But I don't see a good reason why linux can't do to Windows what it did to traditional Unixes.
I'm more skeptical for one simple reason: Linux replaced traditional Unix systems in the server room of your local corporation and research labs at your local university. Most people weren't running Solaris and AIX as desktop systems to browse facebook, pay the bills, and email vacation photos to their family.
I see no reason Linux can't continue to eat away at Windows' market share in the server room. But I'm not convinced that Linux adoption is inevitable in any way in the desktop, laptop, or netbook areas.
even though because of its popularity I really did not want to like it.
For real? You actively try to dislike things that are popular, simply because they're popular? You must miss out on an awful lot of good stuff in life, then.
I think in many cases the next logical adopters of Linux know what Linux is and why they should adopt it.
If these people exist, then Linux needs to figure out an answer to this deceptively simple question:
if these "next adopters" know about Linux, and know they should adopt it, why aren't they?
With Linux fans, the blame seems to be placed squarely on the users for being too stupid or ignorant to adopt what is "clearly" a superior operating system. I'll be honest with you, my experiences with Linux make me think it's just as much the "abusive alcoholic boyfriend" as you claimed Windows is. It works (* mostly *) if you have supported hardware, but the moment you look at some unsupported video card or network driver, it pitches a fit and leaves you with a black eye.
The funny thing is, I would think that Open Source folks would just "get" this line of thinking immediately. How many times have we heard a variation on this in the form of: "You don't make money off selling the software, you make money off supporting the software."
Rough paraphrase: "Since everybody has a drill, sell your skills as a carpenter." You don't sell the tool, you sell the solution.
Loads of virus: "I don't get viruses, I have Norton Internet Security preloaded!"
Loads of DRM: "Dee-R-What? Oh, is that like the itunes thing that makes my ipod work? I love my ipod!"
Loads of apps that are illegal to run: "Huh?"
Seriously, I have no idea what you're getting at with "illegal to run," unless you mean pirated software, in which case, well, you can run unlicensed commercial software on Linux, too, but that don't make it legal...
Yeah, because nothing screams "must-see tv!" like a bunch of text from an EU court's findings against Microsoft scrolling across the screen. God, I can only imagine the sky-high ratings on that one - what a coup for Linux!
People don't give a fuck about computers. It's like a car: the only time they care is when it isn't doing what they want it to.
Well said. Put slightly differently by Harvard Business School professor Theodore Levitt:
People don't want to buy a quarter-inch drill. They want a quarter-inch hole.
There's a reason why most Mac ads talk about how the Mac makes "real stuff" (photos, video, music, email, setting up a new printer...) easy: it's the holes they're talking about, not the drill.
Yeah, and what if the owner of the company declares you one, and it happens in more than one company, and you regularly live outside the traditional chain of command of the company, answerable only to the owners?
The same owners you previously declared to be incompetent morons you were selflessly rescuing from "the muck" they belonged in? The same people "riding on your shoulders" that you had "complete control over"?
So what you mean to say is, "People who fawn over me and tell me I'm important are good. People who don't agree with this assessment are bad."
The GP said that Apple had offered to license OS X to OLPC for their x86 machine.
Yes, he did. He did not, however say it was trivial or "off the shelf" for Apple to do this. What he said was, this would be a good time for OLPC to take Apple up on their offer.
Given that Apple has experience working with ARM processors since *at least* the Newton, and given that the iPhone has a fairly capable darwin foundation, it's not a big stretch to think that putting OS X on an ARM-based piece of hardware such as the XO-2 would be the same effort of "writing drivers for any non-supported hardware" - the same amount of effort required to port the desktop version to an x86 platform.
Your claims that it would take "a lot more work" than the effort you claimed an X86 installation would take are purely speculative. There is no off-the-shelf solution, correct. But Apple, which expressed an interest in working with OLPC organization previously, is probably the closest of any vendor to having an "off the shelf" solution which could be deployed with the minimal amount of cost and effort.
Given all of that, it wouldn't be unreasonable (or surprising) to see the OLPC foundation re-open talks with Apple about bringing their OS to the XO-2.
Amazon is using DRM to force people who purchase a Kindle from only obtaining content from them.
100% wrong.
Amazon is doing the exact same thing Apple did until just recently with the iTunes store and the iPod:
You buy from them, and the file you download is DRM'ed.
You want to load your own un-protected content in a supported format, you're welcome to.
You want to load protected content in an unsupported DRM format, you're going to be SOL.
What this script does is address the third issue - it allows you to download content from elsewhere in a DRM-protected format, and load it on the Kindle. The script makes it slightly less restrictive than an iPod was (think download from Zune store, load on an iPod), but the essential model is the ipod / itunes store model.
I'd love to see it all be unprotected, and available to any device that wants to load it, but this script doesn't address that issue at all: Buying DRM'ed books from a source other than Amazon is still buying DRM'ed books.
Yes, the notion of OS X on an ARM-based OLPC should be laughed right off slashdot.
It's not as if Apple has had ANY success or experience porting their software to (or writing new software for) an ARM architecture. Oh wait.
I mean, it's not as if they have any experience writing software that integrates well across multiple hardware platforms. Oh wait.
I mean, it's not as if they have any experience designing clean & usable interfaces that people generally find easy to learn, and which make more powerful features available to advanced users by building on top of a unix foundation. Oh wait.
You're right. The notion of Mac OS being proted to an XO-2 is just ludicrous. It'd be much better to wait and let Microsoft port XP to the XO-2. They have a long and illustrious track record of releasing compatible, secure, feature-rich operating systems right on schedule.
For the record, I generally recognize the authority of the FCC to impose the doctrine at its discretion, but wish that it didn't have that power and instead focused on increasing diversity of ownership.
For what it's worth, Pres. Obama has stated (via press release, at least), and recently reiterated that this is the approach he prefers as well.
From the press release referenced in the first link above: "That is why Sen. Obama supports media-ownership caps, network neutrality, public broadcasting, as well as increasing minority ownership of broadcasting and print outlets."
For the record, I oppose reinstating the Fairness Doctrine, and I think "media-ownership caps" and "increasing minority ownership of broadcasting and print outlets," will probably translate in practice into "pretty much like the fairness doctrine, but with a different name." With that in mind, however, I would have no objection to government oversight intended to ensure that *anybody* wanting to own/operate a media outlet has the chance to do so, and is allowed to succeed or fail in the market on the merits of the content they produce & distribute.
If there aren't enough people in your market who want to listen to the programming you choose to broadcast, then find a better business model.
Senator Jeff Bingaman, Democrat, New Mexico "Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.) told radio station 770 AM KKOB in Albuquerque, N.M., that he didn't know if Democrats in Congress will try to re-impose the Fairness Doctrine next year - but he would certainly like them to. Bingaman told the station he would support reimposition of the regulation - which was rescinded in 1987 - on the station."
Senator Debbie Stabenow, Democrat, Micigan "Sen. Debbie Stabenow, D-Mich., told radio
host and WND columnist Bill Press yesterday when asked about whether it was time to bring back the so-called Fairness Doctrine: 'I think it's absolutely time to pass a standard. Now, whether it's called the Fairness Standard, whether it's called something else - I absolutely think it's time to be bringing accountability to the airwaves. I mean, our new president has talked rightly about accountability and transparency. You know, that we all have to step up and be responsible. And, I think in this case, there needs to be some accountability and standards put in place.' Stabenow's husband, Tom Athans, was executive vice president of the left-leaning talk radio network Air America. He left the network in 2006, when it filed for bankruptcy, and co-founded the TalkUSA Radio Network."
Senator Tom Harkin, Democrat, Iowa "Well, anytime - just let me know Bill. I love being with you, and thanks again for all you do to get the truth and the facts out there. By the way, I read your Op-Ed in the Washington Post the other day. I ripped it out, I took it into my office and said 'there you go, we gotta get the Fairness Doctrine back in law again.'"
Former President Bill Clinton, Democrat:
"Well, you either ought to have the fairness doctrine or you ought to have more balance on the other side," Clinton said, "because essentially there has always been a lot of big money to support the right wing talk shows." Clinton cited the "blatant drumbeat" against the stimulus program from conservative talk radio, saying it doesn't reflect economic reality. "I think we need to have either more balance in the programs or some opportunity for people to offer counter-veiling opinions." He said he had not been in favor of getting rid of the fairness doctrine, which the FCC did back in 1987."
Let's not pretend like it's not something they'd like to see to silence at least some of conservative talk radio.
There are only 24 hours in a day. There is some finite number of radio stations in the country. If you pass a regulation stating that radio stations must allow some percentage of their time for "opposing viewpoints" that they would not normally air, then you are necessarily limiting someone else's speech by taking that time to speak away from one person and giving it to someone else.
For the people who think fairness doctrine is a net-good for "the marketplace of ideas," does that also mean you'd be okay with the FCC declaring that for every hour MSNBC airs Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow, or Chris Matthews, they must also schedule an hour for Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Bill O'Reilly?
I didn't think so.
"Fairness Doctrine" is a polite way of saying "I'm going to use government regulations to force the people who don't agree with me to shut the fuck up."
If you don't agree with them, don't listen to them. Turn on Air America instead, and support a commercial enterprise that aligns with your beliefs.
Nothing is. And the thing about Google is that if the government contracts out with them, Google is contractually obligated to facilitate data migration should the government decide to switch.
Only if they government stipulates that as part of the contract.
Microsoft has no such commitment to data openness.
Only because the government didn't stipulate it as a requirement during the bidding process that led to Microsoft being awarded the sale.
So what's more likely? That the government doesn't give a shit about data openness? Or that Google is somehow more likely than Microsoft to say "You know what, you better add a clause forcing us to help you migrate to a competitor's software!"
I think Open Source software is the only course right now. If there are going to be conversion costs, spend them to migrate to software that doesn't cost out the wazoo or that ties you to any single vendor. There will be support costs no matter which path they take, but getting away from proprietary applications and operating systems should be a priority.
WRONG. Open STANDARDS are the direction the government should be moving in. Mandate that all software must be certified as supporting "open standards X, Y, Z," and then throw the bidding open. Let any company who wishes to support that standard bid on the application support contract, whether it be Microsoft, HP, IBM, Google, Sun, Oracle, Red Hat, or "Three Guys doing Open Source in the basement, Inc." If the software supports the open standard, then the choice is then based on who makes the best (fastest, most stable, most robust, easiest-to-use) software at a reasonable price point.
Continuing to use Microsoft products is the biggest mistake possible. The fact is that with Microsoft Windows, we might as well run telnet on every networked system with user name guest and password guest.
Yes, because it's absolutely IMPOSSIBLE to secure any Microsoft Windows system, and it's absolutely IMPOSSIBLE to have an insecure Linux system, amirite-or-amirite?
I started off agreeing with your post - I think it's a huge mistake for the government to continue tying itself to a single contractor (MSFT, GOOG, or anybody else), and using leased apps is a bad idea. But then your post took the wrong turn of proposing that government policy be used as a blunt tool to force adoption of Open Source and destroy Microsoft. "Open Source" does not mean everything magically becomes secure & better.
Well, since you *believe* it's running a custom Linux base, and you *believe* it to be more secure, I guess that's all we need as proof. Why bother with all that unnecessary security analysis & review!
If you really mean to make the ludicrous suggestion that a single person can administer the entire IT infrastructure of a moderate-to-large sized company without ever dealing with another person, you're an idiot.
It's not MBA-babble, it's an acknowledgement of the reality that NO person (in IT or elsewhere) can "do it all," and must be able to interact with other people if they're going to be worth their paycheck.
I'm going to simply respond to your rambling, seemingly paranoid post with a single [Citation Needed].
Paranoid conspiracy theories require some verifiable proof, especially when they directly contradict peer-reviewed and verified science so conspicuously.
First, the researchers don't claim a universal anti-virus, simply a broad spectrum one.
You're right - the researchers don't make that claim at all.
Those nay-saying, have no lab data, those doing the research do. Its effective in animal studies and human studies will soon begin.
From TFA in Nature (emphasis mine):
The antibodies also give researchers clues about how to develop new vaccines. "This opens up the avenue of thinking about universal influenza vaccines, which has not been realistic before," says Peter Palese, an influenza expert at Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York who was not involved in the work.
It seems to me like both sides of the disagreement over whether or not this could lead to a "universal" influenza vaccine are running their mouths without much data.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm more skeptical for one simple reason: Linux replaced traditional Unix systems in the server room of your local corporation and research labs at your local university. Most people weren't running Solaris and AIX as desktop systems to browse facebook, pay the bills, and email vacation photos to their family.
I see no reason Linux can't continue to eat away at Windows' market share in the server room. But I'm not convinced that Linux adoption is inevitable in any way in the desktop, laptop, or netbook areas.
For real? You actively try to dislike things that are popular, simply because they're popular? You must miss out on an awful lot of good stuff in life, then.
If these people exist, then Linux needs to figure out an answer to this deceptively simple question:
if these "next adopters" know about Linux, and know they should adopt it, why aren't they?
With Linux fans, the blame seems to be placed squarely on the users for being too stupid or ignorant to adopt what is "clearly" a superior operating system. I'll be honest with you, my experiences with Linux make me think it's just as much the "abusive alcoholic boyfriend" as you claimed Windows is. It works (* mostly *) if you have supported hardware, but the moment you look at some unsupported video card or network driver, it pitches a fit and leaves you with a black eye.
Citation? I don't say it as an attempt to troll, I simply haven't seen any reports that it is doing more than growing at a small rate.
The funny thing is, I would think that Open Source folks would just "get" this line of thinking immediately. How many times have we heard a variation on this in the form of: "You don't make money off selling the software, you make money off supporting the software."
Rough paraphrase: "Since everybody has a drill, sell your skills as a carpenter." You don't sell the tool, you sell the solution.
Seriously, I have no idea what you're getting at with "illegal to run," unless you mean pirated software, in which case, well, you can run unlicensed commercial software on Linux, too, but that don't make it legal...
Yeah, because nothing screams "must-see tv!" like a bunch of text from an EU court's findings against Microsoft scrolling across the screen. God, I can only imagine the sky-high ratings on that one - what a coup for Linux!
In exactly which markets do you feel adoption of desktop Linux is inevitable?
Well said. Put slightly differently by Harvard Business School professor Theodore Levitt:
People don't want to buy a quarter-inch drill. They want a quarter-inch hole.
There's a reason why most Mac ads talk about how the Mac makes "real stuff" (photos, video, music, email, setting up a new printer...) easy: it's the holes they're talking about, not the drill.
The same owners you previously declared to be incompetent morons you were selflessly rescuing from "the muck" they belonged in? The same people "riding on your shoulders" that you had "complete control over"?
So what you mean to say is, "People who fawn over me and tell me I'm important are good. People who don't agree with this assessment are bad."
Is that about the extent of it?
Yes, he did. He did not, however say it was trivial or "off the shelf" for Apple to do this. What he said was, this would be a good time for OLPC to take Apple up on their offer.
Given that Apple has experience working with ARM processors since *at least* the Newton, and given that the iPhone has a fairly capable darwin foundation, it's not a big stretch to think that putting OS X on an ARM-based piece of hardware such as the XO-2 would be the same effort of "writing drivers for any non-supported hardware" - the same amount of effort required to port the desktop version to an x86 platform.
Your claims that it would take "a lot more work" than the effort you claimed an X86 installation would take are purely speculative. There is no off-the-shelf solution, correct. But Apple, which expressed an interest in working with OLPC organization previously, is probably the closest of any vendor to having an "off the shelf" solution which could be deployed with the minimal amount of cost and effort.
Given all of that, it wouldn't be unreasonable (or surprising) to see the OLPC foundation re-open talks with Apple about bringing their OS to the XO-2.
100% wrong.
Amazon is doing the exact same thing Apple did until just recently with the iTunes store and the iPod:
What this script does is address the third issue - it allows you to download content from elsewhere in a DRM-protected format, and load it on the Kindle. The script makes it slightly less restrictive than an iPod was (think download from Zune store, load on an iPod), but the essential model is the ipod / itunes store model.
I'd love to see it all be unprotected, and available to any device that wants to load it, but this script doesn't address that issue at all: Buying DRM'ed books from a source other than Amazon is still buying DRM'ed books.
Yes, the notion of OS X on an ARM-based OLPC should be laughed right off slashdot.
It's not as if Apple has had ANY success or experience porting their software to (or writing new software for) an ARM architecture. Oh wait.
I mean, it's not as if they have any experience writing software that integrates well across multiple hardware platforms. Oh wait.
I mean, it's not as if they have any experience designing clean & usable interfaces that people generally find easy to learn, and which make more powerful features available to advanced users by building on top of a unix foundation. Oh wait.
You're right. The notion of Mac OS being proted to an XO-2 is just ludicrous. It'd be much better to wait and let Microsoft port XP to the XO-2. They have a long and illustrious track record of releasing compatible, secure, feature-rich operating systems right on schedule.
Finally, this kid will get decent performance from his computer!
For what it's worth, Pres. Obama has stated (via press release, at least), and recently reiterated that this is the approach he prefers as well.
From the press release referenced in the first link above: "That is why Sen. Obama supports media-ownership caps, network neutrality, public broadcasting, as well as increasing minority ownership of broadcasting and print outlets."
For the record, I oppose reinstating the Fairness Doctrine, and I think "media-ownership caps" and "increasing minority ownership of broadcasting and print outlets," will probably translate in practice into "pretty much like the fairness doctrine, but with a different name." With that in mind, however, I would have no objection to government oversight intended to ensure that *anybody* wanting to own/operate a media outlet has the chance to do so, and is allowed to succeed or fail in the market on the merits of the content they produce & distribute.
If there aren't enough people in your market who want to listen to the programming you choose to broadcast, then find a better business model.
Ah yes. Because the back seat of a car is generally relevant in security breaches.
Read: WTF?
Wall of text is magnificent. I want one for my very own.
Senator Jeff Bingaman, Democrat, New Mexico
"Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.) told radio station 770 AM KKOB in Albuquerque, N.M., that he didn't know if Democrats in Congress will try to re-impose the Fairness Doctrine next year - but he would certainly like them to. Bingaman told the station he would support reimposition of the regulation - which was rescinded in 1987 - on the station."
Senator Debbie Stabenow, Democrat, Micigan
"Sen. Debbie Stabenow, D-Mich., told radio host and WND columnist Bill Press yesterday when asked about whether it was time to bring back the so-called Fairness Doctrine: 'I think it's absolutely time to pass a standard. Now, whether it's called the Fairness Standard, whether it's called something else - I absolutely think it's time to be bringing accountability to the airwaves. I mean, our new president has talked rightly about accountability and transparency. You know, that we all have to step up and be responsible. And, I think in this case, there needs to be some accountability and standards put in place.' Stabenow's husband, Tom Athans, was executive vice president of the left-leaning talk radio network Air America. He left the network in 2006, when it filed for bankruptcy, and co-founded the TalkUSA Radio Network."
Senator Tom Harkin, Democrat, Iowa
"Well, anytime - just let me know Bill. I love being with you, and thanks again for all you do to get the truth and the facts out there. By the way, I read your Op-Ed in the Washington Post the other day. I ripped it out, I took it into my office and said 'there you go, we gotta get the Fairness Doctrine back in law again.'"
Former President Bill Clinton, Democrat:
"Well, you either ought to have the fairness doctrine or you ought to have more balance on the other side," Clinton said, "because essentially there has always been a lot of big money to support the right wing talk shows." Clinton cited the "blatant drumbeat" against the stimulus program from conservative talk radio, saying it doesn't reflect economic reality. "I think we need to have either more balance in the programs or some opportunity for people to offer counter-veiling opinions." He said he had not been in favor of getting rid of the fairness doctrine, which the FCC did back in 1987."
Let's not pretend like it's not something they'd like to see to silence at least some of conservative talk radio.
There are only 24 hours in a day. There is some finite number of radio stations in the country. If you pass a regulation stating that radio stations must allow some percentage of their time for "opposing viewpoints" that they would not normally air, then you are necessarily limiting someone else's speech by taking that time to speak away from one person and giving it to someone else.
For the people who think fairness doctrine is a net-good for "the marketplace of ideas," does that also mean you'd be okay with the FCC declaring that for every hour MSNBC airs Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow, or Chris Matthews, they must also schedule an hour for Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Bill O'Reilly?
I didn't think so.
"Fairness Doctrine" is a polite way of saying "I'm going to use government regulations to force the people who don't agree with me to shut the fuck up."
If you don't agree with them, don't listen to them. Turn on Air America instead, and support a commercial enterprise that aligns with your beliefs.
Maybe I'm not using a compatible browser... was it blinking too?
Only if they government stipulates that as part of the contract.
Only because the government didn't stipulate it as a requirement during the bidding process that led to Microsoft being awarded the sale.
So what's more likely? That the government doesn't give a shit about data openness? Or that Google is somehow more likely than Microsoft to say "You know what, you better add a clause forcing us to help you migrate to a competitor's software!"
I'm betting on government incompetence.
WRONG. Open STANDARDS are the direction the government should be moving in. Mandate that all software must be certified as supporting "open standards X, Y, Z," and then throw the bidding open. Let any company who wishes to support that standard bid on the application support contract, whether it be Microsoft, HP, IBM, Google, Sun, Oracle, Red Hat, or "Three Guys doing Open Source in the basement, Inc." If the software supports the open standard, then the choice is then based on who makes the best (fastest, most stable, most robust, easiest-to-use) software at a reasonable price point.
Yes, because it's absolutely IMPOSSIBLE to secure any Microsoft Windows system, and it's absolutely IMPOSSIBLE to have an insecure Linux system, amirite-or-amirite?
I started off agreeing with your post - I think it's a huge mistake for the government to continue tying itself to a single contractor (MSFT, GOOG, or anybody else), and using leased apps is a bad idea. But then your post took the wrong turn of proposing that government policy be used as a blunt tool to force adoption of Open Source and destroy Microsoft. "Open Source" does not mean everything magically becomes secure & better.
Well, since you *believe* it's running a custom Linux base, and you *believe* it to be more secure, I guess that's all we need as proof. Why bother with all that unnecessary security analysis & review!
If you really mean to make the ludicrous suggestion that a single person can administer the entire IT infrastructure of a moderate-to-large sized company without ever dealing with another person, you're an idiot.
It's not MBA-babble, it's an acknowledgement of the reality that NO person (in IT or elsewhere) can "do it all," and must be able to interact with other people if they're going to be worth their paycheck.
Learn reading comprehension.
I'm going to simply respond to your rambling, seemingly paranoid post with a single [Citation Needed].
Paranoid conspiracy theories require some verifiable proof, especially when they directly contradict peer-reviewed and verified science so conspicuously.
You're right - the researchers don't make that claim at all.
From TFA in Nature (emphasis mine):
It seems to me like both sides of the disagreement over whether or not this could lead to a "universal" influenza vaccine are running their mouths without much data.