Trend 1: Linux users tend to block web ads the most effectively, using a variety of techniques.
Trend 2: Many big companies deliberately break their sites for non-IE browsers (probably for kickbacks from Microsoft).
Trend 3: Linux users probably buy less stuff than other people anyway (not counting computer parts which they buy on price or features, not ads or shill articles).
Trend 4: this story.
Net Result? It may pay in more than one way to block Linux users: (1) they don't read your ads anyway, (2) they don't buy your products as much anyway, (3) Microsoft will reward you for shutting them out, (4) you may be reducing your exposure to DDoS attacks.
Not quite. ME was a deliberate failure, mostly for two reasons: (1) the System Resource limitations of the 9.x line were not eliminated, (2) "Fast Find" (wow, was that a bad name or what!) slowed ME to W2K levels so that W2K looked better overall.
It seems highly unlikely that Vista was a deliberate failure, also for two reasons: (1) they only have the one product for sale and Vista is it, the "creme de la creme", and (2) some five years have gone by since XP was released and they must be a little desperate for OS revenue.
This was incredibly hard to figure out until I realized that *some* of the spaces in the above post were commas, while the other spaces weren't. Now that I've thanked my lucky stars I don't have to suffer this space = comma system on a daily basis, I'm off to patent my space differentiation algorithm...
A lot of the posts in this thread are of the "more of this" variety. More docs, more standard, more innovation, more of what I want.
How about simply adding one or more ratings to each distro, with each intended to add some incentive to those who want a higher particular rating. This is a way of encouraging and crediting the huge and diverse number of Linux distros, while also rewarding those aimed at the average/typical user.
For example:
a "Hardware detection and installation" rating. The more hardware recognized, the higher the rating. The more hardware properly configured, the higher the rating. The more hardware optimally configured, the higher the rating. This could be a three-part rating.
a rating for "most adherence to usability standards". Define the standards that should be met, and then rate each distro on this. This would be useful for corporations looking to adopt Linux, or for old farts like myself who don't want to relearn/tolerate non-standard interfaces.
a "leanest distro" rating. This would need some good minimum conditions -- e.g. OS must be able to surf the web, or OS must come with email, browser, and office suite. Or it could be even more detailed, rating each application on its own scale and then giving a cumulative rating.
a "most complete" distro. I would think something like Debian would score well here.
a "most GUI oriented". An OS would lose points for things that could be only done by editing INI files, for example.
a "more forward looking" rating. Alternatives to Gnome or KDE, for example, would score higher on this scale.
a portability rating. How much of the core OS and how many of the included applications can be run on other Linux distros. I have no idea if this is at all valuable, but it is all about rewarding things that have some utility and thus encouraging more distro developers to do good things with their distros.
a gamer rating. Reward distros that come with the most games pre-installed. Or those with the best combination of minimal OS on one image with best add-on games-only image.
Rating security-focused distros would be valuable. Have different criteria -- leanest, more secure, most complete, most updated, most documented.
a best-for-newbies rating would be a natural. Again, criteria would be key.
Summing up: Linux users have the most choice, and too much choice. Ratings help users choose what is best for them. "I want a newbie-friendly, lean, gamer distro" might merge the ratings from those three categories to give best overall scores and best scores in each category. User could then choose to rank by sub-rating, etc.
We've reached the "nothing new under the sun" computing age. It will be all about packaging from now on. In the commercial world that translates to "best marketing wins". In the FOSS world it translates to "best fit wins".
Who has time to read 400 (or whatever it is) distro descriptions? Can any one of those 400 paragraphs possibly do justice to that distro? Will we ever stop arguing about which one is better?
If we objectively and usefully rate distros, we can move on to choosing and using them.
Please, please, please state your total real RAM figure when you state the idle RAM used figure. I've installed XP on a 64MB machine (once -- and they later upgraded to 256MB) and I assure you it used less than 96MB when doing nothing.
We need apples-to-apples comparisons. Base RAM: w, W2k sipped x when idle, XP used y when idle, Vista sucked z when idle. Base RAM: 2w, etc. Base RAM: 4w, etc.
I've run into Window handle limitations in XP, but I don't think there is a global hard limit. I find if I close one or two resource hogs (in my case, Eudora and Media Player) at key times (when I used to run into the limit) then I postpone this problem pretty much forever (i.e. until the next forced reboot from patch installs). Note that after I close using the ap. that would run into/created the Window handle issue, I can reload Eudora & MP and all kinds of other stuff and never hit the limit.
This suggests to me that some aps are badly behaved when it comes to creating new Windows and/or possibly garbage collection.
The versions of Real Player I tolerated enough to try a video on did not allow me to jump to later points in the video file. You would move the slider, machine would grind, and grind, quitting time would arrive and I would give up and go home...after first halting real.exe.
By the way, I don't really care if they finally fixed this show-stopper. I want RP as much as I want one world government.
I think at least one important difference is that the photocopier can reasonably be presumed to be for fair use only in most circumstances. Are you really prepared to stand there and photocopy a book for anybody who wants a copy? Remember, you have to pay the copying cost and take the time to do it. I'm guessing most people wouldn't find this rewarding. So I'm willing to assume that the guy at the Xerox with the textbook is probably just copying something for study or review, not distribution.
What about sheet music? A song can be on as little as a single page. Pop a quarter in the photocopier, copy that sheet, and you have stolen the artist's work. Scan that page at home and pop it in a shared directory and you are in exactly the same situation as this couple. All facilitated by that nasty library.
My wife wants: NBC, WB, TBS, TNT, ABC, Food Network, Comedy Central, VH1, Fox, FX [and more not listed]
The three kids want: NBC, Sci Fi, WB, Cartoon Network, TBS, TNT, ABC, ESPN, The Disney Channel, Nickelodeon, VH1, Comedy Central, Fox, FX [and more not listed]
I want: NBC, MSNBC, Bravo, WB, CNN, TBS, TNT, ABC, ESPN, A&E, VH1, Comedy Central, Fox, National Geographic, FX [and more not listed]
Bottom line: our family wants almost all the channels these "evil doers" offer, and could care about the ones we never watch. Remotes can be programmed to skip channels, and fingers do it automatically over time.
Are slashdotters for real? Do you all really not want sports channels? I have ESPN on in the living room first thing in the morning because other than Bonds/Vick scandals they show each day what it is possible for humans to achieve -- you know, "the thrill of victory" -- and the scandals show kids that if they cheat, they get caught. This beats the snot out of watching fantasy/SciFi crap. It also beats the average Brit comedy -- Monty Python was/is funny precisely because it makes fun of the average Brit's total lack of a sense of humor [I'm a Brit on both sides, if you go back one or two gens]. I've played tennis, table tennis, badminton, soccer, football, rugby, lacrosse, ice hockey, car racing (unofficially that is), roller skating & blading, swimming, rowing, fishing and kite flying -- and I want my kids to be exposed to some or all of those and more so that they will give some of them a try and adopt one or more of them as a way to keep healthy for pete's sake.
As to "evil" channels like ABC, what about Extreme Makeover Home Edition? Isn't there something good about this? Also, can any of you really watch an hour of AFV and not laugh at least once? Oh, I get it, it has to be a little more gross and uncensored (i.e. Jackass) to be funny to a/.er.
NBC is not owned by nice corporate citizens in my books, but The Biggest Loser is something that a majority of (overweight and obese) Americans can relate to.
CNN, likes most news sites, is sleazy and sucks on its default settings...but when that big story breaks, what channel do you want working for sure?
Fox sitcoms are an oxymoron, but Hell's Kitchen is great entertainment, with another constructive message -- work hard and get ahead.
/.ers saying they don't want ESPN is like the "Linux rules and Windows blows" flag waving. Each OS has merits (and drawbacks), kids. And almost every single channel listed above is the same story. Get your collective heads out of your billion light-year wide hole, guys. Basic and first tier cable is what most normal people want, just as most normal people want a cheap Windows boxen with free crapware that they remove or ignore. "Most bang for the buck? Sign me up." End of story.
I have no connection whatsoever with either format, of course. My only interest is that the format that becomes popular be the best format technically.
Mira's velocity is 63.8km/s -- which is actually slower than our own's sun (which has no "tail")
Given that with Hubble we can only see "3 or 4 pixels" worth of Pluto (according to the last episode of Universe on the History channel), how do we know what debris we may or may not be leaving behind our solar system as we move through space?
Attracting more dust and having more stick are not the same thing. Ionic air flow is more effective at cooling due to increased turbulence -- this will also decrease dust accumulation. Perhaps the opposite effects on dust accumulation of overall increase in air flow and increased turbulence cancel out. Perhaps one wins. Or the other. Meanwhile, people don't vacuum inside their desktops. Sigh.
Problem that they fail to mention is the heatsink really attracts dust, just like the ionic breaze, so you need to get in there with a brush quite often.
Who brushes dust into the room? Surely we vacuum it up. Anyway, this is a huge problem affecting virtually all desktop computers. They start off with an optimal design, the customer runs it for a week or two and at that point they have the equivalent of a two-year old computer that SlowSteps so it won't fry itself. I would love to know the percentage of people who never vacuum the inside of their systems...
This new type of air cooling may be at least a partial solution to the dust accumulation problem and I am as excited by that as the improved cooling possibilities. In the meantime, we need a way to vacuum the dust without opening the case. Then people would actually do it, and I would do it more often.
My contribution: a small circular hole in the case and a "straw" (flared to the size of a vacuum on the exterior end). The housing of the straw would allow a range of movement that covered the top area of the processor. To use: hook up your vacuum to the straw, move the straw around, done.
The movie house should schedule the appearance every 10 minutes in every theater of a full marching band. That way anyone trying to record the show will have their recording ruined. Totally ruined.
Maybe it was the music (or lack thereof). I was at the Hilton in Reno one time when a Dixieland band was playing and it really did make people happy. Modern/rock music is kind of depressing to lose money to. This unscientific two data point poll brought to you by Microsoft, and the symbol BAR.
Must as I de$pi$e the cable monopoly in the U.S., our Comcast field techies have been good to excellent. Making new cables they are not supposed to. Helping with in-house cable issues they are not supposed to. Changing every single cable from the telephone pole junction box down to the one into my TV. Providing those bracket things to secure cables to the wall. Spending hours at my house, several times, without charge. I have done just enough field work to know how hard that is -- every house different, person A freaks out if a grain of sand falls on her carpet, person B has never heard of a broom (or shower), etc. Comcast & other cable provider field personnel are good people one and all, in my experience of half a dozen installations covering Arizona, British Columbia and Oregon.
Like the grandparent, I do not view a trailer of a movie I am planning to watch. I would be hard pressed to find a single trailer that added _anything_ to the watching of a movie.
[The old O(1) scheduler] mostly boils down to 'sleepers get more CPU time than runners'.
Isn't this guaranteed to melt down response times at a point well less than 100%? As the system gets more loaded down, more tasks are sleepers...so one of these gets activated...but it runs for less time because there are even more sleepers...so one of these gets activated for even less time... To risk an analogy, the old O(1)'s scheme sounds like "as the waiter gets more and more busy at the restaurant, greeting new customers becomes more and more of a priority".
As early as Windows 3.x you could set the time slice interval (I think it defaulted to 50msec) -- hopefully the Linux schedulers have a minimum-time-needed per-slice-or-else nothing-gets-done setting.
I first downloaded Ultra Player many years back when I saw what a CPU-pig Media Player was. It loads into 8MB of RAM and with my 400 song favorites list is using 13MB (on a 1GB RAM XP system). It continues to be free of nags and cost.
Slashdot Mirror
Trend 1: Linux users tend to block web ads the most effectively, using a variety of techniques.
Trend 2: Many big companies deliberately break their sites for non-IE browsers (probably for kickbacks from Microsoft).
Trend 3: Linux users probably buy less stuff than other people anyway (not counting computer parts which they buy on price or features, not ads or shill articles).
Trend 4: this story.
Net Result? It may pay in more than one way to block Linux users: (1) they don't read your ads anyway, (2) they don't buy your products as much anyway, (3) Microsoft will reward you for shutting them out, (4) you may be reducing your exposure to DDoS attacks.
This page says the critical point is at 374 celsius.
Not quite. ME was a deliberate failure, mostly for two reasons: (1) the System Resource limitations of the 9.x line were not eliminated, (2) "Fast Find" (wow, was that a bad name or what!) slowed ME to W2K levels so that W2K looked better overall.
It seems highly unlikely that Vista was a deliberate failure, also for two reasons: (1) they only have the one product for sale and Vista is it, the "creme de la creme", and (2) some five years have gone by since XP was released and they must be a little desperate for OS revenue.
This was incredibly hard to figure out until I realized that *some* of the spaces in the above post were commas, while the other spaces weren't. Now that I've thanked my lucky stars I don't have to suffer this space = comma system on a daily basis, I'm off to patent my space differentiation algorithm...
How about simply adding one or more ratings to each distro, with each intended to add some incentive to those who want a higher particular rating. This is a way of encouraging and crediting the huge and diverse number of Linux distros, while also rewarding those aimed at the average/typical user.
For example:
- a "Hardware detection and installation" rating. The more hardware recognized, the higher the rating. The more hardware properly configured, the higher the rating. The more hardware optimally configured, the higher the rating. This could be a three-part rating.
- a rating for "most adherence to usability standards". Define the standards that should be met, and then rate each distro on this. This would be useful for corporations looking to adopt Linux, or for old farts like myself who don't want to relearn/tolerate non-standard interfaces.
- a "leanest distro" rating. This would need some good minimum conditions -- e.g. OS must be able to surf the web, or OS must come with email, browser, and office suite. Or it could be even more detailed, rating each application on its own scale and then giving a cumulative rating.
- a "most complete" distro. I would think something like Debian would score well here.
- a "most GUI oriented". An OS would lose points for things that could be only done by editing INI files, for example.
- a "more forward looking" rating. Alternatives to Gnome or KDE, for example, would score higher on this scale.
- a portability rating. How much of the core OS and how many of the included applications can be run on other Linux distros. I have no idea if this is at all valuable, but it is all about rewarding things that have some utility and thus encouraging more distro developers to do good things with their distros.
- a gamer rating. Reward distros that come with the most games pre-installed. Or those with the best combination of minimal OS on one image with best add-on games-only image.
- Rating security-focused distros would be valuable. Have different criteria -- leanest, more secure, most complete, most updated, most documented.
- a best-for-newbies rating would be a natural. Again, criteria would be key.
Summing up: Linux users have the most choice, and too much choice. Ratings help users choose what is best for them. "I want a newbie-friendly, lean, gamer distro" might merge the ratings from those three categories to give best overall scores and best scores in each category. User could then choose to rank by sub-rating, etc.We've reached the "nothing new under the sun" computing age. It will be all about packaging from now on. In the commercial world that translates to "best marketing wins". In the FOSS world it translates to "best fit wins".
Who has time to read 400 (or whatever it is) distro descriptions? Can any one of those 400 paragraphs possibly do justice to that distro? Will we ever stop arguing about which one is better?
If we objectively and usefully rate distros, we can move on to choosing and using them.
(1) SP2 actually
(2) default VM settings
(3) including all startup programs -- i.e. AVG only
XP used something like 96MB to do nothing.
Please, please, please state your total real RAM figure when you state the idle RAM used figure. I've installed XP on a 64MB machine (once -- and they later upgraded to 256MB) and I assure you it used less than 96MB when doing nothing.
We need apples-to-apples comparisons. Base RAM: w, W2k sipped x when idle, XP used y when idle, Vista sucked z when idle. Base RAM: 2w, etc. Base RAM: 4w, etc.
I've run into Window handle limitations in XP, but I don't think there is a global hard limit. I find if I close one or two resource hogs (in my case, Eudora and Media Player) at key times (when I used to run into the limit) then I postpone this problem pretty much forever (i.e. until the next forced reboot from patch installs). Note that after I close using the ap. that would run into/created the Window handle issue, I can reload Eudora & MP and all kinds of other stuff and never hit the limit.
This suggests to me that some aps are badly behaved when it comes to creating new Windows and/or possibly garbage collection.
The versions of Real Player I tolerated enough to try a video on did not allow me to jump to later points in the video file. You would move the slider, machine would grind, and grind, quitting time would arrive and I would give up and go home...after first halting real.exe.
By the way, I don't really care if they finally fixed this show-stopper. I want RP as much as I want one world government.
I think you have confused respect and courtesy. Everyone should be courteous, none have to have any respect whatsoever.
[First a shout-out to my bro in The George]
I think at least one important difference is that the photocopier can reasonably be presumed to be for fair use only in most circumstances. Are you really prepared to stand there and photocopy a book for anybody who wants a copy? Remember, you have to pay the copying cost and take the time to do it. I'm guessing most people wouldn't find this rewarding. So I'm willing to assume that the guy at the Xerox with the textbook is probably just copying something for study or review, not distribution.
What about sheet music? A song can be on as little as a single page. Pop a quarter in the photocopier, copy that sheet, and you have stolen the artist's work. Scan that page at home and pop it in a shared directory and you are in exactly the same situation as this couple. All facilitated by that nasty library.
It's the end of libraries as we know them...
My wife wants: NBC, WB, TBS, TNT, ABC, Food Network, Comedy Central, VH1, Fox, FX [and more not listed]
/.er.
/.ers saying they don't want ESPN is like the "Linux rules and Windows blows" flag waving. Each OS has merits (and drawbacks), kids. And almost every single channel listed above is the same story. Get your collective heads out of your billion light-year wide hole, guys. Basic and first tier cable is what most normal people want, just as most normal people want a cheap Windows boxen with free crapware that they remove or ignore. "Most bang for the buck? Sign me up." End of story.
The three kids want: NBC, Sci Fi, WB, Cartoon Network, TBS, TNT, ABC, ESPN, The Disney Channel, Nickelodeon, VH1, Comedy Central, Fox, FX [and more not listed]
I want: NBC, MSNBC, Bravo, WB, CNN, TBS, TNT, ABC, ESPN, A&E, VH1, Comedy Central, Fox, National Geographic, FX [and more not listed]
Bottom line: our family wants almost all the channels these "evil doers" offer, and could care about the ones we never watch. Remotes can be programmed to skip channels, and fingers do it automatically over time.
Are slashdotters for real? Do you all really not want sports channels? I have ESPN on in the living room first thing in the morning because other than Bonds/Vick scandals they show each day what it is possible for humans to achieve -- you know, "the thrill of victory" -- and the scandals show kids that if they cheat, they get caught. This beats the snot out of watching fantasy/SciFi crap. It also beats the average Brit comedy -- Monty Python was/is funny precisely because it makes fun of the average Brit's total lack of a sense of humor [I'm a Brit on both sides, if you go back one or two gens]. I've played tennis, table tennis, badminton, soccer, football, rugby, lacrosse, ice hockey, car racing (unofficially that is), roller skating & blading, swimming, rowing, fishing and kite flying -- and I want my kids to be exposed to some or all of those and more so that they will give some of them a try and adopt one or more of them as a way to keep healthy for pete's sake.
As to "evil" channels like ABC, what about Extreme Makeover Home Edition? Isn't there something good about this? Also, can any of you really watch an hour of AFV and not laugh at least once? Oh, I get it, it has to be a little more gross and uncensored (i.e. Jackass) to be funny to a
NBC is not owned by nice corporate citizens in my books, but The Biggest Loser is something that a majority of (overweight and obese) Americans can relate to.
CNN, likes most news sites, is sleazy and sucks on its default settings...but when that big story breaks, what channel do you want working for sure?
Fox sitcoms are an oxymoron, but Hell's Kitchen is great entertainment, with another constructive message -- work hard and get ahead.
I have no connection whatsoever with either format, of course. My only interest is that the format that becomes popular be the best format technically.
You must be new here.
Mira's velocity is 63.8km/s -- which is actually slower than our own's sun (which has no "tail")
Given that with Hubble we can only see "3 or 4 pixels" worth of Pluto (according to the last episode of Universe on the History channel), how do we know what debris we may or may not be leaving behind our solar system as we move through space?
Attracting more dust and having more stick are not the same thing. Ionic air flow is more effective at cooling due to increased turbulence -- this will also decrease dust accumulation. Perhaps the opposite effects on dust accumulation of overall increase in air flow and increased turbulence cancel out. Perhaps one wins. Or the other. Meanwhile, people don't vacuum inside their desktops. Sigh.
Problem that they fail to mention is the heatsink really attracts dust, just like the ionic breaze, so you need to get in there with a brush quite often.
Who brushes dust into the room? Surely we vacuum it up. Anyway, this is a huge problem affecting virtually all desktop computers. They start off with an optimal design, the customer runs it for a week or two and at that point they have the equivalent of a two-year old computer that SlowSteps so it won't fry itself. I would love to know the percentage of people who never vacuum the inside of their systems...
This new type of air cooling may be at least a partial solution to the dust accumulation problem and I am as excited by that as the improved cooling possibilities. In the meantime, we need a way to vacuum the dust without opening the case. Then people would actually do it, and I would do it more often.
My contribution: a small circular hole in the case and a "straw" (flared to the size of a vacuum on the exterior end). The housing of the straw would allow a range of movement that covered the top area of the processor. To use: hook up your vacuum to the straw, move the straw around, done.
The movie house should schedule the appearance every 10 minutes in every theater of a full marching band. That way anyone trying to record the show will have their recording ruined. Totally ruined.
Maybe it was the music (or lack thereof). I was at the Hilton in Reno one time when a Dixieland band was playing and it really did make people happy. Modern/rock music is kind of depressing to lose money to. This unscientific two data point poll brought to you by Microsoft, and the symbol BAR.
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
Must as I de$pi$e the cable monopoly in the U.S., our Comcast field techies have been good to excellent. Making new cables they are not supposed to. Helping with in-house cable issues they are not supposed to. Changing every single cable from the telephone pole junction box down to the one into my TV. Providing those bracket things to secure cables to the wall. Spending hours at my house, several times, without charge. I have done just enough field work to know how hard that is -- every house different, person A freaks out if a grain of sand falls on her carpet, person B has never heard of a broom (or shower), etc. Comcast & other cable provider field personnel are good people one and all, in my experience of half a dozen installations covering Arizona, British Columbia and Oregon.
For my money the worst trailer spoiler ever was Tom Hanks, with a big beard, back in civilization, knocking at his wife's door. I think every single commercial trailer spot featured this portion of the movie. Major suckage.
Like the grandparent, I do not view a trailer of a movie I am planning to watch. I would be hard pressed to find a single trailer that added _anything_ to the watching of a movie.
He knew what your point was, and made his.
I can imagine 7 foot basketball super stars snapping these things up, and Paris Hilton can afford to buy at least two whole entire units.
The Matrix
Bullet time...
[The old O(1) scheduler] mostly boils down to 'sleepers get more CPU time than runners'.
/me ducks back into the shadows...
Isn't this guaranteed to melt down response times at a point well less than 100%? As the system gets more loaded down, more tasks are sleepers...so one of these gets activated...but it runs for less time because there are even more sleepers...so one of these gets activated for even less time... To risk an analogy, the old O(1)'s scheme sounds like "as the waiter gets more and more busy at the restaurant, greeting new customers becomes more and more of a priority".
As early as Windows 3.x you could set the time slice interval (I think it defaulted to 50msec) -- hopefully the Linux schedulers have a minimum-time-needed per-slice-or-else nothing-gets-done setting.
I first downloaded Ultra Player many years back when I saw what a CPU-pig Media Player was. It loads into 8MB of RAM and with my 400 song favorites list is using 13MB (on a 1GB RAM XP system). It continues to be free of nags and cost.