Spam is not really an issue of free speech. It's a matter of freedom to listen. When a spammer sends me email, then it costs my ISP (and hence me) money. If the net were truely a free resource then we still have issue that spam wastes my time. Not being immortal, I only have a limited amount of time available, and I don't want to use it reading spam.
Hence the point: Although I strongly believe in freedom of speech, I believe more strongly in the right to control what I listen to. I have no right to force people listen to what I have to say, and I expect the same in return.
I'd suspect that most revenues will come directly from the online sales of goods and services, or indirectly as a form of dedicated advertising by a company providing it's own site. Given the widely known ineffectiveness of banner ads (I've clicked on less than 50 since 1995, and I'm online almost every day) I fail to see the provision of advertising space as a significant revenue generator.
The web provides a very good way of getting information about certain products and services, and allowing purchasing of these. The problem would appear to be selecting products that can be delivered to the customer cheaply. I suspect very few of the companys that are currently losing money on every sale will survive. The markets seem to be very relucant now to give out money to internet startups that don't have a good business plan and a real chance at making real revenue.
Companies can also use their own website to promote offline sales. A website can be a lot more interactive than a brochure. You can provide extra services to entice people back, and at the same time give them information about your products.
This is what I think is the essential point. The interactive nature of the web, and the Internet as a whole, requires something that does more than just sit there (animated gifs don't count, and tend to be annoying and/or automatically ignored). Unlike more static mediums (print and to a lesser extent TV and radio) many Internet users are used to a dynamic experience, and tend to automatically determine if the site they're viewing is of any real interest. If not, they can change to a competing source of information very quickly. If one of the sites I frequent doesn't have what I want, I can skip to another within seconds. In other mediums getting to competing information sources tends to take longer.
Banner ads don't answer the question "What's in it for me" that needs to be addressed in order to draw attention in the long term. Hits are one thing. Hits from return visitors, people who keep comming back, are another.
No use without teachers who understand computers
on
Laptops In Education
·
· Score: 5
It's of no use whatsoever giving every kid a computer if the teacher doesn't understand computers. I'm not expecting every teacher to be a programmer, but they need a decent grasp of what computers are and are not, as well as what they can and can't do if they want to use computers effectively in the classroom.
Both my parents are teachers, my mother teaches year 2. Our family system is runs Windows, and I end up explaining what seem to me to be fundamental things over and over. I suspect I'd be a bad teacher, because I get very frustrated over my mothers inability to grasp what I feel to be obvious (it probably isn't to many people, but it is to me), and her preference to get me to work things out rather than mess with the system to work it out. Her instinctive belief is that I understand computers, therefor I know every application every written inside out. I don't know Microsoft publisher, and I have no intention of wasting time learning it.
I believe my mother is a good teacher. I don't believe my mother would be a good computer teacher, and I don't think she'd think that either. And I think many teachers would be the same. Before a lot of money is invested in these systems, what kind of checks will be done to make sure that they'll ever even be used?
Of course, as an Australian taxpayer, what American taxes are spent on isn't really one of my concerns:)
Napster is a protocol devoted to MP3s (although you can now use it for other things), and the RIAA et al hates it. They're going after it, and they're probably going to win. But how does this affect the development of other distributed file sharing systems?
What happens if we attempt to produce a new file sharing system for things like free software, patches, and all the other things currently distributed via anon FTP, HTTP, etc. Are we going to have problems with the RIAA and other copyright owners attempting to block this? A system that allows non-centralised mirroring with signing to ensure file validity and integrity would be a Good Thing. It would make Internet resources more accessable and more fault tolerant. There would be more mirrors, which would tend to be more local and less loaded.
The problem is that if this system is built and then flooded with illegally copied material then copyright holders are going to start throwing lawsuits about. This is likely to stifle innovation. Is there a way we can come up with a distributed file sharing system and make it explicitly clear that it's for the distribution of legal material, without getting sued, resorting to the "it's not our fault what people do with" argument, all without resticting peoples freedom to use it, and hence it's use?
I see the Internet comprised of overlapping regions. So we everything having a set of properties. One of the truely great things about the Internet is that a site can be many things simultaneously. We don't have to say "This is X". We can say "This is X and Y, kinda Z, and it's not A".
Which isn't to say that most sites don't tend towards being just one category. But many don't. Continents seems to imply large gaps between types that are relatively difficult to cross, which doesn't fit the ease with which you can expand an internet site to encompass extra areas. Of course, this isn't always done well.
The above seems a little web centric to me, which is not what I intend. "site" is just a convenient label to attach to a collection of internet services that share a common name. Something like Source Forge seems to embody this to me right now. It's a site that provides a range of Internet services, the most obvious, but not only, or even (depending on your view) most important, being web services.
What kind of timeframe would we be looking at for this to be available? I'd find it unlikely that this would go into 2.3 at tbhis stage, but what's the likelyhood of a patch for 2.4 being available. And will it be included in 2.5? Journaling file systems are at the top of my list of things I'd like to see in major distributions right now.
Of course (and despite media rumours) Linux isn't the center of the universe. How does this release under GPL affect the chances of the other open OS's such as FreeBSD adopting this? Is it possible to include something this low level which is GPLed into the core of something licensed under the BSD licence? (I have a nasty feeling I may provoke a license flamewar here...)
Not really. I try to get news from a variety of sources. I admit to having Slashdot as my homepage at home and work, but I try to keep up with Linux, Open Source/Free Software, and general computing news from other sources. The internet is large enough to find a lot of information in different forms and with different perpectives.
I think the very nature of our community prevents a centralist monopoly of information. If we freely share one set of ideas (code), we also freely share other ideas as a consequence. Any one company trying to do this is going to alienate the one thing that makes our community different. That's us. The people who use Linux, FreeBSD etc do so because it works, and they have the freedom to use it. These people already reject the centralist view by not using the software of our favourite monopoly. They'll have no problem rejecting a monopoly of information like this, and starting new news sources.
Jon Katz is many things. Adnmired by some, hated by others (for no real reason in most cases IMO), but he does have one undeniably (again IMO) effect. He's promoting a lot of discussion about some very fundamental issues. And open discussion is a good thing.
There's a flip side to freedom of speech: Freedom To Listen. Say whatever you like. Just don't expect me to have to listen. I like reading things that I may not accept or believe. I believe this helps me to keep an open mind (I may be wrong though). Just because you express something doesn't obligate me. And just because I read your opinion doesn't obligate you. This is freedom of discussion.
I'm not a fan of censorship. My government (lets call them clueless) are trying (and failing) to censor the Internet, and I oppose that. But I believe that a society or group (such as Slashdot) needs to moderate. Speech isn't banned, it's ranked, and people can choose what they want. Script kiddies can make stupid posts, and I'll support it. As long as I don't have to read it. And as long as no one is prevented from reading it if they want to. I fail to see how these choices can be considered unresonable.
Fortunately, as a non-North American, I don't have to worry about being attacked with the US constitution. And the rampant insanity that is Political Correctness have never really affect me. Not that Australia doesn't have it's own problems with government...
There's no doubting that there are a lot of people out there who are likely best described as 'idiots'. People who don't know when to draw the line. Who just don't care. I like to think of it as not understanding context.
Many forms of communication have an implied context about them. This is often nothing more than a convention that would be generally accepted by the majority of the participants. The context would determine what kind of speech is appropriate for that medium.
A Slashdot discussion would have a context that has some basic properties, which define things like "First Posts" to be inappropriate. Things that are offtopic may also be out of context. They might be well reasoned arguments, but if they don't apply to the topic of discussion, they may not be appropriate.
Hostility is not always and everywhere a bad thing, and I don't believe Jon Katz was advocating such a position. I do think however that it is not appropriate in certain contexts. I occasionally like a good flame war on topics I'm interested and passionate about. Arguing with someone in a "no holds barred" fashion can be useful. Often it helps by making you reason out your own position as well as the opposing one. This can help refine my ideas, or expose that they have problems or are just plain wrong. This is a good thing.
The problem, as I see it, comes when people use hostility out of context, or as their entire argument. The "Please Die" kind of response is a good example, though probably not the worst. Hostility can push you to resolve your viewpoint, it's not a subsitute for thought.
Communities must eventually moderate in some way, or they lose the context that makes them what they are. Slashdot would likely eventually become nothing but a forum for idiots and script kiddies with too much free time and not enough restraint it there weren't measures to protect the context that makes it what it is. Maybe the system isn't perfect, and it likely never will be, but it *is* important. And the fact that it is, and will hopefully remain, a user controlled system means that the context of Slashdot will continue to reflect that of the participants (i.e. us).
Re:Design of Mozilla must address fears of busines
on
Mozilla Status Update
·
· Score: 1
I'd disagree with an absolute "Never do anything useful with Javascript" proscription. There are some things that would be unacceptably slow, or just not implementable without a client side scripting layer.
My take of this is that you are against performing client side field validation as a data integrity check. I would partially disagree. You can use it, provided that everything is validated at the server. This sounds redundant, but it isn't. A server side check requires a new page, Javascript checking requires some Javascript in the page. So, from a client perspective, it's faster. You need the server side stuff for people without Javascript or those attempting to bypass your security.
I'd say that the vast majority of sites need to provide their core functionality in a function available from the lowest common denominator. This would be HTML 3.2 without Javascript, and possibly without frames. This doesn't mean that newer browsers cant take advantage of the new stuff, but never for the core features. Unless you must provide a function, and it's the only way to do it.
Re:Design of Mozilla must address fears of busines
on
Mozilla Status Update
·
· Score: 2
I'm a web developer (on the coding side), so I like the idea of a standards complient browser. And you're right, on average it's unlikely that the core components like the rendered and javascript engines will fragment.
The problem is that when a client can't access your website because their web browser is broken, they tend to think that your site is the problem. After all, their browser was fine until it hit your site. Just because we know that a browser should never crash for any input, doesn't mean that the average Win 9x user understands this. Simply telling them "Sorry, your problem" is a good way to lose a customer. Hence why we test sites on multiple platforms and browsers... Tedious, but necessary until people start demanding browsers that are standards compliant as well as (or better yet instead of) full of cool and often buggy "features".
The internet is just a big network. So at the OS level you support networking. You provide the basic functions such as a TCP stack that everything else builds on. It's hard to argue that a TCP/IP stack shouldn't be part of the OS. A browser, which is just a data formatting tool when you get right down to it, is a completely different story.
What this means is that Microsoft OS company builds in the basic network functions. They then publish the spec, and the other Microsoft companies build applications based on the spec. So this isn't about to prevent applications from accessing the internet.
A lot of internet applications build on common standards to intercommunicate. I fail to see how opening the system up to competition in this space is bad.
A company that controls Windows or Office is hardly handicapped. A lot of software companies do just fine without entering the operating system space. The software space is a big, big area. Being restricted from one or two classes of software isn't a fatal blow. It's more a slap to get them to go out and actually be innovative, rather that just making applications with more annoying features.
The biggest problem seems to be sorting the relevant bits of a discussion from the sidebars, flames, and other assorted junk that seems to accumulate. What would seem to be in order is a system that can sort this based on content. All the content would still be there, but you could get the most relevant stuff easily, and browse through the other stuff when you want background information or to find something that isn't in what your "core" interests might be.
I do this with my mail, as would a lot of people. Mail is sorted based on where it comes from or which of my addresses it's coming to, allowing me to quickly get to the relevant stuff. When I'm at work, I don't need to read the GNOME lists. So they get filed seperately, and I can refer to them when I need to.
This is important, because I generally don't have time to read everything that drops into my mailbox. I can scan the subjects occassionally, and remove what's not relevant. I make that choice based on time and interest, and that choice is essential, because I have limited time (and patience). But I also can go through everything that is of high priority to me (work stuff mainly).
Now what we need is a decent content rating system that I can set up to work on more than just email headers. Something that can determine by content that I'd really like to know about the latest gnome core package release, but have little interest in helping a clueless user work out where their power button is. Such a system would rank the messages for me, but would not block them (OK, it would block spam if possible, but when in doubt would err towards me seeing it)
Colin Scott Final Year Computer Systems Engineering Student
If I returned Windows, how would the idiots in the house ever use the computer again? They can barely use it now.
(THEM) Help me use Microsoft publisher! (ME) I don't know Microsoft publisher. (THEM) Your the computer guy! Help me! (ME) (*&^#@(#@ OK! What do you want to do? (THEM) Insert a picture (ME) OK, let me try then. (THEM) But I wan't to do it so I learn. (ME) I have to do it cause I don't know how. (ME : search through menus until I find the correct entry) (THEM) Oh, so that's how you do it. (ME : Nearly strangle them for being too afraid to actaully try to work things out)
Let these people near a command line? Hell, let them near my standard Window Maker/GNOME combo? KDE? I don't think so. I get annoyed enough by the moron level questions as it is. An entire new OS is far to far above these people. Even if it is massively superior
Of course, if the machine was just for me Windows would never be installed (point to clause in EULA at point of sale, before paying). Not that this would happen, cause I build my own machines.
Colin Scott Final Year Computer Systems Engineering Student
* The Official Slashdot Caffine Drink, or better * The Official Slashdot Caffine IV * The Official Slashdot Vending Machine (that's where I'd get my lunch...) * And of course all the Official Slashdot hardware. Someone contact Intel, AMD, Sun etc to see if we can plaster Slashdot logos on all the cool toys we put in our computers. * Not to mention the Official Slashdot World Domination Handbook. This, of course, would have to be delivered fast.
Colin Scott Final Year Computer Systems Engineering Student
Okay, I'll have a go. Of course it's late, and I'm hyper on caffine, but I'll answer anyway.
a) AOL aquiring Mozilla means that they'll use it, otherwise why the hell do they want it. And if a stack of AOL users already use IE, that means that they have to support them. So they allow choice. People on AOL may be given the oportunity to use either. Ideally they would have a choice when they first installed whatever AOL gives them, with no preference between them.
b) Consumers get to choose. Choice means that there is competition. Competition can lead to improvements (or it might just lead to more marketing to promote the inferior. Am I the only one who can't stand the Rolling Stones anymore. Not that I liked them much to being with...)
c) If AOL starts offering Mozilla, then AOLusers are no longer confined to IE, which means a few million people (potentially) using Mozilla not IE.
d) I'd allow the deal, on the condition that AOL doesn't try to use Mozilla to force people onto their service. I'm happy with my ISP. I took a stanley knife to the AOL CD that was sent to my house to prevent an idiot^H^H^H^H^Hmy brother from installing it. Keep mozilla.org going, and I'm happy.
I'd include a few other people as "major players". I'd start with the Apache team. As the only server that grew its market share, and still with over 50% of the market, they have to be a major player. I'd include others, but I'm a touch blasted (sorry).
At least you didn't suggest that AOL will take over the world. Or that they belong to the illuminati. Just who the hell are the illuminati? I just want a T shirt with "I'm with the conspiracy" in big letters on it. Just to see if I get conspiracy freaks to react.
The freemasons are making me end this comment now.:)
Colin Scott Final Year Computer Systems Engineering Student
Slashdot Mirror
Spam is not really an issue of free speech. It's a matter of freedom to listen. When a spammer sends me email, then it costs my ISP (and hence me) money. If the net were truely a free resource then we still have issue that spam wastes my time. Not being immortal, I only have a limited amount of time available, and I don't want to use it reading spam.
Hence the point: Although I strongly believe in freedom of speech, I believe more strongly in the right to control what I listen to. I have no right to force people listen to what I have to say, and I expect the same in return.
I'd suspect that most revenues will come directly from the online sales of goods and services, or indirectly as a form of dedicated advertising by a company providing it's own site. Given the widely known ineffectiveness of banner ads (I've clicked on less than 50 since 1995, and I'm online almost every day) I fail to see the provision of advertising space as a significant revenue generator.
The web provides a very good way of getting information about certain products and services, and allowing purchasing of these. The problem would appear to be selecting products that can be delivered to the customer cheaply. I suspect very few of the companys that are currently losing money on every sale will survive. The markets seem to be very relucant now to give out money to internet startups that don't have a good business plan and a real chance at making real revenue.
Companies can also use their own website to promote offline sales. A website can be a lot more interactive than a brochure. You can provide extra services to entice people back, and at the same time give them information about your products.
This is what I think is the essential point. The interactive nature of the web, and the Internet as a whole, requires something that does more than just sit there (animated gifs don't count, and tend to be annoying and/or automatically ignored). Unlike more static mediums (print and to a lesser extent TV and radio) many Internet users are used to a dynamic experience, and tend to automatically determine if the site they're viewing is of any real interest. If not, they can change to a competing source of information very quickly. If one of the sites I frequent doesn't have what I want, I can skip to another within seconds. In other mediums getting to competing information sources tends to take longer.
Banner ads don't answer the question "What's in it for me" that needs to be addressed in order to draw attention in the long term. Hits are one thing. Hits from return visitors, people who keep comming back, are another.
Both my parents are teachers, my mother teaches year 2. Our family system is runs Windows, and I end up explaining what seem to me to be fundamental things over and over. I suspect I'd be a bad teacher, because I get very frustrated over my mothers inability to grasp what I feel to be obvious (it probably isn't to many people, but it is to me), and her preference to get me to work things out rather than mess with the system to work it out. Her instinctive belief is that I understand computers, therefor I know every application every written inside out. I don't know Microsoft publisher, and I have no intention of wasting time learning it.
I believe my mother is a good teacher. I don't believe my mother would be a good computer teacher, and I don't think she'd think that either. And I think many teachers would be the same. Before a lot of money is invested in these systems, what kind of checks will be done to make sure that they'll ever even be used?
Of course, as an Australian taxpayer, what American taxes are spent on isn't really one of my concerns :)
Colin Scott
What happens if we attempt to produce a new file sharing system for things like free software, patches, and all the other things currently distributed via anon FTP, HTTP, etc. Are we going to have problems with the RIAA and other copyright owners attempting to block this? A system that allows non-centralised mirroring with signing to ensure file validity and integrity would be a Good Thing. It would make Internet resources more accessable and more fault tolerant. There would be more mirrors, which would tend to be more local and less loaded.
The problem is that if this system is built and then flooded with illegally copied material then copyright holders are going to start throwing lawsuits about. This is likely to stifle innovation. Is there a way we can come up with a distributed file sharing system and make it explicitly clear that it's for the distribution of legal material, without getting sued, resorting to the "it's not our fault what people do with" argument, all without resticting peoples freedom to use it, and hence it's use?
Colin Scott
Which isn't to say that most sites don't tend towards being just one category. But many don't. Continents seems to imply large gaps between types that are relatively difficult to cross, which doesn't fit the ease with which you can expand an internet site to encompass extra areas. Of course, this isn't always done well.
The above seems a little web centric to me, which is not what I intend. "site" is just a convenient label to attach to a collection of internet services that share a common name. Something like Source Forge seems to embody this to me right now. It's a site that provides a range of Internet services, the most obvious, but not only, or even (depending on your view) most important, being web services.
Colin Scott
Of course (and despite media rumours) Linux isn't the center of the universe. How does this release under GPL affect the chances of the other open OS's such as FreeBSD adopting this? Is it possible to include something this low level which is GPLed into the core of something licensed under the BSD licence? (I have a nasty feeling I may provoke a license flamewar here...)
Colin Scott
I think the very nature of our community prevents a centralist monopoly of information. If we freely share one set of ideas (code), we also freely share other ideas as a consequence. Any one company trying to do this is going to alienate the one thing that makes our community different. That's us. The people who use Linux, FreeBSD etc do so because it works, and they have the freedom to use it. These people already reject the centralist view by not using the software of our favourite monopoly. They'll have no problem rejecting a monopoly of information like this, and starting new news sources.
Colin Scott
I'm not a fan of censorship. My government (lets call them clueless) are trying (and failing) to censor the Internet, and I oppose that. But I believe that a society or group (such as Slashdot) needs to moderate. Speech isn't banned, it's ranked, and people can choose what they want. Script kiddies can make stupid posts, and I'll support it. As long as I don't have to read it. And as long as no one is prevented from reading it if they want to. I fail to see how these choices can be considered unresonable.
Fortunately, as a non-North American, I don't have to worry about being attacked with the US constitution. And the rampant insanity that is Political Correctness have never really affect me. Not that Australia doesn't have it's own problems with government...
Many forms of communication have an implied context about them. This is often nothing more than a convention that would be generally accepted by the majority of the participants. The context would determine what kind of speech is appropriate for that medium.
A Slashdot discussion would have a context that has some basic properties, which define things like "First Posts" to be inappropriate. Things that are offtopic may also be out of context. They might be well reasoned arguments, but if they don't apply to the topic of discussion, they may not be appropriate.
Hostility is not always and everywhere a bad thing, and I don't believe Jon Katz was advocating such a position. I do think however that it is not appropriate in certain contexts. I occasionally like a good flame war on topics I'm interested and passionate about. Arguing with someone in a "no holds barred" fashion can be useful. Often it helps by making you reason out your own position as well as the opposing one. This can help refine my ideas, or expose that they have problems or are just plain wrong. This is a good thing.
The problem, as I see it, comes when people use hostility out of context, or as their entire argument. The "Please Die" kind of response is a good example, though probably not the worst. Hostility can push you to resolve your viewpoint, it's not a subsitute for thought.
Communities must eventually moderate in some way, or they lose the context that makes them what they are. Slashdot would likely eventually become nothing but a forum for idiots and script kiddies with too much free time and not enough restraint it there weren't measures to protect the context that makes it what it is. Maybe the system isn't perfect, and it likely never will be, but it *is* important. And the fact that it is, and will hopefully remain, a user controlled system means that the context of Slashdot will continue to reflect that of the participants (i.e. us).
My take of this is that you are against performing client side field validation as a data integrity check. I would partially disagree. You can use it, provided that everything is validated at the server. This sounds redundant, but it isn't. A server side check requires a new page, Javascript checking requires some Javascript in the page. So, from a client perspective, it's faster. You need the server side stuff for people without Javascript or those attempting to bypass your security.
I'd say that the vast majority of sites need to provide their core functionality in a function available from the lowest common denominator. This would be HTML 3.2 without Javascript, and possibly without frames. This doesn't mean that newer browsers cant take advantage of the new stuff, but never for the core features. Unless you must provide a function, and it's the only way to do it.
The problem is that when a client can't access your website because their web browser is broken, they tend to think that your site is the problem. After all, their browser was fine until it hit your site. Just because we know that a browser should never crash for any input, doesn't mean that the average Win 9x user understands this. Simply telling them "Sorry, your problem" is a good way to lose a customer. Hence why we test sites on multiple platforms and browsers... Tedious, but necessary until people start demanding browsers that are standards compliant as well as (or better yet instead of) full of cool and often buggy "features".
What this means is that Microsoft OS company builds in the basic network functions. They then publish the spec, and the other Microsoft companies build applications based on the spec. So this isn't about to prevent applications from accessing the internet.
A lot of internet applications build on common standards to intercommunicate. I fail to see how opening the system up to competition in this space is bad.
A company that controls Windows or Office is hardly handicapped. A lot of software companies do just fine without entering the operating system space. The software space is a big, big area. Being restricted from one or two classes of software isn't a fatal blow. It's more a slap to get them to go out and actually be innovative, rather that just making applications with more annoying features.
The biggest problem seems to be sorting the relevant bits of a discussion from the sidebars, flames, and other assorted junk that seems to accumulate. What would seem to be in order is a system that can sort this based on content. All the content would still be there, but you could get the most relevant stuff easily, and browse through the other stuff when you want background information or to find something that isn't in what your "core" interests might be.
I do this with my mail, as would a lot of people. Mail is sorted based on where it comes from or which of my addresses it's coming to, allowing me to quickly get to the relevant stuff. When I'm at work, I don't need to read the GNOME lists. So they get filed seperately, and I can refer to them when I need to.
This is important, because I generally don't have time to read everything that drops into my mailbox. I can scan the subjects occassionally, and remove what's not relevant. I make that choice based on time and interest, and that choice is essential, because I have limited time (and patience). But I also can go through everything that is of high priority to me (work stuff mainly).
Now what we need is a decent content rating system that I can set up to work on more than just email headers. Something that can determine by content that I'd really like to know about the latest gnome core package release, but have little interest in helping a clueless user work out where their power button is. Such a system would rank the messages for me, but would not block them (OK, it would block spam if possible, but when in doubt would err towards me seeing it)
Colin Scott
Final Year Computer Systems Engineering Student
If I returned Windows, how would the idiots in the house ever use the computer again? They can barely use it now.
(THEM) Help me use Microsoft publisher!
(ME) I don't know Microsoft publisher.
(THEM) Your the computer guy! Help me!
(ME) (*&^#@(#@ OK! What do you want to do?
(THEM) Insert a picture
(ME) OK, let me try then.
(THEM) But I wan't to do it so I learn.
(ME) I have to do it cause I don't know how.
(ME : search through menus until I find the correct entry)
(THEM) Oh, so that's how you do it.
(ME : Nearly strangle them for being too afraid to actaully try to work things out)
Let these people near a command line? Hell, let them near my standard Window Maker/GNOME combo? KDE? I don't think so. I get annoyed enough by the moron level questions as it is. An entire new OS is far to far above these people. Even if it is massively superior
Of course, if the machine was just for me Windows would never be installed (point to clause in EULA at point of sale, before paying). Not that this would happen, cause I build my own machines.
Colin Scott
Final Year Computer Systems Engineering Student
What about:
* The Official Slashdot Caffine Drink, or better
* The Official Slashdot Caffine IV
* The Official Slashdot Vending Machine (that's where I'd get my lunch...)
* And of course all the Official Slashdot hardware. Someone contact Intel, AMD, Sun etc to see if we can plaster Slashdot logos on all the cool toys we put in our computers.
* Not to mention the Official Slashdot World Domination Handbook. This, of course, would have to be delivered fast.
Colin Scott
Final Year Computer Systems Engineering Student
There is. Try this . I want one. Not that I'd ever wear it, but it's cool...
Colin Scott
Final Year Computer Systems Engineering Student
Okay, I'll have a go. Of course it's late, and I'm hyper on caffine, but I'll answer anyway.
:)
a) AOL aquiring Mozilla means that they'll use it, otherwise why the hell do they want it. And if a stack of AOL users already use IE, that means that they have to support them. So they allow choice. People on AOL may be given the oportunity to use either. Ideally they would have a choice when they first installed whatever AOL gives them, with no preference between them.
b) Consumers get to choose. Choice means that there is competition. Competition can lead to improvements (or it might just lead to more marketing to promote the inferior. Am I the only one who can't stand the Rolling Stones anymore. Not that I liked them much to being with...)
c) If AOL starts offering Mozilla, then AOLusers are no longer confined to IE, which means a few million people (potentially) using Mozilla not IE.
d) I'd allow the deal, on the condition that AOL doesn't try to use Mozilla to force people onto their service. I'm happy with my ISP. I took a stanley knife to the AOL CD that was sent to my house to prevent an idiot^H^H^H^H^Hmy brother from installing it. Keep mozilla.org going, and I'm happy.
I'd include a few other people as "major players". I'd start with the Apache team. As the only server that grew its market share, and still with over 50% of the market, they have to be a major player. I'd include others, but I'm a touch blasted (sorry).
At least you didn't suggest that AOL will take over the world. Or that they belong to the illuminati. Just who the hell are the illuminati? I just want a T shirt with "I'm with the conspiracy" in big letters on it. Just to see if I get conspiracy freaks to react.
The freemasons are making me end this comment now.
Colin Scott
Final Year Computer Systems Engineering Student