You misunderstand. Legacy may not be an argument for MS, but it is an argument about change for change's sake.
These companies all have systems that work and their users can use to a degree of efficiency. Where's the incentive to change? At some point a company may find itself in a position where a change would be cheaper and more effective than continuation but that's just not the case for a large proportion of the businesses out there.
Rather than quote your paragraphs in their entirity, let's just number them for your convenience.
Paragraph 1: You're asking completely the wrong question. It isn't, nor should it ever be, what does X have that isn't useful to Y. The question is, what does Y have that can't be supported by X. In business terms, OSX is an incredibly locked-down system, far more so than you claim Windows to be. What specialist hardware has OSX support that Apple didn't make? Close to none. You get what you're given and if you want anything more you're shit out of luck.
Paragraph 2: Microsoft fits what big companies need because everyone else uses Microsoft, and they already use Microsoft. You're right that this perpetuates itself but there is no incentive to any company to retrain their staff at their own expense and convenience on new systems and interfaces when they're currently on a system that works, however poorly your imagination wants to paint it. No matter how much you say it's a jump in usability from XP to Vista, XP to Linux is a chasm that no company wants to jump, and distro choice is a minefield that no company wants to pick their way through.
Paragraph 3: Legacy doesn't just go away because you wish it to be so. Your rhetoric about dollars spent on non-free software rings true, but your claims of compatibility do not. I also direct your attention to the post I replied to you with where I pointed out the problems of supporting free software on the same scale that Windows is supported at the moment, and how the increase in the marketshare that you espouse is completely unworkable. You responded to that by quoting a single line that tried vainly to make me sound like I hate users and open source, which is not only not true but completely avoided addressing the issues I raised. Your second attempt is welcomed.
Paragraph 4: They can sell Linux or Windows PCs, and I believe Dell now do. Nobody is getting screwed and people have the choice. If the choice isn't taken, it says more about the alternative than it does about the status quo.
Nobody here believes me because this is Slashdot, and if like me you deviate from the groupthink, you lose 'credibility'.
Believe me or not, and although my anecdotal evidence does not trump yours, it does invalidate any attempt to paint your experience as the general rule.
For someone who's worked for a Fortune 100 bank, it's amazing that you've never heard of group policies. Our company has several hundred machines running XP. The only time anything 'excruciatingly manual' has to be done is when a computer breaks and needs replacing, but that's true for any OS.
Updates and patches are rolled out centrally during the night and computers are up to date and working as normal in the morning, but you would know that, right?
I am a casual tinkerer, Captain Fucknut, and I have never had a problem with WGA. I have changed hardware and re-authorised no problem. I have built 2 computers for myself, 2 for my family, my ex-boyfriends machine, the machine of my room-mate who is currently happily gaming away about 2 yards above my head. I have reused components, switched RAM, changed processors, a multitude of other miscellaneous changes and I have never, ever had to get my codes re-authorised with the big Em Ess.
Your "My anecdotal evidence must trump yours" attitude is as arrogant and worthless as your retarded assumptions about how I go about my business.
product activation is only a PITA for legit customers.
I can only agree how much of a pain this was. Once I'd typed in my 25 numbers and letters, Windows never bothered me or asked me about it again. How intolerably annoying is that?!
Re:The author is a fanboy and says what you do.
on
Is Vista a Trap?
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Everybody cheer, it's Pick Apart the Zealot time!
Everyone sitting comfortably?
The BBC author concludes the same thing, and that's what sucks. He says to wait and get Vista pre-installed. Doing that won't fix his webcam or his pocket PC.
No, but you missed the point. He says Vista isn't worth it for him right now, but will be if he upgrades. Revel in the small victory that may offer you, but don't misinterpret it. Regardless, support will come and soon, if he's willing to wait and he chose a good manufacturer.
Those and his old computer, which is twice as nice as anything I have, will become more toxic waste.
Because now that he's not using Vista his computer automatically melts down?
What has he gotten that he did not have? Nothing but a prettier interface and a false promise of better security. Upgrading non free software is like that, difficult, costly and unnecessary.
Seeing as you've never bothered to check, you wouldn't have a clue what Vista has that's new anyway, and I'm not here to educate you. Needless to say, tell the people upgrading Ubuntu on this thread that repeatedly lose time and effort to fixing the problems it causes on each update how 'difficult' and 'costly' upgrading is. Time is money, and no update to XP ever broke my video card.
Replacing everything only marginally decreases your difficulty because you then have to purchase, install and relearn the new interfaces for all the programs that actually do your work and play.
We had this conversation before and you failed to provide a good answer - have any of the window managers for Linux remained identical for the last 12 years? How about the last 10? The last 7? Didn't think so.
When you are through with that, you can begin the long and non transferable process of making your desktop comfortable and retrieving the old data that your masters allow you to keep.
Care to provide a source that says data automagically disappears when you upgrade if MS decides you can't use it? I'll finish that for you: you can't, because it doesn't. More bullshit (shock and disgust everyone).
The fanboy part of this equation is thinking you need non free software to begin with. The author's conclusion is basically, M$ at any cost.
No, it's not. The authors conclusion apparently sailed over your head as easily as all the other reasons to use Windows over Linux do. Nobody 'needs' non-free software in the same nobody 'needs' free software. Shockingly, it's a matter of preference.
The only one I've found so far was a version of Brian Lara Cricket. Working games include Oblivion, Psychonauts, Defcon, City of Heroes and Villains, Galactic Civilisations 2, Neverwinter Nights 1 and 2, SWAT 4, The Ship, World of Warcraft, all the new Sam and Max games, Operation Flashpoint, Z: Steel Soldiers, Jimmy White's Cueball, EVE Online, Sid Meier's Railroads!, Need for Speed Underground 2, Startopia...
You're clearly happy not trying anything new and want to stick to the proprietary route, which is your choice. Try not to rag on the rest of us successful OSS folk though ok?
I tried something new and it didn't work. I'm sure Linux works for you. It didn't work for me. I now choose Windows. I am not attacking Linux, I am defending Windows from the baseless crap you slung at it.
I am now convinced that I've been talking to a troll all along. Hope you enjoyed yourself.
What platform-specific hardware do I have then? ATI X1900 XTX,a Creative Live! 24-bit soundcard,an nForce 560 motherboard,an AMD 64 3800+ processor that I put together myself. Obviously so substandard that it Supreme Commander is playable at 1280x1024 at maximum graphics quality, and under Vista it hasn't crashed once. Ubuntu tried to tell me my hard-drive was corrupt when I tried to install it. Running off the live CD it couldn't detect my keyboard. These are problems that I wouldn't expect from any OS, and with Windows I didn't have them.
Face it, if I could find a distro that worked properly I could just move, but I don't want to.
Well first off I question your experience with the modern distros. Millions of other people have sorted out this "Linux thing" it could entirely be that at the first sign of trouble you tucked tail and ran. Which is odd given the troubles that Windows causes on a regular basis.
Classic argument, and one on the long list of reasons that Linux zealots give to wave away complaints - you didn't try hard enough. I tried pretty damn hard and take mild offense at the insinuation I didn't. Why would I have a reason not to? Did you not think that at some point I might want to see if I could do the things I do now for free? I found out that I couldn't so I stopped.
The point isn't that you should only run OSS, it's that you should have a *CHOICE* to run OSS. By buying hardware from vendors who don't care about your freedoms, you are denying yourself the choice. And btw, my nvidia card works just fine in Linux. Sure the drivers aren't OSS, but I picked nvidia because they decided it was a good idea to support BSD/Linux users. I could have got a comparable ATI card, but I *chose* to have freedoms.
I did have a choice to run OSS or not. I chose not to. Is that really that hard to figure out? Do I have to put it in neon letters on a black background? I. Choose. Not. To. Run. Linux.
Capiche?
Vista is all about control, signed drivers, DRM loops in the media filters, etc, etc. Sure your latest game may [or given what I heard, may not] work in Vista, but you pay the price in vendor lockin. Now you can only get hardware from select vendors, who given the reduced market don't have to compete as much. Your fair use rights? out the window.
Now we see a complete fabrication. All you're doing spreading baseless FUD to create an image of a world of closed computing that doesn't actually exist. Throw in a couple of buzzwords like Fair Use and DRM to strike up a bit of ire and it all sounds so believable, doesn't it?
Not to anyone with an ounce of sense.
Eventually your VistaXP++ Pro computer will come from one supplier, cost twice as much and allow you none of the freedoms you currently have with an OSS OS (or even XP to a certain extent).
Slippery slope argument and commercial suicide for Microsoft. If that did happen I would leave the Windows platform anyway. Why? Because I would choose to, the very concept of which you don't seem to understand.
What you want is more choice for you, not for me. A worthwhile cause but not one I actually give a crap about. I would apologise... but I'm not sorry at all.
Truth is, you own gear made by people who just wanted your money, they don't care about providing an actual benefit to the customer.
I'm glad you told me that. Means I can scrap this RAM because it doesn't provide me with any benefit. I'll chuck this ATI card because ATI obviously don't want me to have any benefit from using it so I don't need it, right? Honestly, that whole paragraph was total crap. If it didn't provide me with benefit I wouldn't have bought it. Just because it's only usable in one fashion, doesn't make it worthless. It might be worthless to you, but that's entirely your own prerogative. I wouldn't expect you to buy it, even if you seem to expect me not to.
As it stands, I have fun using my PC, and that's the main thing I care about - I don't give a cack whether it's Linux, Windows, or OSX as long as I enjoy myself, and the terrible time I had trying to run Ubuntu wasn't fun for me.
When it boils down to 'choice' I still have plenty. I can choose to use hardware with standard interfaces and migrate to Linux or I can buy non-standard hardware and stay on Windows, as you so rightly pointed out. However in that same breath, I have the choice between spending nothing and being miserable trying to get Ubuntu or Debian or whatever to actually work, or I could spend something disposable and actually have a good time when I'm home relaxing. Just because I personally limit my options because of what I want to do when I relax and use my PC, doesn't mean I don't have a choice at all.
How about people like me, who tried a Linux distro, had trouble getting it to even install, then had trouble getting it to recognise most of his hardware, gave up and went back to an OS that I can actually find drivers for and play games on? Where do I factor into your frankly ridiculous assessment of the current state of affairs? Honestly, sentences like "Linux is just plain better" should be seasoned with a good heavy dose of "I acknowledge that this is my opinion, so I shouldn't try and pass it off as fact".
Did enjoy the "be firm in their believe that their proprietary OS is just the only way to go" comment. Talk about irony. Replace 'proprietary OS' with 'free OS' then look in a mirror.
Then replace 'believe' with 'belief' so that it makes sense.
The Twitter Wordsmith Automatic Translator (or TWAT for short) says:
"I can't tell you what happens on Windoze, so from my perspective it's better to lie about something I don't understand than not comment on it at all. Anything to get more people using Linux, even if I did have to bankrupt all my morals to do so."
This TWAT program is so astute, I might just sell it to people here. FOR MONEY. *shockhorrordisgust*
This doesn't really help GP, who was just plain wrong, but there is an order of magnitude between the number of versions of Windows and the number of versions of Linux.
In a sense, you're right - it is worth a read, but only because it provides a very brief snapshot of how Jobs works behind the reality distortion field.
One - the inevitable 'honestly, it's not vendor lock-in' paragraph in the middle that just shows the intention of the document. He's not concerned with DRM at all, this paragraph and others is merely a tool to try and convince countries like Norway that they're not doing anything wrong.
Two - The guy can see the way the tide is flowing. If he was truly as opposed to DRM as he claims he wouldn't be using it. However it is better to state how much you dislike DRM, no matter how hypocritical and full of crap it is, than be caught out when everything shifts and nobody uses DRM anymore. When that happens, and it is inevitable, he will look like a visionary because he wrote about 20 empty paragraphs detailing how his own business model isn't viable.
Three - He is making no moves himself to convince any of the music companies to move away from DRM. Instead he claims it is governmental responsibility to force the music industry to change how it does it's business - never mind that this is exactly what some governments are doing to Apple in order to get them to open Fairplay up.
You don't even have to read between the lines. The message here is clear; the only way Apple will stop using Fairplay or limiting Fairplay to it's own players is when the market forces them to.
This is patently false. This conversation is very nice, so I'm going to go and play a gay game, get a cool drink, watch a counterfeit video and get some truly bad snack food.
I was in a slight hurry when I posted the previous reply, so allow me to elaborate on why you're so very, very wrong. To claim that I 'loathe' users is as disingenuous as trying to claim that I work for Microsoft (again). There is an enormous difference between hating users and knowing their limits.
Let me try this again so I can drill it into your thick head what I'm talking about.
You know as well as I do that it is a very small proportion of the users of operating systems who know how to code and update that operating system. The more people who use Linux that don't know how to code, the more people you need who do. A large proportion of the Linux userbase is already made up of technically knowledgable people, and there's lot more people left who have no idea than those who have some. Ergo, the more people who use Linux, the worse it gets. There is no escaping this. The argument goes beyond the cost or the freedom of knowledge - the great majority of people who use an OS want it to just work and do not want to put their time into making it better.
If the Linux userbase reaches critical mass it will implode as users abandon the platform in droves due to a lack of resources to support it.
I'm sorry if I didn't let you write one quote from my post and then try and use it out of context. That's not the way it works. Any moron who actually read the post you're quoting from can see what you've tried to do, and it makes you as bad as the Microsoft workers who are so fond of decrying - lying and using misdirection to try and distract users from the true argument is FUD at best and morally bankrupt at worst.
Slashdot Mirror
You misunderstand. Legacy may not be an argument for MS, but it is an argument about change for change's sake.
These companies all have systems that work and their users can use to a degree of efficiency. Where's the incentive to change? At some point a company may find itself in a position where a change would be cheaper and more effective than continuation but that's just not the case for a large proportion of the businesses out there.
*sigh* Do we have to do this every time, twit?
Rather than quote your paragraphs in their entirity, let's just number them for your convenience.
Paragraph 1: You're asking completely the wrong question. It isn't, nor should it ever be, what does X have that isn't useful to Y. The question is, what does Y have that can't be supported by X. In business terms, OSX is an incredibly locked-down system, far more so than you claim Windows to be. What specialist hardware has OSX support that Apple didn't make? Close to none. You get what you're given and if you want anything more you're shit out of luck.
Paragraph 2: Microsoft fits what big companies need because everyone else uses Microsoft, and they already use Microsoft. You're right that this perpetuates itself but there is no incentive to any company to retrain their staff at their own expense and convenience on new systems and interfaces when they're currently on a system that works, however poorly your imagination wants to paint it. No matter how much you say it's a jump in usability from XP to Vista, XP to Linux is a chasm that no company wants to jump, and distro choice is a minefield that no company wants to pick their way through.
Paragraph 3: Legacy doesn't just go away because you wish it to be so. Your rhetoric about dollars spent on non-free software rings true, but your claims of compatibility do not. I also direct your attention to the post I replied to you with where I pointed out the problems of supporting free software on the same scale that Windows is supported at the moment, and how the increase in the marketshare that you espouse is completely unworkable. You responded to that by quoting a single line that tried vainly to make me sound like I hate users and open source, which is not only not true but completely avoided addressing the issues I raised. Your second attempt is welcomed.
Paragraph 4: They can sell Linux or Windows PCs, and I believe Dell now do. Nobody is getting screwed and people have the choice. If the choice isn't taken, it says more about the alternative than it does about the status quo.
Nobody here believes me because this is Slashdot, and if like me you deviate from the groupthink, you lose 'credibility'.
Believe me or not, and although my anecdotal evidence does not trump yours, it does invalidate any attempt to paint your experience as the general rule.
For someone who's worked for a Fortune 100 bank, it's amazing that you've never heard of group policies. Our company has several hundred machines running XP. The only time anything 'excruciatingly manual' has to be done is when a computer breaks and needs replacing, but that's true for any OS.
Updates and patches are rolled out centrally during the night and computers are up to date and working as normal in the morning, but you would know that, right?
Check my (now deservedly marked troll) comment to the AC above - I open my box an awful lot. Sorry to burst your bubble.
I am a casual tinkerer, Captain Fucknut, and I have never had a problem with WGA. I have changed hardware and re-authorised no problem. I have built 2 computers for myself, 2 for my family, my ex-boyfriends machine, the machine of my room-mate who is currently happily gaming away about 2 yards above my head. I have reused components, switched RAM, changed processors, a multitude of other miscellaneous changes and I have never, ever had to get my codes re-authorised with the big Em Ess.
Your "My anecdotal evidence must trump yours" attitude is as arrogant and worthless as your retarded assumptions about how I go about my business.
product activation is only a PITA for legit customers.
I can only agree how much of a pain this was. Once I'd typed in my 25 numbers and letters, Windows never bothered me or asked me about it again. How intolerably annoying is that?!
Everybody cheer, it's Pick Apart the Zealot time!
Everyone sitting comfortably?
The BBC author concludes the same thing, and that's what sucks. He says to wait and get Vista pre-installed. Doing that won't fix his webcam or his pocket PC.
No, but you missed the point. He says Vista isn't worth it for him right now, but will be if he upgrades. Revel in the small victory that may offer you, but don't misinterpret it. Regardless, support will come and soon, if he's willing to wait and he chose a good manufacturer.
Those and his old computer, which is twice as nice as anything I have, will become more toxic waste.
Because now that he's not using Vista his computer automatically melts down?
What has he gotten that he did not have? Nothing but a prettier interface and a false promise of better security. Upgrading non free software is like that, difficult, costly and unnecessary.
Seeing as you've never bothered to check, you wouldn't have a clue what Vista has that's new anyway, and I'm not here to educate you. Needless to say, tell the people upgrading Ubuntu on this thread that repeatedly lose time and effort to fixing the problems it causes on each update how 'difficult' and 'costly' upgrading is. Time is money, and no update to XP ever broke my video card.
Replacing everything only marginally decreases your difficulty because you then have to purchase, install and relearn the new interfaces for all the programs that actually do your work and play.
We had this conversation before and you failed to provide a good answer - have any of the window managers for Linux remained identical for the last 12 years? How about the last 10? The last 7? Didn't think so.
When you are through with that, you can begin the long and non transferable process of making your desktop comfortable and retrieving the old data that your masters allow you to keep.
Care to provide a source that says data automagically disappears when you upgrade if MS decides you can't use it? I'll finish that for you: you can't, because it doesn't. More bullshit (shock and disgust everyone).
The fanboy part of this equation is thinking you need non free software to begin with. The author's conclusion is basically, M$ at any cost.
No, it's not. The authors conclusion apparently sailed over your head as easily as all the other reasons to use Windows over Linux do. Nobody 'needs' non-free software in the same nobody 'needs' free software. Shockingly, it's a matter of preference.
In fact, I don't recall a game that doesn't work.
The only one I've found so far was a version of Brian Lara Cricket. Working games include Oblivion, Psychonauts, Defcon, City of Heroes and Villains, Galactic Civilisations 2, Neverwinter Nights 1 and 2, SWAT 4, The Ship, World of Warcraft, all the new Sam and Max games, Operation Flashpoint, Z: Steel Soldiers, Jimmy White's Cueball, EVE Online, Sid Meier's Railroads!, Need for Speed Underground 2, Startopia...
You're clearly happy not trying anything new and want to stick to the proprietary route, which is your choice. Try not to rag on the rest of us successful OSS folk though ok?
I tried something new and it didn't work. I'm sure Linux works for you. It didn't work for me. I now choose Windows. I am not attacking Linux, I am defending Windows from the baseless crap you slung at it.
I am now convinced that I've been talking to a troll all along. Hope you enjoyed yourself.
What platform-specific hardware do I have then? ATI X1900 XTX, a Creative Live! 24-bit soundcard, an nForce 560 motherboard, an AMD 64 3800+ processor that I put together myself. Obviously so substandard that it Supreme Commander is playable at 1280x1024 at maximum graphics quality, and under Vista it hasn't crashed once. Ubuntu tried to tell me my hard-drive was corrupt when I tried to install it. Running off the live CD it couldn't detect my keyboard. These are problems that I wouldn't expect from any OS, and with Windows I didn't have them.
Face it, if I could find a distro that worked properly I could just move, but I don't want to.
Stop making excuses.
Really, when Microsoft rolls over and just pays out the license fee for something, you should start thinking that you could be in the wrong.
All you have is posturing, isn't it?
Well first off I question your experience with the modern distros. Millions of other people have sorted out this "Linux thing" it could entirely be that at the first sign of trouble you tucked tail and ran. Which is odd given the troubles that Windows causes on a regular basis.
Classic argument, and one on the long list of reasons that Linux zealots give to wave away complaints - you didn't try hard enough. I tried pretty damn hard and take mild offense at the insinuation I didn't. Why would I have a reason not to? Did you not think that at some point I might want to see if I could do the things I do now for free? I found out that I couldn't so I stopped.
The point isn't that you should only run OSS, it's that you should have a *CHOICE* to run OSS. By buying hardware from vendors who don't care about your freedoms, you are denying yourself the choice. And btw, my nvidia card works just fine in Linux. Sure the drivers aren't OSS, but I picked nvidia because they decided it was a good idea to support BSD/Linux users. I could have got a comparable ATI card, but I *chose* to have freedoms.
I did have a choice to run OSS or not. I chose not to. Is that really that hard to figure out? Do I have to put it in neon letters on a black background? I. Choose. Not. To. Run. Linux.
Capiche?
Vista is all about control, signed drivers, DRM loops in the media filters, etc, etc. Sure your latest game may [or given what I heard, may not] work in Vista, but you pay the price in vendor lockin. Now you can only get hardware from select vendors, who given the reduced market don't have to compete as much. Your fair use rights? out the window.
Now we see a complete fabrication. All you're doing spreading baseless FUD to create an image of a world of closed computing that doesn't actually exist. Throw in a couple of buzzwords like Fair Use and DRM to strike up a bit of ire and it all sounds so believable, doesn't it?
Not to anyone with an ounce of sense.
Eventually your VistaXP++ Pro computer will come from one supplier, cost twice as much and allow you none of the freedoms you currently have with an OSS OS (or even XP to a certain extent).
Slippery slope argument and commercial suicide for Microsoft. If that did happen I would leave the Windows platform anyway. Why? Because I would choose to, the very concept of which you don't seem to understand.
What you want is more choice for you, not for me. A worthwhile cause but not one I actually give a crap about. I would apologise... but I'm not sorry at all.
Truth is, you own gear made by people who just wanted your money, they don't care about providing an actual benefit to the customer.
I'm glad you told me that. Means I can scrap this RAM because it doesn't provide me with any benefit. I'll chuck this ATI card because ATI obviously don't want me to have any benefit from using it so I don't need it, right? Honestly, that whole paragraph was total crap. If it didn't provide me with benefit I wouldn't have bought it. Just because it's only usable in one fashion, doesn't make it worthless. It might be worthless to you, but that's entirely your own prerogative. I wouldn't expect you to buy it, even if you seem to expect me not to.
As it stands, I have fun using my PC, and that's the main thing I care about - I don't give a cack whether it's Linux, Windows, or OSX as long as I enjoy myself, and the terrible time I had trying to run Ubuntu wasn't fun for me.
When it boils down to 'choice' I still have plenty. I can choose to use hardware with standard interfaces and migrate to Linux or I can buy non-standard hardware and stay on Windows, as you so rightly pointed out. However in that same breath, I have the choice between spending nothing and being miserable trying to get Ubuntu or Debian or whatever to actually work, or I could spend something disposable and actually have a good time when I'm home relaxing. Just because I personally limit my options because of what I want to do when I relax and use my PC, doesn't mean I don't have a choice at all.
How about people like me, who tried a Linux distro, had trouble getting it to even install, then had trouble getting it to recognise most of his hardware, gave up and went back to an OS that I can actually find drivers for and play games on? Where do I factor into your frankly ridiculous assessment of the current state of affairs? Honestly, sentences like "Linux is just plain better" should be seasoned with a good heavy dose of "I acknowledge that this is my opinion, so I shouldn't try and pass it off as fact".
Did enjoy the "be firm in their believe that their proprietary OS is just the only way to go" comment. Talk about irony. Replace 'proprietary OS' with 'free OS' then look in a mirror.
Then replace 'believe' with 'belief' so that it makes sense.
The Twitter Wordsmith Automatic Translator (or TWAT for short) says:
"I can't tell you what happens on Windoze, so from my perspective it's better to lie about something I don't understand than not comment on it at all. Anything to get more people using Linux, even if I did have to bankrupt all my morals to do so."
This TWAT program is so astute, I might just sell it to people here. FOR MONEY. *shockhorrordisgust*
On a similar note, someone else was talking about advertising hallucinogenic drugs somewhere up the page.
You and he should have a little chat, maybe fix each other up?
You have a fair point. However, without going into too much detail:-
Current Windows builds: Including Windows 1.0 and later, but excluding 64-bit versions, 16.
Current Linux distributions: At least 160.
This doesn't really help GP, who was just plain wrong, but there is an order of magnitude between the number of versions of Windows and the number of versions of Linux.
No dessert for you!
See here, young man!
You take a time out in the corner, and you can come back when you're ready to join in with the adults, okay?
In a sense, you're right - it is worth a read, but only because it provides a very brief snapshot of how Jobs works behind the reality distortion field.
One - the inevitable 'honestly, it's not vendor lock-in' paragraph in the middle that just shows the intention of the document. He's not concerned with DRM at all, this paragraph and others is merely a tool to try and convince countries like Norway that they're not doing anything wrong.
Two - The guy can see the way the tide is flowing. If he was truly as opposed to DRM as he claims he wouldn't be using it. However it is better to state how much you dislike DRM, no matter how hypocritical and full of crap it is, than be caught out when everything shifts and nobody uses DRM anymore. When that happens, and it is inevitable, he will look like a visionary because he wrote about 20 empty paragraphs detailing how his own business model isn't viable.
Three - He is making no moves himself to convince any of the music companies to move away from DRM. Instead he claims it is governmental responsibility to force the music industry to change how it does it's business - never mind that this is exactly what some governments are doing to Apple in order to get them to open Fairplay up.
You don't even have to read between the lines. The message here is clear; the only way Apple will stop using Fairplay or limiting Fairplay to it's own players is when the market forces them to.
Furthermore, words change in meaning over time
This is patently false. This conversation is very nice, so I'm going to go and play a gay game, get a cool drink, watch a counterfeit video and get some truly bad snack food.
Hate is such a strong word. You're also entirely wrong, as per usual.
There are plenty of others and they are easy to identify because they keep saying the same things: M$ rules, free software sucks and Slashdot sucks.
I look forward to you finding where I said any of those things at any point. I'll be waiting, as usual, for any sign of a coherent argument from you.
I was in a slight hurry when I posted the previous reply, so allow me to elaborate on why you're so very, very wrong. To claim that I 'loathe' users is as disingenuous as trying to claim that I work for Microsoft (again). There is an enormous difference between hating users and knowing their limits.
Let me try this again so I can drill it into your thick head what I'm talking about.
You know as well as I do that it is a very small proportion of the users of operating systems who know how to code and update that operating system. The more people who use Linux that don't know how to code, the more people you need who do. A large proportion of the Linux userbase is already made up of technically knowledgable people, and there's lot more people left who have no idea than those who have some. Ergo, the more people who use Linux, the worse it gets. There is no escaping this. The argument goes beyond the cost or the freedom of knowledge - the great majority of people who use an OS want it to just work and do not want to put their time into making it better.
If the Linux userbase reaches critical mass it will implode as users abandon the platform in droves due to a lack of resources to support it.
I'm sorry if I didn't let you write one quote from my post and then try and use it out of context. That's not the way it works. Any moron who actually read the post you're quoting from can see what you've tried to do, and it makes you as bad as the Microsoft workers who are so fond of decrying - lying and using misdirection to try and distract users from the true argument is FUD at best and morally bankrupt at worst.
Wow, you only answered one line of my post and you didn't even take it in context.
New low, methinks.