It's not about how fast your general Internet service is... that already works the way you want.
It's about how fast the sites you're getting your content from are, based on how much they pay your ISP. Want to buy TV shows and movies from iTunes? Better hope they paid off your ISP, and if customers in general want good service, Apple would have to pay all of the ISPs. Want YouTube? Better hope they paid up. BitTorrent? Games? Good luck.
Net Neutrality does not mean that the ISP doesn't discriminate against you based on how much you pay. It also doesn't mean that the ISP can't give certain types of traffic higher priority. It does mean that the ISP can't discriminate against traffic based on what site the content is coming from, and I think it doesn't suck, and is very important to understand.
I think an interesting question is whether their former record label will now make more money off of their previous albums, since new potential fans will get the album, possibly for free, then get interested in the older stuff. They'll then go out and buy the entire back catalog of Radiohead albums.
In an ironic twist, the former label could make more money (from a few customers, anyway, definitely not overall) than the band off of this new distribution scheme.
I even added a custom ringtone to one of my phones using only a standard USB cable and the manufacturer's ringtone transfer software.
On my T-Mobile RAZR I'm able to just plug it in and access the microSD card as a removable drive, so I could just drop an mp3 into the Music folder in Windows Explorer (or in Metacity or Konqueror or Finder if I wanted to), then from the phone itself, copy it to internal memory, and use it as a ringtone. No need to shorten it to 30 seconds or use any special software.
> What sets this platform apart form the rest? The license, and the license fee. Plus, I'll bet, the development environment.
Keep in mind that this Google-led alliance will be releasing an SDK next week, well before any actual phones launch. This is in sharp contrast with Apple, who launched a phone months ago, and still won't be releasing an SDK for months.
That, and the fact that the Google setup will probably allow just about anyone to develop for the gPlatform, whereas Apple will likely limit it to people who can get expensive signing certificates.
I would think that visa or mc or some other (hopefully universal) electronic payment system would be in place, and the electronics would get there the same way everything else would get there. If it was a Visa or MC type of operation, I would think that Visa/MC would want their stuff up there, and would do what it takes to be the Credit Card of Space. I think some type of electronic, universal payment system should be a part of the infrastructure, the same as water, sewage, breathable air, and communication systems will be.
Apparently we're worried enough about sharp edges to design coins without sharp edges even though A) no coins that I'm aware actually have sharp edges and B) what harm could sharp-edged coins do in 0G that they don't do here on earth? If we're going to solve little problems like that, why not do away with the whole concept of coins that could potentially somehow hurt someone? I think my original point still stands, that physical coins can float away in 0G, you'll have to have something to hold them together, and when you try to separate them to be able to pay for something, you end up with a big mess, not just on the floor, but all over in the air. The fewer loose items to hold onto in space, the better.
The QUID is made of a space-qualified plastic, with round edges to prevent injuries in zero gravity. What the hell is wrong with paper currency? 0g paper-cuts?
Actually, why do we need physical money in space at all anyway? Why not just have it be all electronic? Wouldn't this be the true space age, and we're still going to be relying on physical currency? It seems like having your money float away would be more of a problem in 0G than getting cut from sharp edges.
It was just used in these 2 releases... way ahead of their promise.
No, these implement BD+, which is also scary, but it's not the same as ICT, and it doesn't downgrade the resolution of the video based on what type of outputs you use. BD+ is basically software on the disc that checks to make sure the player hasn't been hacked or compromised, and updates the player if need be. This may be what I had heard early on could destroy a player if a user tampered with it, but maybe they decided to just fix the tampering to prevent backlashes about $500-$1000 players that just stop working.
Again, this isn't the same thing as ICT, although I do think it's still not a good thing.
It's a great thought, and I wish things were that way... but if you want HD, the only other player you're going to get is another BD/HD-DVD player that implements the same DRM. You can switch to the opposite format, but still face the same DRM, and you probably won't have the same movie available to you.
It's amazing how much the pro-DRM content providers have strangled our ability to watch movies in a useful way.
He said "online upgrade capability"... he wasn't talking about an Internet connection being required, he was talking about being able to have an Internet connection... whether you actually plug it in is up to you, but having the option of online firmware upgrades is much better than not having the option, and having to wait for an upgrade disc to get mailed to you, or having to download an update on your PC and burn it to a disc before you can have the upgrade.
I guess the point that you're trying to get across is that we shouldn't have to have upgrades to get around bugs that are introduced by the crappy DRM to begin with, and I wholeheartedly agree with that. However, for people who already own players that won't play their legitimately purchased discs, they really should be able to ave the most convenient options for getting their players up and running. Especially since these players are still pretty expensive.
**Note #1: I think the Internet connections should be for the convenience and utility of the end user only. I know HD-DVD player manufacturers are required to include an Internet connection for the sake of using online special features on the discs, and probably for bug-fix firmware upgrades (but noone's forcing the end-users to plug the Ethernet cable into the box). I don't believe these connections should be used for disabling decryption keys or otherwise restricting how the user uses the player/discs, or that they should be used for reporting which discs are being viewed on which players. That said, I'm sure the connections do get abused in those ways... I just don't like it.
Note #2: I don't own any HD-DVD or BD players, and I probably won't for a long, long time.
I'm not sure where you get the idea that disc would "bind" itself to a player... care to cite a source for that? In order for that to work, the BD/HDDVD player would have to have an Internet connection, and register every single time a disc is inserted in a machine... How else would one player know if a disc had been played in another player? If I remember right all HD-DVD players have network connections, but not all BD players do.
The degraded resolution has to do with the Image Constraint Token. I believe that ICT is implemented in all HDDVD/BD players, but content publishers have "promised" not to use it for a couple years at least. ICT would downgrade the resolution if the video output is not HDCP-compliant. This is bad, but it's not as bad as what you described, and it's not being used, at least not yet.
I'd love to make the jump to Ubuntu at home... I already use it on my dual-booting work laptop whenever I don't have to be in Windows. My wife is already used to Firefox and OpenOffice on Windows, so those aren't a problem, but she's worried about not being able to use her iPod in Linux. I assured her that there are programs (e.g. Floola, Amarok, Banshee, etc.) that work well in Linux, but she's still not going for it. Now if Apple would release a Linux-compatible iTunes, I'd be set. I won't hold my breath for that one, though.
That's cool, but in using cygwin, ssh & VNC to support the idea that it's easier to securely admin a remote Windows box than to admin a remote Linux box, you just proved that you need extra steps to do the same thing...
Under Linux, you obviously don't need cygwin, and an ssh server is usually installed and ready to go after a default install of most distros. VNC is just as available for Linux as for Windows, although most Linux distributions give you quick access to many VNC flavors through their default package managers, so you don't even have to manually download and install files.
Of course, under Linux, you can just install an NX server/client, which does have its own setup headaches, but once it's installed, using it is just as easy as Remote Desktop. You don't need to establish an ssh connection, then tell the client to tunnel through that connection; it handles all of the ssh stuff automatically and transparently. And with the latest version of NoMachine's NX server/client, you have the option of establishing a new session (even while someone else is running another local or remote session), or attach to a currently running session.
My favorite part about that was this exchange:
"Is it still your testimony that the music on the defendant's computer was copied from a hard drive?" asked Toder.
"Given new versions of software, you could rip this fast," conceded Jacobson.
Would newer, more bloated ripping software have any chance of ripping faster? Are there any newer, enhanced "ripping technologies" that they didn't have in earlier versions of WMP, iTunes, etc.? I know the guy is A) talking out of his butt, and B) trying to pretend that maybe it wouldn't have been possible to rip that fast back when the "offense" occurred, but shouldn't the lawyer at least be required to admit that the evidence not only showed that it was possible that all those tracks were ripped from CDs, but actually proved that they were ripped from CDs?
(The evidence being the time stamps on the mp3 files, which, for tracks from the same album were marked 15-20 seconds apart, followed by a bigger space of time before tracks from the next album... if they were all copied from another hard drive, as the guy claims, and which shouldn't be an offense anyway, then all the timestamps would be much closer together, with no larger gap between tracks from different albums.)
I wonder what she would say about the opposite process: what happens if you buy an album from iTunes, then burn it to a CD... The DRM has specific provisions for burning CDs from albums & playlists, so doesn't that mean that it's permitted and allowed by the labels? But if copying a song from a CD is stealing, I'm sure she'd say that copy a song to a CD is also stealing.
Personally, I think she's just way behind the times, and doesn't understand the digital age in which she lives. Or she doesn't want to face the irrelevance of her own company and her own job.
The display itself may be 3mm thin, but it's connected to a much bigger stand.
I really don't see the point of having a display 3mm thin when it still needs more than a thirtyfold space of that to place it somewhere.
If it could be mounted to a wall and the whole thing was still only 3mm thin, It'd be useful.
It will be mounted to a wall soon, I'm sure. This is the very very first OLED TV on the market (well, not our market...). It's small, and it's not going to have everything that everyone wants in an OLED TV, and of course, it's expensive as hell. And since this an 11" screen, I don't think it makes a lot of sense to mount it on a wall, it's more of a countertop TV for a kitchen or something. Sure the thickness of the screen doesn't mean much if it still takes a large footprint on your counter, but maybe the display can be flipped and it can be hung upside down under a cabinet or something. The only thing the thinness is good for right now is marketing, with that "ooh, thin! (and shiny)" factor.
TFA discusses needing to find the balance between "simplicity for beginners" and "power for advanced users."
The funny thing about that is that he complains when Ubuntu provides tools for people with different levels of Linux familiarity. Like here, where he complains about package managers:
The trouble is, Add/Remove Applications remains basic. Even its help suggests that you use Synaptic "for more advanced needs." Yet even Synaptic is less flexible than the basic apt-get command, and not much easier to use. And, for all the care given to the layout of Synaptic, the updater, and Add/Remove applications, I have to wonder: does any distro really need three or four desktop applications for the same function? After all, apt-get serves the same purpose as all of them. For some reason, the thinking of Ubuntu's planners seems uncharacteristically muddy here.
If he doesn't think Synaptic is less flexible that apt-get, what are the reasons? Is he arguing that we should just have apt-get and not Synaptic or Add/Remove Applications? Of course Add/Remove Applications is basic. If I was going to hand Ubuntu over to my mom, I would be happy that there is a basic Add/Remove Applications menu item she can click on to see what's available. It is easy to see what it does, and it can get the job done for someone who wouldn't even know what to do with the flexibility of more advanced commands. I prefer Synaptic, because it lets me see all of the packages, categorized in several different ways, and gives me clear, easy to see information about each of them. I'm not scared of the CLI, but how is apt-get easier to use than Synaptic? Maybe if you already know the exact name of the package you want to install, but if you need any information about the packages available, I think Synaptic is very easy to use. The author seems to only like apt-get, but if that's all Ubuntu included, how would my mom install or remove apps?
It sounds like he really wants Ubuntu to be less tailored for the average home user... He seems to be upset that the distro that home users would prefer is geared towards not confusing them.
My bad, thanks for the clarification. Looks like I was shooting off from the hip in complaining that asphaltjesus was shooting off from the hip. My apologies to all.
The rest of your comments have no merit. That seems a tad harsh... you must be a hit at parties.
It's probably not the way someone should install Linux if they're actually planning on using it as their main setup Wrong. The boot loader manages windows and linux beautifully. It's the best way to use Debian as their main setup too.
the whole installation (nearly) is all on one folder in the Windows partition Wrong again. The debian installer should resize the ntfs partition to give Debian disk space. Debian makes this all very easy so you don't need to know if you don't care.
This installer doesn't use Lilo or Grub... at least not in the normal way, and it doesn't touch your partitions at all, either. It installs a virtual disk into a folder on the Windows partition, then adds an entry to the Windows boot loader to boot off of that virtual disk. Once someone has decided that they really want to use Linux, they should have it set up on its own dedicated partition. That way you get regular disk access times, and your whole Linux install doesn't depend on the stability of your NTFS partition. Luckily, there are ways to migrate this type of installation to a regular install.
A tool like this shouldn't be resizing users' partitions, it's against the nature of what this particular tool is. The regular installation programs that every distro comes with can do that.
Check out the screenshots here, and also check out the wubi installer. It's exactly the same thing, only installs Ubuntu instead of Debian Etch.
Next time do a little digging on the topic at hand before telling someone their comments have no merit.
Live CDs/DVDs work alright, but they have disadvantages that the debian installer doesn't, mainly:
a) They're slow. If you have enough RAM, you can copy the disk to RAM and run everything from there, but you have to have a lot, and then there's not as much left for the OS and applications.
b) They're not permanent. For someone easing into Linux, they would want to be able to do some things in both OS's, but since you can't save anything to disk on a LiveCD (without knowing what you're doing), they're left with just a brisk preview of a Linux OS without ever really being able to get any work done in it. And
c) You have to put a disk in the drive whenever you want to boot into it, and take it out when you want to use Windows.
Using a VM (qemu/virtualbox/VirtualPC/VMware, etc) is a good idea that solves some of these problems, but unless you have one of the newer Intel or AMD CPUs that support virtualization, it's going to be very slow. And even if you do have one of these CPUs, you're still going to have the overhead of 2 separate OS's using your RAM and CPU at the same time. You do have the added benefit of being able to use both OS's without having to logout and reboot.
I think LiveCDs and VMs are great solutions, but I think the Debian installer is one more good solution, which can help a whole new set of people get familiar with Linux.
You may think this last generation was a misstep, but others would argue that they've answered a lot of people's gripes, and created different iPods to satisfy just about everyone.
The complaint about the small screen on the Nano is a great example. No one is paying more for this Nano than they did for the previous generation, there's just an added video feature that wasn't there before. Is it great for watching movies or full-length TV shows? No, but the Nano couldn't even play those things before, and was always meant to be a smaller product with more limited use. What it is great for is video podcasts and music videos. Small videos where you don't need to be able to see things in high detail.
The Touch adds quite a bit of value with its fancy animated interface, including accelerometers, and it gives you wi-fi, a full web browser, direct access to YouTube, and the ability to purchase music straight from the iPod. Really, that is pretty cool, and while it doesn't have the ginormous space of the iPod Classic, it certainly has brought about some of the features people have asked for in an iPod.
I think the iPod classic is a good thing, too. While the interface of the Touch is cool, and sometimes I get sick of the wheel, it's still good to have an interface with some real tactile feel, so you can change songs without having to take it out of your pocket, or while driving. And even though it doesn't have the same huge screen as the Touch, it's got gobs of space for music and videos.
And as far as the iPhone sales have gone, what I have heard was that the sales didn't live up to the expectations of many analysts, but it did match Apple's expectations. I don't see how anyone can claim that sales have been disappointing, it has been a hot item considering the huge initial price, and it will be even more so with the price drop.
It's funny how they can release products that give people nearly everything they want, and still people try to complain about everything. They probably won't be able to ever deliver all of the features that everyone wants in every iPod, but I think they strike a good balance.
That said, I am disappointed to hear that they are trying to discourace Linux users from syncing with iPods. If, however, they are doing this in preperation for releasing a Linux version of iTunes (fat chance, I know), then there's at least a little good news in it. iTunes is just about the last barrier to my wife approving Linux for the home PC. I'm also not thrilled about Apple removing the composite video output from the headphone jack, and now requiring a dock to get video output functionality.
I think this installer isn't so much about the fear of changing BIOS settings as it is about the fear of changing BIOS settings, repartitioning, and installing a boot loader. So it basically makes installing Linux about as painless as installing other Windows apps. Since one of the biggest complaints (after hardware compatibility and software availability) about Linux is difficult installations, this can potentially go a long way towards introducing people to Linux.
It's probably not the way someone should install Linux if they're actually planning on using it as their main setup, but if they want to test it out, it's a great way to start. If they don't like it, the whole installation (nearly) is all on one folder in the Windows partition. I'm guessing you can just "uninstall" it the same way you would uninstall any Windows app.
Slashdot Mirror
It's not about how fast your general Internet service is... that already works the way you want.
It's about how fast the sites you're getting your content from are, based on how much they pay your ISP. Want to buy TV shows and movies from iTunes? Better hope they paid off your ISP, and if customers in general want good service, Apple would have to pay all of the ISPs. Want YouTube? Better hope they paid up. BitTorrent? Games? Good luck.
Net Neutrality does not mean that the ISP doesn't discriminate against you based on how much you pay. It also doesn't mean that the ISP can't give certain types of traffic higher priority. It does mean that the ISP can't discriminate against traffic based on what site the content is coming from, and I think it doesn't suck, and is very important to understand.
I think an interesting question is whether their former record label will now make more money off of their previous albums, since new potential fans will get the album, possibly for free, then get interested in the older stuff. They'll then go out and buy the entire back catalog of Radiohead albums.
In an ironic twist, the former label could make more money (from a few customers, anyway, definitely not overall) than the band off of this new distribution scheme.
On my T-Mobile RAZR I'm able to just plug it in and access the microSD card as a removable drive, so I could just drop an mp3 into the Music folder in Windows Explorer (or in Metacity or Konqueror or Finder if I wanted to), then from the phone itself, copy it to internal memory, and use it as a ringtone. No need to shorten it to 30 seconds or use any special software.
Keep in mind that this Google-led alliance will be releasing an SDK next week, well before any actual phones launch. This is in sharp contrast with Apple, who launched a phone months ago, and still won't be releasing an SDK for months.
That, and the fact that the Google setup will probably allow just about anyone to develop for the gPlatform, whereas Apple will likely limit it to people who can get expensive signing certificates.
I would think that visa or mc or some other (hopefully universal) electronic payment system would be in place, and the electronics would get there the same way everything else would get there. If it was a Visa or MC type of operation, I would think that Visa/MC would want their stuff up there, and would do what it takes to be the Credit Card of Space. I think some type of electronic, universal payment system should be a part of the infrastructure, the same as water, sewage, breathable air, and communication systems will be.
Apparently we're worried enough about sharp edges to design coins without sharp edges even though A) no coins that I'm aware actually have sharp edges and B) what harm could sharp-edged coins do in 0G that they don't do here on earth? If we're going to solve little problems like that, why not do away with the whole concept of coins that could potentially somehow hurt someone? I think my original point still stands, that physical coins can float away in 0G, you'll have to have something to hold them together, and when you try to separate them to be able to pay for something, you end up with a big mess, not just on the floor, but all over in the air. The fewer loose items to hold onto in space, the better.
What's the ratio of ningies to Shrute Bucks? How about ningies to Stanley Nickels?
Actually, why do we need physical money in space at all anyway? Why not just have it be all electronic? Wouldn't this be the true space age, and we're still going to be relying on physical currency? It seems like having your money float away would be more of a problem in 0G than getting cut from sharp edges.
No, these implement BD+, which is also scary, but it's not the same as ICT, and it doesn't downgrade the resolution of the video based on what type of outputs you use. BD+ is basically software on the disc that checks to make sure the player hasn't been hacked or compromised, and updates the player if need be. This may be what I had heard early on could destroy a player if a user tampered with it, but maybe they decided to just fix the tampering to prevent backlashes about $500-$1000 players that just stop working.
Again, this isn't the same thing as ICT, although I do think it's still not a good thing.
Sounds like The Office last night.
It's a great thought, and I wish things were that way... but if you want HD, the only other player you're going to get is another BD/HD-DVD player that implements the same DRM. You can switch to the opposite format, but still face the same DRM, and you probably won't have the same movie available to you.
It's amazing how much the pro-DRM content providers have strangled our ability to watch movies in a useful way.
He said "online upgrade capability"... he wasn't talking about an Internet connection being required, he was talking about being able to have an Internet connection... whether you actually plug it in is up to you, but having the option of online firmware upgrades is much better than not having the option, and having to wait for an upgrade disc to get mailed to you, or having to download an update on your PC and burn it to a disc before you can have the upgrade.
I guess the point that you're trying to get across is that we shouldn't have to have upgrades to get around bugs that are introduced by the crappy DRM to begin with, and I wholeheartedly agree with that. However, for people who already own players that won't play their legitimately purchased discs, they really should be able to ave the most convenient options for getting their players up and running. Especially since these players are still pretty expensive.
**Note #1: I think the Internet connections should be for the convenience and utility of the end user only. I know HD-DVD player manufacturers are required to include an Internet connection for the sake of using online special features on the discs, and probably for bug-fix firmware upgrades (but noone's forcing the end-users to plug the Ethernet cable into the box). I don't believe these connections should be used for disabling decryption keys or otherwise restricting how the user uses the player/discs, or that they should be used for reporting which discs are being viewed on which players. That said, I'm sure the connections do get abused in those ways... I just don't like it.
Note #2: I don't own any HD-DVD or BD players, and I probably won't for a long, long time.
I'm not sure where you get the idea that disc would "bind" itself to a player... care to cite a source for that? In order for that to work, the BD/HDDVD player would have to have an Internet connection, and register every single time a disc is inserted in a machine... How else would one player know if a disc had been played in another player? If I remember right all HD-DVD players have network connections, but not all BD players do.
The degraded resolution has to do with the Image Constraint Token. I believe that ICT is implemented in all HDDVD/BD players, but content publishers have "promised" not to use it for a couple years at least. ICT would downgrade the resolution if the video output is not HDCP-compliant. This is bad, but it's not as bad as what you described, and it's not being used, at least not yet.
I'd love to make the jump to Ubuntu at home... I already use it on my dual-booting work laptop whenever I don't have to be in Windows. My wife is already used to Firefox and OpenOffice on Windows, so those aren't a problem, but she's worried about not being able to use her iPod in Linux. I assured her that there are programs (e.g. Floola, Amarok, Banshee, etc.) that work well in Linux, but she's still not going for it. Now if Apple would release a Linux-compatible iTunes, I'd be set. I won't hold my breath for that one, though.
That's cool, but in using cygwin, ssh & VNC to support the idea that it's easier to securely admin a remote Windows box than to admin a remote Linux box, you just proved that you need extra steps to do the same thing...
Under Linux, you obviously don't need cygwin, and an ssh server is usually installed and ready to go after a default install of most distros. VNC is just as available for Linux as for Windows, although most Linux distributions give you quick access to many VNC flavors through their default package managers, so you don't even have to manually download and install files.
Of course, under Linux, you can just install an NX server/client, which does have its own setup headaches, but once it's installed, using it is just as easy as Remote Desktop. You don't need to establish an ssh connection, then tell the client to tunnel through that connection; it handles all of the ssh stuff automatically and transparently. And with the latest version of NoMachine's NX server/client, you have the option of establishing a new session (even while someone else is running another local or remote session), or attach to a currently running session.
Would newer, more bloated ripping software have any chance of ripping faster? Are there any newer, enhanced "ripping technologies" that they didn't have in earlier versions of WMP, iTunes, etc.? I know the guy is A) talking out of his butt, and B) trying to pretend that maybe it wouldn't have been possible to rip that fast back when the "offense" occurred, but shouldn't the lawyer at least be required to admit that the evidence not only showed that it was possible that all those tracks were ripped from CDs, but actually proved that they were ripped from CDs?
(The evidence being the time stamps on the mp3 files, which, for tracks from the same album were marked 15-20 seconds apart, followed by a bigger space of time before tracks from the next album... if they were all copied from another hard drive, as the guy claims, and which shouldn't be an offense anyway, then all the timestamps would be much closer together, with no larger gap between tracks from different albums.)
I wonder what she would say about the opposite process: what happens if you buy an album from iTunes, then burn it to a CD... The DRM has specific provisions for burning CDs from albums & playlists, so doesn't that mean that it's permitted and allowed by the labels? But if copying a song from a CD is stealing, I'm sure she'd say that copy a song to a CD is also stealing.
Personally, I think she's just way behind the times, and doesn't understand the digital age in which she lives. Or she doesn't want to face the irrelevance of her own company and her own job.
I really don't see the point of having a display 3mm thin when it still needs more than a thirtyfold space of that to place it somewhere.
If it could be mounted to a wall and the whole thing was still only 3mm thin, It'd be useful.
It will be mounted to a wall soon, I'm sure. This is the very very first OLED TV on the market (well, not our market...). It's small, and it's not going to have everything that everyone wants in an OLED TV, and of course, it's expensive as hell. And since this an 11" screen, I don't think it makes a lot of sense to mount it on a wall, it's more of a countertop TV for a kitchen or something. Sure the thickness of the screen doesn't mean much if it still takes a large footprint on your counter, but maybe the display can be flipped and it can be hung upside down under a cabinet or something. The only thing the thinness is good for right now is marketing, with that "ooh, thin! (and shiny)" factor.
The funny thing about that is that he complains when Ubuntu provides tools for people with different levels of Linux familiarity. Like here, where he complains about package managers: The trouble is, Add/Remove Applications remains basic. Even its help suggests that you use Synaptic "for more advanced needs." Yet even Synaptic is less flexible than the basic apt-get command, and not much easier to use. And, for all the care given to the layout of Synaptic, the updater, and Add/Remove applications, I have to wonder: does any distro really need three or four desktop applications for the same function? After all, apt-get serves the same purpose as all of them. For some reason, the thinking of Ubuntu's planners seems uncharacteristically muddy here.
If he doesn't think Synaptic is less flexible that apt-get, what are the reasons? Is he arguing that we should just have apt-get and not Synaptic or Add/Remove Applications? Of course Add/Remove Applications is basic. If I was going to hand Ubuntu over to my mom, I would be happy that there is a basic Add/Remove Applications menu item she can click on to see what's available. It is easy to see what it does, and it can get the job done for someone who wouldn't even know what to do with the flexibility of more advanced commands. I prefer Synaptic, because it lets me see all of the packages, categorized in several different ways, and gives me clear, easy to see information about each of them. I'm not scared of the CLI, but how is apt-get easier to use than Synaptic? Maybe if you already know the exact name of the package you want to install, but if you need any information about the packages available, I think Synaptic is very easy to use. The author seems to only like apt-get, but if that's all Ubuntu included, how would my mom install or remove apps?
It sounds like he really wants Ubuntu to be less tailored for the average home user... He seems to be upset that the distro that home users would prefer is geared towards not confusing them.
My bad, thanks for the clarification. Looks like I was shooting off from the hip in complaining that asphaltjesus was shooting off from the hip. My apologies to all.
It means it hasn't been tested yet. It probably will be tested soon, and if there are any problems, they will probably be fixed fairly soon.
This installer doesn't use Lilo or Grub... at least not in the normal way, and it doesn't touch your partitions at all, either. It installs a virtual disk into a folder on the Windows partition, then adds an entry to the Windows boot loader to boot off of that virtual disk. Once someone has decided that they really want to use Linux, they should have it set up on its own dedicated partition. That way you get regular disk access times, and your whole Linux install doesn't depend on the stability of your NTFS partition. Luckily, there are ways to migrate this type of installation to a regular install.
A tool like this shouldn't be resizing users' partitions, it's against the nature of what this particular tool is. The regular installation programs that every distro comes with can do that. Check out the screenshots here, and also check out the wubi installer. It's exactly the same thing, only installs Ubuntu instead of Debian Etch.
Next time do a little digging on the topic at hand before telling someone their comments have no merit.
Live CDs/DVDs work alright, but they have disadvantages that the debian installer doesn't, mainly:
a) They're slow. If you have enough RAM, you can copy the disk to RAM and run everything from there, but you have to have a lot, and then there's not as much left for the OS and applications.
b) They're not permanent. For someone easing into Linux, they would want to be able to do some things in both OS's, but since you can't save anything to disk on a LiveCD (without knowing what you're doing), they're left with just a brisk preview of a Linux OS without ever really being able to get any work done in it. And
c) You have to put a disk in the drive whenever you want to boot into it, and take it out when you want to use Windows.
Using a VM (qemu/virtualbox/VirtualPC/VMware, etc) is a good idea that solves some of these problems, but unless you have one of the newer Intel or AMD CPUs that support virtualization, it's going to be very slow. And even if you do have one of these CPUs, you're still going to have the overhead of 2 separate OS's using your RAM and CPU at the same time. You do have the added benefit of being able to use both OS's without having to logout and reboot.
I think LiveCDs and VMs are great solutions, but I think the Debian installer is one more good solution, which can help a whole new set of people get familiar with Linux.
You may think this last generation was a misstep, but others would argue that they've answered a lot of people's gripes, and created different iPods to satisfy just about everyone.
The complaint about the small screen on the Nano is a great example. No one is paying more for this Nano than they did for the previous generation, there's just an added video feature that wasn't there before. Is it great for watching movies or full-length TV shows? No, but the Nano couldn't even play those things before, and was always meant to be a smaller product with more limited use. What it is great for is video podcasts and music videos. Small videos where you don't need to be able to see things in high detail.
The Touch adds quite a bit of value with its fancy animated interface, including accelerometers, and it gives you wi-fi, a full web browser, direct access to YouTube, and the ability to purchase music straight from the iPod. Really, that is pretty cool, and while it doesn't have the ginormous space of the iPod Classic, it certainly has brought about some of the features people have asked for in an iPod.
I think the iPod classic is a good thing, too. While the interface of the Touch is cool, and sometimes I get sick of the wheel, it's still good to have an interface with some real tactile feel, so you can change songs without having to take it out of your pocket, or while driving. And even though it doesn't have the same huge screen as the Touch, it's got gobs of space for music and videos.
And as far as the iPhone sales have gone, what I have heard was that the sales didn't live up to the expectations of many analysts, but it did match Apple's expectations. I don't see how anyone can claim that sales have been disappointing, it has been a hot item considering the huge initial price, and it will be even more so with the price drop.
It's funny how they can release products that give people nearly everything they want, and still people try to complain about everything. They probably won't be able to ever deliver all of the features that everyone wants in every iPod, but I think they strike a good balance.
That said, I am disappointed to hear that they are trying to discourace Linux users from syncing with iPods. If, however, they are doing this in preperation for releasing a Linux version of iTunes (fat chance, I know), then there's at least a little good news in it. iTunes is just about the last barrier to my wife approving Linux for the home PC. I'm also not thrilled about Apple removing the composite video output from the headphone jack, and now requiring a dock to get video output functionality.
I think this installer isn't so much about the fear of changing BIOS settings as it is about the fear of changing BIOS settings, repartitioning, and installing a boot loader. So it basically makes installing Linux about as painless as installing other Windows apps. Since one of the biggest complaints (after hardware compatibility and software availability) about Linux is difficult installations, this can potentially go a long way towards introducing people to Linux.
It's probably not the way someone should install Linux if they're actually planning on using it as their main setup, but if they want to test it out, it's a great way to start. If they don't like it, the whole installation (nearly) is all on one folder in the Windows partition. I'm guessing you can just "uninstall" it the same way you would uninstall any Windows app.
Did you miss the part where it's not free anymore? Yea i think you did