Sorry, doesn't cut it. I've had friends who were recommended laptops, and they still went through all hell getting them set up.
Better than wasting my time doing something i already know how to do
I've already pointed out that if you want to learn about how the kernel works, and how to configure hardware, it's an interesting exercise. If you already know how to do it, you know doubt have better things to do. I'd rather go write some
code than re-live my newbie days.
And if I already know how to do the install, it'll only take me about a half hour,
This doesn't follow. The fact that you understand how kernel modules are loaded, and how to configure and compile the kernel does not mean that you won't have to do a lot of busy work searching the web for info on drivers for the laptop, as well as making several attempts to compile the kernel until you've got all the right modules. You'd be surprised at how much time experience doesn't save you when it comes to fighting (poorly|un)supported hardware. The main
thing an experienced user has going for them is they're less inclined to buy borderline hardware
in the first place.
You got someplace thats gunna set that up for me?
Most Linux hardware shops are fairly flexible about choice of distribution. The good ones (NOT dell) will ship custom kernels that are up to date with the distribution.
I don't know if they'd accept requests for a laptop by brand.
Speaking from experience as someone who's often left to pick up the pieces because a misguided friend purchased from a windows-only shop, I don't think it's bad advice at all. I think you'll find that the aslab link I point to is fairly competitive after adding in the cost for Windows.
If you want to save $2- and spend hours on end of extra time, then that's fine. If you're timer is worth anything, you don't want to do this.
you can get linux free or very checply on cd
Yes, but how long does it take to set up when you're not sure that your hardware is 100% ? Laptops have much more proprietary hardware than desktops. If you waste 8 hours or so of your time setting it up, how much is that worth to you ?
if you have to go and buy an MS OS you have just added up to $200.00 or more to your laptop
Windows 9x OEM is no more than $100-. NT 4.0 comes free with the $100- student edition visual C++ (if you're a student).
If your time is worth any money, you will not buy from a vendor who won't preload Linux and set it up properly. Of course, if you got nothing better to do than waste time chasing up drivers for (poorly|un)supported hardware or you want to learn about kernel compilation/configuration, that's fine. But for those of us who have better things to do, it's much less of a hassle to get Linux preloaded.
Here's my shortlist of vendors who preload Linux on laptops:
You said something to the effect that buying a computer was similar to paying royalties. Clearly, it is not. You also claimed that buying CDs legitimises otherwise illegitimate behaviour. It does not. And now you resort to silly insults.
I'm not claiming I'm entitled to mp3's. I'm claiming that mp3's increase the overall sales of artists records
That's very good news then, because if it's true, then record companies will realise that it's in their best interests to give away MP3s. The ones that don't will go out of business.
TV was developed, movie companies cried that they would go bankrupt because no one would go to the movies anymore.
Again, one word: royalties. If the online music distributors such as napster pay royalties, I'd say your analogy would have some merit.
but because they're so paranoid and retarded
Have you ever run a succesful business before ? It pays to be paranoid. The reason that the more sucessful companies are paranoid is because the ones that weren't paranoid are all dead.
The first record company that finally embraces mp3's and returns to giving them out for free and promoting free mp3 giveaways, will be the first to make a breakthrough in their profits.
Good. But you should realise that these business decisions are for the record companies to make. You may believe that it's in their best interests to give stuff away, but that doesn't justify taking what they aren't prepared to give.
So did I. Using my above example, $700 for the computer, amounts to $1 per song of the ~600+ songs I've downloaded over the
past year and a half I've had the computer.
Money that you spend on your computer does not count as "royalties". The record companies and artists are not in any way a party to the transaction between you and the computer vendor. A lot of people have the misconception that buying a computer and getting online entitles them to get everything for free. That's not the way it works, at least not until PC vendors become more creative with their bundling arrangements (shudder)
Not to mention the CD's that I've subsequently purchased because of this.
Again, it's not the same thing -- you paid for the CDs, but you didn't pay for the online music.
Humans are great at multitasking when it comes to fysical activities. There's no biggie talking to a guy on the cellphone and
walking at the same time.. or riding a bike.
This is only true if the physical activities you mention don't require much concentration. I bet that someone who's just learned to ride a bike wouldn't find it so easy (-;
I pay for my computer, I pay for my modem, I pay for an internet hookup and I also pay for a IRC network service I chose to run. Now the gov't in all its wisdom expect me to PAY for online music to listen to or download??? DREAM ON dear politicians... it isn't going to happen.
You were doing quite well until you came up with this. The problem is that the record company and artist do not get any of the revenue from your computer (or internet hookup or IRC network service). You might as well argue that you paid for your car and therefore you shouldn't have to pay for gas. Just because you're connected to the internet does not mean that everything else is free all of a sudden.
Yeah, cars do pollute but their contribution to the economy is absolutely essential. Go ahead, restrict the use of cars and watch the unemployment skyrocke
This is also short-sighted. I'm surprised an automoblie nut would come up with this sort of rhetoric, because it's simlar to the kind of protectionist arguments rightists usually have the sense to see through. Look at it this way, people will have to get from (a) to (b) some way or other. So if everyone starts using public transport, the auto industry jobs will be replaced by an equal number of jobs in mass transit. If given the change, the mass transit system employs less people, then it's probably a more efficient industry. And a more efficient transit system will ultimately mean more money in everyohnes pocket which will mean, gues what ? More jobs.
For all the talk about how Microsoft doesn't innovate, there sure is lack of innovation in the opensource world. I've yet to see it. In fact there has never been a "killer app" for Linux.
TeX is a "killer app". You may not like it, or use it, but it is certainly a killer app, in fact the main reason I started using Linux was to have a decent TeX system. I'd also call apache a killer app.
As far as innovation is concerned, I consider Qt to be pretty impressive. I use it a lot from day to day, and it is cleanly designed and a pleasure to work with. It's also making its mark as a solid foundation for KDE.
Then I'd think that the robbers would have to shoulder at least part of the blame for perceived over-policing. Of course, it's easier for the communities with crime problems to point the finger at the police than it is for them to address (or even acknowledge) the greater problem.
What are you arguing? My point of view, not meant to be an absolute statement, is that it is harder for poor immigrants to enter the country, and I will add: legally.
That's odd, because if you're just talking about enterring, most of the Indian and Chinese students are poor when they enter.
If benefit and equally are contentious, than how are economic systems based on that principle?
They are not. That principle is a vague one, to have a basis for an economic system, you'd need to provide a clear statement of what you mean by "equally" and "benefit". A utilitarian and a Marxist might both consider the principle you stated to be important, but they would interpret those words differently.
One of the fundamental nitty-gritty issues here is the question of how it is decided that a policy does or does not benefit everyone equally.
To the failure of economic systems that treat all citizens equally: it is usually the (formerly) rich and powerful that have much to say about those failures.
Or perhaps there is disagreement as to what it means to "treat citizens equally".
Bill Gates alone could spend $150,000
a day and it would be 1000 years before he was broke.
First, that's not really relevant since you were talking about the profits of record companies, not the private assets of an individual. Second, you're assuming that his assets are liquid. They aren't.
These companies make an obscene amount of money.
The slashdot chorus keep chanting this, yet they are unable or unwilling to post numbers...
organizations that could bleed from every
orifice financially speaking for a thousand years and still be profitable
No such organisation exists. Why don't the napster crowd post some earnings figures ? Are they really too stupid to look it up (the big companies are public), or is it that the facts don't help their case ?
Not from organizations that bleed their artists, lay off
employees so the executives can make another million, and force chaff down the collective-public's throat.
Your making sweeping generalisations. It's probably a correct statement -- about say 5 or so of the larger companies in the RIAA.
Laws should benefit everyone equally.
Definitions of "benefit" and "equally" are contentious. It's interesting to note the lack of success of economic systems that are intended to "benefit everyone equally", as opposed to maximising utility.
It is harder to
get into the States now than ever...for the poor. If you have money, no problem.
This is just plain silly, and blatantly false. I'm in the US now, I have a reasonable amount of money, but this does not make it really easy.
Most of the Chinese and Indians have very little money when they enter the country, but accumulate a fair amount after working for a few years, but it's still not that easy for them to gain legal status even after they're "rich". Meanwhile, Bush is considering granting residency for illegal Mexicans.
Witness the myriad
protests and how they're handled.
They're handled a lot better than they are in most other countries.
This is a joke. Free file sharing is illegal, it is not immoral. Learn to separate the two.
I understand the difference between the two -- what you don't seem to understand is that I don't agree with you (in particular, I think file sharing is immoral under some circumstances)
Law is law, most laws written at the whim of the rich to benefit the rich, with a bone thrown to the rest of the country (in USA)
every once in a while.
That's interesting, because people rich and poor are flocking to the USA right now, many of them are leaving countries where laws are written supposedly for "the benefit of the poor".
So perhaps the police should go after the users instead. I agree that there are problems with using bounty hunters, however, the companies are within their rights to protect their property, indeed, it seems as though this is expected of them (what have the police done about internet piracy?)
Well, I must agree with your subject line, though for different reasons.
Second of all, are you going to take these people word for granted that the people using Napster or Bearshare or whatever is
actually a violator?
This is an obvious straw-man. No, bounty hunters are not infallible. That doesn't make them useless. (See: "Fallacy of excluded middles")
You can't even begin to list the various transgressions being done by the RIAA.
That would certainly explain why the slashdot mob are having such a hard time listing any such transgressions ! However, it doesn't explain the failure on their part to observe the transgressions committed on their part.
Creating a whole inductry of bounty hunters - is
that endorsed by right thinking Americans now?
Perhaps you would care to explain how the en-masse freeloading of the napster cult is "American". Their rhetoric sounds like a vulgar form of Marxism.
Using the threat of legal action against ISP when they have no case
I agree. I think they should throw the users in the slammer instead.
What about
Sharing with a few of my friends? eg: My Friend buys a copy of CD1. I buy a copy of CD2.
Cant we swap those? Especially , if i like just one song in CD2,
It clearly is illegal. However, the record companies probably don't care about it very much, because the scale is considerably less severe than the grand-scale freeloading the napster cult took part in.
Your argument is a variation on the argument that someone with no money is poor, and someone with $1- more than a poor person is poor (hence by induction, everyone is poor) The argument is unsound, though the flaw is not obvious.
Likewise, with your argument, the answer is that there is a difference between small-scale freeloading and grand-scale freeloading, and there is a lot of middle ground.
Yes, they are, but how does that imply that bounty hunters shouldn't be allowed to do the same ?
Or maybe you wouldn't mind if I followed you all day, took videos of you jaywalking and doing
other minor stuff,
Jaywalking is not "criminal". BTW, your analogy is not analogous ("proof by analogy is fraud" : Bjarne Stroustrup), because the bounty hunters are not pursuing any particular individual.
Your comment is interesting but also peripheral to the main point -- that a study without a control group is severely flawed to the point of being almost useless.
Since the study did not record information that would prove or falsify your conjecture, this and many other questions remain unanswered.
This is a shining example of the "slipper slope" fallacy (with a certain amount of "excluded middles" fallacy thrown in). It is not necessary to follow a "path" to its logical extreme, and the fact that one extreme is obviously bad does not in itself make the other extreme a solution.
The majority of people have nothing to loose by mandating free software
There is a difference between what benefits society in the long run, and what appears to the short-sighted to benefit "the majority of people". Mass dispossesion and forced redistribution of resources might seem like a great idea in the short term, but history has shown that it doesn't work very well in the long term.
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry, doesn't cut it. I've had friends who were recommended laptops, and they still went through all hell getting them set up.
Better than wasting my time doing something i already know how to do
I've already pointed out that if you want to learn about how the kernel works, and how to configure hardware, it's an interesting exercise. If you already know how to do it, you know doubt have better things to do. I'd rather go write some code than re-live my newbie days.
And if I already know how to do the install, it'll only take me about a half hour,
This doesn't follow. The fact that you understand how kernel modules are loaded, and how to configure and compile the kernel does not mean that you won't have to do a lot of busy work searching the web for info on drivers for the laptop, as well as making several attempts to compile the kernel until you've got all the right modules. You'd be surprised at how much time experience doesn't save you when it comes to fighting (poorly|un)supported hardware. The main thing an experienced user has going for them is they're less inclined to buy borderline hardware in the first place.
You got someplace thats gunna set that up for me?
Most Linux hardware shops are fairly flexible about choice of distribution. The good ones (NOT dell) will ship custom kernels that are up to date with the distribution. I don't know if they'd accept requests for a laptop by brand.
Speaking from experience as someone who's often left to pick up the pieces because a misguided friend purchased from a windows-only shop, I don't think it's bad advice at all. I think you'll find that the aslab link I point to is fairly competitive after adding in the cost for Windows.
If you want to save $2- and spend hours on end of extra time, then that's fine. If you're timer is worth anything, you don't want to do this.
you can get linux free or very checply on cd
Yes, but how long does it take to set up when you're not sure that your hardware is 100% ? Laptops have much more proprietary hardware than desktops. If you waste 8 hours or so of your time setting it up, how much is that worth to you ?
if you have to go and buy an MS OS you have just added up to $200.00 or more to your laptop
Windows 9x OEM is no more than $100-. NT 4.0 comes free with the $100- student edition visual C++ (if you're a student).
Here's my shortlist of vendors who preload Linux on laptops:
I encourage other posters to add to the list.
You said something to the effect that buying a computer was similar to paying royalties. Clearly, it is not. You also claimed that buying CDs legitimises otherwise illegitimate behaviour. It does not. And now you resort to silly insults.
I'm not claiming I'm entitled to mp3's. I'm claiming that mp3's increase the overall sales of artists records
That's very good news then, because if it's true, then record companies will realise that it's in their best interests to give away MP3s. The ones that don't will go out of business.
TV was developed, movie companies cried that they would go bankrupt because no one would go to the movies anymore.
Again, one word: royalties. If the online music distributors such as napster pay royalties, I'd say your analogy would have some merit.
but because they're so paranoid and retarded
Have you ever run a succesful business before ? It pays to be paranoid. The reason that the more sucessful companies are paranoid is because the ones that weren't paranoid are all dead.
The first record company that finally embraces mp3's and returns to giving them out for free and promoting free mp3 giveaways, will be the first to make a breakthrough in their profits.
Good. But you should realise that these business decisions are for the record companies to make. You may believe that it's in their best interests to give stuff away, but that doesn't justify taking what they aren't prepared to give.
Money that you spend on your computer does not count as "royalties". The record companies and artists are not in any way a party to the transaction between you and the computer vendor. A lot of people have the misconception that buying a computer and getting online entitles them to get everything for free. That's not the way it works, at least not until PC vendors become more creative with their bundling arrangements (shudder)
Not to mention the CD's that I've subsequently purchased because of this.
Again, it's not the same thing -- you paid for the CDs, but you didn't pay for the online music.
This is only true if the physical activities you mention don't require much concentration. I bet that someone who's just learned to ride a bike wouldn't find it so easy (-;
You were doing quite well until you came up with this. The problem is that the record company and artist do not get any of the revenue from your computer (or internet hookup or IRC network service). You might as well argue that you paid for your car and therefore you shouldn't have to pay for gas. Just because you're connected to the internet does not mean that everything else is free all of a sudden.
There is a subtle difference -- raido stations pay royalties. HTH,
try here.
They provide Linux support ? This is news to me ! I thought they just dumped a default RH install on the hard drive.
This is also short-sighted. I'm surprised an automoblie nut would come up with this sort of rhetoric, because it's simlar to the kind of protectionist arguments rightists usually have the sense to see through. Look at it this way, people will have to get from (a) to (b) some way or other. So if everyone starts using public transport, the auto industry jobs will be replaced by an equal number of jobs in mass transit. If given the change, the mass transit system employs less people, then it's probably a more efficient industry. And a more efficient transit system will ultimately mean more money in everyohnes pocket which will mean, gues what ? More jobs.
Not clear how. It really is quite an old article.
TeX is a "killer app". You may not like it, or use it, but it is certainly a killer app, in fact the main reason I started using Linux was to have a decent TeX system. I'd also call apache a killer app.
As far as innovation is concerned, I consider Qt to be pretty impressive. I use it a lot from day to day, and it is cleanly designed and a pleasure to work with. It's also making its mark as a solid foundation for KDE.
Then I'd think that the robbers would have to shoulder at least part of the blame for perceived over-policing. Of course, it's easier for the communities with crime problems to point the finger at the police than it is for them to address (or even acknowledge) the greater problem.
That's odd, because if you're just talking about enterring, most of the Indian and Chinese students are poor when they enter.
If benefit and equally are contentious, than how are economic systems based on that principle?
They are not. That principle is a vague one, to have a basis for an economic system, you'd need to provide a clear statement of what you mean by "equally" and "benefit". A utilitarian and a Marxist might both consider the principle you stated to be important, but they would interpret those words differently.
One of the fundamental nitty-gritty issues here is the question of how it is decided that a policy does or does not benefit everyone equally.
To the failure of economic systems that treat all citizens equally: it is usually the (formerly) rich and powerful that have much to say about those failures.
Or perhaps there is disagreement as to what it means to "treat citizens equally".
Bill Gates alone could spend $150,000 a day and it would be 1000 years before he was broke.
First, that's not really relevant since you were talking about the profits of record companies, not the private assets of an individual. Second, you're assuming that his assets are liquid. They aren't.
These companies make an obscene amount of money.
The slashdot chorus keep chanting this, yet they are unable or unwilling to post numbers ...
That's a silly analogy (indeed, most analogies are). The freeloaders are not "victims of robbers". They are more analogous to the robbers.
No such organisation exists. Why don't the napster crowd post some earnings figures ? Are they really too stupid to look it up (the big companies are public), or is it that the facts don't help their case ?
Not from organizations that bleed their artists, lay off employees so the executives can make another million, and force chaff down the collective-public's throat.
Your making sweeping generalisations. It's probably a correct statement -- about say 5 or so of the larger companies in the RIAA.
Laws should benefit everyone equally.
Definitions of "benefit" and "equally" are contentious. It's interesting to note the lack of success of economic systems that are intended to "benefit everyone equally", as opposed to maximising utility.
It is harder to get into the States now than ever...for the poor. If you have money, no problem.
This is just plain silly, and blatantly false. I'm in the US now, I have a reasonable amount of money, but this does not make it really easy. Most of the Chinese and Indians have very little money when they enter the country, but accumulate a fair amount after working for a few years, but it's still not that easy for them to gain legal status even after they're "rich". Meanwhile, Bush is considering granting residency for illegal Mexicans.
Witness the myriad protests and how they're handled.
They're handled a lot better than they are in most other countries.
I understand the difference between the two -- what you don't seem to understand is that I don't agree with you (in particular, I think file sharing is immoral under some circumstances)
Law is law, most laws written at the whim of the rich to benefit the rich, with a bone thrown to the rest of the country (in USA) every once in a while.
That's interesting, because people rich and poor are flocking to the USA right now, many of them are leaving countries where laws are written supposedly for "the benefit of the poor".
So perhaps the police should go after the users instead. I agree that there are problems with using bounty hunters, however, the companies are within their rights to protect their property, indeed, it seems as though this is expected of them (what have the police done about internet piracy?)
Second of all, are you going to take these people word for granted that the people using Napster or Bearshare or whatever is actually a violator?
This is an obvious straw-man. No, bounty hunters are not infallible. That doesn't make them useless. (See: "Fallacy of excluded middles")
You can't even begin to list the various transgressions being done by the RIAA.
That would certainly explain why the slashdot mob are having such a hard time listing any such transgressions ! However, it doesn't explain the failure on their part to observe the transgressions committed on their part.
Creating a whole inductry of bounty hunters - is that endorsed by right thinking Americans now?
Perhaps you would care to explain how the en-masse freeloading of the napster cult is "American". Their rhetoric sounds like a vulgar form of Marxism.
Using the threat of legal action against ISP when they have no case
I agree. I think they should throw the users in the slammer instead.
It clearly is illegal. However, the record companies probably don't care about it very much, because the scale is considerably less severe than the grand-scale freeloading the napster cult took part in.
Your argument is a variation on the argument that someone with no money is poor, and someone with $1- more than a poor person is poor (hence by induction, everyone is poor) The argument is unsound, though the flaw is not obvious.
Likewise, with your argument, the answer is that there is a difference between small-scale freeloading and grand-scale freeloading, and there is a lot of middle ground.
Yes, they are, but how does that imply that bounty hunters shouldn't be allowed to do the same ?
Or maybe you wouldn't mind if I followed you all day, took videos of you jaywalking and doing other minor stuff,
Jaywalking is not "criminal". BTW, your analogy is not analogous ("proof by analogy is fraud" : Bjarne Stroustrup), because the bounty hunters are not pursuing any particular individual.
Since the study did not record information that would prove or falsify your conjecture, this and many other questions remain unanswered.
This is a shining example of the "slipper slope" fallacy (with a certain amount of "excluded middles" fallacy thrown in). It is not necessary to follow a "path" to its logical extreme, and the fact that one extreme is obviously bad does not in itself make the other extreme a solution.
The majority of people have nothing to loose by mandating free software
There is a difference between what benefits society in the long run, and what appears to the short-sighted to benefit "the majority of people". Mass dispossesion and forced redistribution of resources might seem like a great idea in the short term, but history has shown that it doesn't work very well in the long term.