A Mac user who actually understands how counter-intuitive that is to a *windows* convert!!!...at least until you've done it once or twice...then Widnows becomes counter-intuitive.
You nailed it. It's easier, but not the first time. We'll happily dig for hours trying to find a setup.exe, or install.exe file....
*sigh*
Thank you. How very refreshing to have someone who can explain the frustration without calling them idiots.
And you're another one of those lovely folks that instead of realizing that users coming from windows *expect* the installation to 'AutoRun', decides they must be complete idiots.
Sorry, pal. Not to burst your bubble at all, but few Widnows users actually even know what to do with a zipfile on a PC, much less a dmgfile on a Mac.
In 2004, we sure didn't describe it as "spying on Americans." Instead, it was called one of the "missed opportunities that could have saved 3,000 lives."
"NBC News aired an "exclusive" story in 2004 that dramatically recounted how al-Hazmi and al-Mihdhar, the San Diego terrorists who would later hijack American Airlines flight 77 and fly it into the Pentagon, received more than a dozen calls from an al Qaeda "switchboard" inside Yemen where al-Mihdhar's brother-in-law lived. The house received calls from Osama Bin Laden and relayed them to operatives around the world. Senior correspondent Lisa Myers told the shocking story of how, "The NSA had the actual phone number in the United States that the switchboard was calling, but didn't deploy that equipment, fearing it would be accused of domestic spying." Back then, the NBC script didn't describe it as "spying on Americans." Instead, it was called one of the "missed opportunities that could have saved 3,000 lives.""
Do you even have a point anymore, or are you too busy basking in your own brilliance?
To try and bring this *back* on topic:
1.) Microsoft has no responsibility to the user. They can default it to whatever they damn please. The fact that they make it able to be changed, and provide an easy (for anyone who can read, mind you) method of doing so, goes above and beyond.
2.) Google has no right to claim that because users are stupid, Microsoft must change it's policies. If Google thinks users are too stupid to read, then perhaps Googel should try to educate them.
It's the first friggin' page loaded by the browser. MS cannot be held responsible for people who CAN'T FRIGGIN' READ!!!
The responsibility to *use* software, and to *learn* how to use it rests solely on the *user*. Not the manufacturer. It's like telling someone they can't release an XviD encoder if it doesn't walk them through *every* *single* *step*.
Holding MS reposnible for the *lack* of it's users responsibility is absurd.
Your opinion borders on stupid. Pseudo-intellectualism, thy name is srgtick.
Use user ignorance to force your competitiors to do your bidding!
That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard. The option is there, it's not hidden, it's not hard. This should be the *most* Microsoft should have to do to appease these buffoons.
Claiming your product failed because users didn't know about it, or care enough to use something other than what came with the OS is not a failure of MS, but a failure of your product.
Hell, what the RIAA needs to realize, is that it's worth more than that to many of us.
If they came out with a service that allowed downloads in formats from WAV to Flac on down the line with no DRM, properly filled out tags, and guaranteed quality, many of us would quickly, easily, and without hesitation buy tracks at $1 a pop.
10 good tracks for $10 is one hell of a deal compared to 12 or so crap tracks and one decent one for $16.99.
Nah. Hit "CTRL-C" on the wrong keyboard. One of the risks of using multiple PCs, and this set-up is pretty odd.
"AllOfMP3.com don't pay the appropriate royalties to their artists. I very much doubt whether music downloaded from their site is appropriately licenced if you are buying it from outside Russia."
This is what I meant to quote.
Licensing your music in that country is voluntary. If they want royalties, they have to register with ROMS. Just like we have our laws, Canada has theirs, and Russia has theirs.
Why expect a company or group to have to obey one set in the US, one set in Canada, but not the set in Russia? How does that make any sense at all to anyone?
eMusic isn't letting me browse without registering. How would I have known? Is there selection really *that* bad they that if they show you before you sign up you probably won't?
Yeah, because P2P guarantees such excellent quality. The songs are *never* mislabeled, right?
I'd choose a legal alternative that's cheap, high quality, and fast, however grey, over P2P anyday. I'd hope anyone would. Otherwise, perhaps RIAA does have a case.
How about crap quality, untrustworthy content, and viruses, for seconds, thirds, and fourths?
Your point isn't valid. ROMS will pay royalties if the artists register with them. Trick is, most US Artists either don't care, or are told not to by their labels/RIAA.
My point is that while illegal methods may be cheaper, Allofmp3 is both legal, and proof that, when given the opportunity to pay for decent content vs. pirating it, we, in fact, will.
Please explain how buying from AllofMP3 is illegal.
Then tell me why I should care that an artist doesn't feel royalties from Russia are worth registering with ROMS? If they choose not to, I shouldn't buy their music? BS. They can register any time they want and start getting royalties.
"unlike AllofMp3--REAL pirates who infringe on copyrights for commercial gain (from the dupes who actually give them money)."
Importing music to the US is legal. Until that changes download from AllofMP3 is entirely legal.
"AllOfMP3.com don't pay the appropriate royalties to their artists."
If the artist is registered with ROMS, (The Russian equivelant or RIAA), they get royalties. It's up to the artist. If they want to get paid for sales in a certain country, they must actually *do* something about it. Money ain't free....for anyone.
"unlike AllofMp3--REAL pirates who infringe on copyrights for commercial gain (from the dupes who actually give them money)."
It's legal, high-quality, and cheap. What the artists and labels do behind the scenes doesn't mean squat to the consumer. Of course, your opinion means just as much since it affects you not at all.
Now, were The Donna's, The D4's, or American Hi-Fi commenting on this, I'd probably take it into consideration. Seeing as how many Artists are now expressing thewir displeasure with RIAA's tactics, I really don't see many of them having an issue with AllofMP3, seeing as how simply signing up with ROMS would get them the royalties they are, according to you, so desperately missing.
Until they outlaw importing music into the US, or find some way to shut them down, AllofMP3 will continue to be my choice for online music purchases.
The article posted here and elsewhere is simply trying to lead one to believe that this will bring the average joe from Windows to linux. It's just not the case.
I love Linux. I love Ubuntu, and as soon as Automatix is ready for dapper, I'll be using that as well. But, for everyone, it is not.
You made a comment on the automatix forum that CLI was professional. I disagree. Geeks ain't professional. I mean, c'mon... When was the last time you saw a Middle Manager wearing a Thinkgeek T-shirt?;P
CLI does not impress Most managers. It scares them. Now, I know they are not average joes, but....
*shrug*
My comment had nothing to do on the quality of the tool. It had to do with the slant the writer was taking on it's usefulness to non-techies.
Again, if this were to somehow be integrated with dapper as an OOBE...now that would be spectacular.
Slashdot Mirror
Care to guess how many of these folks are using Macs and *aren't* the original owners?
I'll give ya a hint, it's probably more than 1. ;)
OMFG!!!
...at least until you've done it once or twice...then Widnows becomes counter-intuitive.
A Mac user who actually understands how counter-intuitive that is to a *windows* convert!!!
You nailed it. It's easier, but not the first time. We'll happily dig for hours trying to find a setup.exe, or install.exe file....
*sigh*
Thank you. How very refreshing to have someone who can explain the frustration without calling them idiots.
And you're another one of those lovely folks that instead of realizing that users coming from windows *expect* the installation to 'AutoRun', decides they must be complete idiots.
Sorry, pal. Not to burst your bubble at all, but few Widnows users actually even know what to do with a zipfile on a PC, much less a dmgfile on a Mac.
Sure, it's easy...
But is it intuitive to Windows Users?
I suppose how important that question is, or the answer to it, depends on where they expect to get their users from.
Feh...
Dolls? Man, no matter how realistic they are...they're still dolls.
Sorry. But thanks for trying.
Where can I find these little synthetic females?
In 2004, we sure didn't describe it as "spying on Americans." Instead, it was called one of the "missed opportunities that could have saved 3,000 lives."
"NBC News aired an "exclusive" story in 2004 that dramatically recounted how al-Hazmi and al-Mihdhar, the San Diego terrorists who would later hijack American Airlines flight 77 and fly it into the Pentagon, received more than a dozen calls from an al Qaeda "switchboard" inside Yemen where al-Mihdhar's brother-in-law lived. The house received calls from Osama Bin Laden and relayed them to operatives around the world. Senior correspondent Lisa Myers told the shocking story of how, "The NSA had the actual phone number in the United States that the switchboard was calling, but didn't deploy that equipment, fearing it would be accused of domestic spying." Back then, the NBC script didn't describe it as "spying on Americans." Instead, it was called one of the "missed opportunities that could have saved 3,000 lives.""
Do you even have a point anymore, or are you too busy basking in your own brilliance?
To try and bring this *back* on topic:
1.) Microsoft has no responsibility to the user. They can default it to whatever they damn please. The fact that they make it able to be changed, and provide an easy (for anyone who can read, mind you) method of doing so, goes above and beyond.
2.) Google has no right to claim that because users are stupid, Microsoft must change it's policies. If Google thinks users are too stupid to read, then perhaps Googel should try to educate them.
Retard.
It's the first friggin' page loaded by the browser. MS cannot be held responsible for people who CAN'T FRIGGIN' READ!!!
The responsibility to *use* software, and to *learn* how to use it rests solely on the *user*. Not the manufacturer. It's like telling someone they can't release an XviD encoder if it doesn't walk them through *every* *single* *step*.
Holding MS reposnible for the *lack* of it's users responsibility is absurd.
Your opinion borders on stupid. Pseudo-intellectualism, thy name is srgtick.
Way to prove you follow the party-line instead of actually doing your homework.
Microsoft didn't kill Netscape. Netscape killed netscape...from the inside out. No direction, no management, no communication = dead company.
Great!
Use user ignorance to force your competitiors to do your bidding!
That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard. The option is there, it's not hidden, it's not hard. This should be the *most* Microsoft should have to do to appease these buffoons.
Claiming your product failed because users didn't know about it, or care enough to use something other than what came with the OS is not a failure of MS, but a failure of your product.
Keep in mind that when MS offered to buy stake in AOL, Google offered more and won. If MS makes an offer for Yahoo, will Google be far behind?
Considering Google/Yahoo's past, it wouldn't suprise me in the least to see Google buy out Yahoo.
...despite the proof staring them right in the face from across the ocean.
Tells ya something about the size of the blinders these guys wear.
You nailed it, though. A universal format (like MP3, WAV, etc) should be a requirement for any decent download service.
Hell, what the RIAA needs to realize, is that it's worth more than that to many of us.
If they came out with a service that allowed downloads in formats from WAV to Flac on down the line with no DRM, properly filled out tags, and guaranteed quality, many of us would quickly, easily, and without hesitation buy tracks at $1 a pop.
10 good tracks for $10 is one hell of a deal compared to 12 or so crap tracks and one decent one for $16.99.
Nah. Hit "CTRL-C" on the wrong keyboard. One of the risks of using multiple PCs, and this set-up is pretty odd.
"AllOfMP3.com don't pay the appropriate royalties to their artists. I very much doubt whether music downloaded from their site is appropriately licenced if you are buying it from outside Russia."
This is what I meant to quote.
Licensing your music in that country is voluntary. If they want royalties, they have to register with ROMS. Just like we have our laws, Canada has theirs, and Russia has theirs.
Why expect a company or group to have to obey one set in the US, one set in Canada, but not the set in Russia? How does that make any sense at all to anyone?
Russian Mafia?
LMAO...
Nice.
eMusic isn't letting me browse without registering. How would I have known? Is there selection really *that* bad they that if they show you before you sign up you probably won't?
Yeah, because P2P guarantees such excellent quality. The songs are *never* mislabeled, right?
I'd choose a legal alternative that's cheap, high quality, and fast, however grey, over P2P anyday. I'd hope anyone would. Otherwise, perhaps RIAA does have a case.
You mean market conditions shouldn't influence pricing?
Really?
You're *that* stupid?
Sorry, gas doesn't cost the same one street to the next, why should anyone expect anything to cost the same one country to the next?
Why not use P2P? How about legallity for one?
How about crap quality, untrustworthy content, and viruses, for seconds, thirds, and fourths?
Your point isn't valid. ROMS will pay royalties if the artists register with them. Trick is, most US Artists either don't care, or are told not to by their labels/RIAA.
My point is that while illegal methods may be cheaper, Allofmp3 is both legal, and proof that, when given the opportunity to pay for decent content vs. pirating it, we, in fact, will.
Because the artists in questionc an register with the russian equivilent of the RIAA (ROMS) any time they wish?
Just because they don't, or choose not to, isn't breaking my heart.
"buying illegal music"
Brilliant!
Please explain how buying from AllofMP3 is illegal.
Then tell me why I should care that an artist doesn't feel royalties from Russia are worth registering with ROMS? If they choose not to, I shouldn't buy their music? BS. They can register any time they want and start getting royalties.
"unlike AllofMp3--REAL pirates who infringe on copyrights for commercial gain (from the dupes who actually give them money)."
Importing music to the US is legal. Until that changes download from AllofMP3 is entirely legal.
"AllOfMP3.com don't pay the appropriate royalties to their artists."
If the artist is registered with ROMS, (The Russian equivelant or RIAA), they get royalties. It's up to the artist. If they want to get paid for sales in a certain country, they must actually *do* something about it. Money ain't free....for anyone.
"unlike AllofMp3--REAL pirates who infringe on copyrights for commercial gain (from the dupes who actually give them money)."
It's legal, high-quality, and cheap. What the artists and labels do behind the scenes doesn't mean squat to the consumer. Of course, your opinion means just as much since it affects you not at all.
Now, were The Donna's, The D4's, or American Hi-Fi commenting on this, I'd probably take it into consideration. Seeing as how many Artists are now expressing thewir displeasure with RIAA's tactics, I really don't see many of them having an issue with AllofMP3, seeing as how simply signing up with ROMS would get them the royalties they are, according to you, so desperately missing.
Until they outlaw importing music into the US, or find some way to shut them down, AllofMP3 will continue to be my choice for online music purchases.
And then he passed out.
Better luck next time, Rimmer.
No offense meant to you in particular, man.
;P
The article posted here and elsewhere is simply trying to lead one to believe that this will bring the average joe from Windows to linux. It's just not the case.
I love Linux. I love Ubuntu, and as soon as Automatix is ready for dapper, I'll be using that as well. But, for everyone, it is not.
You made a comment on the automatix forum that CLI was professional. I disagree. Geeks ain't professional. I mean, c'mon... When was the last time you saw a Middle Manager wearing a Thinkgeek T-shirt?
CLI does not impress Most managers. It scares them. Now, I know they are not average joes, but....
*shrug*
My comment had nothing to do on the quality of the tool. It had to do with the slant the writer was taking on it's usefulness to non-techies.
Again, if this were to somehow be integrated with dapper as an OOBE...now that would be spectacular.