firstly, as others have pointed out, this is not a philosophical question.
secondly, what is very interesting in the facts here (and has been determined in every case when people have looked into euphoria) is that it totally pulls the rug out of below the believer's feet. one of the main reasons to believe in god was the sensation of god. "i know god exists" said the believer. then came those pesky little things called facts into the equation and the facts said "let me just give you this drug and you'll never experience god again. I'll give you another one and you'll experience god all the time". so where is god to be found? in an organ producing to much of a certain chemical? or in a supposed hyper-dimension outside time and space (or whatever this year's favourite theory is)?
almost, but they're not opinions. they're are both stating fact. Cullinane however has not disclosed his results or his research and is speaking at a microsoft sponsored event.
ah, i see it. you've fallen victim to one of the fallacies about software the proprietary software world has been feeding you.
you see, software can be copied indefinitely for zero cost. only one single person in the whole world would have to make the change you want and then you can benefit from it.
see how that's different from the proprietary world, where everybody has to individually buy and own the product and is forbidden from sharing it with others?
so the microsoft fanbois scream "linux is useless because it doesn't have any applications. the average person won't be able to use linux until it plays wmv files out of the box". where we answer "due to licensing restrictions, patents etc. etc. it is impossible for linux to play wmv or dvd or even mp3s out of the box".
now the shoe is on the other foot. vista doesn't have enough applications or drivers and the microsoft fanboi screams "how is that vista's fault?". as if he had ever been interested in the question of fault before that point.
it is also rather amusing that microsoft is obviously certifying software as supporting (or being supported by) vista where this plainly isn't the case.
but is it acceptable to wager and bet on the likelihood of mathematical errors in the most-used piece of software for mathematical purposes in the world? one error has been found. how many more are there? who knows?
from now on, any calculation i see done in excel will have to be double checked in another software (is that necessarily better?) or by hand. and there goes the main reason for using excel.
hard disks are large enough nowadays. manufacturers could put images of 20 operating systems on each one they deliver and then ask the customer for the code to activate one or more of them.
you are also ignoring the hundreds of millions of people who already have a windows license and could save money by transferring this license to their new computer.
i find this interesting. basically the geeks in their mothers' basements have produced an operating system that can go head to head with the best the richest monopoly in the world can offer and fails because "the touchpad is a bit sensitive" and "you have to download extra codecs"
we should be celebrating this, if those are the best reasons against using linux. the list of reasons against using windows is a lot longer and a lot more powerful.
no one was forcing microsoft to write their own anti-virus software. just like no one was forcing them to write their own media player.
that however is not the main difference between bundling in a linux distribution and bundling in windows. Linux is not made by one company but by hundreds of thousands of amateur and professional developers worldwide. commercial software for watching videos or browsing the web does not really exist for linux, so let's take a different example. what would happen if a bunch of amateur programmers got together and improved blender so far that it really ate into maya's sales? could maya scream anti-trust? no they couldn't. the blender code would presumably remain freely available for everybody and freedom is the most important thing for the gpl, be it freedom for the user to use the software for whatever he/she wants or freedom for the distributor to include whatever gpl or free software he/she wants.
what would happen, however, if microsoft invested billions of dollars in developing a competitor for maya and then released it free of charge bundled with the operating system? one would understandably be suspicious. why would microsoft want to do such a thing? it is clear why they introduced media player and internet explorer: they wanted to extend their monopoly into new fields. taking control of the net and common media formats was a good start.
you say "microsoft is damned if it does and damned if it doesn't" as if that's a reason to cut microsoft some slack. i do not agree. it is quite possible to be in a situation where there is no acceptable way out. microsoft is in this situation now.
the idea of competition is to produce a meritocracy. "and may the best man/document format win". now microsoft has great abilities when it comes to bribing governments and companies. these abilities do not however help the document format on my computer. they should therefore be irrelevant to a standardisation process.
about dell and ubuntu, the happiness rating of mr. public with vista is totally unimportant to dell. people will still buy computers and as long as top tier vendors only offer windows that's what people will be buying.
ubuntu results from dell being caught with its pants down on the dellideastorm webpage, and dell used the opportunity to dump old non-vista-capable stock for increased prices. now that their reserves of old hardware are getting low, dell's trying to get out of the deal. they have already reduced the extent of ubuntu computers. dell is very careful to not sell that many ubuntu pcs anyway. they are difficult to find on the webpage and available only for home users.
sorry to sound so negative, but it is quite disillusioning to see how a company can throw away the most important resource it can have: goodwill from the customers. by offering ubuntu dell acquired a huge amount of goodwill from geeks worldwide. now dell is kicking them in the teeth. goodwill is what makes people buy your product rather than the competitor's product. other ideas like "offer pcs without an os" have just been ignored, despite being the second highest rated idea on the website.
what annoys me is the transparency of the catamite/sodomite relationship between dell and microsoft. it's like the utter transparency of the ineptitude of the bush administration--they can at least pretend to be competent, can't they?
proprietary software doesn't work by having a marketing department performing studies and then offering the customer what he wants, it works by being the only possibility. it's called vendor lock-in. as we have seen with vista, microsoft can force us to use a dog of a product.
the point being that gnu/linux isn't just taking on microsoft. the linux kernel and the gnu toolchain are technically years ahead of vista. if it were a simple question of gnu/linux vs. windows, the war would have ended sometime in 1997.
it is however a case of gnu/linux vs. the entire world of proprietary software. a world with so much money that compatibility can only be bought on their terms. gnu/linux would have to become proprietary software to implement proprietary data formats or allow non-documented devices to work. instead of that, technically superior possibilities are being offered to us. ogg is technically superior to mp3, odf is technically superior to ooxml, lilypond is technically superior to finale files.
but how much does that help free software advocates to free others? if others insist on slavery, what can we do? one this is sure, we shouldn't implement these last 5% in gnu/linux: that would mean the end of everything gnu/linux stands for. it would mean the end of stallman's dream which has already produced the most remarkable software free of charge and open for the entire world running on the most remarkable hardware. throwing that away for out-of-the-box support for wmv files would be an act of utter idiocy.
more importantly, it means the the DOJ or whoever it is (have read TFA, have also forgotten it), doesn't have the capability of monitoring linux boxes (wtf?). this seems like an excellent selling point for linux.
not quite. how about: "what if you had already lent me your house on an eternal lease and i made a copy of your house in another state for me and my family to live in when i was visiting my friends there?"
exactly. gnu/linux or foss in general need people who use the software and submit bug reports! this is a totally novel idea for the users of most proprietary software. as an example: how many home computer users send a bug report or a feature request to microsoft when they don't like something in microsoft works and, if they did do this, what would be the outcome?
i often think that proprietary software by its very nature encourages people to divide it into two piles: "perfect" and "pile of crap" according to their gut reaction. when a software is in "pile of crap", the pc user tends to regard the software as "bad" and therefore undeserving of a bug report. the general thought is "why should i help these people when i've just spend money on their software and it doesn't work the way i want it to?". if the software is in the "perfect" category, the user often cannot bring themselves to admit that the software might have a bug and would instead regard it as their own lack of knowledge or some lovable quirk.
i often think, one of the most difficult tasks in the ubuntu project is to teach the hundreds of thousands of new users to think like foss users and contribute bug reports back to the community. that is so to speak the price of the software. instead of spending 500 euros on a software to do X, you could contribute a bug report every time something doesn't work quite right.
i think you mean to say: linux has a long way to go to support the particular laptop you have perfectly without any configuring by you. linux has supported my laptop perfectly without any configuring by me for 4 years now (with the exception of the winmodem, which i might well be able to configure if i ever needed it).
there is however another issue here. the proprietary nature of windows and most software used in large companies has reduced hardware development to a crawl. here we are in 2007 still stuck with 32-bit chips which boot in real mode and support the weirdest cisc-instructions for legacy reasons. it's bad enough that the hardware industry is microsoft's whore. i don't want it to become linux's whore as well. if the hardware manufacturers could just concentrate on producing the best hardware and then documented it, i'm sure computers could make a huge leap forwards.
Slashdot Mirror
firstly, as others have pointed out, this is not a philosophical question.
secondly, what is very interesting in the facts here (and has been determined in every case when people have looked into euphoria) is that it totally pulls the rug out of below the believer's feet. one of the main reasons to believe in god was the sensation of god. "i know god exists" said the believer. then came those pesky little things called facts into the equation and the facts said "let me just give you this drug and you'll never experience god again. I'll give you another one and you'll experience god all the time". so where is god to be found? in an organ producing to much of a certain chemical? or in a supposed hyper-dimension outside time and space (or whatever this year's favourite theory is)?
you can't be serious. does it really work like this?
sometimes, my naivity is just breath-taking...
almost, but they're not opinions. they're are both stating fact. Cullinane however has not disclosed his results or his research and is speaking at a microsoft sponsored event.
ah, i see it. you've fallen victim to one of the fallacies about software the proprietary software world has been feeding you.
you see, software can be copied indefinitely for zero cost. only one single person in the whole world would have to make the change you want and then you can benefit from it.
see how that's different from the proprietary world, where everybody has to individually buy and own the product and is forbidden from sharing it with others?
how amusing
so the microsoft fanbois scream "linux is useless because it doesn't have any applications. the average person won't be able to use linux until it plays wmv files out of the box". where we answer "due to licensing restrictions, patents etc. etc. it is impossible for linux to play wmv or dvd or even mp3s out of the box".
now the shoe is on the other foot. vista doesn't have enough applications or drivers and the microsoft fanboi screams "how is that vista's fault?". as if he had ever been interested in the question of fault before that point.
it is also rather amusing that microsoft is obviously certifying software as supporting (or being supported by) vista where this plainly isn't the case.
but is it acceptable to wager and bet on the likelihood of mathematical errors in the most-used piece of software for mathematical purposes in the world? one error has been found. how many more are there? who knows?
from now on, any calculation i see done in excel will have to be double checked in another software (is that necessarily better?) or by hand. and there goes the main reason for using excel.
hard disks are large enough nowadays. manufacturers could put images of 20 operating systems on each one they deliver and then ask the customer for the code to activate one or more of them.
you are also ignoring the hundreds of millions of people who already have a windows license and could save money by transferring this license to their new computer.
i find this interesting. basically the geeks in their mothers' basements have produced an operating system that can go head to head with the best the richest monopoly in the world can offer and fails because "the touchpad is a bit sensitive" and "you have to download extra codecs"
we should be celebrating this, if those are the best reasons against using linux. the list of reasons against using windows is a lot longer and a lot more powerful.
okey-dokey. time to put our money where our mouth has been the whole time. let's get coding :)
(do i want to know what sort of NDA the specs are going to be under?)
if they documented the interface, they wouldn't have to support it. someone else would do the work.
do you have a 64-bit operating system installed? just wondering. if you do. google for "bug eclipse 64-bit" or similar.
you may find this facetious of me, but there are things such as w3c, links, lynx and ircii, if you ever are stuck on the command-line.
no one was forcing microsoft to write their own anti-virus software. just like no one was forcing them to write their own media player.
that however is not the main difference between bundling in a linux distribution and bundling in windows. Linux is not made by one company but by hundreds of thousands of amateur and professional developers worldwide. commercial software for watching videos or browsing the web does not really exist for linux, so let's take a different example. what would happen if a bunch of amateur programmers got together and improved blender so far that it really ate into maya's sales? could maya scream anti-trust? no they couldn't. the blender code would presumably remain freely available for everybody and freedom is the most important thing for the gpl, be it freedom for the user to use the software for whatever he/she wants or freedom for the distributor to include whatever gpl or free software he/she wants.
what would happen, however, if microsoft invested billions of dollars in developing a competitor for maya and then released it free of charge bundled with the operating system? one would understandably be suspicious. why would microsoft want to do such a thing? it is clear why they introduced media player and internet explorer: they wanted to extend their monopoly into new fields. taking control of the net and common media formats was a good start.
you say "microsoft is damned if it does and damned if it doesn't" as if that's a reason to cut microsoft some slack. i do not agree. it is quite possible to be in a situation where there is no acceptable way out. microsoft is in this situation now.
the idea of competition is to produce a meritocracy. "and may the best man/document format win". now microsoft has great abilities when it comes to bribing governments and companies. these abilities do not however help the document format on my computer. they should therefore be irrelevant to a standardisation process.
about dell and ubuntu, the happiness rating of mr. public with vista is totally unimportant to dell. people will still buy computers and as long as top tier vendors only offer windows that's what people will be buying.
ubuntu results from dell being caught with its pants down on the dellideastorm webpage, and dell used the opportunity to dump old non-vista-capable stock for increased prices. now that their reserves of old hardware are getting low, dell's trying to get out of the deal. they have already reduced the extent of ubuntu computers. dell is very careful to not sell that many ubuntu pcs anyway. they are difficult to find on the webpage and available only for home users.
sorry to sound so negative, but it is quite disillusioning to see how a company can throw away the most important resource it can have: goodwill from the customers. by offering ubuntu dell acquired a huge amount of goodwill from geeks worldwide. now dell is kicking them in the teeth. goodwill is what makes people buy your product rather than the competitor's product. other ideas like "offer pcs without an os" have just been ignored, despite being the second highest rated idea on the website.
what annoys me is the transparency of the catamite/sodomite relationship between dell and microsoft. it's like the utter transparency of the ineptitude of the bush administration--they can at least pretend to be competent, can't they?
there are also such things as "ubuntu christian/muslim/satanic edition".
one waits of course for his noodliness.
someone was there before you: http://gaybuntu.com/
code name --- release name
- warty warthog --- 4.10
- hoary hedgehog --- 5.04
- breezy badger --- 5.10
- dapper drake --- 6.06
- edgy eft --- 6.10
- feisty fawn --- 7.04
let me guess, at the moment you're using a springboard-whidbey combo?proprietary software doesn't work by having a marketing department performing studies and then offering the customer what he wants, it works by being the only possibility. it's called vendor lock-in. as we have seen with vista, microsoft can force us to use a dog of a product.
the same goes for hardware.
the point being that gnu/linux isn't just taking on microsoft. the linux kernel and the gnu toolchain are technically years ahead of vista. if it were a simple question of gnu/linux vs. windows, the war would have ended sometime in 1997.
it is however a case of gnu/linux vs. the entire world of proprietary software. a world with so much money that compatibility can only be bought on their terms. gnu/linux would have to become proprietary software to implement proprietary data formats or allow non-documented devices to work. instead of that, technically superior possibilities are being offered to us. ogg is technically superior to mp3, odf is technically superior to ooxml, lilypond is technically superior to finale files.
but how much does that help free software advocates to free others? if others insist on slavery, what can we do? one this is sure, we shouldn't implement these last 5% in gnu/linux: that would mean the end of everything gnu/linux stands for. it would mean the end of stallman's dream which has already produced the most remarkable software free of charge and open for the entire world running on the most remarkable hardware. throwing that away for out-of-the-box support for wmv files would be an act of utter idiocy.
more importantly, it means the the DOJ or whoever it is (have read TFA, have also forgotten it), doesn't have the capability of monitoring linux boxes (wtf?). this seems like an excellent selling point for linux.
not quite. how about: "what if you had already lent me your house on an eternal lease and i made a copy of your house in another state for me and my family to live in when i was visiting my friends there?"
exactly. gnu/linux or foss in general need people who use the software and submit bug reports! this is a totally novel idea for the users of most proprietary software. as an example: how many home computer users send a bug report or a feature request to microsoft when they don't like something in microsoft works and, if they did do this, what would be the outcome?
i often think that proprietary software by its very nature encourages people to divide it into two piles: "perfect" and "pile of crap" according to their gut reaction. when a software is in "pile of crap", the pc user tends to regard the software as "bad" and therefore undeserving of a bug report. the general thought is "why should i help these people when i've just spend money on their software and it doesn't work the way i want it to?". if the software is in the "perfect" category, the user often cannot bring themselves to admit that the software might have a bug and would instead regard it as their own lack of knowledge or some lovable quirk.
i often think, one of the most difficult tasks in the ubuntu project is to teach the hundreds of thousands of new users to think like foss users and contribute bug reports back to the community. that is so to speak the price of the software. instead of spending 500 euros on a software to do X, you could contribute a bug report every time something doesn't work quite right.
i think you mean to say: linux has a long way to go to support the particular laptop you have perfectly without any configuring by you. linux has supported my laptop perfectly without any configuring by me for 4 years now (with the exception of the winmodem, which i might well be able to configure if i ever needed it).
there is however another issue here. the proprietary nature of windows and most software used in large companies has reduced hardware development to a crawl. here we are in 2007 still stuck with 32-bit chips which boot in real mode and support the weirdest cisc-instructions for legacy reasons. it's bad enough that the hardware industry is microsoft's whore. i don't want it to become linux's whore as well. if the hardware manufacturers could just concentrate on producing the best hardware and then documented it, i'm sure computers could make a huge leap forwards.