I think that Apple truly was on the rocks in the mid to late 90's. Windows 95 was a HUGE success, and so was Windows 98 and 98SE despite the obvious flaws (patches which were coming out days after their release). At the same time, Apple was introducing a new line of Computers with the new Power PC chip which was causing users of old Macs to HAVE to trash their 2-3 year old Mac II's (which they were guarenteed would be expandable). Guess what those Mac II buyers decided to buy instead? That's right, they bought cheaper Intel based computers running Windows 95.
Understand that this was pre-internet explosion, so users really had to chose on an operating system. And Linux was too new to be a player at the time......
Twice means "keep blowing up?" I suppose three would mean "always blow up?"
well, if it weren't for the fact that everytime a shuttle blows up they didn't kill the space program for years on end. If I were an astronaut up in the ISS and a shuttle blew up, I'd be like, ok, there goes my ride for the next 3 or 4 years or so.....
Linux is *not* user friendly, and until it is linux will stay with >1% marketshare.
I was thinking about this and I finally came to the conclusion that its bullshit. In 1977, 45,000 personal computers were sold.
By 2002, One Billion personal computers have been shipped and sold worldwide.
Market share changes are no longer driven simply by usability. In order for Microsofts Operating system to lose more than 20% market share in the next 5 years, its going to take either A) a Major marketing campaign for a competitor, one which details how much better, cheaper, easier to use, available, etc. or B) Microsoft to do something incredibly stupid, like putting out a new version of their OS which doesn't work and then vowing not to support its old one. (again).
But, that does not mean that Linux is dead, even on the desktop. Some Linux distros are very easy to use, and that will get increasingly better as that becomes more of a factor in selling them. Other Linux distros will become more flexible and powerful as THAT becomes a factor in selling them, and still a third set of Linux distros will split the difference attempting to offer both power and ease of use.
The key to the success of Linux is marketing. Also, the key to the success of Windows is exclusive sales contracts. As long as Frys or Best Buy or Comp USA agrees to only sell computers with Windows built in, then Windows will maintain their market share. But they don't. They all sell Macs, and no Macintosh comes with a Windows OS. In the same way, Hardware manufacturers need to be forced (by the consumer) to provide drivers for Linux. Here's how:
When investigating and shopping for a peripheral, (like, say, a graphics card or NIC card or Sound Card) check the website for the existence of linux drivers. If they are not shown, call the sales line and ask if their product comes with drivers for use in a Linux computer. If not, say the following to the Sales guy: "I guess I'll just take my business elsewhere".
Salesmen absolutely despise that sentence. It makes them walk into developers offices and say questions like, "Why don't we support Linux?" The more times this happens at peripheral companies, the faster that peripheral companies start supporting linux and the problem of "My xxx card doesn't work in my linux box" goes away.
First off, RTFA. the guy in the article is saying that if you like Linux, and you want to buy a new computer with linux pre-installed, you can't do it. And its true. But he's also saying that part of the reason is that users are not walking into stores and asking for a computer loaded with linux.
As for it being hard, its not. Lets say I'm building 10 or 100 or 1000 identically configured computers. How many times do I have to install the OS? that's right, bozo, 1. Only once. why? because I install everything once, then make 'n' hard drive clones where 'n' is the number of machines I'm building. Does it matter if its Windows XP or Windows 2003 or Windows ME or Windows Vista or Suse Linux or Red Hat or Debian or whatever? No. in fact, having installed XP and installed Suse Linux I can say that the Linux was tons easier (and I'd never done it before either).
But, at the same time, its very hard for a retailer to do this if he can't get peripherals which will work with his Linux. But, if someone is willing to plop down $350 for the computer that costs him $200, sure he's willing to make sure that the peripherals will work on the damn computer.
ok. next gem of wisdom from the above: And that is the point of Linux. DOING IT YOURSELF. This runs counter to the profitable (because it is logically in line with human nature) way of doing it for others for money. In fact, if everyone was capable of doing it themselves (which they aren't) and had the free time (which they don't) they probably would to save money. Of course, the same could be said on the subject of paying for oral sex or performing it on yourself.
100% wrong again. the point of Linux is not to do it yourself, this is not the Timex Sinclair or Apple I of operating systems. The point of Linux is to allow users of the x86 family of computers to use a Unix clone without having to pay tons of money for it. And, if the manufacturers of said computer were willing to spend no more or less time to install Linux as they spend installing Windows, then Linux pre-loaded computers would sit on the shelf right next to Windows pre-loaded computers, and at truly competitive (read lower) prices.
If everyone could do this, there'd not be a need for support techs. And actually, the same goes for Windows which although it is ten million times easier for the average starfish to deal with than ANY flavor of Unix still manages to flummox the majority enough to need... support techs.
again, untrue. in fact, it so untrue, that most people will, instead of buying a copy of Microsoft Vista, will either stay with XP (even if it annoys them) or simply REPLACE THEIR COMPUTER! Some, will buy a copy of Vista, spend 10-12 hours attempting to install it, then try and take it back, find that the company won't accept it, and then buy an new computer with Vista pre-loaded. (of course, the people doing this have more money than sense... but that was obvious)
In fact, the whole jist of what you are saying tells me two things. 1) you've never installed any flavor of Windows on a computer with no operating system. and 2) you've never installed any flavor of Linux on a computer with or without Windows pre-installed. If you've done both (and I have) you will change your tune real fast.
Re:In a capitalist society... A lottery is better
on
Space Tourism?
·
· Score: 0
I disagree with this, though I know I'd buy "space lotto" tickets. The question you have to ask yourself is, "Would I spend $15 million to go into space if I had the money?" I know I would. Then ask yourself what separates you from the Mark Cubans, and Richard Bransons and other uber rich guys out there? is it attittude? or just money.
Note. there was some sarcasm in my original post. it was subtle, but there. The true answer to why people should continue to explore the universe is for the same reason that Columbus crossed the ocean and that Coronado advanced into North America, and that Marco Polo went to China. That's right greed. no, just kidding, actually, its because humans are damn nosy folk, and need to keep checking out things. We're explorers, conquerers, and when we stop looking beyond the horizon, then we, as a species, are doomed.
that will only happen if there are no backups to shunt into the orbit of the failed satelite. and that will only hapen when if 4 or 5 fail at once. Its not like it costs much more to launch 3 at once over the cost of launching the first one. so, lets say that instead of 2 failing this year, 3 fail. that means that the US government has to launch 3 replacements instead of only 2. big whoop.
Ira
Now, if 10 or 20 fail all at once, well, that's a different story.
Meanwhile, back in Pakistan they wait for aid while China and the US debate who will spend the most resources to control the totally barren lifeless peice of junk orbiting the earth.
anyone waiting for aid should get up off their asses and make their life better for themselves. One day all these African countries are going to stop fighting themselves and start actually producing products and then Indonesia and Mexico will be in real trouble...:)
Its not that I hate Windows. I hate the philosophy that windows has pushed users and IT directors into. What is that philosophy? The philosophy is, "if its slow, throw more memory at it". While that's also true for Oracle and many other programs, its more prominent in Windows. I am a programmer, and one of the basic tenets I was taught while becoming a programmer is that if there are two solutions available, with the same performance, and one requires less memory, use the one which uses less memory.
Microsoft, in building windows, has violated that tenet over and over again, producing bloated applications which require faster machines with more and more memory to do the SAME SHIT WE WERE DOING 20 YEARS AGO!!!!!!
This is even true in hand-held devices, and when I have the nerve to complain about using bloated code, what does my IT people say? "Well, with new technology, we'll have more memory for these devices soon anyway." So, I'll end up with a cellphone with a gig of memory (as much as my laptop) and instead of storing music on it, it will be full of stupid programs which should take 1/100th the size.
I don't know about you guys, but I don't have any bugs in my code. It works perfectly the first time. No doubt. Never happens. Nothing ever breaks. Ever. hah. so there.
at java.util.zip.InflaterInputStream.fill(InflaterInp utStream.java:215)
at java.util.zip.InflaterInputStream.read(InflaterInp utStream.java:134)
at java.util.zip.ZipInputStream.read(ZipInputStream.j ava:139)
at java.io.FilterInputStream.read(FilterInputStream.j ava:90)
at jrunx.util.JarUtils.expandJar(JarUtils.java:110)
at jrunx.util.JarUtils.expandJar(JarUtils.java:142)
at jrunx.util.URLUtil.makeExpandedCopy(URLUtil.java:1 07)
at jrunx.util.URLUtil.makeExpandedLocalCopy(URLUtil.j ava:70)
at jrun.deployment.DeployerService.createWatchedDeplo yment(DeployerService.java:213)
at jrun.deployment.DeployerService.deploy(DeployerSer vice.java:430)
at jrun.deployment.DeployerService.redeploy(DeployerS ervice.java:1407)
at jrun.deployment.DeployerService.redeployChanged(De ployerService.java:872)
at jrun.deployment.DeployerService.run(DeployerServic e.java:890)
at jrunx.scheduler.SchedulerService.invokeRunnable(Sc hedulerService.java:223)
at jrunx.scheduler.ThreadPool$ThreadThrottle.invokeRu nnable(ThreadPool.java:426)
at jrunx.scheduler.WorkerThread.run(WorkerThread.java :66)
Slashdot Mirror
I think that Apple truly was on the rocks in the mid to late 90's. Windows 95 was a HUGE success, and so was Windows 98 and 98SE despite the obvious flaws (patches which were coming out days after their release). At the same time, Apple was introducing a new line of Computers with the new Power PC chip which was causing users of old Macs to HAVE to trash their 2-3 year old Mac II's (which they were guarenteed would be expandable). Guess what those Mac II buyers decided to buy instead? That's right, they bought cheaper Intel based computers running Windows 95.
Understand that this was pre-internet explosion, so users really had to chose on an operating system. And Linux was too new to be a player at the time......
Ira
Twice means "keep blowing up?" I suppose three would mean "always blow up?"
well, if it weren't for the fact that everytime a shuttle blows up they didn't kill the space program for years on end. If I were an astronaut up in the ISS and a shuttle blew up, I'd be like, ok, there goes my ride for the next 3 or 4 years or so.....
Ira
I was thinking about this and I finally came to the conclusion that its bullshit. In 1977, 45,000 personal computers were sold. By 2002, One Billion personal computers have been shipped and sold worldwide.
Market share changes are no longer driven simply by usability. In order for Microsofts Operating system to lose more than 20% market share in the next 5 years, its going to take either A) a Major marketing campaign for a competitor, one which details how much better, cheaper, easier to use, available, etc. or B) Microsoft to do something incredibly stupid, like putting out a new version of their OS which doesn't work and then vowing not to support its old one. (again).
But, that does not mean that Linux is dead, even on the desktop. Some Linux distros are very easy to use, and that will get increasingly better as that becomes more of a factor in selling them. Other Linux distros will become more flexible and powerful as THAT becomes a factor in selling them, and still a third set of Linux distros will split the difference attempting to offer both power and ease of use.
The key to the success of Linux is marketing. Also, the key to the success of Windows is exclusive sales contracts. As long as Frys or Best Buy or Comp USA agrees to only sell computers with Windows built in, then Windows will maintain their market share. But they don't. They all sell Macs, and no Macintosh comes with a Windows OS. In the same way, Hardware manufacturers need to be forced (by the consumer) to provide drivers for Linux. Here's how: When investigating and shopping for a peripheral, (like, say, a graphics card or NIC card or Sound Card) check the website for the existence of linux drivers. If they are not shown, call the sales line and ask if their product comes with drivers for use in a Linux computer. If not, say the following to the Sales guy: "I guess I'll just take my business elsewhere".
Salesmen absolutely despise that sentence. It makes them walk into developers offices and say questions like, "Why don't we support Linux?" The more times this happens at peripheral companies, the faster that peripheral companies start supporting linux and the problem of "My xxx card doesn't work in my linux box" goes away.
Ira
First off, RTFA. the guy in the article is saying that if you like Linux, and you want to buy a new computer with linux pre-installed, you can't do it. And its true. But he's also saying that part of the reason is that users are not walking into stores and asking for a computer loaded with linux.
As for it being hard, its not. Lets say I'm building 10 or 100 or 1000 identically configured computers. How many times do I have to install the OS? that's right, bozo, 1. Only once. why? because I install everything once, then make 'n' hard drive clones where 'n' is the number of machines I'm building. Does it matter if its Windows XP or Windows 2003 or Windows ME or Windows Vista or Suse Linux or Red Hat or Debian or whatever? No. in fact, having installed XP and installed Suse Linux I can say that the Linux was tons easier (and I'd never done it before either).
But, at the same time, its very hard for a retailer to do this if he can't get peripherals which will work with his Linux. But, if someone is willing to plop down $350 for the computer that costs him $200, sure he's willing to make sure that the peripherals will work on the damn computer.
ok. next gem of wisdom from the above:
And that is the point of Linux. DOING IT YOURSELF. This runs counter to the profitable (because it is logically in line with human nature) way of doing it for others for money. In fact, if everyone was capable of doing it themselves (which they aren't) and had the free time (which they don't) they probably would to save money. Of course, the same could be said on the subject of paying for oral sex or performing it on yourself.
100% wrong again. the point of Linux is not to do it yourself, this is not the Timex Sinclair or Apple I of operating systems. The point of Linux is to allow users of the x86 family of computers to use a Unix clone without having to pay tons of money for it. And, if the manufacturers of said computer were willing to spend no more or less time to install Linux as they spend installing Windows, then Linux pre-loaded computers would sit on the shelf right next to Windows pre-loaded computers, and at truly competitive (read lower) prices.
If everyone could do this, there'd not be a need for support techs. And actually, the same goes for Windows which although it is ten million times easier for the average starfish to deal with than ANY flavor of Unix still manages to flummox the majority enough to need... support techs.
again, untrue. in fact, it so untrue, that most people will, instead of buying a copy of Microsoft Vista, will either stay with XP (even if it annoys them) or simply REPLACE THEIR COMPUTER! Some, will buy a copy of Vista, spend 10-12 hours attempting to install it, then try and take it back, find that the company won't accept it, and then buy an new computer with Vista pre-loaded. (of course, the people doing this have more money than sense... but that was obvious)
In fact, the whole jist of what you are saying tells me two things. 1) you've never installed any flavor of Windows on a computer with no operating system. and 2) you've never installed any flavor of Linux on a computer with or without Windows pre-installed. If you've done both (and I have) you will change your tune real fast.
I disagree with this, though I know I'd buy "space lotto" tickets. The question you have to ask yourself is, "Would I spend $15 million to go into space if I had the money?" I know I would. Then ask yourself what separates you from the Mark Cubans, and Richard Bransons and other uber rich guys out there? is it attittude? or just money.
Ira
Note. there was some sarcasm in my original post. it was subtle, but there. The true answer to why people should continue to explore the universe is for the same reason that Columbus crossed the ocean and that Coronado advanced into North America, and that Marco Polo went to China. That's right greed. no, just kidding, actually, its because humans are damn nosy folk, and need to keep checking out things. We're explorers, conquerers, and when we stop looking beyond the horizon, then we, as a species, are doomed.
Ira
that will only happen if there are no backups to shunt into the orbit of the failed satelite. and that will only hapen when if 4 or 5 fail at once. Its not like it costs much more to launch 3 at once over the cost of launching the first one. so, lets say that instead of 2 failing this year, 3 fail. that means that the US government has to launch 3 replacements instead of only 2. big whoop.
Ira
Now, if 10 or 20 fail all at once, well, that's a different story.
Daisy, Daisy,
Give me your answer do!
I'm half crazy,
All for the love of you!
- Hal
The Euros Killed Kenny!
Kyle Broflowski: You bastards!
you want motivation to go into space? how about this....
eventually, the sun will go nova and expand to a point making earth unhinhabitable... Personally, I don't want to be around by then.
Meanwhile, back in Pakistan they wait for aid while China and the US debate who will spend the most resources to control the totally barren lifeless peice of junk orbiting the earth. anyone waiting for aid should get up off their asses and make their life better for themselves. One day all these African countries are going to stop fighting themselves and start actually producing products and then Indonesia and Mexico will be in real trouble... :)
Its not that I hate Windows. I hate the philosophy that windows has pushed users and IT directors into. What is that philosophy? The philosophy is, "if its slow, throw more memory at it". While that's also true for Oracle and many other programs, its more prominent in Windows. I am a programmer, and one of the basic tenets I was taught while becoming a programmer is that if there are two solutions available, with the same performance, and one requires less memory, use the one which uses less memory.
Microsoft, in building windows, has violated that tenet over and over again, producing bloated applications which require faster machines with more and more memory to do the SAME SHIT WE WERE DOING 20 YEARS AGO!!!!!!
This is even true in hand-held devices, and when I have the nerve to complain about using bloated code, what does my IT people say? "Well, with new technology, we'll have more memory for these devices soon anyway." So, I'll end up with a cellphone with a gig of memory (as much as my laptop) and instead of storing music on it, it will be full of stupid programs which should take 1/100th the size.
And its all your fault William Gates.
I don't know about you guys, but I don't have any bugs in my code. It works perfectly the first time. No doubt. Never happens. Nothing ever breaks. Ever.
p utStream.java:215)p utStream.java:134)j ava:139)j ava:90)1 07)j ava:70)o yment(DeployerService.java:213)r vice.java:430)S ervice.java:1407)e ployerService.java:872)c e.java:890)c hedulerService.java:223)u nnable(ThreadPool.java:426)a :66)
hah.
so there.
at java.util.zip.InflaterInputStream.fill(InflaterIn
at java.util.zip.InflaterInputStream.read(InflaterIn
at java.util.zip.ZipInputStream.read(ZipInputStream.
at java.io.FilterInputStream.read(FilterInputStream.
at jrunx.util.JarUtils.expandJar(JarUtils.java:110)
at jrunx.util.JarUtils.expandJar(JarUtils.java:142)
at jrunx.util.URLUtil.makeExpandedCopy(URLUtil.java:
at jrunx.util.URLUtil.makeExpandedLocalCopy(URLUtil.
at jrun.deployment.DeployerService.createWatchedDepl
at jrun.deployment.DeployerService.deploy(DeployerSe
at jrun.deployment.DeployerService.redeploy(Deployer
at jrun.deployment.DeployerService.redeployChanged(D
at jrun.deployment.DeployerService.run(DeployerServi
at jrunx.scheduler.SchedulerService.invokeRunnable(S
at jrunx.scheduler.ThreadPool$ThreadThrottle.invokeR
at jrunx.scheduler.WorkerThread.run(WorkerThread.jav
damnit