So if I'm planning to switch to Linux, should I necessarily plan on buying a new set of hardware? Should I treat Linux like Mac OS X, something to be switched to when I'm already planning on replacing hardware?
Are you planning on switching to Vista? Is a hardware upgrade not involved in this move? Yes, if you are serious about switching to linux, a check to see if your hardware is compatible is logical. just as you did with XP before you upgraded (remember the whole wizard before you upgraded on the windows CD and on microsoft's site?). I learned this the hard way with windows, because I was so confident it would recognize any hardware I threw at it. Looks like the SMC ISA adaptors weren't in the Windows XPerience....
So once I'm within a Wal-Mart or Best Buy or Circuit City store, looking at a shelf full of peripherals, how can I access Google to see which are compatible with a given operating system other than a recent proprietary operating system published by Microsoft or Apple?
You can:
1)Ask anyone at Walmart if the component is supported under linux. They will be more than happy to answer.
2)If not, you decide on some you are willing to buy and Google them up when you get a chance. I don't know about you, but I don't choose my hardware lightly. And grandma won't be at walmart buying just a graphics adaptor...
_In my experience_, about 90% of all hardware works right out of the box in linux. You'll probably need to add and tweak some proprietary video card drivers a bit to get the maximum performance out of your GPU, but you could use the generic drivers if performance isn't that big an issue. But again, if you are serious about linux, it's: install once, use forever... Even if you are afraid you'll mess up your linux install, norton ghost works fine with ext partitions. So once grandma gets someone to setup linux for her (she wouldn't be able to setup windows by herself either, right?), she'll never call back because of malware, ever again...
Are there specialized graphical editors for sources.list that would allow a median grandmother to easily add a store-bought CD-ROM as a repository? (No, notepad clones don't count.)
And would it properly detect repositories on different CDs that are mounted and unmounted as people buy Linux app CDs from a hypothetical Penguin-Mart and then insert and eject them?
Yes it would, considering the repository on the CD is set up correctly by the vendor (nothing grandma has to do) and the path is in the sources (grandma could need to add this with the easy GUI specialized editor shown above. For added easyness, It would be no problem for the vendor to even make the repository look like an official mandrake CD, so grandma would just need to select the software she wants to.)
Do all distributions mount the primary optical drive at the same URI?
This problem is as easy as telling grandma to write in the path given to here on the CD (just like a serial numer, even easier as it is not complete random alphanumerical data.
By "non-free" in the context of Debian-compatible repositories, I assume you mean that same thing Debian means by "non-free", that is, proprietary software. However, Debian's "non-free" repository contains "freeware," that is, software cleared by its copyright owner for free redistribution to the general public but not under a free software license.
A non-free repository, as far as 'the windows way' goes, can be distributed with a CD as described above if a proprietary vendor wants to use the linux packaging system. If not, he can provide a shell script that automatically installs the software, doing the checking-for-specific-distro behind scenes. Just as windows installers check for windows versions. It could also (through checkinstall) create a convenient package that could be integrated in the linux package manager. All this is done by the vendor. The end user would just double-click a install file. Same as windows basically...
However, many specialized programs depend on revenue from sales of copies in order to finance their development. Do online repositories allow for secure payment to the publisher per package, per computer that the package will be installed on?
The way a vendor will go on collecting money is completely irrelevent to the packaging system itself. Access to a proprietary-repository can be granted to a paying customer only. Just as club members on mandriva have access to Media reserved to club members.
So, there are a bunch of ways you can install software on linux. Most are even friendlier than the windows way. If you really want to get envolved with Linux, you'll never turn back...
A repository can be both online and offline (for example on a CD-ROM), although the former is the more common case.
Also, there are alot of non-free repositories around. Everything is 100% graphical through front-ends if you choose so. I don't get what you are trying to say...
They are leveraging a monopoly they have in one field to provide an unfair advantage for their products in another field. Let's make this simple: Let's say I work at CNN and want to provide my users with videos from my reporters. I want my video to be as small as possible, to minimize the download time, I want it to have fairly good quality, I want it to be seeable on the majority of systems (Windows+OSX >95%, stats pulled out of my ass) with it providing minimal hassle for my users. This means, if avoiding a codec download is possible, I'll go for it. So, what you have is MS giving an unfair advantage to their products using the sheer number of windows installations and not innovation. If I wasn't sure wmp was on all windows systems, or better yet: if wmp shipped with all media codecs, (which would even be better for you as the end user), this would be a whole different situation. I would actually choose the _best_ format to distribute my media based on merits of the format (even if that end up being wmv again), without weighing it against a decision to hassle him with an extra download... As it is to today, I will almost always choose a slightly worse format, over forcing my users to know wtf a codec is, let alone wait through the download and install it...
Are DivX, Quicktime, Real, 3gp codecs automatically downloadable by wmp? I smell a political decision on MS's side here...
The 1mb attachment restriction is so you can avoid pesky ppt and funny videos people tend to send and distract you from work.
Also, real men(TM) don't need over 2mb space, because real men(TM) aren't using a GUI! So, the answer to your question poromene1, is that in fact these restrictions are features!:*)
No, you should be able to code for the common denominator that both IE and Firefox support.
Sure you can. The common denominator is a subset of features on both browsers. If you have tried to develop for IE you'll see it is quite frustrating, while Firefox And Opera are on par with each other more or less. Check out the.StupidIEWidthHack on this css file from microsoft. This is a good example of basic things IE doesn't do. Anyhow, the point is not coding for the common denominator, but coding by standards and having the browsers be responsible for rendering the content right. I'm not saying you should not test your pages, but the burden today is on the developer to keep IE compatible with the content they want to display. IE is still relevant because it is tied with windows today.
Are you saying there is not a single common level of compatibility that both IE and Firefox can hit ? Because I find that difficult to believe.
Again you are missing my point. What I'm saying is that Firefox, Opera, Safari, Konqueror are striving to stick with standards. You'll see that the common denominator for these browsers are quite a big number of features. When you throw IE in there, the number of common features/common way of writing things drops dramatically. The point was that the only reason you are bothering with IE to begin with is because 90% of people _surely_ have it.
Why?
Well, first of all the ideological reasons. What if microsoft drops support for windows or IE tomorrow, yada, yada, yada... But, aside from this, the argument is basically as above. IE is a major player because it is surely on 90% of systems, not because it is a good browser. It is quite restricting. When designing a website your goal is for any customer to be able to see it, even if he is on the net using a *nix system or a mobile browser. So in your analogy, web standards are the 'executable standard' of the net, and you are asking me why it is not ok to exclude the use of the heap. You can but you shouldn't _have_ to.:)
Or that IE provides functionality - or development abilities - that Firefox (and/or "standards") does not.
If IE is either a) easier to target or b) more featureful in useful ways, then targeting IE specifically *does* make sense.
Name some features IE offers that cannot be done with, say, Java.
I've tried the "media experience" in Linux several times. "Hunting down codecs" is usually the *least* painful part of it.
Funny, everything just worked(TM) here.:)
Microsoft - as with every other vendor - have to provide a baseline level of functionality and capabilities with their OS. Both their customers and developers demand it. Shipping "every codec" is an impractical solution to this problem, since "every codec" is a fast-moving target (and that's completely ignoring any legal implications and/or additional costs).
I demand a DivX codec and a quicktime codec. Alot of people I know, know what nemo's codec pack is. Why should that be? I pay them more than enough for this cost to be integrated in my license.
It's also important to point out here, that what you appear to mean by "make it uninstallable" refers *only* to the player, and not the codecs. If you *are* referring to the codecs, then what you want to do will negatively impact the OS for basically everyone who matters.
Yes, I'm talking about the player only, just as I'm talking about the browser only. With out a browser or a player, an engine or a codec is useless. An alternate engine or codec(s) can be shipped with alternate browsers or players. I'm not against wmv or the IE engine themselves. Sure the IE engine is archaic, but wmv today is actually a good format. It's the unfair and illegal pushing microsoft does for these products I am against. If the market ultimately chooses wmv, I won't be
You probably are right. It just goes to show how utterly worthless patents are when missused. I'm happy the EU hasn't approved of software patents yet. Let's just hope we can officialy disaprove of software patents so they don't get enforced by the individual coutries' patent offices...
The problem isn't that. It is the sheer number of windows installations and the impact it has on the market. The percentage of windows computers on the net is so big, alot of governments including the US has ruled MS to be a monopoly. So, using these numbers to 'enforce' (practically it comes cheaper business-wise to tie your media with MS products) the non-standard way IE displays web pages or to automatically make wmv popular (almost the default video format) is anti-competetive. They are using one monopoly to gain market share in other fields. There would be no fuss if either IE or wmp were uninstallable, there would be no base in caliming IE or wmp is on 90% of systems, thus these products would need to compete on merits. Also there would be no fuss if windows were to ship with all the codecs (like divX or quicktime or even the painfull real) or if IE was fully standards compliant. Again in this case, these products would need to compete on merits. The position I am supporting is so blindingly clear that it stood up in court and won, yet there are people standing up for MS. Sigh... The funny thing about it, is that MS needs to do little stuff, small changes to avoid these acquisitions, yet it chooses not to... I don't see how given the option to uninstall IE or WMP if you liked would harm your windows experience, providing logic dictates you will be replacing them with another product. Even further I'm quite baffled you don't know what you are missing when MS ships wmv with minimal codecs in favor of pushing their agenda. Windows users _pay_ for their OS, still linux users don't need to search for codecs. They are simply there...
Which is of roughly zero relevance to 99% of users. Having app A installed does not stop me using app B that happens to do mostly the same thing.
Ah, but it does matter to businesses that windows users have IE there by default. This way IE defaults to 90% of computers, so you _must_ code for IE (you know they have IE, but you're not sure they have firefox). This just throws the responsibility for compatibility to the web developers, rather than it being microsoft's responsibility to make IE standards compliant. So even if you don't want to realize that alot of businesses just default to IE and forget about standards alltogether, you still have to recognize the amount of work people are doing just to preserve IE compatibility. If IE was uninstallable and as non standards compliant as it is today, people could code by standards and the burden would be on MS to fix their archaic browser.
Yes, just like they can only write software for Windows and be assured it will work on most computers.
The difference being the web or the internet in general is not and should not be platform specific as the native code you are talking about. It doesn't make any business sense, let aside ideological reasons. The only business sense about it, is that Microsoft with these anti-competetive moves, makes it a better cost-effective decison to tie stuff with their products.
No, it's a business decision. Criticise the people writing the web pages/software/media/whatever, if they're not writing it the way you'd prefer.
And I'm judging it as just that, a business decision: In the case of IE, as I pointed out above, you _have_ to code for IE, or else you are surely missing a big audiance. I often send out emails criticizing web developers, but the sad fact is that by having IE in the system by default, microsoft is making their life hard because they _have_ to implement workarounds for IE's shortcomings. Why should they have to be the ones coding out of standards and doing microsoft's job for them? Because some company for some untold reason, will not let IE be uninstalled. Some just irresponsibly decide to code only for IE. Same with media. Let wmp be uninstallable, or ship all codecs by default. It would be a better customer experience if I could just play any file they send me as I do in linux, than to have to hunt down codecs...
No, they'd ship commonly used codecs (which they do). Divx - outside of DVD ripping - is *not* a commonly used codec.
I don't know what side of the internet you live on, but over here divX is used alot in all sorts of videos. I recieve divX files by email with funny videos as much as I recieve wmv files, if not more. DivX is a fairly popular video format that windows just does not have support for. Just as it doesn't play quicktime movies out of the box. Or is that also not a commonly used codec? It's a political decision and not one based on your satisfaction as a customer, deal with it. Quicktime IMHO is and always was a superior format than anything microsoft. Remember MS ripping off Apple and reaching a settlement over it?. Just as in IE, it doesn't make sense for a business to distribute a divX or a quicktime file, because then 90% of their users need to install the appropriate codec. So it's easier to just distribute a wmv file (or mpeg, but they are lower quality and have bigger file sizes). This is how Windows media, through sane business decisions, gets unfairly popular. Once you let wmp be there by default, the rest are just logical steps businesses will take.
At which point you destroy most of the reason for having it there in the first place - common code reuse.
I keep seeing you post this. I don't think it means what you think it means, unless you have more information than I do. There is no reason you can not uninstall IE without breaking any dependencies. If so, microsoft has really made a monstrosity of code. Keep in m
Interesting point. But, linux uses this capability primarily (if not exclusively) when it's used in a dual boot system. I have no knowledge of linux systems using FAT in any other case than to interoperate with windows. So, in the majority of cases, people who use this feature of linux, also have a license to use FAT. IANAL, but it looks like the people that are going to have a problem with such a patent are people that implement FAT for use with something that doesn't already have a FAT license, this means using digital cameras with a FAT partition with linux while you don't have a windows license for example. To my knowledge, patent licenses are issued per seat and not per system. Also, this feature can quickly be taken out of most distributions over night after MS issues a warrant. Thus letting the rest of the world use it freely and only the countries under stupid patent law miss this feature without paying. Anyhow, microsoft enforcing this patent will also raise a question of interoperability and double-licensing in the case of dual-booting linux. So, I guess this isn't a big threat.
You do, however, remain free not to use them - which is the important part.
You are free to not use them, but you are not free to:
a) Uninstall them.
b) Not be counted as having them as a windows user.
This lets web developers or media companies assume that 90% of the world have the capability of rendering an IE only page, or playing a wmv file legally, so they can default to microsoft products and not be losing over 10% of their audiance. But this is anti-competetive. And this is how microsoft leverages its monopoly. DivX was a great format alot before wmv caught up and arguably it is still better than wmv, yet most DVD players support windows media, because it can surely be played on 90% of the computers on earth. This is a format war, if it was about customer experience, they would ship all the codecs with wmp (like divX) instead of making you search to download it. (And obviously they have the money to pay any license fee, or pass the cost on to me. If something, this is the good thing about an OS you pay for, that you can integrate the cost of licensing technologies in the cost of the system.) In conclusion, let microsoft bundle anything they want (I would expect a web browser with my OS for example), just give people the choice to _not_ have it on their system if they are not using them.
Is windows "N" the dominant windows version? Providing the option at the same price does not alter the way MS is anticompetitive. People who will buy windows "N" are the same people that use alternative media players anyway (providing you can find windows N on the shelves, where I live it wasn't). So the damage to microsoft's plan to leverage its monopoly: Zero. The EU was 'outsmarted' on this one. I hope it has people with a clue on board this time. A better plan would be to somehow make MS sell windows N exclusively, or to order MS to make wmp uninstallable. On the current case against MS in the EU: 'Opening up' MS a bit will not only benefit Europe, but the whole world.
Well, you can judge the motives these governments have all you want. Short term, you could be right about the motives. But the motives are irrelevant, this is the law. Anti-competetive laws are there for a reason other than extortion of US corporations. These governments have the right and the obligation to provide developers with the same chance of success that MS has. As MS works today, this is not the case. Even the US DOJ went against MS. It's just that the DOJ can afford to be light on MS because it provides a great amount of jobs and revenue to the US. Other countries are not obligated to 'be nice'...
Because the unbundling can't be done. Believe it or not, some people actually exclude some of their users, relying on the point that microsoft bundled products are on 90% of all systems world wide. same with wmp. This lets microsoft leverage its monopoly to gain market share in other fields like media. Simply anti-competetive.
The media makes and sells emotions. Hate here, a little sympathy there. For example: You may not think much about it, but your government is torturing people. They are bombing innocent people. You probably don't care alot because you believe they deserve it for probably being terrorists anyway, or you let it pass as collatoral damage for a bigger cause. But people being tortured or killed are someone's wife, someone's child, someone's father... Who cares if we beat someone a bit if we can get info to avoid terrorism, right? This makes you evil in their eyes. Like: "How can you be letting this continue? Why don't you do something about it?" (Hint: This is what is in their media, and just as you are thinking that Afghanistan needed more bombing, they are thinking 9/11 was an understatement. Hate sells.) A quote from your link:
But the bigger problem confronting the president is that an overwhelming number of ordinary Afghans appear to believe Mr Rahman has erred and deserves to be executed.
Same thing there to. They don't think much about it. It is the norm over there, just as your norm is that anything that can be done to avoid terrorism should be done, even if it means war, bodycounts, torture, collatoral damage, loss of freedoms...
One of the Iranians I know coverted to marry a christian friend of mine. She didn't hesitate at all, although she knew returning home would stop being an option. Her parents took it surprisingly well IIRC. She converted so 'without fuss' it made me think if I would be as open minded to convert to a muslim if I was in the same situation.
A bit offtopic: When you see inflammatory stories on the news for no good reason, check for something they are trying to pass while our backs are turned. 9 times out of 10, this is the case...;)
I probably made a bigger blunder than that! It just struck me that he is Iranian! The "27 years ago you could kiss anyone you felt like." didn't hint me off.:*) I assumed he was someone in the general area...
By now, it's been so long that many of them aren't so concerned about going back; they're happy in their new homes and their new homes are happy with them.
I can confirm this. Almost everyone I know doesn't consider returning home and the friend I mentioned that returned, did it becuase they wouldn't renew his green card. I presume you are an Arab. What do you see as being the best route to go down for Iran right now? That would be a very interesting comment!
Judging solely from your nickname, I guess you probably know the specifics alot more than I do. I barely remember Ayatollah Khomeini. I was about 4 when all this was still in the media. But you're right, a revolution is needed. Probably not a war though, we need the people of Iran to decide this and to be in power before and after it IMHO. There are alot of brilliant Iranians outside Iran I have met that could steer their country in a better direction.
You're right, I agree. Also, you are describing the exact immigration problem over here. The problem is building up now with the Europian Union and the Euro. I know this will probably discredit me alot, but I actually agree with maddox on this one. Sure, he's taking it to the extremes and talking more about racism, but the truth is that illegal immigration persists because there is a 'market' for it. Companies are trying to cut costs where possible and the government is playing blind in favor of corporations. So a citizen is reduced to a person with a bigger cost overhead than an immigrant. OTOH if they were to be given equal rights with citizens, the corporations would only hire them if they were actually better than citizens. If they came over here only to not be employed in the first place, they wouldn't stay. (Sure, making them citizens would raise the unemployment rate overnight, which is probably why they officially hesitate to make such a move. As you say, the problem isn't a simple one to solve.).
I'm not enamoured with my own, let alone most other governments. The difference being at least I have some say here. Not much, since most voters are lemmings. Corporations can be much much worse.
You're right. And that's the problem I only wish I had a fair answer for.
What you are describing my friend is a really big gap in classes in Saudi Arabia. This phenomenon is present even in western societies. You'll often see the poor go to extremes out of despair. Surely not to the extent you are describing, but the pattern is there. The good thing with western societies, is that the differences between classes aren't that big, so you won't see alot of violence. They can accept the way they live alot easier than the 'indentured slaves' as you say. What about the illegal immigrants in western societies? Aren't they basically the same situation on an alot smaller scale? Greed and unfairness is the source of violence IMHO. Humans are alike in many more ways than not. Anyway, I wasn't trying to be an anti-US troll. But the thing is, I'm compelled to post my opinion on slashdot as an anonymous coward more often than not because of people with your attitude. I'm sure you love your country and believe what you are doing is 100% right. This is alot more than what we have in Europe. But what we don't have in patriotism, we suplement with criticism to our governments. Take a look at France right now with the riots over labor-law injustice over there. I'm not implying that we are not blind-sided alot of times, or we are superior in any way. It's the politicians I have a problem with, and not the (actually really kind and noble) American people. Governments and corporations are using us worldwide for their interests. I have no respect for them though, sorry...
You have to understand that for Islamic countries, these sort of laws are the norm. My Iranian friend doesn't like his government and He was actually pointing out funny things you will see in an islamic country (that being said, he doesn't want a US invasion under any terms). Like it is forbidden for a man to kiss a woman if they are not engaged. Even actors on TV 'pass out' when the kissing part comes. These fanatical believes are deaply entrenched in islamic countries and as the link you provided me clearly shows, even the US invasion didn't change this much. The key thing to do here is to economically approach such countries. Up their living standards and educate the population. Governments will do the right thing if it benefits them enough (sadly they wont do the right thing only on maorals). We need to embrace the arabs, not plant hate here and there. Just my humble opinion.
I wish I could be so optimistic. The thing is, their are big interests behind the media acting like this. First and primarily, the media is selling this like hotcakes. Secondly, the media is actually manipulated by western governments for their agendas. Also, terrorism can not be fought off by terrorism like bombing countries and more often than not, innocent people. It just brings up more hate. Terrorism is actually gorilla warfare. And Gorilla warfare is a tactic you use when you don't have a tactical military force capable of "fair war", as the Palestinians don't. Sure, they are killing innocent people, which is wrong, but I don't think they would go to these extremes if they had a good standard of living in the first place, as we westerners do. The key thing to fight off terrorism is actually listen to what arabs are asking for and if it is reasonable, give it to them. I'm sure they are asking for nothing more than to be treated like human beings . Actually I'm pretty sure they are asking for a subclass of Human rights they currently don't even have. There is alot of unfairness in the world, this is the root of the problem as I see it. War is never the answer.
I'm sorry, but his point, I believe, was that the media actually amplify the image radicals pose upon all arabs, which is true. I could start a whole flamewar saying "all Americans are oil thirsty killers", but both you and I know this isn't the case. Most Arabs and Americans I know are actually peace-loving people. Generalization is the beginning of hate, and this is exactly what the media does. I have an Iranian friend right now I'm not sure will be alive in a few years because of this stupidness. And yes, it's the media polarizing things that start Holy wars. We all must wake up from this nightmare as soon as possible...
The Media is probably the cause of most of the greed throughout the world. It's easy to stir up emotions for numbers, but this is a vulnerabilty when it comes to political thought. Democracy loses its point if you are able to control the thought, or distract the majority of people from what actually matters. The governments of the western world (US+Europe) actually rely on this to push their, most often then not, unfair agendas. Anyway, thanks to Isam and Roblimo for this insightful interview...
Slashdot Mirror
So if I'm planning to switch to Linux, should I necessarily plan on buying a new set of hardware? Should I treat Linux like Mac OS X, something to be switched to when I'm already planning on replacing hardware?
Are you planning on switching to Vista? Is a hardware upgrade not involved in this move? Yes, if you are serious about switching to linux, a check to see if your hardware is compatible is logical. just as you did with XP before you upgraded (remember the whole wizard before you upgraded on the windows CD and on microsoft's site?). I learned this the hard way with windows, because I was so confident it would recognize any hardware I threw at it. Looks like the SMC ISA adaptors weren't in the Windows XPerience....
So once I'm within a Wal-Mart or Best Buy or Circuit City store, looking at a shelf full of peripherals, how can I access Google to see which are compatible with a given operating system other than a recent proprietary operating system published by Microsoft or Apple?
You can:
1)Ask anyone at Walmart if the component is supported under linux. They will be more than happy to answer.
2)If not, you decide on some you are willing to buy and Google them up when you get a chance. I don't know about you, but I don't choose my hardware lightly. And grandma won't be at walmart buying just a graphics adaptor...
_In my experience_, about 90% of all hardware works right out of the box in linux. You'll probably need to add and tweak some proprietary video card drivers a bit to get the maximum performance out of your GPU, but you could use the generic drivers if performance isn't that big an issue. But again, if you are serious about linux, it's: install once, use forever... Even if you are afraid you'll mess up your linux install, norton ghost works fine with ext partitions. So once grandma gets someone to setup linux for her (she wouldn't be able to setup windows by herself either, right?), she'll never call back because of malware, ever again...
No problem!
Are there specialized graphical editors for sources.list that would allow a median grandmother to easily add a store-bought CD-ROM as a repository? (No, notepad clones don't count.)
Yes, there are specialized graphical editors for sources.list that would allow a median grandmother to easily add a store-bought CD-ROM as a repository
And would it properly detect repositories on different CDs that are mounted and unmounted as people buy Linux app CDs from a hypothetical Penguin-Mart and then insert and eject them?
Yes it would, considering the repository on the CD is set up correctly by the vendor (nothing grandma has to do) and the path is in the sources (grandma could need to add this with the easy GUI specialized editor shown above. For added easyness, It would be no problem for the vendor to even make the repository look like an official mandrake CD, so grandma would just need to select the software she wants to.)
Do all distributions mount the primary optical drive at the same URI?
This problem is as easy as telling grandma to write in the path given to here on the CD (just like a serial numer, even easier as it is not complete random alphanumerical data.
By "non-free" in the context of Debian-compatible repositories, I assume you mean that same thing Debian means by "non-free", that is, proprietary software. However, Debian's "non-free" repository contains "freeware," that is, software cleared by its copyright owner for free redistribution to the general public but not under a free software license.
A non-free repository, as far as 'the windows way' goes, can be distributed with a CD as described above if a proprietary vendor wants to use the linux packaging system. If not, he can provide a shell script that automatically installs the software, doing the checking-for-specific-distro behind scenes. Just as windows installers check for windows versions. It could also (through checkinstall) create a convenient package that could be integrated in the linux package manager. All this is done by the vendor. The end user would just double-click a install file. Same as windows basically...
However, many specialized programs depend on revenue from sales of copies in order to finance their development. Do online repositories allow for secure payment to the publisher per package, per computer that the package will be installed on?
The way a vendor will go on collecting money is completely irrelevent to the packaging system itself. Access to a proprietary-repository can be granted to a paying customer only. Just as club members on mandriva have access to Media reserved to club members.
So, there are a bunch of ways you can install software on linux. Most are even friendlier than the windows way. If you really want to get envolved with Linux, you'll never turn back...
Of course they can.
A repository can be both online and offline (for example on a CD-ROM), although the former is the more common case.
Also, there are alot of non-free repositories around. Everything is 100% graphical through front-ends if you choose so. I don't get what you are trying to say...
They are leveraging a monopoly they have in one field to provide an unfair advantage for their products in another field. Let's make this simple: Let's say I work at CNN and want to provide my users with videos from my reporters. I want my video to be as small as possible, to minimize the download time, I want it to have fairly good quality, I want it to be seeable on the majority of systems (Windows+OSX >95%, stats pulled out of my ass) with it providing minimal hassle for my users. This means, if avoiding a codec download is possible, I'll go for it. So, what you have is MS giving an unfair advantage to their products using the sheer number of windows installations and not innovation. If I wasn't sure wmp was on all windows systems, or better yet: if wmp shipped with all media codecs, (which would even be better for you as the end user), this would be a whole different situation. I would actually choose the _best_ format to distribute my media based on merits of the format (even if that end up being wmv again), without weighing it against a decision to hassle him with an extra download... As it is to today, I will almost always choose a slightly worse format, over forcing my users to know wtf a codec is, let alone wait through the download and install it...
Are DivX, Quicktime, Real, 3gp codecs automatically downloadable by wmp? I smell a political decision on MS's side here...
You neoi have it easy... Back in our days, we were whistling like a modem! :)
Actually, yes:
:*)
The 1mb attachment restriction is so you can avoid pesky ppt and funny videos people tend to send and distract you from work.
Also, real men(TM) don't need over 2mb space, because real men(TM) aren't using a GUI! So, the answer to your question poromene1, is that in fact these restrictions are features!
No, you should be able to code for the common denominator that both IE and Firefox support.
.StupidIEWidthHack on this css file from microsoft. This is a good example of basic things IE doesn't do. Anyhow, the point is not coding for the common denominator, but coding by standards and having the browsers be responsible for rendering the content right. I'm not saying you should not test your pages, but the burden today is on the developer to keep IE compatible with the content they want to display. IE is still relevant because it is tied with windows today.
:)
:)
Sure you can. The common denominator is a subset of features on both browsers. If you have tried to develop for IE you'll see it is quite frustrating, while Firefox And Opera are on par with each other more or less. Check out the
Are you saying there is not a single common level of compatibility that both IE and Firefox can hit ? Because I find that difficult to believe.
Again you are missing my point. What I'm saying is that Firefox, Opera, Safari, Konqueror are striving to stick with standards. You'll see that the common denominator for these browsers are quite a big number of features. When you throw IE in there, the number of common features/common way of writing things drops dramatically. The point was that the only reason you are bothering with IE to begin with is because 90% of people _surely_ have it.
Why?
Well, first of all the ideological reasons. What if microsoft drops support for windows or IE tomorrow, yada, yada, yada... But, aside from this, the argument is basically as above. IE is a major player because it is surely on 90% of systems, not because it is a good browser. It is quite restricting. When designing a website your goal is for any customer to be able to see it, even if he is on the net using a *nix system or a mobile browser. So in your analogy, web standards are the 'executable standard' of the net, and you are asking me why it is not ok to exclude the use of the heap. You can but you shouldn't _have_ to.
Or that IE provides functionality - or development abilities - that Firefox (and/or "standards") does not. If IE is either a) easier to target or b) more featureful in useful ways, then targeting IE specifically *does* make sense.
Name some features IE offers that cannot be done with, say, Java.
I've tried the "media experience" in Linux several times. "Hunting down codecs" is usually the *least* painful part of it.
Funny, everything just worked(TM) here.
Microsoft - as with every other vendor - have to provide a baseline level of functionality and capabilities with their OS. Both their customers and developers demand it. Shipping "every codec" is an impractical solution to this problem, since "every codec" is a fast-moving target (and that's completely ignoring any legal implications and/or additional costs).
I demand a DivX codec and a quicktime codec. Alot of people I know, know what nemo's codec pack is. Why should that be? I pay them more than enough for this cost to be integrated in my license.
It's also important to point out here, that what you appear to mean by "make it uninstallable" refers *only* to the player, and not the codecs. If you *are* referring to the codecs, then what you want to do will negatively impact the OS for basically everyone who matters.
Yes, I'm talking about the player only, just as I'm talking about the browser only. With out a browser or a player, an engine or a codec is useless. An alternate engine or codec(s) can be shipped with alternate browsers or players. I'm not against wmv or the IE engine themselves. Sure the IE engine is archaic, but wmv today is actually a good format. It's the unfair and illegal pushing microsoft does for these products I am against. If the market ultimately chooses wmv, I won't be
You probably are right. It just goes to show how utterly worthless patents are when missused. I'm happy the EU hasn't approved of software patents yet. Let's just hope we can officialy disaprove of software patents so they don't get enforced by the individual coutries' patent offices...
The problem isn't that. It is the sheer number of windows installations and the impact it has on the market. The percentage of windows computers on the net is so big, alot of governments including the US has ruled MS to be a monopoly. So, using these numbers to 'enforce' (practically it comes cheaper business-wise to tie your media with MS products) the non-standard way IE displays web pages or to automatically make wmv popular (almost the default video format) is anti-competetive. They are using one monopoly to gain market share in other fields. There would be no fuss if either IE or wmp were uninstallable, there would be no base in caliming IE or wmp is on 90% of systems, thus these products would need to compete on merits. Also there would be no fuss if windows were to ship with all the codecs (like divX or quicktime or even the painfull real) or if IE was fully standards compliant. Again in this case, these products would need to compete on merits. The position I am supporting is so blindingly clear that it stood up in court and won, yet there are people standing up for MS. Sigh... The funny thing about it, is that MS needs to do little stuff, small changes to avoid these acquisitions, yet it chooses not to... I don't see how given the option to uninstall IE or WMP if you liked would harm your windows experience, providing logic dictates you will be replacing them with another product. Even further I'm quite baffled you don't know what you are missing when MS ships wmv with minimal codecs in favor of pushing their agenda. Windows users _pay_ for their OS, still linux users don't need to search for codecs. They are simply there...
Which is of roughly zero relevance to 99% of users. Having app A installed does not stop me using app B that happens to do mostly the same thing.
Ah, but it does matter to businesses that windows users have IE there by default. This way IE defaults to 90% of computers, so you _must_ code for IE (you know they have IE, but you're not sure they have firefox). This just throws the responsibility for compatibility to the web developers, rather than it being microsoft's responsibility to make IE standards compliant. So even if you don't want to realize that alot of businesses just default to IE and forget about standards alltogether, you still have to recognize the amount of work people are doing just to preserve IE compatibility. If IE was uninstallable and as non standards compliant as it is today, people could code by standards and the burden would be on MS to fix their archaic browser.
Yes, just like they can only write software for Windows and be assured it will work on most computers.
The difference being the web or the internet in general is not and should not be platform specific as the native code you are talking about. It doesn't make any business sense, let aside ideological reasons. The only business sense about it, is that Microsoft with these anti-competetive moves, makes it a better cost-effective decison to tie stuff with their products.
No, it's a business decision. Criticise the people writing the web pages/software/media/whatever, if they're not writing it the way you'd prefer.
And I'm judging it as just that, a business decision: In the case of IE, as I pointed out above, you _have_ to code for IE, or else you are surely missing a big audiance. I often send out emails criticizing web developers, but the sad fact is that by having IE in the system by default, microsoft is making their life hard because they _have_ to implement workarounds for IE's shortcomings. Why should they have to be the ones coding out of standards and doing microsoft's job for them? Because some company for some untold reason, will not let IE be uninstalled. Some just irresponsibly decide to code only for IE. Same with media. Let wmp be uninstallable, or ship all codecs by default. It would be a better customer experience if I could just play any file they send me as I do in linux, than to have to hunt down codecs...
No, they'd ship commonly used codecs (which they do). Divx - outside of DVD ripping - is *not* a commonly used codec.
I don't know what side of the internet you live on, but over here divX is used alot in all sorts of videos. I recieve divX files by email with funny videos as much as I recieve wmv files, if not more. DivX is a fairly popular video format that windows just does not have support for. Just as it doesn't play quicktime movies out of the box. Or is that also not a commonly used codec? It's a political decision and not one based on your satisfaction as a customer, deal with it. Quicktime IMHO is and always was a superior format than anything microsoft. Remember MS ripping off Apple and reaching a settlement over it?. Just as in IE, it doesn't make sense for a business to distribute a divX or a quicktime file, because then 90% of their users need to install the appropriate codec. So it's easier to just distribute a wmv file (or mpeg, but they are lower quality and have bigger file sizes). This is how Windows media, through sane business decisions, gets unfairly popular. Once you let wmp be there by default, the rest are just logical steps businesses will take.
At which point you destroy most of the reason for having it there in the first place - common code reuse.
I keep seeing you post this. I don't think it means what you think it means, unless you have more information than I do. There is no reason you can not uninstall IE without breaking any dependencies. If so, microsoft has really made a monstrosity of code. Keep in m
Interesting point. But, linux uses this capability primarily (if not exclusively) when it's used in a dual boot system. I have no knowledge of linux systems using FAT in any other case than to interoperate with windows. So, in the majority of cases, people who use this feature of linux, also have a license to use FAT. IANAL, but it looks like the people that are going to have a problem with such a patent are people that implement FAT for use with something that doesn't already have a FAT license, this means using digital cameras with a FAT partition with linux while you don't have a windows license for example. To my knowledge, patent licenses are issued per seat and not per system. Also, this feature can quickly be taken out of most distributions over night after MS issues a warrant. Thus letting the rest of the world use it freely and only the countries under stupid patent law miss this feature without paying. Anyhow, microsoft enforcing this patent will also raise a question of interoperability and double-licensing in the case of dual-booting linux. So, I guess this isn't a big threat.
You do, however, remain free not to use them - which is the important part.
You are free to not use them, but you are not free to:
a) Uninstall them.
b) Not be counted as having them as a windows user.
This lets web developers or media companies assume that 90% of the world have the capability of rendering an IE only page, or playing a wmv file legally, so they can default to microsoft products and not be losing over 10% of their audiance. But this is anti-competetive. And this is how microsoft leverages its monopoly. DivX was a great format alot before wmv caught up and arguably it is still better than wmv, yet most DVD players support windows media, because it can surely be played on 90% of the computers on earth. This is a format war, if it was about customer experience, they would ship all the codecs with wmp (like divX) instead of making you search to download it. (And obviously they have the money to pay any license fee, or pass the cost on to me. If something, this is the good thing about an OS you pay for, that you can integrate the cost of licensing technologies in the cost of the system.) In conclusion, let microsoft bundle anything they want (I would expect a web browser with my OS for example), just give people the choice to _not_ have it on their system if they are not using them.
Is windows "N" the dominant windows version? Providing the option at the same price does not alter the way MS is anticompetitive. People who will buy windows "N" are the same people that use alternative media players anyway (providing you can find windows N on the shelves, where I live it wasn't). So the damage to microsoft's plan to leverage its monopoly: Zero. The EU was 'outsmarted' on this one. I hope it has people with a clue on board this time. A better plan would be to somehow make MS sell windows N exclusively, or to order MS to make wmp uninstallable. On the current case against MS in the EU: 'Opening up' MS a bit will not only benefit Europe, but the whole world.
Well, you can judge the motives these governments have all you want. Short term, you could be right about the motives. But the motives are irrelevant, this is the law. Anti-competetive laws are there for a reason other than extortion of US corporations. These governments have the right and the obligation to provide developers with the same chance of success that MS has. As MS works today, this is not the case. Even the US DOJ went against MS. It's just that the DOJ can afford to be light on MS because it provides a great amount of jobs and revenue to the US. Other countries are not obligated to 'be nice'...
Because the unbundling can't be done. Believe it or not, some people actually exclude some of their users, relying on the point that microsoft bundled products are on 90% of all systems world wide. same with wmp. This lets microsoft leverage its monopoly to gain market share in other fields like media. Simply anti-competetive.
Are you trying to prove my point posting such emotion raising links, my friend?
;)
The media makes and sells emotions. Hate here, a little sympathy there. For example: You may not think much about it, but your government is torturing people. They are bombing innocent people. You probably don't care alot because you believe they deserve it for probably being terrorists anyway, or you let it pass as collatoral damage for a bigger cause. But people being tortured or killed are someone's wife, someone's child, someone's father... Who cares if we beat someone a bit if we can get info to avoid terrorism, right? This makes you evil in their eyes. Like: "How can you be letting this continue? Why don't you do something about it?" (Hint: This is what is in their media, and just as you are thinking that Afghanistan needed more bombing, they are thinking 9/11 was an understatement. Hate sells.) A quote from your link:
But the bigger problem confronting the president is that an overwhelming number of ordinary Afghans appear to believe Mr Rahman has erred and deserves to be executed.
Same thing there to. They don't think much about it. It is the norm over there, just as your norm is that anything that can be done to avoid terrorism should be done, even if it means war, bodycounts, torture, collatoral damage, loss of freedoms...
One of the Iranians I know coverted to marry a christian friend of mine. She didn't hesitate at all, although she knew returning home would stop being an option. Her parents took it surprisingly well IIRC. She converted so 'without fuss' it made me think if I would be as open minded to convert to a muslim if I was in the same situation.
A bit offtopic: When you see inflammatory stories on the news for no good reason, check for something they are trying to pass while our backs are turned. 9 times out of 10, this is the case...
Cheers!
I probably made a bigger blunder than that! It just struck me that he is Iranian! The "27 years ago you could kiss anyone you felt like." didn't hint me off. :*) I assumed he was someone in the general area...
By now, it's been so long that many of them aren't so concerned about going back; they're happy in their new homes and their new homes are happy with them.
I can confirm this. Almost everyone I know doesn't consider returning home and the friend I mentioned that returned, did it becuase they wouldn't renew his green card. I presume you are an Arab. What do you see as being the best route to go down for Iran right now? That would be a very interesting comment!
Judging solely from your nickname, I guess you probably know the specifics alot more than I do. I barely remember Ayatollah Khomeini. I was about 4 when all this was still in the media. But you're right, a revolution is needed. Probably not a war though, we need the people of Iran to decide this and to be in power before and after it IMHO. There are alot of brilliant Iranians outside Iran I have met that could steer their country in a better direction.
You're right, I agree. Also, you are describing the exact immigration problem over here. The problem is building up now with the Europian Union and the Euro. I know this will probably discredit me alot, but I actually agree with maddox on this one. Sure, he's taking it to the extremes and talking more about racism, but the truth is that illegal immigration persists because there is a 'market' for it. Companies are trying to cut costs where possible and the government is playing blind in favor of corporations. So a citizen is reduced to a person with a bigger cost overhead than an immigrant. OTOH if they were to be given equal rights with citizens, the corporations would only hire them if they were actually better than citizens. If they came over here only to not be employed in the first place, they wouldn't stay. (Sure, making them citizens would raise the unemployment rate overnight, which is probably why they officially hesitate to make such a move. As you say, the problem isn't a simple one to solve.).
I'm not enamoured with my own, let alone most other governments. The difference being at least I have some say here. Not much, since most voters are lemmings. Corporations can be much much worse.
You're right. And that's the problem I only wish I had a fair answer for.
What you are describing my friend is a really big gap in classes in Saudi Arabia. This phenomenon is present even in western societies. You'll often see the poor go to extremes out of despair. Surely not to the extent you are describing, but the pattern is there. The good thing with western societies, is that the differences between classes aren't that big, so you won't see alot of violence. They can accept the way they live alot easier than the 'indentured slaves' as you say. What about the illegal immigrants in western societies? Aren't they basically the same situation on an alot smaller scale? Greed and unfairness is the source of violence IMHO. Humans are alike in many more ways than not. Anyway, I wasn't trying to be an anti-US troll. But the thing is, I'm compelled to post my opinion on slashdot as an anonymous coward more often than not because of people with your attitude. I'm sure you love your country and believe what you are doing is 100% right. This is alot more than what we have in Europe. But what we don't have in patriotism, we suplement with criticism to our governments. Take a look at France right now with the riots over labor-law injustice over there. I'm not implying that we are not blind-sided alot of times, or we are superior in any way. It's the politicians I have a problem with, and not the (actually really kind and noble) American people. Governments and corporations are using us worldwide for their interests. I have no respect for them though, sorry...
You have to understand that for Islamic countries, these sort of laws are the norm. My Iranian friend doesn't like his government and He was actually pointing out funny things you will see in an islamic country (that being said, he doesn't want a US invasion under any terms). Like it is forbidden for a man to kiss a woman if they are not engaged. Even actors on TV 'pass out' when the kissing part comes. These fanatical believes are deaply entrenched in islamic countries and as the link you provided me clearly shows, even the US invasion didn't change this much. The key thing to do here is to economically approach such countries. Up their living standards and educate the population. Governments will do the right thing if it benefits them enough (sadly they wont do the right thing only on maorals). We need to embrace the arabs, not plant hate here and there. Just my humble opinion.
I wish I could be so optimistic. The thing is, their are big interests behind the media acting like this. First and primarily, the media is selling this like hotcakes. Secondly, the media is actually manipulated by western governments for their agendas. Also, terrorism can not be fought off by terrorism like bombing countries and more often than not, innocent people. It just brings up more hate. Terrorism is actually gorilla warfare. And Gorilla warfare is a tactic you use when you don't have a tactical military force capable of "fair war", as the Palestinians don't. Sure, they are killing innocent people, which is wrong, but I don't think they would go to these extremes if they had a good standard of living in the first place, as we westerners do. The key thing to fight off terrorism is actually listen to what arabs are asking for and if it is reasonable, give it to them. I'm sure they are asking for nothing more than to be treated like human beings . Actually I'm pretty sure they are asking for a subclass of Human rights they currently don't even have. There is alot of unfairness in the world, this is the root of the problem as I see it. War is never the answer.
I'm sorry, but his point, I believe, was that the media actually amplify the image radicals pose upon all arabs, which is true. I could start a whole flamewar saying "all Americans are oil thirsty killers", but both you and I know this isn't the case. Most Arabs and Americans I know are actually peace-loving people. Generalization is the beginning of hate, and this is exactly what the media does. I have an Iranian friend right now I'm not sure will be alive in a few years because of this stupidness. And yes, it's the media polarizing things that start Holy wars. We all must wake up from this nightmare as soon as possible...
^ Agrees with parent
I wish I had mod points...
The Media is probably the cause of most of the greed throughout the world. It's easy to stir up emotions for numbers, but this is a vulnerabilty when it comes to political thought. Democracy loses its point if you are able to control the thought, or distract the majority of people from what actually matters. The governments of the western world (US+Europe) actually rely on this to push their, most often then not, unfair agendas. Anyway, thanks to Isam and Roblimo for this insightful interview...