The problem is that for the average user there is no compelling reason to change. Most people think that Windows is free because it comes with their computer. Couple this with the fact that people can not run the software that they already own, and there just isn't a reason to switch no matter if linux "is better" or not.
Until computers are easily purchased in a bare metal state with the option of a "free Linux dekstop" or a purchased "Windows desktop" there will not be any true inroads made. Getting the average user to take his working computer and install a different OS on it just doesn't make sense. Especially when you tell him all of the programs that he has ever used won't work.
Make it where you throw a Linux CD in the drive and everything automagically sets itself up and Linux might have a chance. But only if all their data and Windows apps are still working when the process is done. That's how a Windows OS migration typically goes for the average user.
I don't think 2009 will be the year of the Linux desktop.
The average person that bought that music did not consider it. The average person has no idea how Walmart music DRM works. Billions of people use products every day, with absolutely no knowledge about how they work, that "just work."
If it is too expensive it won't matter than can just raise taxes on the people that do work. If all elses fails than can just print more money. That's how civilized countries spend money they don't have.
Why would I want to pay $99 to get an OS to superficially imitate Windows yet still be unable to run thousands of Windows apps? I can just buy the genuine article which is supported everywhere, and for the most part supported well with free resources.
It is rare that I would not find the answer to a Windows problem for free and without a wait on the Web(i.e. question asked, answer already posted.) For a Linux installtion there is a very good chance that I will not find the answer, and that I will have to post a question on a Blog somewhere and wait for an amateur hobbyist to either 1) tell me to read the fuckng manual or 2) after a day or two wait, actually give me the trivially short reply that I need to figure the problem out.
Like it or not, free or not, better or not, that is the way it really is. If the Linux community were motivated to cheerfully provide support (like say if they were getting paid) then the OS would be more popular. Instead the motivation to provide support is based on the knoledge that you are superior to the "noob" that is asking for help. This certainly does not endear the customer to the experience.
Individual piracy? The key question you have to answer here is: "Did this act of piracy cost me a sale?"
Sometimes it did. Frequently it didn't. Was this person willing and able to pay for your software, but chose to pirate it instead? Perhaps you're not adding enough value to the product. Perhaps you're charging too much. Perhaps your product is inconvenient (read; DRM-ridden). Perhaps your product is crap and not worth paying for.
That is not the key question. Instead the key question is did the criminal steal (to take the property of another without right or permission) the software? It is obvious that the software pirate does not have either the right or the permission to do so, therefore he is a criminal and has broken the law.
There is nothing like a good bookstore analogy. My wife will never buy a $500 coffee table book. However, if she stole one from the bookstore we would use it. When she steals the $500 book it isn't really a lost sale, and therefore isn't really a crime.
Perhaps the the key question is NOT "Did this act of piracy/theft cost me a sale?" Perhaps the key question is "When is it okay to steal?" That is what all of the justification going on in this thread really is about, right?
I keep seeing this same "such 'piracy' doesn't constitute a lost sale" argument. I am not sure I believe it. Do you have ANY references to support your claim?
I personally know many people that would buy the game but don't if they can play a pirated, loaned, rented copy to the end. In fact I know more people that fall into the latter category than into the former. You say people will but it to get the "expansion pack," or whatever. Do you think selling the "Titanium" version for $9.99 five years after the release secures the same profit to the studio?
So if that assertion is indeed false then is your whole argument false as well?
I am not sure your claim that word of mouth advertising is better than other forms. Do you have any proof to back up this other speculation? Word of mouth may be good, but who is to say it is the best form of advertising? What if the recipient of the word of mouth endorsement tend to be people that enjoy pirating and DRM busting pursuits as a hobby?
Car analogies are a much underused tool so here goes. If I stole a Lincoln MKS from the dealer and drove it around town, and then dutifully told my friends how great or hoe poor it was, then is that acceptable piracy?
I see a lot of the same rehashed arguments defending stealing software in various forums. Most are based on assumptions and not necessarily on any facts.
Last question. Let's assume that the people that develop, and market successful games in this multi billion dollar industry are fairly competent. I mean when this kind of money is involved the most business savvy are bound to make it to the top, right? Anyway, if your ideas about piracy are true (IE piracy benefits the victim) then why aren't these people smart enough to realize that instead of stopping piracy they should instead be facilitating it?
That is only a partial solution. You have not guarded against forces of nature, or theft for that matter, that could cause data loss on both systems simultaneously. Neither have you protected yourself from user error in the form of deletion or overwritten data.
You are not done until you get some form of non-realtime, offsite storage.
Do a trace route to see which hop might be causing the problem. I think in Linux it would be 'traceroute www.google.com' I know in Windows it is 'tracert www.google.com'
Your generalizations hurt your credibility. That mindset is exactly why Windows is on the vast majority of desktops as opposed to some Linux variant.
Your generalization is just plain wrong as well. They are millions of smart, well-educated Windows admins and Windows users out there. They go to work every morning and get the job done and then go home.
Excellent analogy. Some co-ops are a wonderful thing. I am a member of one in fact. It works great for us because we pool our resources in order to achieve economies of scale when procuring goods and services.
We live in a condominium where everyone pays the same amount of money each month. We use this money as a group maintain community assets like the golf course fencing, snow removal, and maintenance of the exteriors of the residences.
We all pay the same and we all receive the same benefit. I could imagine the uproar if the members of the home owner association that made more money had to pay more money for their HOA dues. We have several people over 65 that are retired and on a fixed income. Perhaps they shouldn't have to pay at all?
It's really not fair from a social perspective that my neighbor only has to pay 1% of his income for HOA dues when I have to pay 2%. Perhaps we should address this at our next owners meeting. We could come up with a system where the top earners pay 2%, the middle earners pay 1% and the retirees pay nothing. That would be more fair because the top earners have a lot more disposable income then my retired neighbor and myself.
If we could get something going like this across the board and in all facets of our economy perhaps my wife and I could afford to stop working altogether. Maybe we could tax the top earners 90% or even more. That would be better for the majority since the majority would be able to work less and a minority of people might even choose to not work at all.
All kidding aside, co-ops can be a powerful tool but they certainly are not a panacea for all social problems.
Yes, he has a different username and password on every system that he needs to authenticate on. He also uses different email addresses for each account. Since he couldn't remember any of them he had to write them all down in a notebook. He lost the notebook and now he can't change any of his passwords because he can't remember the login and can't remember where the lost login is supposed to be emailed to.
Now it's time to come back down to earth. Are you trying to tell us you use a different login name for each of your 80 to 100 logins you have on the Internet? I'm not buying it.
To answer your question, he has been on SSI for the 13 years I have been seeing him. He has to come in once a month or so with an exacerbation of his chronic problem to obtain his Percocet. Otherwise he would most likely be prescribed something less marketable for his chronic pain. It just so happened that the reason given by him this time was that he was doing mechanic work. Mechanic work that one would surmise could be done to actually support himself.
Debating is fun but we all know the chances of swaying someone in the short term are slim. I do however have a question or two of any tax and spend liberals out there that can enlighten me.
I know what the end point of my beliefs taken to an extreme would be. Little or no taxes with a hard stance against those that were able to help themselves and didn't. Also a dramatic lowering of the standard of living of some "deserving" families. And yes, occaisonally some deserving folks going completely without.
But my question is, what is the endpoint of reckless out of control taxing and expenditures on social programs? What happens when the tax burden exceeds the ability of the middle class to make ends meet?
Simply put, how does one know when enough taxation and social liberalism is enough? Please explain because that is probably my biggest concern. Of course I can afford for another x% of my daily production to go to someone that does not produce.
When does is stop though? I already have nurses at work that won't pick up extra shifts because they have taxes withheld at a higher rate for that check and it doesn't appear to be worth the return on their labor. (I tell them that they will get it back when they file their annual but that doesn't soothe them when they have to wait 11 months to get back the extra money they worked for that week.)
I have no doubts, based on anecdotal evidence in my work place that the current tax system is a disincentive to production. Is this the good thing we are trying to do? (To answer your question the hospital hires pool nurses at 250% of the rate that staff nurses get paid. That gets passed on directly to the patients, or their insurance carriers.)
Your leaps to conclusions about what specific programs I am referring to are incorrect. I was not referring to Social Security in any way but since you brought it up, it is an inefficient system. If the beneficiaries instead invested their money in reasonably conservative investment vehicles, along with employers matching funds, the could easily beat the ROI provided by the Social Security Administration. Furthermore that capital would help grow the economy.
Your definition of welfare is somewhat limited. I would say that Food Stamps, WIC, SSI and Medicaid are all forms of "welfare." Saying that welfare does not exist is disingenuous at best. Who would take care of them you ask. If the safety net was not so readily available their would not be as many to take care of in the first place.
SSI could be replaced by commercially available disability insurance. Food Stamps and WIC could be replaced by locally funded communal dining facilities. Medicaid could be overhauled by strict guidelines on what medically necessary care actually means.
Free education would soon become next to worthless. It would devolve into mediocrity as the government mandated every aspect of it. There would be no incentive for the best and brightest to go into the academic fields since the government would be chiseling away every dollar they could in order to keep costs down and taxes manageable. I'm all for student loans and many other incentives to get people to go to school. Having the classrooms clogged with people there just because it is free would be a mind boggling waste of resources.
Remeber however that the government has no interest in trimming down and becoming efficient. The more tax money elected officials administer the more power they have to broker.
I work in a rural ED and a good 65% of my salary comes from government money distributed via many different programs. I will tell you for a fact that there is rampant Medicaid, WIC, SSI and FNS abuse. I see it many times each and every day.
One of my favorites is the guy in for his refill of 180 Oxycodone each month. He is totally disabled with chronic low back pain, on SSI, no copay for healthcare or for prescriptions (which he is known to sell around town.) When asked how he hurt his back the day before, "I hurt it pulling the engine out of my 5-0 Mustang."
If that last story doesn't give you pause then their really is no hope of any type of reform happening in our country.
Actually your line of argument is the one which shows no williness to communicate. Come again when you are actually willing to put forth your ideas, or at least when you get a fresh set of talking points from the Obamasiah website.
Explain how it is fair that I be forced to subsidize and artificially elevate the standard of living for someone that cannot afford it? If I want to adopt someone I will. I would love to have a lot of children but I can't afford it. Why is my money going to help a single mother (who probably has a live in partner but they have chosen not to marry for tax evasion purposes) raise four children? I know that I can't afford to send four children through college. How come she doesn't know she can't even afford to feed four children?
If you mean the only fair way for people to avoid the consequences of their actions is for me to pay more taxes, then that is what I call unfair.
That looks like it would probably impact the upper middle class, but these aren't struggling families.
I take issue with anyone deciding who needs to pay taxes based on the perceived burden. "Progressive taxes" are one of the ways we got into this mess in the first place. Taxes are needed to fund the government and should not be used to equalize the standard of living of the citizenry.
In my school studies of the constitution I never took home the point that the founding fathers felt all men should live an equal standard of living. I think it was pretty clear that they felt that no laws should be passed that prevent anyone from having an equal opportunity of WORKING to become successful.
Well it took a little longer than usual but this gentleman did find a way to link a discussion about California Prop 65 with a diatribe about President Bush and the Iraq war. There are some neat Democratic talking points interspersed, nothing too original as might be expected, and certainly no answers to any perceived problem.
What's the difference between the Republicans taking tax money to bolster corporate America so the economy can thrive and jobs can be created, or with the Democrats taking tax money to pay a large bureaucracy to hand out money to people that in general don't work, or do not work hard enough to support the lifestyle that they consider to be a right?
I am struggling to fund my sailing vacation to Croatia. If taxes make it impossible for me to charter a yacht for a reasonable amount of work equivalent then I may decide to work less. Do you really want the middle class choosing not to work as hard because they feel they are being singled out by punitive taxes?
The price of grain would go down not up. The government is currently paying farmers not to farm to artificially keep prices up. For obvious reasons that flows through to dairy, poultry and meat prices as well.
Slashdot Mirror
The problem is that for the average user there is no compelling reason to change. Most people think that Windows is free because it comes with their computer. Couple this with the fact that people can not run the software that they already own, and there just isn't a reason to switch no matter if linux "is better" or not.
Until computers are easily purchased in a bare metal state with the option of a "free Linux dekstop" or a purchased "Windows desktop" there will not be any true inroads made. Getting the average user to take his working computer and install a different OS on it just doesn't make sense. Especially when you tell him all of the programs that he has ever used won't work.
Make it where you throw a Linux CD in the drive and everything automagically sets itself up and Linux might have a chance. But only if all their data and Windows apps are still working when the process is done. That's how a Windows OS migration typically goes for the average user.
I don't think 2009 will be the year of the Linux desktop.
Prey tell what would that be, having the population of the US convert to Islam? That is the only end point in their theocracy.
Post a link to to the code so we all can benefit.
The average person that bought that music did not consider it. The average person has no idea how Walmart music DRM works. Billions of people use products every day, with absolutely no knowledge about how they work, that "just work."
If it is too expensive it won't matter than can just raise taxes on the people that do work. If all elses fails than can just print more money. That's how civilized countries spend money they don't have.
Why would I want to pay $99 to get an OS to superficially imitate Windows yet still be unable to run thousands of Windows apps? I can just buy the genuine article which is supported everywhere, and for the most part supported well with free resources.
It is rare that I would not find the answer to a Windows problem for free and without a wait on the Web(i.e. question asked, answer already posted.) For a Linux installtion there is a very good chance that I will not find the answer, and that I will have to post a question on a Blog somewhere and wait for an amateur hobbyist to either 1) tell me to read the fuckng manual or 2) after a day or two wait, actually give me the trivially short reply that I need to figure the problem out.
Like it or not, free or not, better or not, that is the way it really is. If the Linux community were motivated to cheerfully provide support (like say if they were getting paid) then the OS would be more popular. Instead the motivation to provide support is based on the knoledge that you are superior to the "noob" that is asking for help. This certainly does not endear the customer to the experience.
Individual piracy? The key question you have to answer here is: "Did this act of piracy cost me a sale?"
Sometimes it did. Frequently it didn't. Was this person willing and able to pay for your software, but chose to pirate it instead? Perhaps you're not adding enough value to the product. Perhaps you're charging too much. Perhaps your product is inconvenient (read; DRM-ridden). Perhaps your product is crap and not worth paying for.
That is not the key question. Instead the key question is did the criminal steal (to take the property of another without right or permission) the software? It is obvious that the software pirate does not have either the right or the permission to do so, therefore he is a criminal and has broken the law.
There is nothing like a good bookstore analogy. My wife will never buy a $500 coffee table book. However, if she stole one from the bookstore we would use it. When she steals the $500 book it isn't really a lost sale, and therefore isn't really a crime.
Perhaps the the key question is NOT "Did this act of piracy/theft cost me a sale?" Perhaps the key question is "When is it okay to steal?" That is what all of the justification going on in this thread really is about, right?
I keep seeing this same "such 'piracy' doesn't constitute a lost sale" argument. I am not sure I believe it. Do you have ANY references to support your claim?
I personally know many people that would buy the game but don't if they can play a pirated, loaned, rented copy to the end. In fact I know more people that fall into the latter category than into the former. You say people will but it to get the "expansion pack," or whatever. Do you think selling the "Titanium" version for $9.99 five years after the release secures the same profit to the studio?
So if that assertion is indeed false then is your whole argument false as well?
I am not sure your claim that word of mouth advertising is better than other forms. Do you have any proof to back up this other speculation? Word of mouth may be good, but who is to say it is the best form of advertising? What if the recipient of the word of mouth endorsement tend to be people that enjoy pirating and DRM busting pursuits as a hobby?
Car analogies are a much underused tool so here goes. If I stole a Lincoln MKS from the dealer and drove it around town, and then dutifully told my friends how great or hoe poor it was, then is that acceptable piracy?
I see a lot of the same rehashed arguments defending stealing software in various forums. Most are based on assumptions and not necessarily on any facts.
Last question. Let's assume that the people that develop, and market successful games in this multi billion dollar industry are fairly competent. I mean when this kind of money is involved the most business savvy are bound to make it to the top, right? Anyway, if your ideas about piracy are true (IE piracy benefits the victim) then why aren't these people smart enough to realize that instead of stopping piracy they should instead be facilitating it?
That is only a partial solution. You have not guarded against forces of nature, or theft for that matter, that could cause data loss on both systems simultaneously. Neither have you protected yourself from user error in the form of deletion or overwritten data.
You are not done until you get some form of non-realtime, offsite storage.
Do a trace route to see which hop might be causing the problem. I think in Linux it would be 'traceroute www.google.com' I know in Windows it is 'tracert www.google.com'
Too bad there isn't a 1+ "funny & insightful" mod.
Your generalizations hurt your credibility. That mindset is exactly why Windows is on the vast majority of desktops as opposed to some Linux variant.
Your generalization is just plain wrong as well. They are millions of smart, well-educated Windows admins and Windows users out there. They go to work every morning and get the job done and then go home.
What would make you think otherwise?
Line filters aren't going to help his latency. It's mostly likely an underpowerd router somewhere along the line.
Where did you come up with that advice anyway? You don't work for Best Buy tech support do you? :-P
FYI. Your first advice should have been for him to reboot all of his gear and then post the results of a few traceroutes.
Excellent analogy. Some co-ops are a wonderful thing. I am a member of one in fact. It works great for us because we pool our resources in order to achieve economies of scale when procuring goods and services.
We live in a condominium where everyone pays the same amount of money each month. We use this money as a group maintain community assets like the golf course fencing, snow removal, and maintenance of the exteriors of the residences.
We all pay the same and we all receive the same benefit. I could imagine the uproar if the members of the home owner association that made more money had to pay more money for their HOA dues. We have several people over 65 that are retired and on a fixed income. Perhaps they shouldn't have to pay at all?
It's really not fair from a social perspective that my neighbor only has to pay 1% of his income for HOA dues when I have to pay 2%. Perhaps we should address this at our next owners meeting. We could come up with a system where the top earners pay 2%, the middle earners pay 1% and the retirees pay nothing. That would be more fair because the top earners have a lot more disposable income then my retired neighbor and myself.
If we could get something going like this across the board and in all facets of our economy perhaps my wife and I could afford to stop working altogether. Maybe we could tax the top earners 90% or even more. That would be better for the majority since the majority would be able to work less and a minority of people might even choose to not work at all.
All kidding aside, co-ops can be a powerful tool but they certainly are not a panacea for all social problems.
Yes, he has a different username and password on every system that he needs to authenticate on. He also uses different email addresses for each account. Since he couldn't remember any of them he had to write them all down in a notebook. He lost the notebook and now he can't change any of his passwords because he can't remember the login and can't remember where the lost login is supposed to be emailed to.
Now it's time to come back down to earth. Are you trying to tell us you use a different login name for each of your 80 to 100 logins you have on the Internet? I'm not buying it.
You mean, "You just have a socialized model."
Repeat after me, "There is nothing good about socialism."
Maybe they are using RADIUS authentication for something.
To answer your question, he has been on SSI for the 13 years I have been seeing him. He has to come in once a month or so with an exacerbation of his chronic problem to obtain his Percocet. Otherwise he would most likely be prescribed something less marketable for his chronic pain. It just so happened that the reason given by him this time was that he was doing mechanic work. Mechanic work that one would surmise could be done to actually support himself.
Debating is fun but we all know the chances of swaying someone in the short term are slim. I do however have a question or two of any tax and spend liberals out there that can enlighten me.
I know what the end point of my beliefs taken to an extreme would be. Little or no taxes with a hard stance against those that were able to help themselves and didn't. Also a dramatic lowering of the standard of living of some "deserving" families. And yes, occaisonally some deserving folks going completely without.
But my question is, what is the endpoint of reckless out of control taxing and expenditures on social programs? What happens when the tax burden exceeds the ability of the middle class to make ends meet?
Simply put, how does one know when enough taxation and social liberalism is enough? Please explain because that is probably my biggest concern. Of course I can afford for another x% of my daily production to go to someone that does not produce.
When does is stop though? I already have nurses at work that won't pick up extra shifts because they have taxes withheld at a higher rate for that check and it doesn't appear to be worth the return on their labor. (I tell them that they will get it back when they file their annual but that doesn't soothe them when they have to wait 11 months to get back the extra money they worked for that week.)
I have no doubts, based on anecdotal evidence in my work place that the current tax system is a disincentive to production. Is this the good thing we are trying to do? (To answer your question the hospital hires pool nurses at 250% of the rate that staff nurses get paid. That gets passed on directly to the patients, or their insurance carriers.)
Anyone?
Your leaps to conclusions about what specific programs I am referring to are incorrect. I was not referring to Social Security in any way but since you brought it up, it is an inefficient system. If the beneficiaries instead invested their money in reasonably conservative investment vehicles, along with employers matching funds, the could easily beat the ROI provided by the Social Security Administration. Furthermore that capital would help grow the economy.
Your definition of welfare is somewhat limited. I would say that Food Stamps, WIC, SSI and Medicaid are all forms of "welfare." Saying that welfare does not exist is disingenuous at best. Who would take care of them you ask. If the safety net was not so readily available their would not be as many to take care of in the first place.
SSI could be replaced by commercially available disability insurance. Food Stamps and WIC could be replaced by locally funded communal dining facilities. Medicaid could be overhauled by strict guidelines on what medically necessary care actually means.
Free education would soon become next to worthless. It would devolve into mediocrity as the government mandated every aspect of it. There would be no incentive for the best and brightest to go into the academic fields since the government would be chiseling away every dollar they could in order to keep costs down and taxes manageable. I'm all for student loans and many other incentives to get people to go to school. Having the classrooms clogged with people there just because it is free would be a mind boggling waste of resources.
Remeber however that the government has no interest in trimming down and becoming efficient. The more tax money elected officials administer the more power they have to broker.
I work in a rural ED and a good 65% of my salary comes from government money distributed via many different programs. I will tell you for a fact that there is rampant Medicaid, WIC, SSI and FNS abuse. I see it many times each and every day.
One of my favorites is the guy in for his refill of 180 Oxycodone each month. He is totally disabled with chronic low back pain, on SSI, no copay for healthcare or for prescriptions (which he is known to sell around town.) When asked how he hurt his back the day before, "I hurt it pulling the engine out of my 5-0 Mustang."
If that last story doesn't give you pause then their really is no hope of any type of reform happening in our country.
Ooops, I guess you lose:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
Actually your line of argument is the one which shows no williness to communicate. Come again when you are actually willing to put forth your ideas, or at least when you get a fresh set of talking points from the Obamasiah website.
Explain how it is fair that I be forced to subsidize and artificially elevate the standard of living for someone that cannot afford it? If I want to adopt someone I will. I would love to have a lot of children but I can't afford it. Why is my money going to help a single mother (who probably has a live in partner but they have chosen not to marry for tax evasion purposes) raise four children? I know that I can't afford to send four children through college. How come she doesn't know she can't even afford to feed four children?
If you mean the only fair way for people to avoid the consequences of their actions is for me to pay more taxes, then that is what I call unfair.
That looks like it would probably impact the upper middle class, but these aren't struggling families.
I take issue with anyone deciding who needs to pay taxes based on the perceived burden. "Progressive taxes" are one of the ways we got into this mess in the first place. Taxes are needed to fund the government and should not be used to equalize the standard of living of the citizenry.
In my school studies of the constitution I never took home the point that the founding fathers felt all men should live an equal standard of living. I think it was pretty clear that they felt that no laws should be passed that prevent anyone from having an equal opportunity of WORKING to become successful.
Well it took a little longer than usual but this gentleman did find a way to link a discussion about California Prop 65 with a diatribe about President Bush and the Iraq war. There are some neat Democratic talking points interspersed, nothing too original as might be expected, and certainly no answers to any perceived problem.
What's the difference between the Republicans taking tax money to bolster corporate America so the economy can thrive and jobs can be created, or with the Democrats taking tax money to pay a large bureaucracy to hand out money to people that in general don't work, or do not work hard enough to support the lifestyle that they consider to be a right?
I have my ideas but am waiting for yours.
I am struggling to fund my sailing vacation to Croatia. If taxes make it impossible for me to charter a yacht for a reasonable amount of work equivalent then I may decide to work less. Do you really want the middle class choosing not to work as hard because they feel they are being singled out by punitive taxes?
The price of grain would go down not up. The government is currently paying farmers not to farm to artificially keep prices up. For obvious reasons that flows through to dairy, poultry and meat prices as well.