To pin ALL blame for this on Debian shows no understanding of what the issues are.
Not really, if one understands the concepts of dilution (in this context) and goodwill.
"Firefox" is a well-known and increasingly liked and respected brand of Web browser. The Mozilla folks just want to make sure it stays that way. If anyone could just take the code, do to/with it whatever they please, AND still call it "Firefox", that name would cease to enjoy the very positive reputation it now has.
There are many cases where a "parent" ogranization suffers a schism and a new "child" organization is born as a result. Look at the various Protestant churches. Various charitiable organizations. The point is that when folks at large begin to associate a name or logo (a brand) with a quality or concept that the creator(s) worked hard to build up over time, the last thing the creators want is for someone to jump in, glom onto the thing and either mutate it until it sucks or take all the credit for it.
I know that if I use a Firefox browser, I will be getting whatever core functionality the Mozilla.com developers intended to deliver plus whatever additions/expansions their API allows (which is a main benefit of Firefox over IE, although Microsloth is playing catch-up there with its latest Buggy Bloatware release, namely IE7, complete with new and improved security flaws).
From what I understand, Mozilla's product is Open Source, but the brand name, "Firefox", is available for use in derivative products with some very reasonable restrictions/caveats. I don't see any problem with that. If you don't like the rules, I doubt you would have much problem claiming a spinoff was "based on Firefox version ". Claiming it is still Firefox without Mozilla's approval just isn't right as they have too much vested in building up that brand name to let just anyone adopt it as their own.
Brand marketing is not just for for-profit organizations. Like it or not, public image matters.
"So which OS are you thinking of that _wouldn't_ be classified as a 'lemon' ?"
Almost any OS that is free... After all, it is hard to argue that Ubuntu (for example), should be flawless when it costs nothing and is in fact shipped out at someone else's expense if one asks for a few sets of the install discs. I run Ubuntu and although I've used Red Hat back when it (as opposed to Fedora) was free, I never really got into Linux. Ubuntu I am working to learn well enough that I never have to infect any of my own systems with the buggy bloatware known as Windows again, at least not at my expense.
The good thing about the news surrounding the impending spread of Vista is that it isn't likely to happen as fast as Microsoft wants or would have the general public believe. Why waste money on a bigger, slower, pile of crapware from Microsoft when it offers nothing substantial in the way of practical improvements over the mess that is XP? What I'm reading these days is that the Vista release is being given the yawn treatment by many IT professionals.
As far as I can tell, since I don't care about cutesy but useless special effects (read: the Aero interface), there is nothing I want to do with an MS OS that XP doesn't do about as well as Vista is likely to, with much less risk of new bugs and security holes. The risk to my wallet is virtually nil with Ubuntu. There are other free Linuxes available and there is much better and affordable support for them than there is from Microsoft for Windows.
Also, XP has been given the acid test for a few years now and a lot of serious problems with it have been corrected to a large degree with the numerous patches and service packs MS has deigned to release for it. In fact, I'm worried that security will be much worse on Vista than it is on XP since 3rd party security vendors are being prevented by Microsoft from hooking in at the level their code needs to run at to be most effective. I don't trust Microsoft to handle security issues. It has a pathetic track record. The programmers at MS clearly don't understand their own code.
My copies of Ubuntu were delivered to me upon request, cost me nothing, installed and are updated easily, and work quite well. I run OpenOffice and use a lot of GNU programs as well as other FOSS.
If an automaker and its unhappy vict^H^H^H^Hcustomers keep finding major safety issues and design flaws in a line of cars, flaws that required fix after repair after parts replacement, all of which fail to correct the underlying problem(s), I think the manufacturer would be forced to recall the cars. Certainly lemon laws would apply in many states!
How about a recall on Microsoft Windows XP? Microsoft could probably weasel its way into exchanging the clearly defective copies of XP for copies of Vista, which it can and does claim is better in every way. I doubt it. But that would let Microsoft postpone the bitter end, when it is forced to admit it can't deliver a good, stable, secure OS and has development teams bogged down in a morass consisting of their own icky code.
who thinks that the vast majority of MS Office purchases (like 95%) are businesses? last time I checked, businesses didn't shop at Walmart or their equivalent when purchasing their software.
Can you say "Sam's Club"? Let's not forget about "walmart.com", either. Although I have been a Sam's Club member for most of my adult life (about two decades), I was surprised to find that many small- and some medium-sized businesses do a lot of their shopping at Sam's Club. I thought the business angle was there to emphasis the "warehouse store" hype, but apparently if you own a restaurant and need supplies, Sam's Club is not bad, especially if you need them yesterday. A lot of business people do not particularly like computers but know they need to use them. It is terribly convenient to grab HW and/or SW when one is buying the week's mundane crap at Wally World.
I suspect that all of what I said above applies to the shoppers, businesses and stores in the UK as well as the US. I have worked at an major U.S. office supply (chain) store when I was between geek jobs recently and found that a lot of customers would buy computers or software the way they buy office furniture or supplies -- without much research...almost on impulse. That is especially true when a big sale is going on. People will come in for the sale on a computer and end up buying non-sale related stuff while they are there.
Think about how many people will buy a store brand (nearly generic) of an item when it sits right next to the well known branded good and the salesperson says it is a much better deal. Seeing the MS product sitting next to a relatively unknown product that costs maybe 1/3 as much is enough to convince some tightwads to take a chance on a strange office suite, especially if it does pretty much was MS Office does in much the same manner. Yes, people trust sales people on such matters, far more than many geeks would believe. MS has a better time (at retail) with Windows because almost no OTS computers come with Linux or some other OS installed. I am fairly sure that is why MS has bundled Office trial ware with more and more systems these days... "The first two months are free!" *snicker*
There is absolutely no truth what so ever in this hypothesis of yours.
And what hypothesis might that be?
People don't complain (or do anything to reduce) excessive taxes they don't know about. In the U.S., most people subject to ordinary sales taxes are aware of those taxes, the rate(s), and what they apply to, at least in their hometowns.
Taxes on fuel (gasoline) are typically hidden (buried). Occasionally I will see a sign that at least partially describes the real situation, that federal, state, and local taxes make up a large fraction of what consumers pay at the gas pump -- but that sign is usually small and unobtrusive, if it is there at all.
I go into a local restaurant and I know that I will pay an extra 10% of the bill to the government. For what is not clear. There is no reason food should be taxed at a much higher rate in restaurants than it is at the grocery store.
When I went to look up what gas taxes are these days, I found a site which lists gasoline tax information on a state by state basis. The list does NOT include the federal tax of 18.4 cents per gallon, nor does it emphasis the fact that in most places, sales taxes also apply. A great way to reduce the cost of gas at the pump would be to eliminate all federal gas taxes. That would save around twenty cents (remember, it costs the government money to collect gas taxes) per gallon right off the bat and also put pressure on the various states to do away with their outrageous gas taxes if they already impose onerous sales taxes.
Here in Finland a litre of 95 octane gas costs about 1.263e (1.295 for 98 octane and 1.008 for diesel).
Baahhh, baaahhhhh!
How much of the price you pay in Finland for gas goes to taxes?
One of the most effective ways to bring down gas prices in the U.S. would be for dealers to post just the price they charge per gallon with a "*" next to it, followed by an explanatory note: "(*) The federal, state, and local taxes on each gallon total $ -- blame your government for that!"
That signage would be particularly effective in your country, if it was allowed by your government.
Note that I said "your government", not "the government". Here in the states, the People do retain some modicum of control over their government, but our government is always working to make us forget that fact. The People are a major inconvenience to government, except when it comes time to pay up.
Finland is disgustingly socialist by U.S. standards, although we are letting our government slide in that direction. Right now, raising gas taxes to Finnish rates would be one of the few things that might inspire real political revolution in the U.S. There is no valid justification for such high taxes as you pay for gasoline...or many other things.
Posture Minder? I can't believe anybody would pay for a gimmick that nags them like their mommy (and maybe nuns in grade school if they are Roman Catholic:-) did when they were little kids.
"Sit up straight!"..."Don't slouch!"..."Keep your elbows off the table!" Who needs that crap?
Then again, the kind of sick masochistic fitness freaks who buy into the "No pain, no gain." nonsense are notorious for spending big bucks on fancy home gyms, trendy weight loss products, and the health-food/weight-loss plan/diet of the week... I just think of Eule Gibbons, pitchman for Post Grape Nuts, who died of a heart attack after years of promoting his own wacky notion of a healthy diet.
I don't discount bad posture as being a root cause of many kinds of bone, joint, and muscle pain people experience as they grow older. On the other hand, I know for damn sure that I won't be writing great code if I'm being nagged by a program that doesn't like the way I sit/slouch at the keyboard. I might not be writing great code anyway, but at least I'll be comfortable while getting nothing useful done!
I came across this relevent.sig when researching this reply:
Life should not be a journey to the grave with the hope of arriving safely in a pretty and well preserved body, but rather throughly used up, totally worn out, and loudly procaiming,"WOW WHAT A RIDE[!]"
I have never understood why so many people, many of them fairly bright, would pay for overpriced logowear such as the iPod instead of getting a much better MP3 player for less money. I have typically referred to the oh-so-trendy clowns who do waste their money in such a manner as "iPodiots".
But maybe many iPodiots aren't quite as stupid as I thought. Nobody can tell where they get the tunes they have on their players -- there is no iPod logo on each cut that they can show off to prove how hip (sheeplike?) they are -- so they do the smart thing and get their music for their expensive iPod brand players at far more reasonable rates than the ripoff prices the iStore charges.
Brand managers probably hate people like me, especially when we are outspoken. That gives me the warm fuzzies...or something.
If I want instant access to information, the web is my only choice.
I agree. The Web has changed the very way I live life and enhanced the experience in ways that email has not. I've had email addresses of one form or another for over two decades, since long before the Internet or email and certainly the Web became household words. There is not a whole lot I can't accomplish via phone and/or fax combined with snail mail and UPS/FedEx. (The USPS ought to have its monopoly on 1st Class Mail removed...competition would result in either a good Postal Service or a lot of postal workers looking for real jobs...but I digress.)
The key here, for me, is that the Web offers features and services available nowhere else. I am an information junkie. These days, when I read something and a term or concept I come across piques my interest, I just Google it to satisfy my curiosity. I learn a LOT this way. The Web enables me to do my job and most anything else I want to do better than I could if I had to go to the library or shop via mail order catalogs. It has replaced TV as my primary entertainment and news medium. (I don't have a TV at the moment and really don't miss it as much as I thought I would.)
One thing I do know is that as an IT professional, my life would be very complicated if I didn't have email. Anybody working in IT is expected to have at least one email address these days. Explaining why I don't have email when it is obvious that I do use the Web a lot would be awkward, to say the least. But there is nothing about email per se that I could not find an alternative workaround for. I am talking about not using anything to send or receive email that involves standard email addresses or kludged up substitutes for same.
I'm sticking with the spirit of the question and still think I could get by without the kind of conversations I have via email a lot more comfortably than I could get by without the Web. Explaining to people I know why I don't use email or even have an email address would be an interesting challenge. I couldn't even use a religious excuse, as everyone who knows me well is aware of my agnostic nature.
The Web is what allows me to learn a programming language new to me (Perl, PHP, etc.) and download technical information about computer hardware, software and networking as well as do basic research on almost any subject/topic for people who are not 'Net savvy without wasting a lot of my time.
That part, using the Web as an extension of my mind, is what matters most to me. There are simply a lot of things I (can) do and know now that I couldn't without the Web because it makes a whole slew of resources available to me almost immediately. I often feel like Trinity in The Matrix when Neo asks her if she can fly a particular helicopter and she responds, "Not yet." Then she proceeds to have Tank load her up with the flight training for a Huey B-212... I like that scene because I enjoy surprising people by demonstrating just how quickly I can find an answer on the Web to some question that comes up in conversation. While looking up that scene prior to writing the above, I was reminded of the goof it contains: the image of the helicopter on the training program is not the one for the helicopter she asked for and does indeed learn to fly on the spot. The Web is a great fact checking tool.
GIYF means something to me but I feel right at home doing all kinds of research on the Web using a wide variety of Web sites. I hate touchy-feely, oh-so-politically-correct speak and psycho babble, but I do find the Web to be very empowering, much more so than email.
Uh, make sure to identify your official and unofficial trademarks. It's well-known for years that Microsoft has the de facto trademark on Gaping Security Holes(tm) and Big Gaping Security Holes(tm) (note they're not registered). There are really very few things where MS innovates - let's give them credit where it's due.
Microsoft is clearly an innovator in creative use, maintenance, and enforcement of monopoly power in the marketplace. It seems to have "borrowed" a few tricks from other companies as far as dodging legal consequences for its misbehavior in the U.S. go, although the usually lame EU seems to be less intimidated (I wonder why?:-)
In the States, we have a situation that might well be described as "he who has the most lawyers wins". Microsoft can afford to pay for lawyers by the garbage barge load, and does so. Few other companies I can think of would be so bold as to use Gaping Security Holes(tm) as a means of forcing people to use their lame Internet Explorer Web browser with its notoriously exploitable ActiveX support to install patches which often introduce new bugs or even malware (Windows Genuine (dis)Advantage) when those people would otherwise use a quality browser such as Firefox or Opera.
I have no problem with companies that become successful because they provide new or technically superior goods and services. I have a problem when they are allowed to dominate the marketplace by stifling the competition, especially when the competition has better goods or services that can and do benefit the consumer. One solution to the Microsoft monopoly would be to force it to truly unbundle its browser, Internet Explorer, from all of its other products.
IE should have to be downloaded and installed, just the way competing browsers are, unless Microsoft wants to include them on a list of browsers a user can choose from and install along with Windows when a system is being set up. Microsoft should be ordered to make all of its support services that are associated with Windows and/or Microsoft Update available to users who chose other browsers that have reasonable support for industry standard scripting. People should not be forced to expand upon existing security flaws built into Windows by having to use IE to get security patches and other software updates from Microsoft. There is absolutely no technical reason why one should have to use MS Buggy Bloatware such as IE when better, more secure browsers exist.
Your main point, that Microsoft is rarely the source of innovation in the software industries it dominates by monopolistic muscle, is absolutely correct IMNSHO. I'd love to have the choice of walking into a store and buying a machine with no OS, or some non-Microsoft OS pre-installed on it. Why should consumers be forced to pay for crap like MS Windows Home or Media Center Edition when they buy a computer off the shelf? Microsoft enforces its monopoly powers by making it very difficult for people to get systems with other or no OS installed on systems they buy at retail. Just go into any major office supply or consumer electronics store and see for yourself what operating system will come bundled with the machines sold there, even if you would rather buy the machine bare so you can install your own favorite operating system. I suspect many people would choose to take a discount equivalent to the amount the manufacturer pays Microsoft for the version of Windows it pre-installs and then install an alternative OS.
Making that choice (either no OS or any of several popular OSes including Windows as an option) available to all consumers would be a great way to force Microsoft to compete fairly. It would also promote real competition in the OS market and undoubtedly inspire more innovation therein, maybe even from Microsoft!:-)
From what I have been reading, Microsoft is designing Vista in such a way as to make it difficult for products that compete with whatever token security schemes Microsoft is planning to foist upon its hapless user base to be installed and/or run properly. Microsoft should make any and all APIs necessary to implement alternative (read: better) security solutions for Vista public. If it doesn't, I think it is fair to say that Microsoft is once again using proprietary standards/code to stifle the competition. That seems like a clear anti-trust violation, given Microsoft's technically undeserved but nonetheless practical monopoly of the commercial desktop PC operating system market.
Like most things that Microsoft touts as benefiting the user (think Windows Genuine (Dis)Advantage, DRM, and the "recommended" options on various configuration pages), whatever so-called security Microsoft puts into Vista will undoubtedly profit Microsoft first and the user as a mere afterthought, assuming that Microsoft can think up a good marketing gimmick to scare users into paying for it.
I'm still planning on not wasting money on yet another overpriced, under performing piece of Microsoft Buggy Bloatware, namely Vista. Ubuntu Linux is working well for me and doesn't seem to suffer from the gaping security holes most major Microsoft products (Windows, Office, and IE) are infamous for.
I must admit that Microsoft has a lot of nerve, trying to exclude competitors from cleaning up the security disaster that Vista is expected to be, so that it can make users dumb enough to buy Vista also pay through the nose to fix flaws that wouldn't be there if Microsoft sold quality programs in the first place.
Good idea! Useful information about how to email the NYTimes, too! I'd recommend BBCing any email feedback if it is sent to more than one of those NYTimes addresses, lest it be detected as a mass mailing and auto-ignored. Maybe one of the drones who works there will notice that tech savvy people tend to avoid IE and very few people use Macs much.
Maybe the reason the NYTimes is losing its subscriber base is that their (former) customers with a clue know more about today's tech gear than the NYTimes senior management, including the technology editor... (I have a very low opinion of the NYTimes..."all the pablum the brain-dead will pay for" sums it up nicely.) I rarely bother clicking on links to the NYTimes since the news is usually (but not always) covered better elsewhere. Check out stories linked to on Google News to see what I mean.
FWIW, I run Ubuntu Linux (I have no intention of wasting my money on Vista or other buggy bloateware such as M$ Office -- OpenOffice works fine for me) and WinXP Pro (x64 Edition, too). Linux is getting better. Winblows is going downhill. MacOS isn't even in the running as there is nothing I want to do that justifies buying overpriced products from Apple. Increasingly, I favor FOSS and avoid expensive proprietary crap.
Hmmm. Now that I think about it, there is nothing in the NYTimes that justifies buying more than a handful of printed issues in any given year -- anything really newsworthy is covered extensively elsewhere, although the NYTimes does have a dwindling reputation for being a news leader (e.g., other news media tend to jump on whatever is covered in the NYTimes.) When it will dawn on the major media outlets that good, non-proprietary media players are increasingly available and popular? Then again, Apple makes most of its profits these days from Ipodiots... I guess it is never wise to underestimate the stupidity of the average human being. The NYTimes editorials are what used to cause me to buy the occasional issue, but now I can always find the best ones quoted in full online. GIYF.
I wonder if this story will be well covered in the NYTimes? It would be fun to see it picked up by FOX News... *snicker*
I wish more people would post succinct summaries/highlights of articles that make one wade through short page after short page with only a little content but a lot of ads and other dreck on each page. Sites where one used to be able to just click on Print often don't even offer that option for those of us who want to skim an entire article on one page.
Your summary gave me just the info I was curious about: the names of the nine companies in question. Good job!
Have you considered trying to summarize U.S. foreign policy as it relates to the Middle East?
You're like the soundtrack of my life - I listen to you all the time, and I really can't wait for that next CD you're working on. I know you've been working on it all year and everything, but you won't mind if I just rip my copy off, right?
You've got a very warped image of fandom, there. Think Grateful Dead. People who really like an artist will usually go out and buy "stuff" (material goods) associated with that artist. They will also subscribe to forums, services, etc. about/from said artist -- and are likely to be willing to pay to do so. What true Green Day fan (I don't even know WTF Green day is all about, except that it involves trendy music...*yawn*...I've never been much into pop music) would not like to participate on a forum where the band members (or their flaks) post news and reply to user comments? Most pop bands (the kind RIAA and its ilk make a killing from as they sell zillions of grossly overpriced recordings) do concert tours. Those are very real things to experience and while bootleg recordings can (and are made) there is nothing like being at a good live concert.
If it suddenly became perfectly legal to copy and distribute commercial music and video recordings for personal use (read: not for profit), we would not see any precipitous drop in the quantity or quality of movies and music available to the public. What we would see is an entirely different marketing strategy -- one tied to material things that cannot be copied. Is an original edition Mickey Mantle baseball card with an authentic, handwritten (not machine generated) signature from the baseball player himself worth more than a replica of a decades old card with a reproduction of his signature on it? You bet!
The kids mentioned in the original article seem to understand (somehow) that only the legitimate copyright holder should be able to make a business out of selling his works but that copies that are made and passed around for personal use are (and should be) a fact of living in today's increasingly technological world, where anything that can be cheaply and easily recorded almost certainly will be.
Letting these kids perform jury nullification on many of today's obsolete IP laws would greatly improve the world we all live in.
It seems that most kids today are coming to the realization that copying data for personal use isn't theft, as a practical matter and shouldn't be as a legal matter. The source they copy the information (be it software, a movie, or music) from still retains exactly the same use of the information as it had before the copy was made -- NOTHING is missing or stolen.
I'd really like to see FIJA (Fully Informed Jury Amendment) implemented so that these kids could just use their common sense to effectively nullify the efforts of despicable organizations such as RIAA and MPAA in court. These kids seem to understand the idea of "No harm, no foul."
And even if AOL lose they've marked the spot with a big X. There are going to be plenty of people believing that there is gold hidden on the property and they'll all be sneaking around and digging holes hoping to get a piece of the treasure. It'll be worse than an invasion of moles (or whatever the local burrowing creatures are.)
AOL would be smart to enlist the few remaining people who are stupid enough to pay for AOHell services, by offering the gullible fools a chance to *S*T*R*I*K*E *G*O*L*D* !!!. [insert typically flashy AOL marketing letter here]
Anyone dumb enough to be an AOL subscriber is almost certainly going to be eager to buy another year's susbcription to win a chance to dig ALL THE GOLD A PERSON CAN CARRY out of some spammer's backyard. No gold need actually be buried there...
As much as I loathe AOL, I despise spammers. I can't think of any more fitting punishment for a spammer than to have hordes of AOLusers digging up his family's yard.
"interesting idea. So is it just you and your friends who get to take the product for free under this system, whilst laughing at the poor schmucks who paid for it and made your actions possible?"
Exactly what has been taken? It isn't like a tangible thing (made of matter/energy) which, when you take it, means someone else is deprived of it. It is information that is expressed as a bit pattern.
Having had my own software pirated, I had to confront this question years ago. I can't say that I know how the IP issues ought to be addressed, but it is safe to say that grabbing a copy of a program from someone else is very different than stealing or even borrowing their car.
The worst that software companies can claim as true damages is lost revenues -- that a software pirate would have paid somewhere close to the going rate for the program if he didn't get a free copy somehow. It would be nice if they had to prove that claim in each and every case of software piracy they prosecute. Given that most people who pirate software would not (and could not afford to) pay anywhere close to the advertised prices for it, that would be hard to do.
It might be quite appropriate if software companies could only demand that they be compensated (at most) for some realistic minimum value they actually put on their software, say the amount they can be held liable for under their own contractual licensing agreement(s). In Microsoft's case, the value of their major software packages is really what, $5, according to the MS EULA? It isn't as if Microsoft is claiming its software will do much in particular...read the whole EULA if you haven't done so already.
They are as much as admitting that it isn't worth what they ask for it.:-) How long do you think MS would remain solvent if it had to compensate the users of its buggy bloatware when it fails to operate correctly because of a serious design flaw or programming error, the way automakers have to do when their products fail miserably? Can GM limit its liability to $5 in cases where its cars blow up or exhibit sudden brake failure?
I'm unsure as to how commercial software should be priced, but I think it would be best if the government was not put in the position of penalizing people who haven't done any real harm. That would be very difficult in cases where those who use copied software for other than commercial purposes are concerned. It would be fairly easy in cases where a firm sells product created with commercial compilers, word processors, or editors, or services that depend on commercial DBMS packages. Little Timmy doesn't cost the vendor of Grand Theft Starship: The Revenge of Mario a dime if he snags a copy from his pal Suzi. At worst, if they can show he was clearly able to purchase a copy and did play the pirated one a lot, they ought to get compensated for the street value of the program and Timmy ought to get a citation or something for being a Bad Boy(tm).
Now, if Little Timmy goes into business selling copies of GTS-RM to all his friends at school for ten bucks a pop, then the penalties ought to be fairly harsh, because he is selling (for profit) what isn't his. Cases where Timmy sells it for just enough to cover his cost of distribution are still questionable, but one could argue that he still profits by gaining goodwill (something accountants think they can actually quantify).
Despite the fact that this reply will probably be moderated down as trolling, I will repeat my question: Why would anyone want a Mac? I'll even change it slightly, to better reflect what puzzles me: Why would anyone who isn't already locked into the proprietary Mac world want to purchase one?
There is nothing I want to do with a computer that just screams "Macintosh!" at me, and I do a lot more and varied things with computers than most computer users ever dream of. Why a person would buy a Wintel machine is obvious: it is the default, it offers competitively priced apps and features, it is well supported by the majority of vendors in the microcomputer industry, and one can always use the hardware to run some flavor of Linux/Unix or even something more unusual.
If MacOS (which is really all that defines a Mac now that the hardware is Wintel compatible) is such hot shit, how come Apple hasn't made a killing selling it to frustrated Windows users? I certainly hear and read a lot of legitimate gripes about Winblows (even if you don't count the ones that come from me!), but I just don't see a big demand for Macs from anyone but the hardcore Macweenies. You certainly don't see Linux users complaining that they wished they had Macs. The truly disgruntled Windows users I know who have switched OSes almost always went to Linux or Unix.
A few months ago, I was working with a guy who bragged about how Macs are superior because "there has never been a virus that infects Macs" (that may not be a verbatim quote, but it states what he said almost exactly). If I wasn't such a nice guy, I would have offered to prove him wrong using his Mac as the example. As time went by, I did point him to piles of articles available online and in print that describe malware that does target Macs, but he sort of pouted in response. After listening to him talk occasionally about Macs for a few weeks, I realized he was not terribly into computers, despite his interest in many things tech, and was quite comfortable using his Mac. For him to face the fact that he could do what he does with his Mac on a Wintel or Linux platform both cheaper and probably better would create a tremendous amount of cognitive dissonance for him.
I often read about efforts to port stuff from Macs to Windows or Linux, but when I read something about a need for Mac support, it is usually a timid sort of whiny gripe. I can understand what motivates such bleating from some, but not from anyone who claims to be an IT professional. Anyone with a clue knows that the big money is in creating products for the Wintel and/or Linux world as far as microcomputers and the Internet goes. Mac support is typically (and rightfully) an afterthought unless the vendor has little presence outside the Mac world to begin with.
I think any list of what most people want to do with their microcomputers would include some or all of these at the very top:
* Web browsing
* email
* media playing, archiving, and sharing (both audio and video)
* games
* word processing
* list keeping (flat file database stuff)
* spreadsheets (as fancy calculators or for bookkeeping)
* information storage, search and retrieval (relational or other "serious" database stuff)
* presentations
Do Macs do any other those things so much better than mainstream platforms that it is worth putting up with the myriad hassles associated with buying and using a Mac in today's Wintel and Linux/Unix friendly world?
The Mac brand, like the iPod brand, is all about marketing, not technical or practical superiority. I empathize with Mac fans when I think about my favorite sports cars, the Mazda RX-7s and the RX-8, with their Wankel rotary engines. But at least I can make a reasonable case for the engines that make those cars different, by explaining what wonderfully small, lightweight, responsive power plants they are. Do I think it would be great if most big automakers licensed the necessary technology to replace the
it's that there's been greater public attention to documentaries (and hopefully more docs will be funded in the future). For example, I wonder if An Inconvenient Truth would be receiving so much attention if it wasn't for such a dearth of quality Hollywood movies.
Thankfully, An Inconvient Truth is competing with the rest of the fiction from Hollyweird and it has crappy special effects. Roger and Me was better propaganda. If AlGore wants to clean up the planet, he is welcome to start with the junk and weeds in my backyard. No NIMBY types here!:-)
Why? I'm sorta waiting for Steve Jobs to start giving away free Kool-Aid to all the raving Apple fanbrats.
Macs are proprietary, non-standard, overpriced, and there aren't nearly as many good apps that run natively on Macs as there are on Winblows or Unix/Linux boxes. Yeah, I know what OS/X is underneath the hood...so why would I want to waste money and time buying and using a Mac when I have plenty of PCs that will run better non-Windows OSes that cost me nothing?
When I see the usual suspects raving about the latest new Mac product from Apple, I think to myself, "Go Lemmings, Go!" They never get much respect from most knowledgable, serious computer users, but they sure seem willing to jump off a cliff if Jobs tells them to.
Think about it. Apple gave in to the Unix crowed when it needed a real OS. It caved in to the Wintel crowd when it needed a real hardware platform that would run apps that matter. What does Apple have left? A UI it snagged from Xerox PARC in the 80s and which has stagnated because of some bad design choices ever since.
bzzzzzt! Wrongo bongo! It may have happened that way in a fractal zone far, far away, but it sure as heck did not happen like that on this third rock from the sun. If you wish to get it right, better check your history books baby! But if you were just bashing Apple, then carry on!
Hmmm. I think the success of the original Compaq luggable IBM clone pretty much proves my point.
IBM's standards for the PC were open enough that clone makers eventually drove IBM out of the PC hardware market. The Compaq machine I am thinking of was about the size of a small suitcase or sewing machine case and weighed in at about 28 lbs unless you added things like a whopping big 5MB removable cartridge drive and a full-length memory expansion card to bump up the memory to a full 640K of memory (1MB of RAM was maximum, but the last 384KB was useful only as RAMdrive or for some quirky system utilities). My early Compaq luggable went through many upgrades, but they were usually very straightforward as far as hardware went, because Compaq quickly got a reputation for making PC clones that were more IBM compatible than IBM PCs.
BTW, I can't really bash Apple for taking advantage of fools who buy anything the company sells because they want to feel hip or superior, despite the fact that Apple's main claim to fame is selling tech gear that even drooling idiots (and the artsy-fartsy crowd) think they can figure out.
The sad thing is that the Motorola 68000 series chips that the Mac platform was based on were technically superior to the Intel line of chips that IBM chose to base its PC platform on. The 8088 that was in the original PCs is actually a crippled version of the 8086, but IBM chose the former chip because there was a lot of COTS technology that would work with the 8088's one byte wide data path and the price of the initial base systems was in the $3+K range for any useful configuration -- a 16-bit data path would have greatly improved performance but made the machines way to expensive. If IBM had chosen the Motorola architecture, I suspect microcomputer technology would be at least two or three years more advanced than it actually is. But you really don't want me to get started on the advantages of elegant, orthogonal instruction sets.:-)
I suspect Apple's success with the iPod will not last for even a decade. Macs had some unique redeeming features and functionality over PCs for many years and there are still some industries (publishing for example) where they are still competitive because they run industry specific software between than other platforms will. Those niche markets have almost all dried up, however. There is absolutely nothing special about the iPod as far as technology goes, and while it is cute from a design perspective, it isn't really much better than the less expensive non-proprietary MP3 players that are flooding the market. Apple's penchant for propriety gear is one of the main reasons the Mac never became a major threat to the Wintel side of the business. Once more people rub the noses of iPodiots in the fact that they are paying too much for mundane technology, I suspect that Microsoft, SANdisk, Toshiba, and many others will cause the Apple iPod to fade into relative obscurity along with the Macintosh computer. Reality yhas a way of setting in...
Slashdot Mirror
To pin ALL blame for this on Debian shows no understanding of what the issues are.
Not really, if one understands the concepts of dilution (in this context) and goodwill.
"Firefox" is a well-known and increasingly liked and respected brand of Web browser. The Mozilla folks just want to make sure it stays that way. If anyone could just take the code, do to/with it whatever they please, AND still call it "Firefox", that name would cease to enjoy the very positive reputation it now has.
There are many cases where a "parent" ogranization suffers a schism and a new "child" organization is born as a result. Look at the various Protestant churches. Various charitiable organizations. The point is that when folks at large begin to associate a name or logo (a brand) with a quality or concept that the creator(s) worked hard to build up over time, the last thing the creators want is for someone to jump in, glom onto the thing and either mutate it until it sucks or take all the credit for it.
I know that if I use a Firefox browser, I will be getting whatever core functionality the Mozilla.com developers intended to deliver plus whatever additions/expansions their API allows (which is a main benefit of Firefox over IE, although Microsloth is playing catch-up there with its latest Buggy Bloatware release, namely IE7, complete with new and improved security flaws).
From what I understand, Mozilla's product is Open Source, but the brand name, "Firefox", is available for use in derivative products with some very reasonable restrictions/caveats. I don't see any problem with that. If you don't like the rules, I doubt you would have much problem claiming a spinoff was "based on Firefox version ". Claiming it is still Firefox without Mozilla's approval just isn't right as they have too much vested in building up that brand name to let just anyone adopt it as their own.
Brand marketing is not just for for-profit organizations. Like it or not, public image matters.
Mr. Wizard
esotriv.blogspot.com
...In other news, Microsoft plans to patch the 17 holes created by these patches sometime by the end of the month.
The end of which month? That does sound like an evasive Ballmerism, after all.
"So which OS are you thinking of that _wouldn't_ be classified as a 'lemon' ?"
Almost any OS that is free... After all, it is hard to argue that Ubuntu (for example), should be flawless when it costs nothing and is in fact shipped out at someone else's expense if one asks for a few sets of the install discs. I run Ubuntu and although I've used Red Hat back when it (as opposed to Fedora) was free, I never really got into Linux. Ubuntu I am working to learn well enough that I never have to infect any of my own systems with the buggy bloatware known as Windows again, at least not at my expense.
The good thing about the news surrounding the impending spread of Vista is that it isn't likely to happen as fast as Microsoft wants or would have the general public believe. Why waste money on a bigger, slower, pile of crapware from Microsoft when it offers nothing substantial in the way of practical improvements over the mess that is XP? What I'm reading these days is that the Vista release is being given the yawn treatment by many IT professionals.
As far as I can tell, since I don't care about cutesy but useless special effects (read: the Aero interface), there is nothing I want to do with an MS OS that XP doesn't do about as well as Vista is likely to, with much less risk of new bugs and security holes. The risk to my wallet is virtually nil with Ubuntu. There are other free Linuxes available and there is much better and affordable support for them than there is from Microsoft for Windows.
Also, XP has been given the acid test for a few years now and a lot of serious problems with it have been corrected to a large degree with the numerous patches and service packs MS has deigned to release for it. In fact, I'm worried that security will be much worse on Vista than it is on XP since 3rd party security vendors are being prevented by Microsoft from hooking in at the level their code needs to run at to be most effective. I don't trust Microsoft to handle security issues. It has a pathetic track record. The programmers at MS clearly don't understand their own code.
My copies of Ubuntu were delivered to me upon request, cost me nothing, installed and are updated easily, and work quite well. I run OpenOffice and use a lot of GNU programs as well as other FOSS.
The only vista I see on my OS horizon is Ubuntu.
The story is that only 26 were patched.
If an automaker and its unhappy vict^H^H^H^Hcustomers keep finding major safety issues and design flaws in a line of cars, flaws that required fix after repair after parts replacement, all of which fail to correct the underlying problem(s), I think the manufacturer would be forced to recall the cars. Certainly lemon laws would apply in many states!
How about a recall on Microsoft Windows XP? Microsoft could probably weasel its way into exchanging the clearly defective copies of XP for copies of Vista, which it can and does claim is better in every way. I doubt it. But that would let Microsoft postpone the bitter end, when it is forced to admit it can't deliver a good, stable, secure OS and has development teams bogged down in a morass consisting of their own icky code.
who thinks that the vast majority of MS Office purchases (like 95%) are businesses? last time I checked, businesses didn't shop at Walmart or their equivalent when purchasing their software.
Can you say "Sam's Club"? Let's not forget about "walmart.com", either. Although I have been a Sam's Club member for most of my adult life (about two decades), I was surprised to find that many small- and some medium-sized businesses do a lot of their shopping at Sam's Club. I thought the business angle was there to emphasis the "warehouse store" hype, but apparently if you own a restaurant and need supplies, Sam's Club is not bad, especially if you need them yesterday. A lot of business people do not particularly like computers but know they need to use them. It is terribly convenient to grab HW and/or SW when one is buying the week's mundane crap at Wally World.
I suspect that all of what I said above applies to the shoppers, businesses and stores in the UK as well as the US. I have worked at an major U.S. office supply (chain) store when I was between geek jobs recently and found that a lot of customers would buy computers or software the way they buy office furniture or supplies -- without much research...almost on impulse. That is especially true when a big sale is going on. People will come in for the sale on a computer and end up buying non-sale related stuff while they are there.
Think about how many people will buy a store brand (nearly generic) of an item when it sits right next to the well known branded good and the salesperson says it is a much better deal. Seeing the MS product sitting next to a relatively unknown product that costs maybe 1/3 as much is enough to convince some tightwads to take a chance on a strange office suite, especially if it does pretty much was MS Office does in much the same manner. Yes, people trust sales people on such matters, far more than many geeks would believe. MS has a better time (at retail) with Windows because almost no OTS computers come with Linux or some other OS installed. I am fairly sure that is why MS has bundled Office trial ware with more and more systems these days... "The first two months are free!" *snicker*
Why am I thinking of the movie Dark Star? Bomb #20 must have been running WinCE and had one MS Service Pack too many...
There is absolutely no truth what so ever in this hypothesis of yours.
And what hypothesis might that be?
People don't complain (or do anything to reduce) excessive taxes they don't know about. In the U.S., most people subject to ordinary sales taxes are aware of those taxes, the rate(s), and what they apply to, at least in their hometowns.
Taxes on fuel (gasoline) are typically hidden (buried). Occasionally I will see a sign that at least partially describes the real situation, that federal, state, and local taxes make up a large fraction of what consumers pay at the gas pump -- but that sign is usually small and unobtrusive, if it is there at all.
I go into a local restaurant and I know that I will pay an extra 10% of the bill to the government. For what is not clear. There is no reason food should be taxed at a much higher rate in restaurants than it is at the grocery store.
When I went to look up what gas taxes are these days, I found a site which lists gasoline tax information on a state by state basis. The list does NOT include the federal tax of 18.4 cents per gallon, nor does it emphasis the fact that in most places, sales taxes also apply. A great way to reduce the cost of gas at the pump would be to eliminate all federal gas taxes. That would save around twenty cents (remember, it costs the government money to collect gas taxes) per gallon right off the bat and also put pressure on the various states to do away with their outrageous gas taxes if they already impose onerous sales taxes.
Here in Finland a litre of 95 octane gas costs about 1.263e (1.295 for 98 octane and 1.008 for diesel).
Baahhh, baaahhhhh!
How much of the price you pay in Finland for gas goes to taxes?
One of the most effective ways to bring down gas prices in the U.S. would be for dealers to post just the price they charge per gallon with a "*" next to it, followed by an explanatory note: "(*) The federal, state, and local taxes on each gallon total $ -- blame your government for that!"
That signage would be particularly effective in your country, if it was allowed by your government.
Note that I said "your government", not "the government". Here in the states, the People do retain some modicum of control over their government, but our government is always working to make us forget that fact. The People are a major inconvenience to government, except when it comes time to pay up.
Finland is disgustingly socialist by U.S. standards, although we are letting our government slide in that direction. Right now, raising gas taxes to Finnish rates would be one of the few things that might inspire real political revolution in the U.S. There is no valid justification for such high taxes as you pay for gasoline...or many other things.
Posture Minder? I can't believe anybody would pay for a gimmick that nags them like their mommy (and maybe nuns in grade school if they are Roman Catholic :-) did when they were little kids.
.sig when researching this reply:
,"WOW WHAT A RIDE[!]"
"Sit up straight!"..."Don't slouch!"..."Keep your elbows off the table!" Who needs that crap?
Then again, the kind of sick masochistic fitness freaks who buy into the "No pain, no gain." nonsense are notorious for spending big bucks on fancy home gyms, trendy weight loss products, and the health-food/weight-loss plan/diet of the week... I just think of Eule Gibbons, pitchman for Post Grape Nuts, who died of a heart attack after years of promoting his own wacky notion of a healthy diet.
I don't discount bad posture as being a root cause of many kinds of bone, joint, and muscle pain people experience as they grow older. On the other hand, I know for damn sure that I won't be writing great code if I'm being nagged by a program that doesn't like the way I sit/slouch at the keyboard. I might not be writing great code anyway, but at least I'll be comfortable while getting nothing useful done!
I came across this relevent
Life should not be a journey to the grave with the hope of arriving safely in a pretty and well preserved body, but rather throughly used up, totally worn out, and loudly procaiming
I have never understood why so many people, many of them fairly bright, would pay for overpriced logowear such as the iPod instead of getting a much better MP3 player for less money. I have typically referred to the oh-so-trendy clowns who do waste their money in such a manner as "iPodiots".
But maybe many iPodiots aren't quite as stupid as I thought. Nobody can tell where they get the tunes they have on their players -- there is no iPod logo on each cut that they can show off to prove how hip (sheeplike?) they are -- so they do the smart thing and get their music for their expensive iPod brand players at far more reasonable rates than the ripoff prices the iStore charges.
Brand managers probably hate people like me, especially when we are outspoken. That gives me the warm fuzzies...or something.
If I want instant access to information, the web is my only choice.
I agree. The Web has changed the very way I live life and enhanced the experience in ways that email has not. I've had email addresses of one form or another for over two decades, since long before the Internet or email and certainly the Web became household words. There is not a whole lot I can't accomplish via phone and/or fax combined with snail mail and UPS/FedEx. (The USPS ought to have its monopoly on 1st Class Mail removed...competition would result in either a good Postal Service or a lot of postal workers looking for real jobs...but I digress.)
The key here, for me, is that the Web offers features and services available nowhere else. I am an information junkie. These days, when I read something and a term or concept I come across piques my interest, I just Google it to satisfy my curiosity. I learn a LOT this way. The Web enables me to do my job and most anything else I want to do better than I could if I had to go to the library or shop via mail order catalogs. It has replaced TV as my primary entertainment and news medium. (I don't have a TV at the moment and really don't miss it as much as I thought I would.)
One thing I do know is that as an IT professional, my life would be very complicated if I didn't have email. Anybody working in IT is expected to have at least one email address these days. Explaining why I don't have email when it is obvious that I do use the Web a lot would be awkward, to say the least. But there is nothing about email per se that I could not find an alternative workaround for. I am talking about not using anything to send or receive email that involves standard email addresses or kludged up substitutes for same.
I'm sticking with the spirit of the question and still think I could get by without the kind of conversations I have via email a lot more comfortably than I could get by without the Web. Explaining to people I know why I don't use email or even have an email address would be an interesting challenge. I couldn't even use a religious excuse, as everyone who knows me well is aware of my agnostic nature.
The Web is what allows me to learn a programming language new to me (Perl, PHP, etc.) and download technical information about computer hardware, software and networking as well as do basic research on almost any subject/topic for people who are not 'Net savvy without wasting a lot of my time.
That part, using the Web as an extension of my mind, is what matters most to me. There are simply a lot of things I (can) do and know now that I couldn't without the Web because it makes a whole slew of resources available to me almost immediately. I often feel like Trinity in The Matrix when Neo asks her if she can fly a particular helicopter and she responds, "Not yet." Then she proceeds to have Tank load her up with the flight training for a Huey B-212... I like that scene because I enjoy surprising people by demonstrating just how quickly I can find an answer on the Web to some question that comes up in conversation. While looking up that scene prior to writing the above, I was reminded of the goof it contains: the image of the helicopter on the training program is not the one for the helicopter she asked for and does indeed learn to fly on the spot. The Web is a great fact checking tool.
GIYF means something to me but I feel right at home doing all kinds of research on the Web using a wide variety of Web sites. I hate touchy-feely, oh-so-politically-correct speak and psycho babble, but I do find the Web to be very empowering, much more so than email.
Uh, make sure to identify your official and unofficial trademarks. It's well-known for years that Microsoft has the de facto trademark on Gaping Security Holes(tm) and Big Gaping Security Holes(tm) (note they're not registered). There are really very few things where MS innovates - let's give them credit where it's due.
:-)
:-)
Microsoft is clearly an innovator in creative use, maintenance, and enforcement of monopoly power in the marketplace. It seems to have "borrowed" a few tricks from other companies as far as dodging legal consequences for its misbehavior in the U.S. go, although the usually lame EU seems to be less intimidated (I wonder why?
In the States, we have a situation that might well be described as "he who has the most lawyers wins". Microsoft can afford to pay for lawyers by the garbage barge load, and does so. Few other companies I can think of would be so bold as to use Gaping Security Holes(tm) as a means of forcing people to use their lame Internet Explorer Web browser with its notoriously exploitable ActiveX support to install patches which often introduce new bugs or even malware (Windows Genuine (dis)Advantage) when those people would otherwise use a quality browser such as Firefox or Opera.
I have no problem with companies that become successful because they provide new or technically superior goods and services. I have a problem when they are allowed to dominate the marketplace by stifling the competition, especially when the competition has better goods or services that can and do benefit the consumer. One solution to the Microsoft monopoly would be to force it to truly unbundle its browser, Internet Explorer, from all of its other products.
IE should have to be downloaded and installed, just the way competing browsers are, unless Microsoft wants to include them on a list of browsers a user can choose from and install along with Windows when a system is being set up. Microsoft should be ordered to make all of its support services that are associated with Windows and/or Microsoft Update available to users who chose other browsers that have reasonable support for industry standard scripting. People should not be forced to expand upon existing security flaws built into Windows by having to use IE to get security patches and other software updates from Microsoft. There is absolutely no technical reason why one should have to use MS Buggy Bloatware such as IE when better, more secure browsers exist.
Your main point, that Microsoft is rarely the source of innovation in the software industries it dominates by monopolistic muscle, is absolutely correct IMNSHO. I'd love to have the choice of walking into a store and buying a machine with no OS, or some non-Microsoft OS pre-installed on it. Why should consumers be forced to pay for crap like MS Windows Home or Media Center Edition when they buy a computer off the shelf? Microsoft enforces its monopoly powers by making it very difficult for people to get systems with other or no OS installed on systems they buy at retail. Just go into any major office supply or consumer electronics store and see for yourself what operating system will come bundled with the machines sold there, even if you would rather buy the machine bare so you can install your own favorite operating system. I suspect many people would choose to take a discount equivalent to the amount the manufacturer pays Microsoft for the version of Windows it pre-installs and then install an alternative OS.
Making that choice (either no OS or any of several popular OSes including Windows as an option) available to all consumers would be a great way to force Microsoft to compete fairly. It would also promote real competition in the OS market and undoubtedly inspire more innovation therein, maybe even from Microsoft!
From what I have been reading, Microsoft is designing Vista in such a way as to make it difficult for products that compete with whatever token security schemes Microsoft is planning to foist upon its hapless user base to be installed and/or run properly. Microsoft should make any and all APIs necessary to implement alternative (read: better) security solutions for Vista public. If it doesn't, I think it is fair to say that Microsoft is once again using proprietary standards/code to stifle the competition. That seems like a clear anti-trust violation, given Microsoft's technically undeserved but nonetheless practical monopoly of the commercial desktop PC operating system market.
Like most things that Microsoft touts as benefiting the user (think Windows Genuine (Dis)Advantage, DRM, and the "recommended" options on various configuration pages), whatever so-called security Microsoft puts into Vista will undoubtedly profit Microsoft first and the user as a mere afterthought, assuming that Microsoft can think up a good marketing gimmick to scare users into paying for it.
I'm still planning on not wasting money on yet another overpriced, under performing piece of Microsoft Buggy Bloatware, namely Vista. Ubuntu Linux is working well for me and doesn't seem to suffer from the gaping security holes most major Microsoft products (Windows, Office, and IE) are infamous for.
I must admit that Microsoft has a lot of nerve, trying to exclude competitors from cleaning up the security disaster that Vista is expected to be, so that it can make users dumb enough to buy Vista also pay through the nose to fix flaws that wouldn't be there if Microsoft sold quality programs in the first place.
Good idea! Useful information about how to email the NYTimes, too! I'd recommend BBCing any email feedback if it is sent to more than one of those NYTimes addresses, lest it be detected as a mass mailing and auto-ignored. Maybe one of the drones who works there will notice that tech savvy people tend to avoid IE and very few people use Macs much.
Maybe the reason the NYTimes is losing its subscriber base is that their (former) customers with a clue know more about today's tech gear than the NYTimes senior management, including the technology editor... (I have a very low opinion of the NYTimes..."all the pablum the brain-dead will pay for" sums it up nicely.) I rarely bother clicking on links to the NYTimes since the news is usually (but not always) covered better elsewhere. Check out stories linked to on Google News to see what I mean.
FWIW, I run Ubuntu Linux (I have no intention of wasting my money on Vista or other buggy bloateware such as M$ Office -- OpenOffice works fine for me) and WinXP Pro (x64 Edition, too). Linux is getting better. Winblows is going downhill. MacOS isn't even in the running as there is nothing I want to do that justifies buying overpriced products from Apple. Increasingly, I favor FOSS and avoid expensive proprietary crap.
Hmmm. Now that I think about it, there is nothing in the NYTimes that justifies buying more than a handful of printed issues in any given year -- anything really newsworthy is covered extensively elsewhere, although the NYTimes does have a dwindling reputation for being a news leader (e.g., other news media tend to jump on whatever is covered in the NYTimes.) When it will dawn on the major media outlets that good, non-proprietary media players are increasingly available and popular? Then again, Apple makes most of its profits these days from Ipodiots... I guess it is never wise to underestimate the stupidity of the average human being. The NYTimes editorials are what used to cause me to buy the occasional issue, but now I can always find the best ones quoted in full online. GIYF.
I wonder if this story will be well covered in the NYTimes? It would be fun to see it picked up by FOX News... *snicker*
I wish more people would post succinct summaries/highlights of articles that make one wade through short page after short page with only a little content but a lot of ads and other dreck on each page. Sites where one used to be able to just click on Print often don't even offer that option for those of us who want to skim an entire article on one page.
Your summary gave me just the info I was curious about: the names of the nine companies in question. Good job!
Have you considered trying to summarize U.S. foreign policy as it relates to the Middle East?
You're like the soundtrack of my life - I listen to you all the time, and I really can't wait for that next CD you're working on. I know you've been working on it all year and everything, but you won't mind if I just rip my copy off, right?
You've got a very warped image of fandom, there. Think Grateful Dead. People who really like an artist will usually go out and buy "stuff" (material goods) associated with that artist. They will also subscribe to forums, services, etc. about/from said artist -- and are likely to be willing to pay to do so. What true Green Day fan (I don't even know WTF Green day is all about, except that it involves trendy music...*yawn*...I've never been much into pop music) would not like to participate on a forum where the band members (or their flaks) post news and reply to user comments? Most pop bands (the kind RIAA and its ilk make a killing from as they sell zillions of grossly overpriced recordings) do concert tours. Those are very real things to experience and while bootleg recordings can (and are made) there is nothing like being at a good live concert.
If it suddenly became perfectly legal to copy and distribute commercial music and video recordings for personal use (read: not for profit), we would not see any precipitous drop in the quantity or quality of movies and music available to the public. What we would see is an entirely different marketing strategy -- one tied to material things that cannot be copied. Is an original edition Mickey Mantle baseball card with an authentic, handwritten (not machine generated) signature from the baseball player himself worth more than a replica of a decades old card with a reproduction of his signature on it? You bet!
The kids mentioned in the original article seem to understand (somehow) that only the legitimate copyright holder should be able to make a business out of selling his works but that copies that are made and passed around for personal use are (and should be) a fact of living in today's increasingly technological world, where anything that can be cheaply and easily recorded almost certainly will be.
Letting these kids perform jury nullification on many of today's obsolete IP laws would greatly improve the world we all live in.
It seems that most kids today are coming to the realization that copying data for personal use isn't theft, as a practical matter and shouldn't be as a legal matter. The source they copy the information (be it software, a movie, or music) from still retains exactly the same use of the information as it had before the copy was made -- NOTHING is missing or stolen.
I'd really like to see FIJA (Fully Informed Jury Amendment) implemented so that these kids could just use their common sense to effectively nullify the efforts of despicable organizations such as RIAA and MPAA in court. These kids seem to understand the idea of "No harm, no foul."
And even if AOL lose they've marked the spot with a big X. There are going to be plenty of people believing that there is gold hidden on the property and they'll all be sneaking around and digging holes hoping to get a piece of the treasure. It'll be worse than an invasion of moles (or whatever the local burrowing creatures are.)
AOL would be smart to enlist the few remaining people who are stupid enough to pay for AOHell services, by offering the gullible fools a chance to *S*T*R*I*K*E *G*O*L*D* !!! .
[insert typically flashy AOL marketing letter here]
Anyone dumb enough to be an AOL subscriber is almost certainly going to be eager to buy another year's susbcription to win a chance to dig ALL THE GOLD A PERSON CAN CARRY out of some spammer's backyard. No gold need actually be buried there...
As much as I loathe AOL, I despise spammers. I can't think of any more fitting punishment for a spammer than to have hordes of AOLusers digging up his family's yard.
"interesting idea. So is it just you and your friends who get to take the product for free under this system, whilst laughing at the poor schmucks who paid for it and made your actions possible?"
:-) How long do you think MS would remain solvent if it had to compensate the users of its buggy bloatware when it fails to operate correctly because of a serious design flaw or programming error, the way automakers have to do when their products fail miserably? Can GM limit its liability to $5 in cases where its cars blow up or exhibit sudden brake failure?
Exactly what has been taken? It isn't like a tangible thing (made of matter/energy) which, when you take it, means someone else is deprived of it. It is information that is expressed as a bit pattern.
Having had my own software pirated, I had to confront this question years ago. I can't say that I know how the IP issues ought to be addressed, but it is safe to say that grabbing a copy of a program from someone else is very different than stealing or even borrowing their car.
The worst that software companies can claim as true damages is lost revenues -- that a software pirate would have paid somewhere close to the going rate for the program if he didn't get a free copy somehow. It would be nice if they had to prove that claim in each and every case of software piracy they prosecute. Given that most people who pirate software would not (and could not afford to) pay anywhere close to the advertised prices for it, that would be hard to do.
It might be quite appropriate if software companies could only demand that they be compensated (at most) for some realistic minimum value they actually put on their software, say the amount they can be held liable for under their own contractual licensing agreement(s). In Microsoft's case, the value of their major software packages is really what, $5, according to the MS EULA? It isn't as if Microsoft is claiming its software will do much in particular...read the whole EULA if you haven't done so already.
They are as much as admitting that it isn't worth what they ask for it.
I'm unsure as to how commercial software should be priced, but I think it would be best if the government was not put in the position of penalizing people who haven't done any real harm. That would be very difficult in cases where those who use copied software for other than commercial purposes are concerned. It would be fairly easy in cases where a firm sells product created with commercial compilers, word processors, or editors, or services that depend on commercial DBMS packages. Little Timmy doesn't cost the vendor of Grand Theft Starship: The Revenge of Mario a dime if he snags a copy from his pal Suzi. At worst, if they can show he was clearly able to purchase a copy and did play the pirated one a lot, they ought to get compensated for the street value of the program and Timmy ought to get a citation or something for being a Bad Boy(tm).
Now, if Little Timmy goes into business selling copies of GTS-RM to all his friends at school for ten bucks a pop, then the penalties ought to be fairly harsh, because he is selling (for profit) what isn't his. Cases where Timmy sells it for just enough to cover his cost of distribution are still questionable, but one could argue that he still profits by gaining goodwill (something accountants think they can actually quantify).
Despite the fact that this reply will probably be moderated down as trolling, I will repeat my question: Why would anyone want a Mac? I'll even change it slightly, to better reflect what puzzles me: Why would anyone who isn't already locked into the proprietary Mac world want to purchase one?
There is nothing I want to do with a computer that just screams "Macintosh!" at me, and I do a lot more and varied things with computers than most computer users ever dream of. Why a person would buy a Wintel machine is obvious: it is the default, it offers competitively priced apps and features, it is well supported by the majority of vendors in the microcomputer industry, and one can always use the hardware to run some flavor of Linux/Unix or even something more unusual.
If MacOS (which is really all that defines a Mac now that the hardware is Wintel compatible) is such hot shit, how come Apple hasn't made a killing selling it to frustrated Windows users? I certainly hear and read a lot of legitimate gripes about Winblows (even if you don't count the ones that come from me!), but I just don't see a big demand for Macs from anyone but the hardcore Macweenies. You certainly don't see Linux users complaining that they wished they had Macs. The truly disgruntled Windows users I know who have switched OSes almost always went to Linux or Unix.
A few months ago, I was working with a guy who bragged about how Macs are superior because "there has never been a virus that infects Macs" (that may not be a verbatim quote, but it states what he said almost exactly). If I wasn't such a nice guy, I would have offered to prove him wrong using his Mac as the example. As time went by, I did point him to piles of articles available online and in print that describe malware that does target Macs, but he sort of pouted in response. After listening to him talk occasionally about Macs for a few weeks, I realized he was not terribly into computers, despite his interest in many things tech, and was quite comfortable using his Mac. For him to face the fact that he could do what he does with his Mac on a Wintel or Linux platform both cheaper and probably better would create a tremendous amount of cognitive dissonance for him.
I often read about efforts to port stuff from Macs to Windows or Linux, but when I read something about a need for Mac support, it is usually a timid sort of whiny gripe. I can understand what motivates such bleating from some, but not from anyone who claims to be an IT professional. Anyone with a clue knows that the big money is in creating products for the Wintel and/or Linux world as far as microcomputers and the Internet goes. Mac support is typically (and rightfully) an afterthought unless the vendor has little presence outside the Mac world to begin with.
I think any list of what most people want to do with their microcomputers would include some or all of these at the very top:
* Web browsing
* email
* media playing, archiving, and sharing (both audio and video)
* games
* word processing
* list keeping (flat file database stuff)
* spreadsheets (as fancy calculators or for bookkeeping)
* information storage, search and retrieval (relational or other "serious" database stuff)
* presentations
Do Macs do any other those things so much better than mainstream platforms that it is worth putting up with the myriad hassles associated with buying and using a Mac in today's Wintel and Linux/Unix friendly world?
The Mac brand, like the iPod brand, is all about marketing, not technical or practical superiority. I empathize with Mac fans when I think about my favorite sports cars, the Mazda RX-7s and the RX-8, with their Wankel rotary engines. But at least I can make a reasonable case for the engines that make those cars different, by explaining what wonderfully small, lightweight, responsive power plants they are. Do I think it would be great if most big automakers licensed the necessary technology to replace the
it's that there's been greater public attention to documentaries (and hopefully more docs will be funded in the future). For example, I wonder if An Inconvenient Truth would be receiving so much attention if it wasn't for such a dearth of quality Hollywood movies.
:-)
Thankfully, An Inconvient Truth is competing with the rest of the fiction from Hollyweird and it has crappy special effects. Roger and Me was better propaganda. If AlGore wants to clean up the planet, he is welcome to start with the junk and weeds in my backyard. No NIMBY types here!
"Maybe I should rub my eye against a cat 5 cable connected to a computer!"
Do you want to be a bridge or a router?
Why? I'm sorta waiting for Steve Jobs to start giving away free Kool-Aid to all the raving Apple fanbrats.
Macs are proprietary, non-standard, overpriced, and there aren't nearly as many good apps that run natively on Macs as there are on Winblows or Unix/Linux boxes. Yeah, I know what OS/X is underneath the hood...so why would I want to waste money and time buying and using a Mac when I have plenty of PCs that will run better non-Windows OSes that cost me nothing?
When I see the usual suspects raving about the latest new Mac product from Apple, I think to myself, "Go Lemmings, Go!" They never get much respect from most knowledgable, serious computer users, but they sure seem willing to jump off a cliff if Jobs tells them to.
Think about it. Apple gave in to the Unix crowed when it needed a real OS. It caved in to the Wintel crowd when it needed a real hardware platform that would run apps that matter. What does Apple have left? A UI it snagged from Xerox PARC in the 80s and which has stagnated because of some bad design choices ever since.
bzzzzzt! Wrongo bongo! It may have happened that way in a fractal zone far, far away, but it sure as heck did not happen like that on this third rock from the sun. If you wish to get it right, better check your history books baby! But if you were just bashing Apple, then carry on!
:-)
Hmmm. I think the success of the original Compaq luggable IBM clone pretty much proves my point.
IBM's standards for the PC were open enough that clone makers eventually drove IBM out of the PC hardware market. The Compaq machine I am thinking of was about the size of a small suitcase or sewing machine case and weighed in at about 28 lbs unless you added things like a whopping big 5MB removable cartridge drive and a full-length memory expansion card to bump up the memory to a full 640K of memory (1MB of RAM was maximum, but the last 384KB was useful only as RAMdrive or for some quirky system utilities). My early Compaq luggable went through many upgrades, but they were usually very straightforward as far as hardware went, because Compaq quickly got a reputation for making PC clones that were more IBM compatible than IBM PCs.
BTW, I can't really bash Apple for taking advantage of fools who buy anything the company sells because they want to feel hip or superior, despite the fact that Apple's main claim to fame is selling tech gear that even drooling idiots (and the artsy-fartsy crowd) think they can figure out.
The sad thing is that the Motorola 68000 series chips that the Mac platform was based on were technically superior to the Intel line of chips that IBM chose to base its PC platform on. The 8088 that was in the original PCs is actually a crippled version of the 8086, but IBM chose the former chip because there was a lot of COTS technology that would work with the 8088's one byte wide data path and the price of the initial base systems was in the $3+K range for any useful configuration -- a 16-bit data path would have greatly improved performance but made the machines way to expensive. If IBM had chosen the Motorola architecture, I suspect microcomputer technology would be at least two or three years more advanced than it actually is. But you really don't want me to get started on the advantages of elegant, orthogonal instruction sets.
I suspect Apple's success with the iPod will not last for even a decade. Macs had some unique redeeming features and functionality over PCs for many years and there are still some industries (publishing for example) where they are still competitive because they run industry specific software between than other platforms will. Those niche markets have almost all dried up, however. There is absolutely nothing special about the iPod as far as technology goes, and while it is cute from a design perspective, it isn't really much better than the less expensive non-proprietary MP3 players that are flooding the market. Apple's penchant for propriety gear is one of the main reasons the Mac never became a major threat to the Wintel side of the business. Once more people rub the noses of iPodiots in the fact that they are paying too much for mundane technology, I suspect that Microsoft, SANdisk, Toshiba, and many others will cause the Apple iPod to fade into relative obscurity along with the Macintosh computer. Reality yhas a way of setting in...
I like making the patrons open up the shop, but I wonder if part of the puzzle is for them to figure out that they must do so?