Even on no-os machines they have to install an OS to get the machine running to confirm that everything is working. Pre-installing a Linux distribution is the wrong course of action. There are too many distros and it would cut into their profit to have to install your preferred distribution when you order a machine. The bottom line when they make these decisions is based on if that change will make the more or less profitable. They will gain the 1% of people who refuse to pay for a Windows license... or even know there's another choice. However, in doing so it may make their turn-around longer when putting together a new machine, possibly causing a loss of business somewhere in the 99% of other users who are too ignorant to know the difference. Remember they've been churning out machines with Windows pre-installed for greater than 10 years now. Vendors are going to be resistant to change just because that's the way the industry has been operating and they have it down to a science and they are making good money.
There's also speculation that a vendor who starts offering machines without Windows will lose preferred pricing from Microsoft. If you're a business person and you run a multi-million dollar a year business selling machines where 99% of the people giving you money have one set of requirements, you will give preference to them. If supporting the extra 1% is going to be of less value than the discounts you'll lose because of a vendor "penalty", you're going to protect the income coming from the 99% and not bother with the 1%.
Don't get me wrong, it ticks me off that I have to purchase a copy of Windows that I'm not going to use at any price. But I also don't expect a vendor to take a cut in their profit in order to support Linux. We in the Linux community are just going to need to increase our market share and cross the breaking point to where businesses will make a profit catering to us. I believe we're close. The addition of nseries by Dell and the number of vendors that have started up with the business plan of selling non-Windows machines shows some push in that direction. I think it's no coincidence that Vista has just been released and people don't want to "upgrade" their existing machines. I believe that all we need to do is continue to inform people about linux, to show people what it can do, to show people that the average joe can use it given the right distro, AND most importantly, give the people reasonable expectations when presenting it to them. Linux is not virus proof, hack proof, and stupid proof. It's not going to have instant response on a 200MHz machine with 8MB RAM while running Ubuntu with Beryl enabled. Tell them that there are some things that are better done on the command line and show them why. The way to change the industry is not in forcing vendors to change the way they do business.... that's Microsoft's plan and they have significantly more resources to carry out that plan. The way to change the industry is to continue to create a market and make it profitable for those who choose to cater to that market.
Here's the reasons your premise is completely wrong.
1. Most people older than 30 years old grew up on apple computers in the classroom. They don't seem to be adversely affected at all.
2. The overwhelming majority of businesses run on Windows not because it is better, but because they have been convinced that anything else is too difficult. I once suggested a technical manager that they try Linux on their desktop and they replied that they would like to but they didn't want to have to go back to an interface like DOS and have to memorize F-keys for word processing.
3. How much computer do kids learn in high school? On average they'll learn to use a spreadsheet, word processor, and maybe some presentation software. They may learn some programming, and there's nothing that allows you the ability to easily learn some of the principles of scripting and basic programming than shell scripting. It's far more useful than basic and they are learning a skill that they can use on Linux, Unix, BSD, etc.
4. This idea that everyone uses Windows so we should only teach Windows software is ridiculously short-sighted. I applaud Indiana schools for being visionary and exposing their students to something other than the dominant desktop OS if for no other reason than to learn that there is an alternative.
Java is both compiled and interpreted. Your statistics would be true for Python or Ruby but don't apply to a language that is compiled to binary and interpreted at the machine level. Modern Java's performance has been shown in recent benchmarks to be on par with C++ in most areas and outperforms C++ in others. It is also an error to lump C++ into the same category with C and Assembler as C++ performance is nowhere near that of C.
In all points the author is missing the point. Instead of blaming the OS he should be calling for hardware manufacturers and software developers to write drivers and software for more than just Windows. While the open source community has done a fantastic job of hacking out drivers for their hardware or porting their favorite software, it's the companies who ask us to purchase their hardware that should be doing that work. As linux adoption grows, I believe this will change as we are already seeing some hardware companies releasing drivers for linux with their hardware.
As for gaming... the author again fails to realize that game companies have been writing games for their major audience. It's not that Linux can't match or outperform windows at running games, there's just not a lot of game companies going to the work of releasing their games in Linux. Again, as a market grows there, I believe game companies will take advantage of the power of linux for game platforms. They can build games with full access to the power of the box instead of having to deal with the hardware overhead.
This author should be educating non-technical audiences instead of spreading the same FUD we hear over and over.
Wait, so I should treat my child like an adult? He's not an adult, he's a child and therefore should be treated like one until he proves he is responsible enough to be an adult. According to your thinking I should sit my 3 year old down and have a man to man talk with him about why he can't run out in traffic? I watched my siblings do this to their children and they still rejected them. Being a parent is not about being accepted by your children.
One thing I've learned, and perhaps you're too young to know this yet, is that when I look back on my childhood I am happy that I had strict parents. It pissed me off at the time, but looking back I understand. What you are describing in those who are infurated by the "mommy government" are most likely the people who need the government to prevent them from completely screwing themselves over... and becoming a burden to the rest of us in the process.
Healthcare costs out of control... but why can someone limit me from smoking wherever and whenever I want?
Sexually transmitted diseases spreading faster than ever, again becoming a weight on the health care system and taking researchers away from diseases that can't be prevented by a little self control... but who are you to tell me what I can do with MY body?
Broken homes and broken children because parents have a gambling problem... but don't you dare make it harder for me to gamble away MY money.
You are focused only on yourself... and perhaps that's a responsibility you can control. Regulations are for the people who can not control it and become a weight on society because of it.
Mabye not... but
1.) Law prohibits minors from gambling and most states regulate gaming heavily.
2.) Internet gambling pokes a huge hole in this since there is no way to identify if, in a household of three, it is the husband, wife, or 10 year old son gambling... possibly in a state that does not allow it.
3.) The only way to enforce the law is to simply close the hole. Same reason you can't buy liquor and guns online. And before you point out one of the many online gun retailers, you have to realize that they are not shipped to your house. When you buy a gun online it is shipped to the local gun shop of your choice which is authorized by the government to accept such a transfer. The gun is then processed as if you had bought it at that shop. So effectively, it is impossible to buy one online even if you can find and pay for it there.
The term podcast is incorrect anyway. It is not iPod specific. Mediacast is probably more descriptive.
Then again, the "cast"(broadcast) is also not technically correct because that implies that these feeds are being actively sent. Rss waits for a call and then sends it's data, which does not fit the definition of a broadcast.
Is there a technically accurate, descriptive, cool sounding alternative?
mediabag, mediaheap, mediafeed, mediasource,.....
Use Adept with KDE, Synaptic with Gnome.
Either way, I don't see how you could have broken kde unless you were removing packages and ignoring warnings. Apt keeps up with dependancies and warns if you are doing something that will cause a problem.
Have you tried Ubuntu Dapper? Breezy was good, Dapper is much better. And as long as you don't do a lot of adding unconfirmed repositories, apt should never break things.
In all, you have to remember that it took time for you to learn how to run Windows. If you take that same time to learn to run linux I think you will be pleased with the results.
Did you use apt-get or synaptic?
Even with apt, the only way it takes hours or days to install something is if you have enabled testing/unstable sources or you don't know the admin password. You want to keep your system up to date? How hard is it to do apt-get dist-upgrade? Or even simpler, open synaptic, mark all upgradable, and hit apply.
Now if you are trying to install not packaged applications... first I have to ask if you have a good reason to do so. Second, have you looked for alternatives? Only after that would it be reasonable to go look for an install that goes outside of apt. The problem is that so many are used to downloading and installing every little piece of freeware(spyware, adware, etc) that when they can't do it in Linux, the automatic response is, "Linux is too hard." Yeah, it IS difficult to completely hose your machine... that is the point.
This is Outlook Web Access 2003. I can't tell you how much I hate this interface. Gmail exceeds this interface as far as usablity in all respects.
Once again, Microsoft takes the innovations of other and passes them off as their own... and the stained glass window of death rolls on.
What's the big fuss about Office not being available for Linux? OO2, when it is released as stable, has a greater number of features than Office 12 anyway. I see the whole non-techie world oohing and ahhing over the fact that Office 12 can turn a doc into a PDF. Big friggin whoop. OpenOffice has been doing this for a long time. OO has better database support, good stability, and provides an easier interface to use all it's functionality. Office only allows you to easily use the features it thinks won't get you in a lot of trouble because M$ has this attitude of superiority and thinks that the average computer user can't LEARN to use their computer. They have created a culture of dependency around their products to where people think that if they use something else like OO, they won't be able to use their mouse or something ridiculous like that(anyone remember those little helpers we used to put above the function keys).
As for the fella up there who said OpenOffice was "buggy". I've been using it every day for almost 3 years... and I use a large set of features. I haven't run into any more bugs there than I did using Office.
Besides, your only choices are not OO or M$. The United States Government now uses WordPerfect, which is a perfectly good commercial alternative to Office.
Slashdot Mirror
Even on no-os machines they have to install an OS to get the machine running to confirm that everything is working. Pre-installing a Linux distribution is the wrong course of action. There are too many distros and it would cut into their profit to have to install your preferred distribution when you order a machine. The bottom line when they make these decisions is based on if that change will make the more or less profitable. They will gain the 1% of people who refuse to pay for a Windows license... or even know there's another choice. However, in doing so it may make their turn-around longer when putting together a new machine, possibly causing a loss of business somewhere in the 99% of other users who are too ignorant to know the difference. Remember they've been churning out machines with Windows pre-installed for greater than 10 years now. Vendors are going to be resistant to change just because that's the way the industry has been operating and they have it down to a science and they are making good money. There's also speculation that a vendor who starts offering machines without Windows will lose preferred pricing from Microsoft. If you're a business person and you run a multi-million dollar a year business selling machines where 99% of the people giving you money have one set of requirements, you will give preference to them. If supporting the extra 1% is going to be of less value than the discounts you'll lose because of a vendor "penalty", you're going to protect the income coming from the 99% and not bother with the 1%. Don't get me wrong, it ticks me off that I have to purchase a copy of Windows that I'm not going to use at any price. But I also don't expect a vendor to take a cut in their profit in order to support Linux. We in the Linux community are just going to need to increase our market share and cross the breaking point to where businesses will make a profit catering to us. I believe we're close. The addition of nseries by Dell and the number of vendors that have started up with the business plan of selling non-Windows machines shows some push in that direction. I think it's no coincidence that Vista has just been released and people don't want to "upgrade" their existing machines. I believe that all we need to do is continue to inform people about linux, to show people what it can do, to show people that the average joe can use it given the right distro, AND most importantly, give the people reasonable expectations when presenting it to them. Linux is not virus proof, hack proof, and stupid proof. It's not going to have instant response on a 200MHz machine with 8MB RAM while running Ubuntu with Beryl enabled. Tell them that there are some things that are better done on the command line and show them why. The way to change the industry is not in forcing vendors to change the way they do business.... that's Microsoft's plan and they have significantly more resources to carry out that plan. The way to change the industry is to continue to create a market and make it profitable for those who choose to cater to that market.
Here's the reasons your premise is completely wrong. 1. Most people older than 30 years old grew up on apple computers in the classroom. They don't seem to be adversely affected at all. 2. The overwhelming majority of businesses run on Windows not because it is better, but because they have been convinced that anything else is too difficult. I once suggested a technical manager that they try Linux on their desktop and they replied that they would like to but they didn't want to have to go back to an interface like DOS and have to memorize F-keys for word processing. 3. How much computer do kids learn in high school? On average they'll learn to use a spreadsheet, word processor, and maybe some presentation software. They may learn some programming, and there's nothing that allows you the ability to easily learn some of the principles of scripting and basic programming than shell scripting. It's far more useful than basic and they are learning a skill that they can use on Linux, Unix, BSD, etc. 4. This idea that everyone uses Windows so we should only teach Windows software is ridiculously short-sighted. I applaud Indiana schools for being visionary and exposing their students to something other than the dominant desktop OS if for no other reason than to learn that there is an alternative.
Java is both compiled and interpreted. Your statistics would be true for Python or Ruby but don't apply to a language that is compiled to binary and interpreted at the machine level. Modern Java's performance has been shown in recent benchmarks to be on par with C++ in most areas and outperforms C++ in others. It is also an error to lump C++ into the same category with C and Assembler as C++ performance is nowhere near that of C.
In all points the author is missing the point. Instead of blaming the OS he should be calling for hardware manufacturers and software developers to write drivers and software for more than just Windows. While the open source community has done a fantastic job of hacking out drivers for their hardware or porting their favorite software, it's the companies who ask us to purchase their hardware that should be doing that work. As linux adoption grows, I believe this will change as we are already seeing some hardware companies releasing drivers for linux with their hardware. As for gaming... the author again fails to realize that game companies have been writing games for their major audience. It's not that Linux can't match or outperform windows at running games, there's just not a lot of game companies going to the work of releasing their games in Linux. Again, as a market grows there, I believe game companies will take advantage of the power of linux for game platforms. They can build games with full access to the power of the box instead of having to deal with the hardware overhead. This author should be educating non-technical audiences instead of spreading the same FUD we hear over and over.
Jozu desu
Wait, so I should treat my child like an adult? He's not an adult, he's a child and therefore should be treated like one until he proves he is responsible enough to be an adult. According to your thinking I should sit my 3 year old down and have a man to man talk with him about why he can't run out in traffic? I watched my siblings do this to their children and they still rejected them. Being a parent is not about being accepted by your children. One thing I've learned, and perhaps you're too young to know this yet, is that when I look back on my childhood I am happy that I had strict parents. It pissed me off at the time, but looking back I understand. What you are describing in those who are infurated by the "mommy government" are most likely the people who need the government to prevent them from completely screwing themselves over... and becoming a burden to the rest of us in the process. Healthcare costs out of control... but why can someone limit me from smoking wherever and whenever I want? Sexually transmitted diseases spreading faster than ever, again becoming a weight on the health care system and taking researchers away from diseases that can't be prevented by a little self control... but who are you to tell me what I can do with MY body? Broken homes and broken children because parents have a gambling problem... but don't you dare make it harder for me to gamble away MY money. You are focused only on yourself... and perhaps that's a responsibility you can control. Regulations are for the people who can not control it and become a weight on society because of it.
Mabye not... but 1.) Law prohibits minors from gambling and most states regulate gaming heavily. 2.) Internet gambling pokes a huge hole in this since there is no way to identify if, in a household of three, it is the husband, wife, or 10 year old son gambling... possibly in a state that does not allow it. 3.) The only way to enforce the law is to simply close the hole. Same reason you can't buy liquor and guns online. And before you point out one of the many online gun retailers, you have to realize that they are not shipped to your house. When you buy a gun online it is shipped to the local gun shop of your choice which is authorized by the government to accept such a transfer. The gun is then processed as if you had bought it at that shop. So effectively, it is impossible to buy one online even if you can find and pay for it there.
The term podcast is incorrect anyway. It is not iPod specific. Mediacast is probably more descriptive. Then again, the "cast"(broadcast) is also not technically correct because that implies that these feeds are being actively sent. Rss waits for a call and then sends it's data, which does not fit the definition of a broadcast. Is there a technically accurate, descriptive, cool sounding alternative? mediabag, mediaheap, mediafeed, mediasource, .....
Use Adept with KDE, Synaptic with Gnome. Either way, I don't see how you could have broken kde unless you were removing packages and ignoring warnings. Apt keeps up with dependancies and warns if you are doing something that will cause a problem. Have you tried Ubuntu Dapper? Breezy was good, Dapper is much better. And as long as you don't do a lot of adding unconfirmed repositories, apt should never break things. In all, you have to remember that it took time for you to learn how to run Windows. If you take that same time to learn to run linux I think you will be pleased with the results.
Did you use apt-get or synaptic? Even with apt, the only way it takes hours or days to install something is if you have enabled testing/unstable sources or you don't know the admin password. You want to keep your system up to date? How hard is it to do apt-get dist-upgrade? Or even simpler, open synaptic, mark all upgradable, and hit apply. Now if you are trying to install not packaged applications... first I have to ask if you have a good reason to do so. Second, have you looked for alternatives? Only after that would it be reasonable to go look for an install that goes outside of apt. The problem is that so many are used to downloading and installing every little piece of freeware(spyware, adware, etc) that when they can't do it in Linux, the automatic response is, "Linux is too hard." Yeah, it IS difficult to completely hose your machine... that is the point.
From their US support person -
will be available globally in about one month.
It uses GSM/GPRS so you can pop a Cingular SIM into it and use it.
I am not sure which apps will be pre-loaded so let me check on this.
This is Outlook Web Access 2003. I can't tell you how much I hate this interface. Gmail exceeds this interface as far as usablity in all respects. Once again, Microsoft takes the innovations of other and passes them off as their own... and the stained glass window of death rolls on.
What's the big fuss about Office not being available for Linux? OO2, when it is released as stable, has a greater number of features than Office 12 anyway. I see the whole non-techie world oohing and ahhing over the fact that Office 12 can turn a doc into a PDF. Big friggin whoop. OpenOffice has been doing this for a long time. OO has better database support, good stability, and provides an easier interface to use all it's functionality. Office only allows you to easily use the features it thinks won't get you in a lot of trouble because M$ has this attitude of superiority and thinks that the average computer user can't LEARN to use their computer. They have created a culture of dependency around their products to where people think that if they use something else like OO, they won't be able to use their mouse or something ridiculous like that(anyone remember those little helpers we used to put above the function keys). As for the fella up there who said OpenOffice was "buggy". I've been using it every day for almost 3 years... and I use a large set of features. I haven't run into any more bugs there than I did using Office. Besides, your only choices are not OO or M$. The United States Government now uses WordPerfect, which is a perfectly good commercial alternative to Office.