (and point some out), then follow this with that the corporate desktop was chosen by PHB's (their boss is a PHB), to be used by morons (what their bosses think of them). This makes a higher price into a selling point. "Of course it costs more, its for professionals". They'll look down upon their windows friends, "Have you seen Mary Janes computer? Windows? She must have bought that at the dollar store. hahaha".
They could just get a mantra in peoples heads "Big dumb corporations use X, dumb people use X. Professionals use Y. Smart people use Y."
Lets face it, real professionals look at what is really the best and ignore marketing, thus use Linux. The non-conformist wannabees and the unskilled professional wannabees will pick a non-mainstream computer thats easy to use (currently an Apple). The rest (~90%) of the population just want to feel good about themselves.
My question is why doesn't Eric embrace the open source ethos and take the source to CUPS and change it. Then he could submit a patch with his changes.
Oh wait, he'd rather whine for other people to give away their time for free. If he has a problem with an open source project and the developers are not addressing his concern, then he should take advantage of the fact that its open code. For him, he might as well use a proprietary package. At least a vendor who gets paid might address his concerns.
I personally see no difference between code that is closed source or code that is open source that you never read/edit. Whether its lack of skill, talent or modivation. If you don't exercise your right to modify open source code, whats the point of having that right? Maybe someone will take that right away and you'll never know that its gone.
Maybe if Eric spent his time making CUPS better instead of crying about its current state, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
Actually in a Libertarian system, corporations would not exist. It does espous the Laissez-faire economic system, between individuals (not trusts, not corporations). It espouses responsibility. You can't evade responsibility and liability for your actions by hiding behind a corporation. If you conduct your business to cause harm, YOU will be responsible. YOU will be liable. Your company will NOT be treated as the guilty party. You WILL be. Having corporations run everything is much closer to Communism than Libertarianism.
Sheeple!
They think they elect leaders. The people running for office tell them that they'll be "strong leaders" and then the idiots vote for them.
In the United States we do NOT elect leaders. In the United States, we elect REPRESENTATIVES. That is someone who represents you and your views. Their opinions, views, standpoints are irrelevent. If they are imposing their "vision" on you, then you have elected the wrong person and should kick them out.
I personally think that anyone voting for a leader should be shipped back to England. They can learn "God Save the Queen" on the boat ride.
I am so sick of people claiming that Libertarians would give corps free reign. Under Libertarianism, corporations would no longer exist. Businesses would all be sole proprieterships or partnerships, where the owners have control, responsibility, and liability of them.
Allowing corporations freedom to do what they want (the "free market" that is so central to libertarianism)
Actually, Libertarianism is against the concept of the corporation. A corporation is supposed to be formed to serve a public good. Libertarianism supports allowing the individual the freedom to do what they want.
Lets put a tax on copyrighted works to pay for the enforcement of this (sic) policy.
If the RIAA want to act like jerks, let them pay for it. After Joe Sixpack sees prices go up because of the tax, maybe he'll seek out other alternatives.
If this takes off I'm going to start a business to supprot their staff.
I'm thinking that they'll probably have several hundred programmers. Given the current environment, they'll be about 90% male. They won't be able to enter the US because of their status.
I think running a boatload (literally) of women to them on payday is a guaranteed money maker.
People die all too frequently from poor automobile maintenance. Most common things are improper tire inflation, lack of tire inspections, poor brake maintenance and poor chasis and suspension maintenance.
Even just really simple things like make sure there's no a squirell nest under the hood could prevent car fires (happens too often).
From studying human nature I really don't think that the risk of death will stop people from becoming complacent. And when there is smoke coming out of the motor, they'll still say, "it'll probably be all right, I'm not going far...". It'll just feed the insurance statistic that most accidents happen less than 5 miles from home.
I worry more about the shoddy maintenance. Look at the cars on ths side of the road for lack of proper maintenance. Look at the heaps driving down the road with the muffler dragging and clouds of smoke trailing. They even get exemptions from emmisions because they can't afford to fix them.
If the average yahoo doesn't maintain his car and breaks down, the damage is minimal. If its flying then its not. Further proof, look at AAA and the other clubs offering roadside assistance. They are booming because people know they won't maintain their stuff and "expect" to break down. The auto club is not going to be much good after a 10,000 ft fall.
I'd argue he's the best sanake oil salesman. He's been collecting money for 20+ years to develop the same vehicle, and always keeps it just a few years from taking over the skies. His big advances have been new motors (not actually for sale) and computer control (not actually working). Its funny how no one seems to mention the incredible difficulty of ducted fans on a large scale. Everyone agrees they are more efficient, but no one has got them to work on a large scale, including McDonell Douglas, Gruman, Lockheed Martin, NASA or even Moller. This doesn't mean he won't be the first but, given his track record, I don't think he's even trying.
He is always saying flight tests have to be run with the vehicle tethered "because of insurance costs". Funny how that didn't affect Burt Rutan with all of his experimental aircraft and kit plane designs. His aircar uses an engine built by a "sister" company that perpetually "will be available soon". The engine is alos not available for homebuilt aircraft due to "liability" concerns. Funny how that hasn't stopped hundreds of people from using VW Beetle engines in their planes. Also funny that Mazda isn't after his engine. Their rotary engines are terribly in-efficient.
But as the old saying goes, "its a sin to let a fool keep his money", and Moller definitely doesn't commit that sin.
I think the problem is the framework has gone wrong.
Originally, a corporation was only allowed to be created to "serve the public good". This meant that all other businesses were either sole proprierships or partnerships. In these types of businesses, someone is LIABLE for what the business does. That encourages good behavior because you as the owner can be sued or sent to jail when you do something wrong.
The idea of a corporation is to limit the owners liability when the purpose of the corporation is to serve the public. In fact (here in the US) most states still require you to state how the public good will be served when filing your articles of incorporation.
I think the process of accepting new corporations has become too easy. We need to put liability and personal responsibility back into business. It should be very difficult to start a corporation, and very easy to start a business. Capitalism is based on the idea of businesses owned by "individuals". Having a handful of corps run everything and controlling the government looks like communism. You can argue that the government isn't running business. I fail to see the difference between the government running business and business running the government. In both cases service sucks, and the public suffers.
I'm asking for the flames here but I feel I should point out the laziness of creationists. All creationists I've met are lazy Christians.
Jews learn Hebrew (regardless of their home language) because its the laguage of their holy texts. Muslims learn Arabic (regardless of their home language) because its the laguage of their holy texts. Cristians seem to be content to let other people interpret their holy texts for them because learning a language is too hard.
If these people are too lazy to learn what their own bible *really* says (while talking about their faith), how can they be expected to learn anything about the universe they are inhabiting. They choose to be ignorant (about their religion and their world), and thus choose to be easy to manipulate. Big surprise, other people manipulate them. Ignorant people believe what the people around them tell them. If they grow up hearing the world is flat, they will not believe a stranger telling them its round. If they grow up being educated and skepical, then they will challenge what a stranger says and accept or reject based on its merits. The majority of us who believe in evolution have neither studied or experienced it. We have read and studied the works of those who have. We can also challenge it. We can compare different theories. We can look at many sources of physical evidence. Creationists have not experienced creation, they believe the people who tell them it happened (3rd or 4th person). They have but one source of data. They have no physical evidence.
Evolutionists, say the "theory of evolution". This means it should be challenged and changed as our knowledge increases. Just calling evolution a theory by its nature asks you to question it. This creates the mental state of a free thinker. Creationist say creation is a fact that can not and should not be challenged. This neither begets understanding or growth. Blind acceptance creates a mental state more accepting of a slave.
It is sad that people who claim to be religious love their god so little as to not even try to learn Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic? The majority of people living in first and second world countries (except one) speak more than one language. It is sad that they love their world so little to want to learn a little bit about how it functions. It is even sadder that they will raise children to be ignorant as they are.
I know I'm fanning the flames here but.... If Mac users are more "savy" then why is the Mac designed to be so "easy to use" and built so that "non-techies" can use it. I'm constantly told it has one mouse button because two are too difficult to use. Are you saying that prople who can't figure out how to use more than one mouse button are "savy" ?
I'm heading for my bunker now, as I hear the missles com...
The $500 is just spending money to save time. If your time is valuable, you'd do it.
They ot only install the OS but also add a whole bunch of other software. Media players, full office suite, graphics programs, games, scientific programs, network utilities (more than you can count). Probably several hundred pieces of software. Of course, its all free software. You could just do it yourself and save the money.
For the money you get to not have to spend your time installing and configuring the OS and software. You get an OS that crashes less, doesn't freeze up during IO operations, and allows you to work faster. These things give you more time to do other things. So, if your time has a high value, you'd pay the price. If your time doesn't you won't.
Like getting the oil changed in your car. Yes, its cheaper to do it yourself. Its also not a dificult task. Me, I'll pay the $30 and spend my time doing something else.
Before the Chinese invasion, wasn't Tibet a theocracy where the Dalai Lama held absolute power?
Please note, I am not defending the Chinese. I find their form of Communism and the killing of thousands of Tibetians to be despicable. But, the idea of fighting them to restore a regime where one person has absolute control and the citizens have no rights doesn't sound like a "freedom fight" to me.
BTW, since most studies show the most used applications on windows are Solataire and Minesweep (by some huge margin), then we could say Linux is ready for the desktop (by software usage).
disclaimer: I see those programs in my KDE menu but, I haven't actually played the Linux versions.
you that have no fucking clue what 99% of the world (some of us geeks included) wants in a desktop
I agree, Linux is a hobbyist OS. It was that way from the beginning. I like it this way.
Being able to look at the source when a bit of documentation is lacking makes for a nice development environment.
Personally, I could care less if it becomes mainstream. I also don't care what 99% of the population want in an OS, I care about what I want in an OS. It meets my needs now (as has for quite a few years). The 600,000 people wanting to make their own window manager demonstrates new ideas. It also demonstrates that having only one way of doing things will not make everyone happy. It shows that you don't have to accept a compromise (as do Mac and Windows users). You don't have to be a conformist. You can have it YOUR WAY, not Steve's way, not Bill's way, or some marketing droids way.
If you say its not ready for the desktop, clarify, its not ready for YOUR desktop, or even insert percentage here number of peoples desktops. I personally don't care about your desktop or anyone else's. I care about mine. I also don't care how many people use the same OS, window manager, CPU, mouse, keyboard, etc as I do. If I write an application for me, I'll share it with those who are interested. If no one is interested, I don't really care (I wrote the app for myself).
Most Linux and Linux application developers don't care about your needs. They write code to meet their own needs. They just happen to be nice enough to want to share it. They were writing code before the platform became popular. They'll still be writing it if the popularity wanes. The only people who get all wrapped up in this nonsense have somehow got their ego tied up in it. Most of these people are not developers, they're just looking for attention.
If you like conformity, top 40 music, and dressing and being like everybody else, then maybe Windows is the way to go. If you want to be an "artsy" non-conformist conformist, you'll choose a Mac. If you don't give a f*** and just want it the way you want it, then you'll use an OS that empowers you. Linux is just one of many that fits this last category.
I hate these stupid OS arguments. Everybody says mine is better than yours in public. Everybody curses their OS, Everybody. They all suck in their own special way. As for desktop environments, how did they become the defining factor in an OS? This boggles the mind.
Use a Mac because its lickable. ??? Use Windows because its got a polished UI.
How about, I use OS? because it does what I want, and you can do whatever you want.
Now you've got a paper to send your boss to reinforce what you've been telling him for years.
Ever notice how things seem more authoritative if they come from outside the company walls.
Slashdot Mirror
You are exactly right. People are idiots. And a good marketing and management team knows it. Your post points out that people don't think about the consequenses of their purchase. Its all based on the nature of marketing. The product has nothing to do with it.
Another example that bizarely imitates this issue: McDonalds makes the absolutely worst hamburgers of any fast food chain by a huge margin. Out of all the chains its the only one that keeps burgers under lights instead of making them fresh. They also outsell every competitor. Their competitors, practically all of them, make better burgers. SOme cheaper, some more expensive. Thats called good marketing and management.
A good marketing team thinks the product doesn't mean jack. Many companies have the marketing teams define and sell a product before development even begins, before they even know if its possible to make. These guys get stinking rich for it.
You mean...
You purchase tiger
- you install 11 illegal copies
- you illegally give copies to friends
- friends illegally install on 12 computers
*wow, thats a lot of jail + punitive damages*
If you land in a state penn, its probably a free case of aids too.
Product keys and phoning home have little to do with the end user license. They are techniques of enforcement.
If your case is people should use Apple because its easier to pirate, then I have no comment.
After reading some of the other responses to your post I'm going to throw MHO out.
Assuming by open-ness, you mean stuff written in the language.
I think it has more to do with the nature of the language. The "new skool" interpreted languages allow for cross platform development. This means a larger pool of developers will be writing code. You don't see a lot of open source smalltalk and VB.
Also, these languages tend to have a shorter learning curve. This means more people will spend the time to learn before giving up. Also increaing the developer pool.
Just my thoughts
Windows fans who are fed up with the licensing
Forgive me but it generally appears that Apple is much more extreme than MS in regards to licensing. Microsoft might have a closed mind about their software licenses but, Apple is extreme and paranoid. Granted, I think they both suck.
As for the most remarkable thing Jobs has done... I'd say its keeping Apple out of bankruptcy while still making crappy business decisions and treating his customers and fans like crap.
If Apple had some decent management (not even great, just decent) they would knock MS down to 30% market share. They have great developers and designers. They have a solid fanatical customer base. They have a reputation for good hardware. But, instead of doing something useful, they whine and sue. They put out commercials that say get an Apple, its designed to be so easy a moron can use it, basically insulting a potential customer before they chose to buy.
They did a decent job with the iPod but, they don't even understand WHY they succeeded with it. It didn't succeed because of the interface or its capabilities. It succeeded because it looked good and was expensive (but, not too expensive). It became what the kids now call bling bling.
People don't want to buy something thats marketed as *easy to use*. Because if they do, they will worry that their friends will see it and think, "oh, he's not smart enough for the other brand". Look at tools and hardware, the best selling products are labeled "professional", "contractor grade". If you market a computer as "for Professionals only" or "Expert System" people will line up to buy, especially when they aren't really at that level. They just want people to think they are. Look at the Linux phenomena. More people *use* linux than have installed it, because they think it makes them look smart.
So, if Apple really wants a big market they should STOP telling people how easy their computer is. Let people find out. They should focus on the professionals who use the system. Make it have a "professional" conotation. Forget "ease of use". If yahoo's buy the computer because of image, and then find it easy to use, they'll become a big supporter because they will feel *smart* (hey look, I use a professional system).
The other obvious problem with their marketing is mixing "ease of use" with a bigger price tag.
If you go to Sears and look at drills, you expect the easier to use ones to cost less. You expect the expert quality one to be more expensive.
So, Apple in their wisdom says look, "its easy". The consumer hears "toy", then they see a big price tag. Then they see the computer they use at work and a small price tag. Big surprise what comes next.
Apple should say, its the best (not easiest to use), and its used by professionals (and point some out), then follow this with that the corporate desktop was chosen by PHB's (their boss is a PHB), to be used by morons (what their bosses think of them). This makes a higher price into a selling point. "Of course it costs more, its for professionals". They'll look down upon their windows friends, "Have you seen Mary Janes computer? Windows? She must have bought that at the dollar store. hahaha".
They could just get a mantra in peoples heads "Big dumb corporations use X, dumb people use X. Professionals use Y. Smart people use Y."
Lets face it, real professionals look at what is really the best and ignore marketing, thus use Linux. The non-conformist wannabees and the unskilled professional wannabees will pick a non-mainstream computer thats easy to use (currently an Apple). The rest (~90%) of the population just want to feel good about themselves.
My question is why doesn't Eric embrace the open source ethos and take the source to CUPS and change it. Then he could submit a patch with his changes.
Oh wait, he'd rather whine for other people to give away their time for free. If he has a problem with an open source project and the developers are not addressing his concern, then he should take advantage of the fact that its open code.
For him, he might as well use a proprietary package. At least a vendor who gets paid might address his concerns.
I personally see no difference between code that is closed source or code that is open source that you never read/edit. Whether its lack of skill, talent or modivation. If you don't exercise your right to modify open source code, whats the point of having that right? Maybe someone will take that right away and you'll never know that its gone.
Maybe if Eric spent his time making CUPS better instead of crying about its current state, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
Actually in a Libertarian system, corporations would not exist. It does espous the Laissez-faire economic system, between individuals (not trusts, not corporations). It espouses responsibility. You can't evade responsibility and liability for your actions by hiding behind a corporation. If you conduct your business to cause harm, YOU will be responsible. YOU will be liable. Your company will NOT be treated as the guilty party. You WILL be.
Having corporations run everything is much closer to Communism than Libertarianism.
Sheeple! They think they elect leaders. The people running for office tell them that they'll be "strong leaders" and then the idiots vote for them. In the United States we do NOT elect leaders. In the United States, we elect REPRESENTATIVES. That is someone who represents you and your views. Their opinions, views, standpoints are irrelevent. If they are imposing their "vision" on you, then you have elected the wrong person and should kick them out. I personally think that anyone voting for a leader should be shipped back to England. They can learn "God Save the Queen" on the boat ride.
Thank you for bringing this up.
I am so sick of people claiming that Libertarians would give corps free reign. Under Libertarianism, corporations would no longer exist. Businesses would all be sole proprieterships or partnerships, where the owners have control, responsibility, and liability of them.
Allowing corporations freedom to do what they want (the "free market" that is so central to libertarianism)
Actually, Libertarianism is against the concept of the corporation. A corporation is supposed to be formed to serve a public good. Libertarianism supports allowing the individual the freedom to do what they want.
Lets put a tax on copyrighted works to pay for the enforcement of this (sic) policy.
If the RIAA want to act like jerks, let them pay for it. After Joe Sixpack sees prices go up because of the tax, maybe he'll seek out other alternatives.
If this takes off I'm going to start a business to supprot their staff.
I'm thinking that they'll probably have several hundred programmers. Given the current environment, they'll be about 90% male. They won't be able to enter the US because of their status.
I think running a boatload (literally) of women to them on payday is a guaranteed money maker.
People die all too frequently from poor automobile maintenance.
...". It'll just feed the insurance statistic that most accidents happen less than 5 miles from home.
Most common things are improper tire inflation, lack of tire inspections, poor brake maintenance and poor chasis and suspension maintenance.
Even just really simple things like make sure there's no a squirell nest under the hood could prevent car fires (happens too often).
From studying human nature I really don't think that the risk of death will stop people from becoming complacent. And when there is smoke coming out of the motor, they'll still say, "it'll probably be all right, I'm not going far
I worry more about the shoddy maintenance.
Look at the cars on ths side of the road for lack of proper maintenance. Look at the heaps driving down the road with the muffler dragging and clouds of smoke trailing. They even get exemptions from emmisions because they can't afford to fix them.
If the average yahoo doesn't maintain his car and breaks down, the damage is minimal. If its flying then its not. Further proof, look at AAA and the other clubs offering roadside assistance. They are booming because people know they won't maintain their stuff and "expect" to break down. The auto club is not going to be much good after a 10,000 ft fall.
I'd argue he's the best sanake oil salesman.
He's been collecting money for 20+ years to develop the same vehicle, and always keeps it just a few years from taking over the skies.
His big advances have been new motors (not actually for sale) and computer control (not actually working). Its funny how no one seems to mention the incredible difficulty of ducted fans on a large scale. Everyone agrees they are more efficient, but no one has got them to work on a large scale, including McDonell Douglas, Gruman, Lockheed Martin, NASA or even Moller. This doesn't mean he won't be the first but, given his track record, I don't think he's even trying.
He is always saying flight tests have to be run with the vehicle tethered "because of insurance costs". Funny how that didn't affect Burt Rutan with all of his experimental aircraft and kit plane designs.
His aircar uses an engine built by a "sister" company that perpetually "will be available soon". The engine is alos not available for homebuilt aircraft due to "liability" concerns. Funny how that hasn't stopped hundreds of people from using VW Beetle engines in their planes. Also funny that Mazda isn't after his engine. Their rotary engines are terribly in-efficient.
But as the old saying goes, "its a sin to let a fool keep his money", and Moller definitely doesn't commit that sin.
I think the problem is the framework has gone wrong.
Originally, a corporation was only allowed to be created to "serve the public good". This meant that all other businesses were either sole proprierships or partnerships. In these types of businesses, someone is LIABLE for what the business does. That encourages good behavior because you as the owner can be sued or sent to jail when you do something wrong.
The idea of a corporation is to limit the owners liability when the purpose of the corporation is to serve the public. In fact (here in the US) most states still require you to state how the public good will be served when filing your articles of incorporation.
I think the process of accepting new corporations has become too easy. We need to put liability and personal responsibility back into business. It should be very difficult to start a corporation, and very easy to start a business.
Capitalism is based on the idea of businesses owned by "individuals". Having a handful of corps run everything and controlling the government looks like communism. You can argue that the government isn't running business. I fail to see the difference between the government running business and business running the government. In both cases service sucks, and the public suffers.
I'm asking for the flames here but I feel I should point out the laziness of creationists. All creationists I've met are lazy Christians.
Jews learn Hebrew (regardless of their home language) because its the laguage of their holy texts.
Muslims learn Arabic (regardless of their home language) because its the laguage of their holy texts.
Cristians seem to be content to let other people interpret their holy texts for them because learning a language is too hard.
If these people are too lazy to learn what their own bible *really* says (while talking about their faith), how can they be expected to learn anything about the universe they are inhabiting. They choose to be ignorant (about their religion and their world), and thus choose to be easy to manipulate.
Big surprise, other people manipulate them.
Ignorant people believe what the people around them tell them. If they grow up hearing the world is flat, they will not believe a stranger telling them its round. If they grow up being educated and skepical, then they will challenge what a stranger says and accept or reject based on its merits.
The majority of us who believe in evolution have neither studied or experienced it. We have read and studied the works of those who have. We can also challenge it. We can compare different theories. We can look at many sources of physical evidence.
Creationists have not experienced creation, they believe the people who tell them it happened (3rd or 4th person). They have but one source of data. They have no physical evidence.
Evolutionists, say the "theory of evolution". This means it should be challenged and changed as our knowledge increases. Just calling evolution a theory by its nature asks you to question it. This creates the mental state of a free thinker.
Creationist say creation is a fact that can not and should not be challenged. This neither begets understanding or growth. Blind acceptance creates a mental state more accepting of a slave.
It is sad that people who claim to be religious love their god so little as to not even try to learn Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic? The majority of people living in first and second world countries (except one) speak more than one language.
It is sad that they love their world so little to want to learn a little bit about how it functions.
It is even sadder that they will raise children to be ignorant as they are.
Great excuse to do nothing.
Unfortunatley, you'll probably get what you deserve.
I know I'm fanning the flames here but....
If Mac users are more "savy" then why is the Mac designed to be so "easy to use" and built so that "non-techies" can use it. I'm constantly told it has one mouse button because two are too difficult to use.
Are you saying that prople who can't figure out how to use more than one mouse button are "savy" ?
I'm heading for my bunker now, as I hear the missles com...
The $500 is just spending money to save time. If your time is valuable, you'd do it.
They ot only install the OS but also add a whole bunch of other software.
Media players, full office suite, graphics programs, games, scientific programs, network utilities (more than you can count). Probably several hundred pieces of software.
Of course, its all free software. You could just do it yourself and save the money.
For the money you get to not have to spend your time installing and configuring the OS and software. You get an OS that crashes less, doesn't freeze up during IO operations, and allows you to work faster. These things give you more time to do other things. So, if your time has a high value, you'd pay the price. If your time doesn't you won't.
Like getting the oil changed in your car. Yes, its cheaper to do it yourself. Its also not a dificult task. Me, I'll pay the $30 and spend my time doing something else.
Wouldn't giving be communist? I think you mean SELL to the pro-capitalism fighters. That would be the capitalist thing to do.
Before the Chinese invasion, wasn't Tibet a theocracy where the Dalai Lama held absolute power?
Please note, I am not defending the Chinese. I find their form of Communism and the killing of thousands of Tibetians to be despicable. But, the idea of fighting them to restore a regime where one person has absolute control and the citizens have no rights doesn't sound like a "freedom fight" to me.
BTW, since most studies show the most used applications on windows are Solataire and Minesweep (by some huge margin), then we could say Linux is ready for the desktop (by software usage).
disclaimer:
I see those programs in my KDE menu but, I haven't actually played the Linux versions.
you that have no fucking clue what 99% of the world (some of us geeks included) wants in a desktop
I agree, Linux is a hobbyist OS. It was that way from the beginning. I like it this way. Being able to look at the source when a bit of documentation is lacking makes for a nice development environment.
Personally, I could care less if it becomes mainstream. I also don't care what 99% of the population want in an OS, I care about what I want in an OS. It meets my needs now (as has for quite a few years). The 600,000 people wanting to make their own window manager demonstrates new ideas. It also demonstrates that having only one way of doing things will not make everyone happy. It shows that you don't have to accept a compromise (as do Mac and Windows users). You don't have to be a conformist. You can have it YOUR WAY, not Steve's way, not Bill's way, or some marketing droids way.
If you say its not ready for the desktop, clarify, its not ready for YOUR desktop, or even insert percentage here number of peoples desktops. I personally don't care about your desktop or anyone else's. I care about mine. I also don't care how many people use the same OS, window manager, CPU, mouse, keyboard, etc as I do. If I write an application for me, I'll share it with those who are interested. If no one is interested, I don't really care (I wrote the app for myself).
Most Linux and Linux application developers don't care about your needs. They write code to meet their own needs. They just happen to be nice enough to want to share it. They were writing code before the platform became popular. They'll still be writing it if the popularity wanes. The only people who get all wrapped up in this nonsense have somehow got their ego tied up in it. Most of these people are not developers, they're just looking for attention.
If you like conformity, top 40 music, and dressing and being like everybody else, then maybe Windows is the way to go. If you want to be an "artsy" non-conformist conformist, you'll choose a Mac. If you don't give a f*** and just want it the way you want it, then you'll use an OS that empowers you. Linux is just one of many that fits this last category.
I hate these stupid OS arguments. Everybody says mine is better than yours in public. Everybody curses their OS, Everybody. They all suck in their own special way. As for desktop environments, how did they become the defining factor in an OS? This boggles the mind. Use a Mac because its lickable. ??? Use Windows because its got a polished UI.
How about, I use OS? because it does what I want, and you can do whatever you want.
Although I understand your point most best practices say:
Your code should say what you are doing
The comments should say why
Your post suggests that you've got the first part (having clear code with sensible variable and method names).
The article just says what everyone knew ..
What every devloper know.
Now you've got a paper to send your boss to reinforce what you've been telling him for years. Ever notice how things seem more authoritative if they come from outside the company walls.