Well, besides that a lot of companies like Dell will now pre-load a lot of "trial" software with their Windows installation. They get money from the software vendors for doing that, so yes a Linux based computer may be more expensive.
Well, assuming we're talking about Vista, the entry level is $200, which for a lot of PCs isn't 50%. But the fact of the matter is that Dell doesn't pay $200 for a copy of Vista. I'd be surprised if they payed over $50 for it. I think XP was something like $15, right? I know I payed $5 for it from my university.
But one also has to figure in the cost of supporting the transition to Linux. Software systems updated, maybe hardware swapper out, staff trained and informed at every level. I doubt its as expensive as some people want to make it seem, but its a non zero cost.
I'm guessing people under stress like to eat more and unhealthier food too. Remember that old stereotype about upset women where they eat a bucket of ice cream? I find myself eating a lot unhealthier when I'm in a bad mood ("stressed out").
Yeah and if you buy a jewel encrusted chalice the price advantage totally disappears. Lets stick to what it takes to play some games. I don't care about the HD-DVD extension or Blu-ray. Adding a bunch of accessories to push up the price of a competing console is bullshit.
Far more insidious? From my point of view Fair Play is just as insidious as the alternatives. Is it less insidious just because Slashdot likes to pretend that Apple is some fluffy company that loves you very much?
[quote]Putting asside for a moment the very possible dominance of Nintendo in at least some segment of the console market, the question is: who is it better to have controlling the high-end game market, Microsoft or Sony?[/quote]
Answer: Neither. Its almost never good to have one player controlling a huge portion of the industry. Which is why its a good thing that Sony is getting kicked around this generation.
Now thats a lot more sensible position than what you started out with, and thats what I was looking for. You make some good points and I agree.
But, my position is still that something is better than nothing. Everyone has different social situations, and different resources available to them. If someone is using DDR to work out, they should be encouraged. They shouldn't be told that they should do a "real" workout. If someone feels that DDR is their best option, then they should be encouraged in that regard.
Its very hard to say, "Well that guy playing DDR would be better off walking, biking, or going to the gym." We don't know his circumstances. Maybe he doesn't have a gym in his area. Maybe he doesn't have bike paths, or a convenient area to walk. Maybe he's tried those things before, and finds that its easier to stick to DDR. Maybe its just easier for him the other way.
Exercising is hard enough for a lot of people, and they don't need people making it harder for them, or criticizing their chosen methods. I think putting someone down for looking towards video games as a solution is more likely to make them give up than choose another "real" exercise.
It took no additional work from our development staff. It worked as-is. The open-sourceness is a safety net, a way out if we ever get trapped by the functionality.
We pay for software if its what we need. Given two equal options, the one that gives us options in the fact of changing needs and possible failures is the one that is given more weight.
Are these skills so valuable that we have to put down other forms of exercise (such as using video games) as not being sufficient. After all, one of the acceptable exercises listed was walking. You can probably get more out of Wii Sports than you can out of walking if you put effort into it. And walking doesn't give you considerable skills.
Skills may be a bonus, but I don't see them as earth-shattering things. Maybe you can run faster, or swim a little bit better. Its not going to help me in my everyday life. Maybe if there's an emergency. But I don't see it as a reason to put down other forms of exercise.
Basically, what I'm trying to say is that I think all this "OMG video games as exercise? WTF" reaction is more emotional than logical. People have no problems with people doing rowing machines, treadmills, or bicycling machines, but use a Wii to work out and suddenly you're lame. Thats not rational. It shouldn't matter how I get my exercise as long as I do.
As a biker would you say that its very good exercise? Does your heart rate get up? I'm kinda eying it for the spring to fall months as something I might want to get into. I remember loving biking around as a kid, but I don't recall myself ever getting a good workout from it.
There aren't any nobel prize winning boxers because they are devoting their time to boxing and not to science. I'd suspect you could find some nobel prize winners that work out.
Those are some excellent reasons, but lets frame them in the context of a common user. Most people don't run into 3. Its not very common. Same with 1, because most people just get the OS with their hardware. The killer apps for the common user are 4, 5, and 6.
Personally I'd say, "I can set up your computer to use this new software. It does all the things that your current computer does, but it will work better and you won't have to get someone to clean your computer every month. Plus you get free upgrades. I'll give you a free trial, and you can tell me if you like it."
My point with the original question was not flamebait, but to point out that its very very important how you present it to other people. They don't care why you use Linux, they want to know how they benefit. And what is obvious to us geeks is not obvious to them. Just rattling off why you use Linux isn't going to do a bit of good, unless you can present it as a clear benefit to them.
Saying something along the lines of "The biggest drawback to Linux is that it requires a modicum of intelligence to learn. God forbid anyone should have to expend effort in an attempt to learn something new these days," is not going to win you converts. You have just insulted your potential users, and implied that your concerns are more important than theirs.
We're talking introductory courses. if-then, loops, arrays, functions, basic pointer stuff, class/objects, and basic templates isn't terribly hard stuff. C++ only really starts getting really complex when you start doing stuff like large inheritance trees, multiple inheritance, advanced template usage, template meta programming, etc. A high school level course shouldn't take a month to teach people how to use functions.
My final project for that course was a very very simple rpg with ascii graphics. So yes, nothing too complex.
Swimming and biking require social interaction? Aside from sports, a lot of exercise is primarily solitary. How many useful skills do you learn from exercise and sports really? How does using a video game to exercise preclude you from learning about your body or the fundamentals of exercise?
I don't get your opposition to using video games as an exercise tool. It seems to be more emotional than rational. Are you suggesting that there's somehow less value because you are exercising in a private place using technology?
Neither of which applies to your usual consumer. Most people get Windows with their computer.
As far as support goes, the minute you tell them to go to a forum, you're asking them to put more effort and thought than they're willing to. Most of the regular users I know don't even like calling Dell for support. Posting on forums is a significant barrier in terms of effort and psychology. Most people feel like they aren't talking to a real person over forums, or that a forum post is less reliable than a "trained Dell tech".
Plus, volunteer help on a forum isn't obligated to help you. I've posted before on forums for help, and gotten no responses. If its not reliable, why should people rely on it?
And what if they've tried sports, walking, biking, etc, and found it so boring that they had a lot of trouble sticking to their exercise? Why is it bad that they can integrate exercise with something they love, and make it easier to stick to it. The best kind of exercise is the kind you actually do.
Personally, if I could, I would just ski all the time for exercise. Damn seasonal sports. Of course, being in the flat state of Illinois doesn't help either.
Or Wii and Wii Sports. I'm doing an experiment with that right now. I figure, its probably not as good as running, but its something thats easier for me to stick to. And if its not that great, I can at least develop the exercise habits and move into something better.
Why should they spend the effort? Most people want their computer to work like their TV, or their Playstation. They don't want to have to think about it. If you want them to expend effort on it, then you have to give them a good reason to do so.
Talking about freedom isn't going to fly when making a business case though. Freedom is a great reason to use FOSS, but if you want to get your boss adopted, you have to frame it the right way. Instead of talking about "freedom" as a concept, you ask him how he feels that Microsoft could change their software and make you lose your data, with no way of getting it back. Or, in my case, when evaluating a proprietary product, I could say "Well, this open source one does everything we need, its free, and the big bonus is that if we run into problems with it, we can take that source and work around it. If we use proprietary product X, we'd have to beg them for features." This is actually something I argued.
To be quite frank, software freedom is kinda an out-there idea for a lot of people not closely associated with FOSS or computers in general. Dropping that on their lap is likely to put them off. If you can frame it in a way that illustrates exactly how it benefits them without bringing all the emotional baggage that typical FOSS screeds carry, then you will be a lot more successful.
Thats why people talk about cost a lot. Its a very effective trojan to get FOSS into businesses.
They didn't teach me how to use a spell-checker either.;)
The sad thing is that computer science curriculum are apparently being dumbed down, at least the university I graduated from. They did a big reorganizing of the curriculum there. Part of the reorganization was dropping the highest level algorithms and computational complexity course as a required course because it was too hard. I believe they intended to focus more on practical programming courses too.
My experience with high school computer courses matches yours unfortunately. I had to take distance education courses just to get C++ programming in high school. Even then I blew through a whole years of material in a month or two, because the material was just too damn easy.
I think you misunderstand the quote and what computer science means. Computer Science would be the science of computation, not the science of computers.
I graduated in 2004, and I learned about programming paradigms, algorithms, computational theory, and all that. We did have software engineering related courses, but mostly theory. I didn't use Haskell or Prolog, but we kinda went over Prolog in my AI class, and we used OCaml in our Programming Languages and Compilers class, which heavily focused on functional languages.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, besides that a lot of companies like Dell will now pre-load a lot of "trial" software with their Windows installation. They get money from the software vendors for doing that, so yes a Linux based computer may be more expensive.
Well, assuming we're talking about Vista, the entry level is $200, which for a lot of PCs isn't 50%. But the fact of the matter is that Dell doesn't pay $200 for a copy of Vista. I'd be surprised if they payed over $50 for it. I think XP was something like $15, right? I know I payed $5 for it from my university.
But one also has to figure in the cost of supporting the transition to Linux. Software systems updated, maybe hardware swapper out, staff trained and informed at every level. I doubt its as expensive as some people want to make it seem, but its a non zero cost.
I'm guessing people under stress like to eat more and unhealthier food too. Remember that old stereotype about upset women where they eat a bucket of ice cream? I find myself eating a lot unhealthier when I'm in a bad mood ("stressed out").
Yeah and if you buy a jewel encrusted chalice the price advantage totally disappears. Lets stick to what it takes to play some games. I don't care about the HD-DVD extension or Blu-ray. Adding a bunch of accessories to push up the price of a competing console is bullshit.
Far more insidious? From my point of view Fair Play is just as insidious as the alternatives. Is it less insidious just because Slashdot likes to pretend that Apple is some fluffy company that loves you very much?
Well not as hard as they used to be, but they are still perpetually sold out everywhere I've been. Shipments disappear within 2 hours of arriving.
[quote]Putting asside for a moment the very possible dominance of Nintendo in at least some segment of the console market, the question is: who is it better to have controlling the high-end game market, Microsoft or Sony?[/quote] Answer: Neither. Its almost never good to have one player controlling a huge portion of the industry. Which is why its a good thing that Sony is getting kicked around this generation.
Now thats a lot more sensible position than what you started out with, and thats what I was looking for. You make some good points and I agree.
But, my position is still that something is better than nothing. Everyone has different social situations, and different resources available to them. If someone is using DDR to work out, they should be encouraged. They shouldn't be told that they should do a "real" workout. If someone feels that DDR is their best option, then they should be encouraged in that regard.
Its very hard to say, "Well that guy playing DDR would be better off walking, biking, or going to the gym." We don't know his circumstances. Maybe he doesn't have a gym in his area. Maybe he doesn't have bike paths, or a convenient area to walk. Maybe he's tried those things before, and finds that its easier to stick to DDR. Maybe its just easier for him the other way.
Exercising is hard enough for a lot of people, and they don't need people making it harder for them, or criticizing their chosen methods. I think putting someone down for looking towards video games as a solution is more likely to make them give up than choose another "real" exercise.
It took no additional work from our development staff. It worked as-is. The open-sourceness is a safety net, a way out if we ever get trapped by the functionality.
We pay for software if its what we need. Given two equal options, the one that gives us options in the fact of changing needs and possible failures is the one that is given more weight.
Are these skills so valuable that we have to put down other forms of exercise (such as using video games) as not being sufficient. After all, one of the acceptable exercises listed was walking. You can probably get more out of Wii Sports than you can out of walking if you put effort into it. And walking doesn't give you considerable skills.
Skills may be a bonus, but I don't see them as earth-shattering things. Maybe you can run faster, or swim a little bit better. Its not going to help me in my everyday life. Maybe if there's an emergency. But I don't see it as a reason to put down other forms of exercise.
Basically, what I'm trying to say is that I think all this "OMG video games as exercise? WTF" reaction is more emotional than logical. People have no problems with people doing rowing machines, treadmills, or bicycling machines, but use a Wii to work out and suddenly you're lame. Thats not rational. It shouldn't matter how I get my exercise as long as I do.
As a biker would you say that its very good exercise? Does your heart rate get up? I'm kinda eying it for the spring to fall months as something I might want to get into. I remember loving biking around as a kid, but I don't recall myself ever getting a good workout from it.
There aren't any nobel prize winning boxers because they are devoting their time to boxing and not to science. I'd suspect you could find some nobel prize winners that work out.
Those are some excellent reasons, but lets frame them in the context of a common user. Most people don't run into 3. Its not very common. Same with 1, because most people just get the OS with their hardware. The killer apps for the common user are 4, 5, and 6.
Personally I'd say, "I can set up your computer to use this new software. It does all the things that your current computer does, but it will work better and you won't have to get someone to clean your computer every month. Plus you get free upgrades. I'll give you a free trial, and you can tell me if you like it."
My point with the original question was not flamebait, but to point out that its very very important how you present it to other people. They don't care why you use Linux, they want to know how they benefit. And what is obvious to us geeks is not obvious to them. Just rattling off why you use Linux isn't going to do a bit of good, unless you can present it as a clear benefit to them.
Saying something along the lines of "The biggest drawback to Linux is that it requires a modicum of intelligence to learn. God forbid anyone should have to expend effort in an attempt to learn something new these days," is not going to win you converts. You have just insulted your potential users, and implied that your concerns are more important than theirs.
We're talking introductory courses. if-then, loops, arrays, functions, basic pointer stuff, class/objects, and basic templates isn't terribly hard stuff. C++ only really starts getting really complex when you start doing stuff like large inheritance trees, multiple inheritance, advanced template usage, template meta programming, etc. A high school level course shouldn't take a month to teach people how to use functions.
My final project for that course was a very very simple rpg with ascii graphics. So yes, nothing too complex.
Swimming and biking require social interaction? Aside from sports, a lot of exercise is primarily solitary. How many useful skills do you learn from exercise and sports really? How does using a video game to exercise preclude you from learning about your body or the fundamentals of exercise?
I don't get your opposition to using video games as an exercise tool. It seems to be more emotional than rational. Are you suggesting that there's somehow less value because you are exercising in a private place using technology?
More of the second.... ;)
But my heart rate goes up when I ski. There's a lot of movement in it.
Neither of which applies to your usual consumer. Most people get Windows with their computer.
As far as support goes, the minute you tell them to go to a forum, you're asking them to put more effort and thought than they're willing to. Most of the regular users I know don't even like calling Dell for support. Posting on forums is a significant barrier in terms of effort and psychology. Most people feel like they aren't talking to a real person over forums, or that a forum post is less reliable than a "trained Dell tech".
Plus, volunteer help on a forum isn't obligated to help you. I've posted before on forums for help, and gotten no responses. If its not reliable, why should people rely on it?
And what if they've tried sports, walking, biking, etc, and found it so boring that they had a lot of trouble sticking to their exercise? Why is it bad that they can integrate exercise with something they love, and make it easier to stick to it. The best kind of exercise is the kind you actually do.
Personally, if I could, I would just ski all the time for exercise. Damn seasonal sports. Of course, being in the flat state of Illinois doesn't help either.
Or Wii and Wii Sports. I'm doing an experiment with that right now. I figure, its probably not as good as running, but its something thats easier for me to stick to. And if its not that great, I can at least develop the exercise habits and move into something better.
Why should they spend the effort? Most people want their computer to work like their TV, or their Playstation. They don't want to have to think about it. If you want them to expend effort on it, then you have to give them a good reason to do so.
Talking about freedom isn't going to fly when making a business case though. Freedom is a great reason to use FOSS, but if you want to get your boss adopted, you have to frame it the right way. Instead of talking about "freedom" as a concept, you ask him how he feels that Microsoft could change their software and make you lose your data, with no way of getting it back. Or, in my case, when evaluating a proprietary product, I could say "Well, this open source one does everything we need, its free, and the big bonus is that if we run into problems with it, we can take that source and work around it. If we use proprietary product X, we'd have to beg them for features." This is actually something I argued.
To be quite frank, software freedom is kinda an out-there idea for a lot of people not closely associated with FOSS or computers in general. Dropping that on their lap is likely to put them off. If you can frame it in a way that illustrates exactly how it benefits them without bringing all the emotional baggage that typical FOSS screeds carry, then you will be a lot more successful.
Thats why people talk about cost a lot. Its a very effective trojan to get FOSS into businesses.
They didn't teach me how to use a spell-checker either. ;)
The sad thing is that computer science curriculum are apparently being dumbed down, at least the university I graduated from. They did a big reorganizing of the curriculum there. Part of the reorganization was dropping the highest level algorithms and computational complexity course as a required course because it was too hard. I believe they intended to focus more on practical programming courses too.
My experience with high school computer courses matches yours unfortunately. I had to take distance education courses just to get C++ programming in high school. Even then I blew through a whole years of material in a month or two, because the material was just too damn easy.
I think you misunderstand the quote and what computer science means. Computer Science would be the science of computation, not the science of computers.
I graduated in 2004, and I learned about programming paradigms, algorithms, computational theory, and all that. We did have software engineering related courses, but mostly theory. I didn't use Haskell or Prolog, but we kinda went over Prolog in my AI class, and we used OCaml in our Programming Languages and Compilers class, which heavily focused on functional languages.
I'd say it depends on where you go to scool.
My experience is that it works properly and quickly (2-3 seconds to come out of sleep). Another drop in the anecdote bucket.