I addressed that in the first part. It's a matter of whether you sample a massive enough base of sites that you would cover those that Linux users visit. And you have to sample over a very long period of time.
And if I used all of my machines (as well as everyone elses) all the time to visit sites regularly you'd have a larger number of machines being represented.
Unlike Windows where you simply just count the number of unique product keys or the number of units sold.
We would never want to rely solely on site samplings but really, you couldn't rely on them as an absolute and you'd only be able to give them weight if a "MASSIVE" number of sites were used in the sampling method. And, you'd have to do this over a very long period of time, say a few years.
There are many Linux games. The Unreal tournament series for one, the quake series, Enemy Territory, etc. There are some solid full featured free games but I would have to say that frozen bubble isn't a game for obvious reasons as it is just an incomplete toy demo of some 3d graphics.
One has to ask why there are no games? Would you as a developer not want to target potentially 30-50 million world-wide users?
There are a couple of reasons for this.
1) Commercial developers don't understand the license--GPL and others.
2) Microsoft created a series of "lock in" technologies. Sort of like what we went through with the OOXML/DOC thing. For nearly a decade the government and large entities public and private required that you submit your electronic files in.doc (or some other office format). This meant that say, when the court system wanted you to submit pleadings you had to submit them in.doc and that meant that you the attorney and everyone in your office had to use a proprietary tool.
See the lock in? Well, Directx is the same way. Developers create based on Directx even though there's a near feature complete comparative technology in OpenGL. If developers developed for OpenGL then they'd have a basis for cross-platform gaming development. Some do, such as the guys that do the Unreal Tournament series. They know the value of it. Some day we may see that users are using Linux for their day in and day out tasks and switching to windows for gaming. You'll dual boot into windows like you would start up your console just so you can play the game, then you'll go back to Linux to do everything else.
This puts us in a position of the chicken or the egg. Wait for a market to grow to justify mutliple APIs for gaming development from the standpoint of the gaming industry leaders or develop and hope you can build a gaming following.
Yes, many of my friends have said that they play games and that's the number one reason. They won't commit to Linux unless they can game on it and it looks as good as it does under Directx.
I personally loose site of the quality of the graphics and tend to focus on game play after the initial WOW when I first begin a game. It doesn't mean I loose track completely but my focus is on playing and not so much on the beauty of the surroundings.
I have played some with wine and gaming and though it can work often times it has 2 failings. The first is that the games just don't look the same as they do under windows and aren't good performers. The second is that they can be problematic to get up and running. This isn't to say that all are this way. A popular game called Guild Wars is totally windows, but runs flawlessly under Wine.
I've taken and connected one of my Linux computers to a 47" TV going from DVI to HDMI. The resolution is 1920x1080 and looks utterly awesome as a desktop. I installed wine and then Guild Wars. After a few settings adjustments it looks just as good under Linux as under Windows and it is an incredibly beautiful on that 47" TV.
This is a tough battle to win. Only through gaining market share with Linux can we get gaming going. That's tough when dealing with a criminally convicted predatory monopolist such as Microsoft.
Just as with any evaluation system it's not that different to assess Linux use as it is any other.
You can count the number of hits a series of websites get that come from a unique address over an extended period of time. The sampling of sites has to be pretty massive. You couldn't just use a few and the types of sites would have to vary significantly to get a good cross-section. That variations would also have to understand the Linux users will visit sites, at times, primarily targeted at Linux users.
I'm not one to go out and browse around the web. I get my news and follow links but rarely past the initial link. I will do Google searches but rather choose more than the first few off the first page to see if they match my needs. I visit specific sites such as Slashdot.org and a few others, but never really venture much farther even when I have a large history of bookmarks. There's just too much information out there with me having too many interests.
The failing of this type of system of measurement becomes noticeable when you consider that I may have downloaded 1 copy of Linux but I installed it on 12 machines internally. I also rarely visit the web on more than a couple of them. I use the OS as an OS not solely as a browser. Essentially 2-3 of the 12 would be counted when using web page hits as a measurement tool.
I would love the idea of being able to meet more people in my community. Everyone of them can be used to spread the word and bring clarity to the misinformation generated by Microsoft.
I don't live in a basement and I'm not a permavirgin. And I would recommend installing Linux to everyone, absolutely every soul on the planet. Just because you don't like Linux and you have hatred toward that statement ("install Linux") doesn't make their suggestion less valid.
That's a straw man argument. You are clutching at straws to save yourself. The OS isn't useless because some program or the other doesn't run on it. It may be important for you, but it most likely isn't important for others, as your lack of options doesn't mean lack of options for them. Your one or two exceptions isn't enough for anyone to even consider. Every case is unique. And, this really isn't a linux issue, it is an Oracle issue. It is their failure to build the appropriate applications for an environment of which they themselves distribute.
In my shop where I fix computers, fix software, remove malware, I have come to the belief that about 85% of Windows machines have malware on them.
The malware could have been installed intentionally without knowing the ramifications (through bait software--a program that says hey, use our toolbar in return to us giving you ads and tracking you). Or unintentionally by, say, those who visit a gardening site which prompts them to install a codec to see a video (where the coded is a piece of malware as a codec is just a program in different clothing).
With the progress of Linux and the advances in desktop managers such as KDE 4.2.2 I honestly believe Windows will simply become the computer gaming platform rather than the platform for the average user or business worker.
Windows 98 is not a targeted platform. Generally those machines are under powered and have issues that make it difficult for malware authors to implement across the board. There are known vulnerabilities in XP and Vista whereas 98 may have things done completely different.
He's diversified against the market if you will so he's somewhat becoming a smaller target for malware authors. Why mess with him when there's nearly a billion windows installs!
I don't agree. We have had a serious issue with web developers holding back innovation and forcing consumers to use a product (which was the focus of what made Microsoft a convicted criminal monopolist). Banks (are one example), and other web sites refusing to render a page with notes to the visitor that they need this or that browser. It still happens. Even some Microsoft web pages do that.
It is important to let everyone know that IE8 or IE in general should not be their focus, especially on the standards front and on security front.
Nothing like having consumers say they won't use anything other than IE because the web page doesn't load properly even though IE brings with it a huge number of security issues and it is manipulating things by falsely claiming it is more standard.
You do (don't you) realize that the atroturfers here are claiming much better standards support as a selling feature?
My recommendation would be that since we know this was an issue for the government (and browsers became a central part of the actual conviction that made Microsoft a convicted predatory monopolist) that we ourselves learn these facts and address them accordingly. We do that by encouraging the competition to offset the damage they did to competition.
If you understand the EU's most recent case against Microsoft it is due to bundling of IE to the OS thus creating unfair business practices.
We clarify to others why the product isn't supporting standards so they can make a decision and choose something that is more standard and is competitive.
It would be wise to read the State (various states sued Microsoft too, not just the federal government) regarding their tactics. The federal government may have sealed certain documents and information but the states didn't which resulted in the uncovering of something called "embrace, extend, extinguish". This was very damaging and got them nailed due to them manipulating Java--Microsoft licensed Java from Sun conditionally. That condition was that they not alter the language so as to make it OS specific. Microsoft agree and then subsequently decided to do this anyway. This is documented in email discussions. That embrace, extend, extinguish is precisely what happens when you don't follow standards and create issue for consumers who don't believe they have any other choice.
That's certainly not the end of what Microsoft has done. They are rife in history of these types of actions which damaged standards and consumer interests.
A more recent one is the gaming of the ISO system for standardization on file formats. You should research the out to better understand what's really happening with Microsoft and standards.
Yes, it is. It is misinformation to say that we don't torture here in the US, but hidden underneath it the US has tortured in other countries.
It isn't a lie to say that we don't toture in the US, it is just misleading and misinformation. Lying is when you say we don't toruture when clearly we have tortured in other countries.
This is the same thing that happened on Digg.com to destroy their reputation. That's why Digg.com is in decline. Yeah, lots of stories still but they are loosing in popularity.
Astroturfing is a sad thing and it happens a lot more often then we would like. It removes the integrity from the system and destroys the reputation of sites that don't step in and block it.
There is no proof this is more secure and as far as the performance and compliance testing goes IE8 falls flat with low scores.
And, there's no guarantee that IE7 won't begin to have a shitload of vulnerabilities crop up...oh, we are talking about IE8...Heh, I can't see any difference. IE7 was supposed to be a major security fix for IE and in a few months it became just as vulnerable as 6 if not more. Now, 6 is probably less targeted than 7 or 8.
The point is there's no guarantee that this is a more secure update nor that it will remain that way if it is. My opinion is that it will remain secure for only a short period of time, then we'll be looking forward to some other like FF 3.5 or IE9.
Firefox does give updates. These are security fixes. They are usually . increases.
Microsoft does this also. You will install IE7 as a critical update and thoughout the months following you get smaller patches to fix security holes which Microsoft tends to release every Tuesday.
When Mozilla updated from 2.x to 3.x they did not force the update. Even if you went to the help and chose update it wouldn't prompt you for the 3.x update. It took about a year for them to decide to prompt you with a dialog box encouraging you to update to Firefox 3.
This is different than marking a product as a critical update when it is not a critical update.
So, you either are not expert enough to know this or you are just being arrogant because you hate any alternative other than Microsoft.
This is not true. IE8 is NOT more complaint with web standards. In fact, it is geting some of the lowest scores in the ACID test. Please check your sources before you post.
Every Firefox user has every right to be in this conversation due to the fact that if you run Windows it will be installed automatically. And there are a lot of end-users that have no idea what's happening or why they should choose not to install this product.
Let's not forget how confusing the made the search provider feature and implemented a bunch of other nonplus technology that the user will just ignore, except that it was installed and turned on, possibly against their best interests and that of a healthy competitive technology industry.
They are manipulating things here. That much is clear. They have a pattern of manipulation.
Start with the WGA/WGN tools they use to spy on you and track your IP and Win Product Key. They began in Asia and after success there brought it here claiming that since they accepted it in Asia we should accept it here. Right. Then they were sued because no one wanted it, and because they made it a critical update. But they didn't say to the users that they were installing a piece of software that spies on them. The state of Washington, Texas and others sued them so they took it off their site. They later changed it to bring up a dialog box that informed you that it was being installed and you could opt out. Then they removed that and began to install it again without giving you notice.
If you are quick to notice it in the critical updates you'll see you can uncheck the box and it will prompt you to not see it again. Which you don't, but they update it periodically. That then means that you will have to be prompted again and if you think you have already made yourself safe from spying by Microsoft you may not notice the program.
Then they went in cahoots with AVG who began to mark the removewga.exe program as malware and refused to let it run and began to remove it from the computers without telling you.
Continue on you can find Silverlight, which is their response to Adobe Flash. It isn't a critical update but you can't turn off the prompt to install it. Every other one can be. In other words, you can go to any update and flag it so that you don't get prompted to install it again, and it will work, except for Silverlight. Microsoft wants this on your computer badly because they want a product as widely distributed as flash.
Nonetheless, it is not a good thing to continue to prompt someone to install a product they have stated they don't want.
As far as IE 8 goes, it is a very problematic install. It has wrought havoc across the line with messing up people's access to the net. It certainly is not a critical update yet they put it in critical updates, just like the WGA/WGN.
With that sort of attitude I would not recommend it because you never know what they are sending back to Microsoft (that which violates your privacy or reports back product keys, what you are doing, etc.)
Let's not forget to mention that IE8 is not a product that conforms to industry standards and it is exceptionally slow. It also attempts to obfuscate the choice for search providers hoping consumers will be so confused they just choose the default.
From my estimation, being a small business owner, who does hardware/software repairs, IE8 is a nasty prospect full of issues, adding complexity to the search service choice, and bringing with it a lot of issues from the upgrade.
Not to mention the fact that it is slow and doesn't support web standards properly.
It isn't a good update.
If you want a good solid browser then you should go for firefox.
You would have been better off by saying that the Linux version of VLC doesn't support DVD playback without the DVD codec being installed in some other form.
You also state that your particular flavor of Linux made it impossible for you to get things working, and that you also tried an older version of Ubuntu (which is 2 years old).
I think you just stopped to early and I think you keep believing that Linux is supposed to be a clone of Windows. Linux is an OS that stands on it's own. It was never intended to clone Windows and those thinking it is or should be should stay with Windows.
I used Linux for a while, and after using the first release of Ubuntu I actually stopped using it for a couple years. I came back and decided to stick with it once I saw Ubuntu 7.04. I was extremely impressed, though I had a learning curve to undergo. I am extremely pleased I stuck with it and the reason I did was because someone told me to stop thinking of Linux as if it were Windows--it's not. I was. I stopped. I'm happier now.
You also make the false argument that VLC is a shitty media player. That's not the case. It is a solid flexible media player that just happens to be compact. Even so, you and others could still consider it shitty, but that's pure opinion and thus isn't the basis for a valid argument--which is precisely what you accused the other guy of doing.
First, no computer with a fresh install of the retail copy of Windows XP (not the OEM) will support DVD playback out of the box. Secondly, no Windows box, be it windows Vista, 7, XP or any other iteration plays back all media files without someone adding the codecs to the machine.
What Microsoft did, as far as.mp3 playback is concerned is, was to license the technology. They state they believed they had licensed it in perpetuity but when they were sued and lost the lawsuit, and had to pay a billion dollars, that put an end to that (the result? Microsoft illegally installed.mp3 playback support in essence pirating the codec to allow you to play.mp3s).
Are there legal alternatives to playing DVDs and media files on Linux. Absolutely. You can purchase Nero to burn DVDs, CDs, Music, etc. You can also purchase WinDVD for Linux which provides the Codecs to decode and playback movies.
Now, I made the distinction between retail and OEM copies of Windows. I'm excluding the OEM copies that you buy when you buy a SATA data cable to make the purchase of OEM Windows legal. I'm really talking about the green box version of Windows vs. the copy that is installed by your pre-fab maker such as Dell, Gateway, HP, etc.
Until Vista you were not allowed to playback DVDs unless you purchased a copy of a codec either by purchasing WinDVD (or the like) or by having the pre-fab maker include it as part of the price of the computer (which you pay for). So, you weren't getting DVD playback support for free under Windows for the whole history of Windows up till Vista. I'm not sure you even get legal playback support unless you buy the Vista Ultimate.
Another issue you bring up which is also a fallacy is that everyone in the world is bound by US law. It is the DMCA that limits the ability of entities (commercial or private) to reverse engineer anything that has been encrypted). That DMCA only applies to the US. If a foreign country decides through treaties that it will comply with US Law they must get their own population to agree to that. They can't make laws up in the US and force everyone in the world to comply.
As far as getting playback of a DVD to work on your computer you don't need the software program you reference in your post, nor do you need to go to bittorrent to find it, which you likely won't. You simply need to purchase WinDVD or you can, being someone not living in the US, download the necessary codecs from the web such as a site like medibuntu (which provides a feature laden version of Ubuntu which plays back these media formats with little to no effort on the part of the consumer).
Your argument about the lack of playback of DVDs is similar to the argument that "since X application for that OS is missing the whole OS is worthless". Which isn't true. Some say that Photoshop doesn't exist on Linux so it isn't a worthwhile OS, when clearly Photoshop and Photoshop Elements can run in Wine. And when you consider that most of those complaining that Photoshop doesn't run natively under Linux are not legitimately purchasing it anyway -- they are stealing it (as you are accusing innocent people of stealing the ability to play back the media that they have legitimately paid for). I'm not saying everyone is. But Photoshop is $700 dollars, and I know few people that pay that kind of money for a piece of software. So, those guys have no credibility, unless they cease pirating it and pay for it. But even if they do pay for it they are still not credible as the amount of time spent editing photos is minute compared to the amount of time they use their computers while not editing photos.
Adobe flash is installed with Ubuntu 9.04. And if you want you can easily go to www.adobe.com and download the installer for flash, Acrobat, and AIR for your particular flavor of Linux.
The argument regarding the encouragement to ditch windows for Linux goes beyond absolutely free software.
Your problem is that you seem to have quoted that out of context. The context was that someone said there were no screen shots and so why should they believe the author. My response was that you can download it and look.
You also make one major error in your argument. You have 4 ways to run it.
1) You can use the live CD and check it out without altering it in any way, if that is all you are interested in.
2) The next is that you can perform a WUBI install which in the end creates a bootable version of Ubuntu which you can use to its fullest and when you are finished with it you can go to add/remove programs and just uninstall it.
3) Let it install, in which case it will give you the choice of doing everything automatically.
4) Perform a USB flash drive install.
Even an average mom and pop can install it with the third method with very little chance of messing it up, even if they have a dual boot set up.
I own and operate my own company doing repairs, upgrades on computers (that includes software), and sales. I have been in the industry for about 25 years now.
No, I don't hang around knowledgeable people, no more so than anyone in my industry does.
Installing Linux is by far the easiest to install of all the OSes, except maybe OS X, which is on par. Windows on the other hand is much harder and you'd know that if you installed and upgraded as many computers as I have over those 25 years.
If you are having issues with making the swap patition you are telling us you are using the wrong distro, maybe one of those that forces you to do everything manually and uses a text based installer, one that doesn't have a live CD. Or maybe you are just telling us of your experiences of years ago, because any modern Linux desktop OS installer doesn't require you to configure your partitions manually any more. And of course, if you are doing a dual boot that isn't an install you would find on a typical end-users computer, say one that uses Windows--they either have one OS or the other, not both--so your configuration is made intentionally more complex by you.
I don't consider iTunes to be a critical application and I rarely change out the music on my iPhone. For the longest time I ceased purchasing music because of the RIAA lawsuits. I have no intention of funding their Mafia tactics. But as they have stopped suing (allegedly) I have purchased music on my iPhone via the iTunes application on the phone. I synch it every so often with one of my XP boxes. But it's a rarity that I want or need to do that.
From what I understand it is possible to get iTunes running under wine and I know that I could copy music onto my ipod using Amarok and may other Linux programs--though I understand that the iPhone is a different matter entirely.
Slashdot Mirror
I addressed that in the first part. It's a matter of whether you sample a massive enough base of sites that you would cover those that Linux users visit. And you have to sample over a very long period of time.
And if I used all of my machines (as well as everyone elses) all the time to visit sites regularly you'd have a larger number of machines being represented.
Unlike Windows where you simply just count the number of unique product keys or the number of units sold.
We would never want to rely solely on site samplings but really, you couldn't rely on them as an absolute and you'd only be able to give them weight if a "MASSIVE" number of sites were used in the sampling method. And, you'd have to do this over a very long period of time, say a few years.
There are many Linux games. The Unreal tournament series for one, the quake series, Enemy Territory, etc. There are some solid full featured free games but I would have to say that frozen bubble isn't a game for obvious reasons as it is just an incomplete toy demo of some 3d graphics.
One has to ask why there are no games? Would you as a developer not want to target potentially 30-50 million world-wide users?
There are a couple of reasons for this.
1) Commercial developers don't understand the license--GPL and others.
2) Microsoft created a series of "lock in" technologies. Sort of like what we went through with the OOXML/DOC thing. For nearly a decade the government and large entities public and private required that you submit your electronic files in .doc (or some other office format). This meant that say, when the court system wanted you to submit pleadings you had to submit them in .doc and that meant that you the attorney and everyone in your office had to use a proprietary tool.
See the lock in? Well, Directx is the same way. Developers create based on Directx even though there's a near feature complete comparative technology in OpenGL. If developers developed for OpenGL then they'd have a basis for cross-platform gaming development. Some do, such as the guys that do the Unreal Tournament series. They know the value of it. Some day we may see that users are using Linux for their day in and day out tasks and switching to windows for gaming. You'll dual boot into windows like you would start up your console just so you can play the game, then you'll go back to Linux to do everything else.
This puts us in a position of the chicken or the egg. Wait for a market to grow to justify mutliple APIs for gaming development from the standpoint of the gaming industry leaders or develop and hope you can build a gaming following.
Yes, many of my friends have said that they play games and that's the number one reason. They won't commit to Linux unless they can game on it and it looks as good as it does under Directx.
I personally loose site of the quality of the graphics and tend to focus on game play after the initial WOW when I first begin a game. It doesn't mean I loose track completely but my focus is on playing and not so much on the beauty of the surroundings.
I have played some with wine and gaming and though it can work often times it has 2 failings. The first is that the games just don't look the same as they do under windows and aren't good performers. The second is that they can be problematic to get up and running. This isn't to say that all are this way. A popular game called Guild Wars is totally windows, but runs flawlessly under Wine.
I've taken and connected one of my Linux computers to a 47" TV going from DVI to HDMI. The resolution is 1920x1080 and looks utterly awesome as a desktop. I installed wine and then Guild Wars. After a few settings adjustments it looks just as good under Linux as under Windows and it is an incredibly beautiful on that 47" TV.
This is a tough battle to win. Only through gaining market share with Linux can we get gaming going. That's tough when dealing with a criminally convicted predatory monopolist such as Microsoft.
Just as with any evaluation system it's not that different to assess Linux use as it is any other.
You can count the number of hits a series of websites get that come from a unique address over an extended period of time. The sampling of sites has to be pretty massive. You couldn't just use a few and the types of sites would have to vary significantly to get a good cross-section. That variations would also have to understand the Linux users will visit sites, at times, primarily targeted at Linux users.
I'm not one to go out and browse around the web. I get my news and follow links but rarely past the initial link. I will do Google searches but rather choose more than the first few off the first page to see if they match my needs. I visit specific sites such as Slashdot.org and a few others, but never really venture much farther even when I have a large history of bookmarks. There's just too much information out there with me having too many interests.
The failing of this type of system of measurement becomes noticeable when you consider that I may have downloaded 1 copy of Linux but I installed it on 12 machines internally. I also rarely visit the web on more than a couple of them. I use the OS as an OS not solely as a browser. Essentially 2-3 of the 12 would be counted when using web page hits as a measurement tool.
I would love the idea of being able to meet more people in my community. Everyone of them can be used to spread the word and bring clarity to the misinformation generated by Microsoft.
I don't live in a basement and I'm not a permavirgin. And I would recommend installing Linux to everyone, absolutely every soul on the planet. Just because you don't like Linux and you have hatred toward that statement ("install Linux") doesn't make their suggestion less valid.
That's a straw man argument. You are clutching at straws to save yourself. The OS isn't useless because some program or the other doesn't run on it. It may be important for you, but it most likely isn't important for others, as your lack of options doesn't mean lack of options for them. Your one or two exceptions isn't enough for anyone to even consider. Every case is unique. And, this really isn't a linux issue, it is an Oracle issue. It is their failure to build the appropriate applications for an environment of which they themselves distribute.
In my shop where I fix computers, fix software, remove malware, I have come to the belief that about 85% of Windows machines have malware on them.
The malware could have been installed intentionally without knowing the ramifications (through bait software--a program that says hey, use our toolbar in return to us giving you ads and tracking you). Or unintentionally by, say, those who visit a gardening site which prompts them to install a codec to see a video (where the coded is a piece of malware as a codec is just a program in different clothing).
With the progress of Linux and the advances in desktop managers such as KDE 4.2.2 I honestly believe Windows will simply become the computer gaming platform rather than the platform for the average user or business worker.
Windows 98 is not a targeted platform. Generally those machines are under powered and have issues that make it difficult for malware authors to implement across the board. There are known vulnerabilities in XP and Vista whereas 98 may have things done completely different.
He's diversified against the market if you will so he's somewhat becoming a smaller target for malware authors. Why mess with him when there's nearly a billion windows installs!
It is true even if it isn't exactly prompt. The rollout of IE8 to critical updates began between 2-3 weeks ago.
I don't agree. We have had a serious issue with web developers holding back innovation and forcing consumers to use a product (which was the focus of what made Microsoft a convicted criminal monopolist). Banks (are one example), and other web sites refusing to render a page with notes to the visitor that they need this or that browser. It still happens. Even some Microsoft web pages do that.
It is important to let everyone know that IE8 or IE in general should not be their focus, especially on the standards front and on security front.
Nothing like having consumers say they won't use anything other than IE because the web page doesn't load properly even though IE brings with it a huge number of security issues and it is manipulating things by falsely claiming it is more standard.
You do (don't you) realize that the atroturfers here are claiming much better standards support as a selling feature?
My recommendation would be that since we know this was an issue for the government (and browsers became a central part of the actual conviction that made Microsoft a convicted predatory monopolist) that we ourselves learn these facts and address them accordingly. We do that by encouraging the competition to offset the damage they did to competition.
If you understand the EU's most recent case against Microsoft it is due to bundling of IE to the OS thus creating unfair business practices.
We clarify to others why the product isn't supporting standards so they can make a decision and choose something that is more standard and is competitive.
It would be wise to read the State (various states sued Microsoft too, not just the federal government) regarding their tactics. The federal government may have sealed certain documents and information but the states didn't which resulted in the uncovering of something called "embrace, extend, extinguish". This was very damaging and got them nailed due to them manipulating Java--Microsoft licensed Java from Sun conditionally. That condition was that they not alter the language so as to make it OS specific. Microsoft agree and then subsequently decided to do this anyway. This is documented in email discussions. That embrace, extend, extinguish is precisely what happens when you don't follow standards and create issue for consumers who don't believe they have any other choice.
That's certainly not the end of what Microsoft has done. They are rife in history of these types of actions which damaged standards and consumer interests.
A more recent one is the gaming of the ISO system for standardization on file formats. You should research the out to better understand what's really happening with Microsoft and standards.
Yes, it is. It is misinformation to say that we don't torture here in the US, but hidden underneath it the US has tortured in other countries.
It isn't a lie to say that we don't toture in the US, it is just misleading and misinformation. Lying is when you say we don't toruture when clearly we have tortured in other countries.
This is the same thing that happened on Digg.com to destroy their reputation. That's why Digg.com is in decline. Yeah, lots of stories still but they are loosing in popularity.
Astroturfing is a sad thing and it happens a lot more often then we would like. It removes the integrity from the system and destroys the reputation of sites that don't step in and block it.
There is no proof this is more secure and as far as the performance and compliance testing goes IE8 falls flat with low scores.
And, there's no guarantee that IE7 won't begin to have a shitload of vulnerabilities crop up...oh, we are talking about IE8...Heh, I can't see any difference. IE7 was supposed to be a major security fix for IE and in a few months it became just as vulnerable as 6 if not more. Now, 6 is probably less targeted than 7 or 8.
The point is there's no guarantee that this is a more secure update nor that it will remain that way if it is. My opinion is that it will remain secure for only a short period of time, then we'll be looking forward to some other like FF 3.5 or IE9.
This is misinformation and not exactly true.
Firefox does give updates. These are security fixes. They are usually . increases.
Microsoft does this also. You will install IE7 as a critical update and thoughout the months following you get smaller patches to fix security holes which Microsoft tends to release every Tuesday.
When Mozilla updated from 2.x to 3.x they did not force the update. Even if you went to the help and chose update it wouldn't prompt you for the 3.x update. It took about a year for them to decide to prompt you with a dialog box encouraging you to update to Firefox 3.
This is different than marking a product as a critical update when it is not a critical update.
So, you either are not expert enough to know this or you are just being arrogant because you hate any alternative other than Microsoft.
It is not providing better standards support. They are getting some of the lowest performance numbers and some of the lowest scores on the ACID tests.
This is not true. IE8 is NOT more complaint with web standards. In fact, it is geting some of the lowest scores in the ACID test. Please check your sources before you post.
Every Firefox user has every right to be in this conversation due to the fact that if you run Windows it will be installed automatically. And there are a lot of end-users that have no idea what's happening or why they should choose not to install this product.
Let's not forget how confusing the made the search provider feature and implemented a bunch of other nonplus technology that the user will just ignore, except that it was installed and turned on, possibly against their best interests and that of a healthy competitive technology industry.
If you knew as much as he did you wouldn't be posting as an anonymous coward. I'd say go back to your cave.
They are manipulating things here. That much is clear. They have a pattern of manipulation.
Start with the WGA/WGN tools they use to spy on you and track your IP and Win Product Key. They began in Asia and after success there brought it here claiming that since they accepted it in Asia we should accept it here. Right. Then they were sued because no one wanted it, and because they made it a critical update. But they didn't say to the users that they were installing a piece of software that spies on them. The state of Washington, Texas and others sued them so they took it off their site. They later changed it to bring up a dialog box that informed you that it was being installed and you could opt out. Then they removed that and began to install it again without giving you notice.
If you are quick to notice it in the critical updates you'll see you can uncheck the box and it will prompt you to not see it again. Which you don't, but they update it periodically. That then means that you will have to be prompted again and if you think you have already made yourself safe from spying by Microsoft you may not notice the program.
Then they went in cahoots with AVG who began to mark the removewga.exe program as malware and refused to let it run and began to remove it from the computers without telling you.
Continue on you can find Silverlight, which is their response to Adobe Flash. It isn't a critical update but you can't turn off the prompt to install it. Every other one can be. In other words, you can go to any update and flag it so that you don't get prompted to install it again, and it will work, except for Silverlight. Microsoft wants this on your computer badly because they want a product as widely distributed as flash.
Nonetheless, it is not a good thing to continue to prompt someone to install a product they have stated they don't want.
As far as IE 8 goes, it is a very problematic install. It has wrought havoc across the line with messing up people's access to the net. It certainly is not a critical update yet they put it in critical updates, just like the WGA/WGN.
With that sort of attitude I would not recommend it because you never know what they are sending back to Microsoft (that which violates your privacy or reports back product keys, what you are doing, etc.)
Let's not forget to mention that IE8 is not a product that conforms to industry standards and it is exceptionally slow. It also attempts to obfuscate the choice for search providers hoping consumers will be so confused they just choose the default.
From my estimation, being a small business owner, who does hardware/software repairs, IE8 is a nasty prospect full of issues, adding complexity to the search service choice, and bringing with it a lot of issues from the upgrade.
Not to mention the fact that it is slow and doesn't support web standards properly.
It isn't a good update.
If you want a good solid browser then you should go for firefox.
You would have been better off by saying that the Linux version of VLC doesn't support DVD playback without the DVD codec being installed in some other form.
You also state that your particular flavor of Linux made it impossible for you to get things working, and that you also tried an older version of Ubuntu (which is 2 years old).
I think you just stopped to early and I think you keep believing that Linux is supposed to be a clone of Windows. Linux is an OS that stands on it's own. It was never intended to clone Windows and those thinking it is or should be should stay with Windows.
I used Linux for a while, and after using the first release of Ubuntu I actually stopped using it for a couple years. I came back and decided to stick with it once I saw Ubuntu 7.04. I was extremely impressed, though I had a learning curve to undergo. I am extremely pleased I stuck with it and the reason I did was because someone told me to stop thinking of Linux as if it were Windows--it's not. I was. I stopped. I'm happier now.
You also make the false argument that VLC is a shitty media player. That's not the case. It is a solid flexible media player that just happens to be compact. Even so, you and others could still consider it shitty, but that's pure opinion and thus isn't the basis for a valid argument--which is precisely what you accused the other guy of doing.
Your argument is invalid. Why?
First, no computer with a fresh install of the retail copy of Windows XP (not the OEM) will support DVD playback out of the box. Secondly, no Windows box, be it windows Vista, 7, XP or any other iteration plays back all media files without someone adding the codecs to the machine.
What Microsoft did, as far as .mp3 playback is concerned is, was to license the technology. They state they believed they had licensed it in perpetuity but when they were sued and lost the lawsuit, and had to pay a billion dollars, that put an end to that (the result? Microsoft illegally installed .mp3 playback support in essence pirating the codec to allow you to play .mp3s).
Are there legal alternatives to playing DVDs and media files on Linux. Absolutely. You can purchase Nero to burn DVDs, CDs, Music, etc. You can also purchase WinDVD for Linux which provides the Codecs to decode and playback movies.
Now, I made the distinction between retail and OEM copies of Windows. I'm excluding the OEM copies that you buy when you buy a SATA data cable to make the purchase of OEM Windows legal. I'm really talking about the green box version of Windows vs. the copy that is installed by your pre-fab maker such as Dell, Gateway, HP, etc.
Until Vista you were not allowed to playback DVDs unless you purchased a copy of a codec either by purchasing WinDVD (or the like) or by having the pre-fab maker include it as part of the price of the computer (which you pay for). So, you weren't getting DVD playback support for free under Windows for the whole history of Windows up till Vista. I'm not sure you even get legal playback support unless you buy the Vista Ultimate.
Another issue you bring up which is also a fallacy is that everyone in the world is bound by US law. It is the DMCA that limits the ability of entities (commercial or private) to reverse engineer anything that has been encrypted). That DMCA only applies to the US. If a foreign country decides through treaties that it will comply with US Law they must get their own population to agree to that. They can't make laws up in the US and force everyone in the world to comply.
As far as getting playback of a DVD to work on your computer you don't need the software program you reference in your post, nor do you need to go to bittorrent to find it, which you likely won't. You simply need to purchase WinDVD or you can, being someone not living in the US, download the necessary codecs from the web such as a site like medibuntu (which provides a feature laden version of Ubuntu which plays back these media formats with little to no effort on the part of the consumer).
Your argument about the lack of playback of DVDs is similar to the argument that "since X application for that OS is missing the whole OS is worthless". Which isn't true. Some say that Photoshop doesn't exist on Linux so it isn't a worthwhile OS, when clearly Photoshop and Photoshop Elements can run in Wine. And when you consider that most of those complaining that Photoshop doesn't run natively under Linux are not legitimately purchasing it anyway -- they are stealing it (as you are accusing innocent people of stealing the ability to play back the media that they have legitimately paid for). I'm not saying everyone is. But Photoshop is $700 dollars, and I know few people that pay that kind of money for a piece of software. So, those guys have no credibility, unless they cease pirating it and pay for it. But even if they do pay for it they are still not credible as the amount of time spent editing photos is minute compared to the amount of time they use their computers while not editing photos.
Adobe flash is installed with Ubuntu 9.04. And if you want you can easily go to www.adobe.com and download the installer for flash, Acrobat, and AIR for your particular flavor of Linux.
The argument regarding the encouragement to ditch windows for Linux goes beyond absolutely free software.
No question about having a plan.
Your problem is that you seem to have quoted that out of context. The context was that someone said there were no screen shots and so why should they believe the author. My response was that you can download it and look.
You also make one major error in your argument. You have 4 ways to run it.
1) You can use the live CD and check it out without altering it in any way, if that is all you are interested in.
2) The next is that you can perform a WUBI install which in the end creates a bootable version of Ubuntu which you can use to its fullest and when you are finished with it you can go to add/remove programs and just uninstall it.
3) Let it install, in which case it will give you the choice of doing everything automatically.
4) Perform a USB flash drive install.
Even an average mom and pop can install it with the third method with very little chance of messing it up, even if they have a dual boot set up.
I own and operate my own company doing repairs, upgrades on computers (that includes software), and sales. I have been in the industry for about 25 years now.
No, I don't hang around knowledgeable people, no more so than anyone in my industry does.
Installing Linux is by far the easiest to install of all the OSes, except maybe OS X, which is on par. Windows on the other hand is much harder and you'd know that if you installed and upgraded as many computers as I have over those 25 years.
If you are having issues with making the swap patition you are telling us you are using the wrong distro, maybe one of those that forces you to do everything manually and uses a text based installer, one that doesn't have a live CD. Or maybe you are just telling us of your experiences of years ago, because any modern Linux desktop OS installer doesn't require you to configure your partitions manually any more. And of course, if you are doing a dual boot that isn't an install you would find on a typical end-users computer, say one that uses Windows--they either have one OS or the other, not both--so your configuration is made intentionally more complex by you.
I don't consider iTunes to be a critical application and I rarely change out the music on my iPhone. For the longest time I ceased purchasing music because of the RIAA lawsuits. I have no intention of funding their Mafia tactics. But as they have stopped suing (allegedly) I have purchased music on my iPhone via the iTunes application on the phone. I synch it every so often with one of my XP boxes. But it's a rarity that I want or need to do that.
From what I understand it is possible to get iTunes running under wine and I know that I could copy music onto my ipod using Amarok and may other Linux programs--though I understand that the iPhone is a different matter entirely.