No, you don't have to "manually install" applications. You just tell the computer what you want to use, and the rest is automatic.
Which is basically manually installing. If it were automatic, you wouldn't have to tell it what you want to use. And I ask again - how is a new user supposed to know what they want to use? Most open-source projects are very short on documentation, or even descriptions of what the app does, for a new user. So, they still need to seek out a website to find what they want - compare sourceforge and versiontracker in this respect - which helps the novice find good software more easily?
That's a typical geek view. For non-technical users, Macintosh installs turn out to be a big source of confusion.
WTF? I mean, seriously, drag-n-drop is a very basic computer skill. If somebody can't do that, then I'm not sure they are going to be able to use a package manager or typical Linux software. Besides, do you have any evidence that people find installing Mac software confusing? Typically, you click a link to download, the disk image is automatically opened, and many apps have big, friendly icons explaining that you drag the icon onto the applications folder. It couldn't get much simpler without the system deciding what you want to download and install.
Do you have any usability studies showing that non-technical users find installing apps on Linux to be easier than on a Mac?
Linux (Ubuntu, Debian and Redhat, as well as many others) have a nifty little package manager where you can install a program for almost anything you can think of.
Hang on, you originally implied that with Linux, you didn't have to install third-party applications. So, it turns out you do have to manually install applications.
Where is this feature on a Mac? Well, www.versiontracker.com would be a start. And that helps you decide what to install. On Linux, how does a new user decide which package to use? A package manager in itself is not going to help much. Most Mac apps are extremely simple to install (usually drag-n-drop to applications folder) - so I don't see how that is any more difficult than installing using a package manager.
How does having a package manager equate to applications being "automatically installed", as you imply in your earlier post?
but they still don't do 100% of what every user wants to do with their computer.
Tell me - what application bundle does do 100% of what every user wants to do with their computer? There are certainly plenty of things I want to do that I can't under Linux. Hell, there are tons of things that I want to do, that I can't do on any platform, because those applications simply haven't been developed yet.
Under Linux, it's much closer to "feature complete", as far as application availability.
Utter horseshit. under Linux, you can't even get many types of app - for example, there are no Photoshop-class image editing apps, and no professional video editing apps. Frankly, your contention is ridiculous. Consistency of quality and usability is also much better with Mac apps. If a new user chose a Mac or Linux app at random, it's likely that the Mac app is of better quality and usability. Having a ton of average-to-poor apps available hardly compares to having many first-class apps available.
Migration assistant copies from one Mac to another; that's not what we're talking about here. We're talking about making a fresh install on an existing Mac.
So, how often is that going to come up?
Migration Assistant doesn't help new users; they need to install everything they want to use from scratch.
No they don't, if they're new Mac users, their Mac comes pre-installed with Mac OS and the iLife suite as well as several third-party apps. What kind of a new Mac user would be re-installing the system on an existing Mac? That doesn't make any sense.
Anyway, under Linux, how does Linux know which applications the new user wants to use? How does the new user know what applications s/he wants to use?
And Migration Assistant blindly copies bad configuration files and rogue applications, which are often the reason people are doing fresh installs in the first place, so they can't actually use it.
I've never heard of anybody reinstalling Mac OS because of "rogue apps". Which "rogue apps" are you referring to here? Usually reinstalls are only done to upgrade the OS, in which case it is easy to keep your applications in place.
With one edit of a file, I've configured a Microsoft mouse (they make good mice) in under 30 secs. On OS X I had to download a file, install, restart and configure.. yawn.
Uhhh, what? you don't need to install anything to configure a Microsoft mouse in Mac OS X. It just works out of the box.
So please define "fairly simple DRM" then! Those were the words you used in connection with iTunes/iPod.
It's simple, because the restrictions are the same across all media files. It's simple, because it's fairly non-restrictive. For example, every song you buy from iTunes can be burned to a standard audio CD (stripping the DRM). Meanwhile, Microsoft's DRM allows vendors to prevent CD burning on a track-by-track basis. This means that when you buy something with Microsoft's DRM, you necessarily don't know what you are allowed to do with the file. It doesn't tie music purchases to a particular hardware configuration.
Basically, Apple implemented the bare minimum required by the record labels to allow licensing of their music catalogs for online sales. Apple's interest is in selling music and portable music players - not pushing DRM. This is vastly different to Microsoft, who decided they would sell DRM itself as a product. They started out pushing DRM as a product, long before they started selling music or portable players.
And sorry, but define "flakey as Microsoft's DRM"? Do you mean "easy to break"?
No. All current DRM schemes are easy to break. What I mean by "flakey" is that it is unreliable. It often breaks and has bugs, even when used in a legitimate manner, as recommended by Microsoft. I'm sorry you're having such a hard time understanding these simple concepts. Do you know anything about the current state of the online music market, or the differences between Microsoft and Apple's offerings?
But presumably you own an iPod, and subscribe to iTunes incorporating Apple's DRM?
Sorry, but no. I don't have an iPod, and I don't buy music from the iTunes store. I do use iTunes as my music and podcast player, but I don't use any of Apple's DRMed products, or their iPods.
When did I say that DRM was good? Please show me the part of my post where I said that.
I don't like DRM one bit. I was talking about consumer acceptance in the marketplace. If the iTunes DRM was as convoluted, incompatible and as flakey as Microsoft's DRM - then the iTunes store would never have been a success in the marketplace.
Yeah, but Microsoft trademarked it and turned it into a mainstream commercial product. Hell, it's practically their entire business model - plausible deniability. Something's broken? Oh, that must be a problem with your hardware. Not your hardware? Oh, that must be a problem with your third-party software.
Sure. I don't like DRM any more than you. But there are huge differences between Microsoft's DRM and Apple's. Apple's has fewer restrictions, and it is very reliable. Microsoft's frequently doesn't work, is more complex, and has more restrictions. Its complexity is why they needed this "Playsforsure" branding. Even then, devices labeled "Playsforsure" would still fail with DRM supposedly designed for it.
It might be no different from a philosophical perspective, but consumers don't care about philosophy - they care if their product works in a hassle-free way. And that's basically what Apple delivered. Microsoft delivered a tangled nightmare of compatibility problems that merely confused consumers.
If Microsoft took punitive actions against OEMs that did not bundle particular software - then that would be extremely strong grounds for a lawsuit, given Microsoft's monopoly status.
they care about making money and as long as users prefer MS products I don't think you'll convince them to bundle Winamp or Opera.
Right. And what's one of the most effective ways for OEMs to make more money? Being paid by software companies to include their software in a distribution of Windows. It helps them recoup some of the money that it costs to pay for Windows licenses. Basically, which OEM wouldn't like to make more money if a third-party browser vendor paid them to include it?
Becuase Apple's game was to promote the iPod as being exclusively for one platform, and having multiple incompatible DRM formats. Funny, I though Apple did the opposite, and (unusually for Apple) made the iPod cross-platform, and implemented fairly simple DRM that is consistent across all its products.
In exchange, if anybody asked for something we would take their request very seriously, and we would either approve it, or work with them to learn why we should approve it, or work with them to find an even better alternative, or give them a darned good reason why we said no.
That seems fairly unusual. We end up buying software at a departmental level, for a few reasons:
If you order the software through IT, it can take weeks to show up. Often we don't have weeks to wait. Even after they have purchased the software, they often forget to tell us, and it ends up sitting in their store room.
They don't take requests very seriously.
They don't really have much knowledge about software that is outside their experience. Being a university, there is a massive diversity of software in use, for many different purposes. If it's outside the typical "IT" domain, then they really have no idea, and would never be able to make a better suggestion.
The penguin isn't actuallly stuffed - it's a plastic molded affair bought at an EFF charity auction, or perhaps made out of Lego. A stuffed penguin would be disgusting.
why would you expect anything different from someone in another profession?
Because computer nerds so often volunteer their services - or at least have in the past. Before the recent surge in "corporate IT", before everybody had a computer, when computers were more obscure, nerds would gleefully say "I'll help you with that!" and would even enjoy it. I know, I've been there. In those days there were very few options for help, and working on computers was more interesting. And the users would be more interesting, they would actually see it as a learning opportunity.
Today, that kind of work is mind-numbing and soulless. The systems are less interesting, and most people use horrible proprietary software that most nerds wouldn't touch with a 20-foot electrified ethernet cable. But people still remember that gleeful nerd who is happiest when tinkering with a computer. Basically, the nerds have moved on. We've also learned that they won't take our advice, and will continue to install whatever crapware we recommended they avoid. the users have also changed, with the ubiquity of computing. It's not like they are participating in a wonderful learning experience anymore, it's more like they asked you to unclog their toilet.
There just isn't enough work in the government to keep people busy every second of the day. And that doesn't even mention the break periods and all.
But there aren't enough break periods in a typical work day to extensively edit Wikipedia. And they should be using that time to take a break, not sit in front of a computer. It's an Occupational Health & Safety nightmare for breaks to be spent in that way. I'm also not sure why you don't think there is enough work to keep epeople busy. There is tons of work - too much for them to keep up with, let alone waste time editing Wikipedia.
The publicity probably wouldn't matter. The only people who are going to get outraged are the ones that are already outraged.
That's one of the stupidest things I've ever heard. Did you stop to think that the "people who are outraged" might be perfectly right to be outraged? Not to mention that you have no evidence for this. Why would people be already outraged about something they have never heard of before? If Wikipedia wasn't being edited by staffers, then there would be nobody to be outraged about it. Sounds like a gain in outrage to me.
Now think about this, One staffer out of how many there does something that anyone else is allowed to do and these people over there are being unreasonable about it. What does that say about their stand on the stuff they probably should be unreasonable about
Again with the incoherence. "Everyone else" is allowed to play Doom on their own time. That doesn't mean people should be doing it at work. I'm pretty sure your employer doesn't want you editing Wikipedia on work time, either.
In any case, the "on work time" argument is secondary to the "government should be held accountable" argument. There are already plenty of things that government members aren't allowed to do, to avoid things like conflict of interest, or even the appearance of conflict of interest. Why shouldn't this be one of those things? It sounds like your reaction to whatever the government does would be "like, whatever, you know."
The government is supposed to be accountable, and work for the people. Even if they make a "PR gain" - that is not what governance is supposed to be about. How does having a PR win make it right?
It isn't merely a "particular format" it is a "free" and "open" format which allows people to freely exchange data. Anything less is a reduction in freedom.
But by not allowing alternatives to that, you are reducing freedom even more. By not specifying a particular format, that allows choice - including the choice of Ogg/Theora. Anyway, how does Theora help "the free exchange of data" when common devices (for example, iPods, mobile phones) don't support the format? That just reduces the ability to freely exchange data.
In this example, it is necessary to remove proprietary technology from a public specification to preserve the freedom to implement it and the freedom to use it.
Why is it necessary? You can freely implement Theora if you like. not specifying a particular format is not the same as prohibiting it.
Even more importantly, it won't work. If the specification removes the ability to use popular formats - then people will simply ignore the specification. How does that help Theora gain more widespread usage? Trying to force people to use it won't help. People have to want to use it, of their own free will. Your stance makes about as much sense as forcing something on someone, "for their own good." To compare this to slavery is just stupid.
Why do death penalty advocates mostly oppose abortion while vegans mostly support it?
Not that this is on topic, but do you really need this explained to you? Isn't it fairly obvious? One group is about rights, the other is about vindictive punishment.
Yes, the manual and help screens were written in techicaljargonesegeekspeak
Actually, it would be tolerable if the manuals were written in technical jargon and geek speak. But they are typically written in some kind of retarded language which I simply cannot fathom the origin of. What the hell happened to technical writing?
I don't use Firefox. Well, I do use it for testing - but I prefer not to use it for my personal browsing. It has many annoying characteristics in the UI department. Anyway, of all people, slashdot editors should know how to make a frickin' link, and be bothered to to it.
I don't see any rules against government, people editing their own pages, etc
But why doesn't the government have their own rules about employees being prohibited from editing Wikipedia, or from using government networks to do so? That's the real story here. There are a long list of rules for government employees, many of which are supposed to avoid even the appearance of impropriety. These rules should apply to use of the internet, too. I guess the government is too short-sighted to realize the implications of technology, and to act appropriately.
People in the US Government are allowed to edit Wikipedia, just like everyone else
Hang on, why are they allowed to?
Why doesn't the US government have policies prohibiting employees from editing Wikipedia on government machines and from government networks? It's fucking insane if they haven't passed some kind of prohibition against this. Don't they realize the bad press and conflict-of-interest that arises from allowing this to happen? Not to mention the person who did it is most likely using work time to do it, work time which is paid by the taxpayer.
That doesn't make sense to me. True "geeks" tend to use stuff that works well, not just use stuff because it's new. Of course, I have to substitute "nerds" for "geeks" here, because geeks tend to be people who bite the heads off chickens, or people who work for companies with vested interest, but want to be "cool".
If they didn't, we'd never get new free software codecs, only ones pushed by corporations with vested interests.
Nonsense. Corporations with vested interests would love you to use new stuff just because it's new, regardless of the merits. Smart people will be skeptical about new things until they are proven. In fact, most of the "new and improved" stuff actually comes from corporations with an agenda, while those with experience and knowledge often prefer "old and well tested" to the shiny things.
Note: substitute "smart people" for "nerds" in the first paragraph of my reply. This "nerd" and "geek" slang is getting so stupid that we should probably abandon the whole thing. It isn't very smart to use stupid pop-culture words as a substitute for what one really means to say.
Slashdot Mirror
Which is basically manually installing. If it were automatic, you wouldn't have to tell it what you want to use. And I ask again - how is a new user supposed to know what they want to use? Most open-source projects are very short on documentation, or even descriptions of what the app does, for a new user. So, they still need to seek out a website to find what they want - compare sourceforge and versiontracker in this respect - which helps the novice find good software more easily?
That's a typical geek view. For non-technical users, Macintosh installs turn out to be a big source of confusion.WTF? I mean, seriously, drag-n-drop is a very basic computer skill. If somebody can't do that, then I'm not sure they are going to be able to use a package manager or typical Linux software. Besides, do you have any evidence that people find installing Mac software confusing? Typically, you click a link to download, the disk image is automatically opened, and many apps have big, friendly icons explaining that you drag the icon onto the applications folder. It couldn't get much simpler without the system deciding what you want to download and install.
Do you have any usability studies showing that non-technical users find installing apps on Linux to be easier than on a Mac?
Hang on, you originally implied that with Linux, you didn't have to install third-party applications. So, it turns out you do have to manually install applications.
Where is this feature on a Mac? Well, www.versiontracker.com would be a start. And that helps you decide what to install. On Linux, how does a new user decide which package to use? A package manager in itself is not going to help much. Most Mac apps are extremely simple to install (usually drag-n-drop to applications folder) - so I don't see how that is any more difficult than installing using a package manager.
How does having a package manager equate to applications being "automatically installed", as you imply in your earlier post?
but they still don't do 100% of what every user wants to do with their computer.Tell me - what application bundle does do 100% of what every user wants to do with their computer? There are certainly plenty of things I want to do that I can't under Linux. Hell, there are tons of things that I want to do, that I can't do on any platform, because those applications simply haven't been developed yet.
Under Linux, it's much closer to "feature complete", as far as application availability.Utter horseshit. under Linux, you can't even get many types of app - for example, there are no Photoshop-class image editing apps, and no professional video editing apps. Frankly, your contention is ridiculous. Consistency of quality and usability is also much better with Mac apps. If a new user chose a Mac or Linux app at random, it's likely that the Mac app is of better quality and usability. Having a ton of average-to-poor apps available hardly compares to having many first-class apps available.
So, how often is that going to come up?
Migration Assistant doesn't help new users; they need to install everything they want to use from scratch.No they don't, if they're new Mac users, their Mac comes pre-installed with Mac OS and the iLife suite as well as several third-party apps. What kind of a new Mac user would be re-installing the system on an existing Mac? That doesn't make any sense.
Anyway, under Linux, how does Linux know which applications the new user wants to use? How does the new user know what applications s/he wants to use?
And Migration Assistant blindly copies bad configuration files and rogue applications, which are often the reason people are doing fresh installs in the first place, so they can't actually use it.I've never heard of anybody reinstalling Mac OS because of "rogue apps". Which "rogue apps" are you referring to here? Usually reinstalls are only done to upgrade the OS, in which case it is easy to keep your applications in place.
Boom? Who are you, Steve Jobs?
Uhhh, what? you don't need to install anything to configure a Microsoft mouse in Mac OS X. It just works out of the box.
WTF? No, you don't.
Have you never heard of "Migration Assistant"? Not only does it copy your applications, it copies your system setting and documents as well.
It's simple, because the restrictions are the same across all media files. It's simple, because it's fairly non-restrictive. For example, every song you buy from iTunes can be burned to a standard audio CD (stripping the DRM). Meanwhile, Microsoft's DRM allows vendors to prevent CD burning on a track-by-track basis. This means that when you buy something with Microsoft's DRM, you necessarily don't know what you are allowed to do with the file. It doesn't tie music purchases to a particular hardware configuration.
Basically, Apple implemented the bare minimum required by the record labels to allow licensing of their music catalogs for online sales. Apple's interest is in selling music and portable music players - not pushing DRM. This is vastly different to Microsoft, who decided they would sell DRM itself as a product. They started out pushing DRM as a product, long before they started selling music or portable players.
And sorry, but define "flakey as Microsoft's DRM"? Do you mean "easy to break"?No. All current DRM schemes are easy to break. What I mean by "flakey" is that it is unreliable. It often breaks and has bugs, even when used in a legitimate manner, as recommended by Microsoft. I'm sorry you're having such a hard time understanding these simple concepts. Do you know anything about the current state of the online music market, or the differences between Microsoft and Apple's offerings?
But presumably you own an iPod, and subscribe to iTunes incorporating Apple's DRM?Sorry, but no. I don't have an iPod, and I don't buy music from the iTunes store. I do use iTunes as my music and podcast player, but I don't use any of Apple's DRMed products, or their iPods.
When did I say that DRM was good? Please show me the part of my post where I said that.
I don't like DRM one bit. I was talking about consumer acceptance in the marketplace. If the iTunes DRM was as convoluted, incompatible and as flakey as Microsoft's DRM - then the iTunes store would never have been a success in the marketplace.
Yeah, but Microsoft trademarked it and turned it into a mainstream commercial product. Hell, it's practically their entire business model - plausible deniability. Something's broken? Oh, that must be a problem with your hardware. Not your hardware? Oh, that must be a problem with your third-party software.
Sure. I don't like DRM any more than you. But there are huge differences between Microsoft's DRM and Apple's. Apple's has fewer restrictions, and it is very reliable. Microsoft's frequently doesn't work, is more complex, and has more restrictions. Its complexity is why they needed this "Playsforsure" branding. Even then, devices labeled "Playsforsure" would still fail with DRM supposedly designed for it.
It might be no different from a philosophical perspective, but consumers don't care about philosophy - they care if their product works in a hassle-free way. And that's basically what Apple delivered. Microsoft delivered a tangled nightmare of compatibility problems that merely confused consumers.
If Microsoft took punitive actions against OEMs that did not bundle particular software - then that would be extremely strong grounds for a lawsuit, given Microsoft's monopoly status.
they care about making money and as long as users prefer MS products I don't think you'll convince them to bundle Winamp or Opera.Right. And what's one of the most effective ways for OEMs to make more money? Being paid by software companies to include their software in a distribution of Windows. It helps them recoup some of the money that it costs to pay for Windows licenses. Basically, which OEM wouldn't like to make more money if a third-party browser vendor paid them to include it?
That's probably one of the few genuine Microsoft inventions... they just trained their MCSEs well in the use of the dark side of the force.
Riiiiight
Becuase Apple's game was to promote the iPod as being exclusively for one platform, and having multiple incompatible DRM formats. Funny, I though Apple did the opposite, and (unusually for Apple) made the iPod cross-platform, and implemented fairly simple DRM that is consistent across all its products.
That seems fairly unusual. We end up buying software at a departmental level, for a few reasons:
The penguin isn't actuallly stuffed - it's a plastic molded affair bought at an EFF charity auction, or perhaps made out of Lego. A stuffed penguin would be disgusting.
Because computer nerds so often volunteer their services - or at least have in the past. Before the recent surge in "corporate IT", before everybody had a computer, when computers were more obscure, nerds would gleefully say "I'll help you with that!" and would even enjoy it. I know, I've been there. In those days there were very few options for help, and working on computers was more interesting. And the users would be more interesting, they would actually see it as a learning opportunity.
Today, that kind of work is mind-numbing and soulless. The systems are less interesting, and most people use horrible proprietary software that most nerds wouldn't touch with a 20-foot electrified ethernet cable. But people still remember that gleeful nerd who is happiest when tinkering with a computer. Basically, the nerds have moved on. We've also learned that they won't take our advice, and will continue to install whatever crapware we recommended they avoid. the users have also changed, with the ubiquity of computing. It's not like they are participating in a wonderful learning experience anymore, it's more like they asked you to unclog their toilet.
But there aren't enough break periods in a typical work day to extensively edit Wikipedia. And they should be using that time to take a break, not sit in front of a computer. It's an Occupational Health & Safety nightmare for breaks to be spent in that way. I'm also not sure why you don't think there is enough work to keep epeople busy. There is tons of work - too much for them to keep up with, let alone waste time editing Wikipedia.
The publicity probably wouldn't matter. The only people who are going to get outraged are the ones that are already outraged.That's one of the stupidest things I've ever heard. Did you stop to think that the "people who are outraged" might be perfectly right to be outraged? Not to mention that you have no evidence for this. Why would people be already outraged about something they have never heard of before? If Wikipedia wasn't being edited by staffers, then there would be nobody to be outraged about it. Sounds like a gain in outrage to me.
Now think about this, One staffer out of how many there does something that anyone else is allowed to do and these people over there are being unreasonable about it. What does that say about their stand on the stuff they probably should be unreasonable aboutAgain with the incoherence. "Everyone else" is allowed to play Doom on their own time. That doesn't mean people should be doing it at work. I'm pretty sure your employer doesn't want you editing Wikipedia on work time, either.
In any case, the "on work time" argument is secondary to the "government should be held accountable" argument. There are already plenty of things that government members aren't allowed to do, to avoid things like conflict of interest, or even the appearance of conflict of interest. Why shouldn't this be one of those things? It sounds like your reaction to whatever the government does would be "like, whatever, you know."
The government is supposed to be accountable, and work for the people. Even if they make a "PR gain" - that is not what governance is supposed to be about. How does having a PR win make it right?
But by not allowing alternatives to that, you are reducing freedom even more. By not specifying a particular format, that allows choice - including the choice of Ogg/Theora. Anyway, how does Theora help "the free exchange of data" when common devices (for example, iPods, mobile phones) don't support the format? That just reduces the ability to freely exchange data.
In this example, it is necessary to remove proprietary technology from a public specification to preserve the freedom to implement it and the freedom to use it.Why is it necessary? You can freely implement Theora if you like. not specifying a particular format is not the same as prohibiting it.
Even more importantly, it won't work. If the specification removes the ability to use popular formats - then people will simply ignore the specification. How does that help Theora gain more widespread usage? Trying to force people to use it won't help. People have to want to use it, of their own free will. Your stance makes about as much sense as forcing something on someone, "for their own good." To compare this to slavery is just stupid.
Not that this is on topic, but do you really need this explained to you? Isn't it fairly obvious? One group is about rights, the other is about vindictive punishment.
Actually, it would be tolerable if the manuals were written in technical jargon and geek speak. But they are typically written in some kind of retarded language which I simply cannot fathom the origin of. What the hell happened to technical writing?
I don't use Firefox. Well, I do use it for testing - but I prefer not to use it for my personal browsing. It has many annoying characteristics in the UI department. Anyway, of all people, slashdot editors should know how to make a frickin' link, and be bothered to to it.
But why doesn't the government have their own rules about employees being prohibited from editing Wikipedia, or from using government networks to do so? That's the real story here. There are a long list of rules for government employees, many of which are supposed to avoid even the appearance of impropriety. These rules should apply to use of the internet, too. I guess the government is too short-sighted to realize the implications of technology, and to act appropriately.
Hang on, why are they allowed to?
Why doesn't the US government have policies prohibiting employees from editing Wikipedia on government machines and from government networks? It's fucking insane if they haven't passed some kind of prohibition against this. Don't they realize the bad press and conflict-of-interest that arises from allowing this to happen? Not to mention the person who did it is most likely using work time to do it, work time which is paid by the taxpayer.
Would it kill you to make laughingsquid.com a link instead of plain text?
That doesn't make sense to me. True "geeks" tend to use stuff that works well, not just use stuff because it's new. Of course, I have to substitute "nerds" for "geeks" here, because geeks tend to be people who bite the heads off chickens, or people who work for companies with vested interest, but want to be "cool".
If they didn't, we'd never get new free software codecs, only ones pushed by corporations with vested interests.Nonsense. Corporations with vested interests would love you to use new stuff just because it's new, regardless of the merits. Smart people will be skeptical about new things until they are proven. In fact, most of the "new and improved" stuff actually comes from corporations with an agenda, while those with experience and knowledge often prefer "old and well tested" to the shiny things.
Note: substitute "smart people" for "nerds" in the first paragraph of my reply. This "nerd" and "geek" slang is getting so stupid that we should probably abandon the whole thing. It isn't very smart to use stupid pop-culture words as a substitute for what one really means to say.