What others feel is not relevant. Why's that? I don't let others decide whether the governement can come into my home. Only I make that decision. To have my neighbor say they don't care if the government enters my home is pure stupidity. Stop thinking that just because the majority likes or dislikes something that no other point of view is valid.
During the polling about who won which presidential debate you could find, at least after the initial reaction, that half the polls indicated Kerry and the other half Bush. But days later when you observed those polls you would note that the majority felt Kerry. But Kerry didn't win the Presidential race, so the polls didn't matter.
What mattered was that people didn't want to have someone like Kerry go in and screw up what the coalition and the American troops had accomplished. For me it would have been a tradgedy to pull out the troops under Kerry after those lives were lost, without a chance to accomplish our goals. Notice I said "chance".
This poll is irrelevant. My neighbor doesn't want my privacy stripped away but knows that their own feelings about their own privacy can be voiced differently. If the poll had been reorganized to assess how we felt about our neighbor's privacy rights few would say that they have the right to make that decision.
You all are qualified to debunk these reports? I think not. If they are proven wrong then they'll done so by others in the field or related fields. That's what theory, hypothesis, and research are all about. Stop putting yourselves ahead of those other qualified people.
Of course Slashdot is about sensationalism. It wouldn't exist due to a lack of popularity if only the mundane were reported.
Think about Microsoft siding with Nintendo over sony. One can only laugh. Who cares what they are siding about. Just think about it. What difference does it make? Microsoft wants the marketshare so they can own the market. Of course they're going to side with the underdogs. They are after sony's marketshare not nintendo's. Just like they are siding with Yahoo over Google. This is simply the sissy kid protecting himself against potential bullies by siding with anyone that gives him protection and advantage.
Those two dogs are going to suffer tremendously long days as servents of the MPAA. Really, are these organizations totally crazy? The failure rate is going to be extremely high because people send dvds of sorts as well as CDs all over the place, and it's not illegal. I can only laugh at this. Imagine them getting an army of dogs at this hub to ID packages that contain DVDs only to hold up the shipment of mom and dad sending Juniorette a dvd of her sister's birthday party. This is excessive paranoia on the part of the MPAA. I find it incredible that FedEx is even cooperating with these fools.
Bottom line the advertisers know how their money is being spent. There's no excuse which allows them to claim ignorance. Once they are sued they'll look into it if they don't already know. The advertisers are funding this type of illegal behavior and so they should be held accountable. Large lawsuits or even criminal prosecution. These spammers and those illegally compromising the backbones are acting as agents of the advertisers, period.
There was a point in time when there was no internet connectivity built into operating systems.
He never said internet connectivity couldn't be in place, he said the brower shouldn't be. The browser is only a part of internet connectivity, FTP being another.
Nonetheless, the issue could be as easy as providing a prompt during the install with a choice of which browser to install. A seperate cd could be provided along with the OS or a folder on the main CD could have all that is required.
There are many ways to make it happen. Lots of people have lots of ideas.
That is precisely the reason Microsoft is placing theirs first. They know people won't change it or don't care to. This is exploiting end-user behavior. When a company does that it isn't particularly bad but many might feel immoral. When Microsoft does it, a convicted monopolist, it helps them to gain more control with their monopoly. That's bad and immoral. If you can't see how this will affect things you are crazy.
Google is not a monopoly. Only the courts can rule they are a monopoly and until then they are not a monopoly by any standard of measure.
Google's donations to Mozilla for first seat is not an uncommon tactic in any industry, including sponsors for your kids little league where the kids wear the jerseys with the businesses name or logo.
But Microsoft is a monopoly and they know how to take advantage of the millions that don't feel the importance of keeping Microsoft from harming the industry further. Allowing Microsoft to become the default search engine for hundreds of millions will be the exertion of artificial means that they have been lacking currently in their share of the search engine arena. Microsoft could likely go from last or near last place to the number one spot literally overnight. That will affect Google's, and others, revenue stream significantly solely because Microsoft controls the program.
As well, Microsoft's accusation that google is hypocritical is disingenuous on the basis that Google never asked to be placed first, they asked to give the users a choice during the install. That's a far cry from demanding first position.
Google has earned first position, just like any competition. This is simply microsoft saying they should be first because they own the race track. Even out the odds and position yourself on your merits and skill. Microsoft holds a small percentage of the search engine market for a reason--they suck at it. Google holds the largest percentage because they are excellent at it. Why arbitrarily increase Microsoft's share simply because they own the race track?
Application installation isn't just harder, it's incredibly harder. The complexity is prohibitive toward the users who might be looking for an alternative to Windows. The reason it is complex has to do with the vast number of distros and the variations on how they register applications, which libraries they use, when and if they update core functionality, etc. That's hard to overcome but not impossible. Actually, the reason it remains is an excuse rather than a valid reason. You want it complex.
As someone stated earlier you couldn't charge money for your services if the program was easy to use and install. Let's temper that with the disclaimer that not all people think this way nor take advantage of others this same way.
To the IT guys and those that have looked seriously at linux I would venture that at least some of them feel that FOSS equates to "I'll make my money off the services". Sure there is alot of variation on that but if it weren't so hard to install and use there'd be only the incentive to create that would drive the market. The recognition of the creation and the fact that you are diffusing microsoft's FUD thus allowing others to have a choice is also part of the motivation.
But the fact remains that we can see that software installation and use doesn't need to be difficult because we have excellent examples of those OSes that pursue simplification at every turn--OSX and Windows.
I watched an elderly lady who was installing WinXP on her new computer with some guidance from me. I saw how she made the critical mistake of investigating every install option that Microsoft permitted during the install. What I did was to direct her away from the complexity involved in making those optional choices and in the end the installation went well without difficulty.
I have people bring their machines into me to fix all the time and some of them have attempted to do the installs themselves. The most common problem that I see that motivated them to bring their computer in is that they had difficulty seperating software issues from hardware and that the majority of those having difficulty experienced it due to problemmatic hardware.
I'm sure that's more than most people here could say--you don't have people bringing daily their computer problems to you, literally daily. You may see problems here and there. If you did you'd realize that the point about the difficulty of installing WinXP is moot. You have difficulties due to poor choices in the install and problemmatic hardware. Resolve the hardware issues and you have a much better experience installing XP. The average user can stick the disk in, answer the questions with little help if they read, and end up with a functional computer in the end. Adding drivers is usually not an issue if you have the driver CD that came with your motherboard.
But, in reality this guy is not talking about installing the OS. He's talking about useability and installation of programs, the meat and potatoes of the average computer user.
Slashdot Mirror
You're rediculous. Just saying he's a whiner makes you a whiner. It was his story.
I certainly am bothered.
What others feel is not relevant. Why's that? I don't let others decide whether the governement can come into my home. Only I make that decision. To have my neighbor say they don't care if the government enters my home is pure stupidity. Stop thinking that just because the majority likes or dislikes something that no other point of view is valid.
During the polling about who won which presidential debate you could find, at least after the initial reaction, that half the polls indicated Kerry and the other half Bush. But days later when you observed those polls you would note that the majority felt Kerry. But Kerry didn't win the Presidential race, so the polls didn't matter.
What mattered was that people didn't want to have someone like Kerry go in and screw up what the coalition and the American troops had accomplished. For me it would have been a tradgedy to pull out the troops under Kerry after those lives were lost, without a chance to accomplish our goals. Notice I said "chance".
This poll is irrelevant. My neighbor doesn't want my privacy stripped away but knows that their own feelings about their own privacy can be voiced differently. If the poll had been reorganized to assess how we felt about our neighbor's privacy rights few would say that they have the right to make that decision.
You all are qualified to debunk these reports? I think not. If they are proven wrong then they'll done so by others in the field or related fields. That's what theory, hypothesis, and research are all about. Stop putting yourselves ahead of those other qualified people.
Of course Slashdot is about sensationalism. It wouldn't exist due to a lack of popularity if only the mundane were reported.
Think about Microsoft siding with Nintendo over sony. One can only laugh. Who cares what they are siding about. Just think about it. What difference does it make? Microsoft wants the marketshare so they can own the market. Of course they're going to side with the underdogs. They are after sony's marketshare not nintendo's. Just like they are siding with Yahoo over Google. This is simply the sissy kid protecting himself against potential bullies by siding with anyone that gives him protection and advantage.
Those two dogs are going to suffer tremendously long days as servents of the MPAA. Really, are these organizations totally crazy? The failure rate is going to be extremely high because people send dvds of sorts as well as CDs all over the place, and it's not illegal. I can only laugh at this. Imagine them getting an army of dogs at this hub to ID packages that contain DVDs only to hold up the shipment of mom and dad sending Juniorette a dvd of her sister's birthday party. This is excessive paranoia on the part of the MPAA. I find it incredible that FedEx is even cooperating with these fools.
Bottom line the advertisers know how their money is being spent. There's no excuse which allows them to claim ignorance. Once they are sued they'll look into it if they don't already know. The advertisers are funding this type of illegal behavior and so they should be held accountable. Large lawsuits or even criminal prosecution. These spammers and those illegally compromising the backbones are acting as agents of the advertisers, period.
There was a point in time when there was no internet connectivity built into operating systems. He never said internet connectivity couldn't be in place, he said the brower shouldn't be. The browser is only a part of internet connectivity, FTP being another. Nonetheless, the issue could be as easy as providing a prompt during the install with a choice of which browser to install. A seperate cd could be provided along with the OS or a folder on the main CD could have all that is required. There are many ways to make it happen. Lots of people have lots of ideas.
That is precisely the reason Microsoft is placing theirs first. They know people won't change it or don't care to. This is exploiting end-user behavior. When a company does that it isn't particularly bad but many might feel immoral. When Microsoft does it, a convicted monopolist, it helps them to gain more control with their monopoly. That's bad and immoral. If you can't see how this will affect things you are crazy. Google is not a monopoly. Only the courts can rule they are a monopoly and until then they are not a monopoly by any standard of measure. Google's donations to Mozilla for first seat is not an uncommon tactic in any industry, including sponsors for your kids little league where the kids wear the jerseys with the businesses name or logo. But Microsoft is a monopoly and they know how to take advantage of the millions that don't feel the importance of keeping Microsoft from harming the industry further. Allowing Microsoft to become the default search engine for hundreds of millions will be the exertion of artificial means that they have been lacking currently in their share of the search engine arena. Microsoft could likely go from last or near last place to the number one spot literally overnight. That will affect Google's, and others, revenue stream significantly solely because Microsoft controls the program. As well, Microsoft's accusation that google is hypocritical is disingenuous on the basis that Google never asked to be placed first, they asked to give the users a choice during the install. That's a far cry from demanding first position. Google has earned first position, just like any competition. This is simply microsoft saying they should be first because they own the race track. Even out the odds and position yourself on your merits and skill. Microsoft holds a small percentage of the search engine market for a reason--they suck at it. Google holds the largest percentage because they are excellent at it. Why arbitrarily increase Microsoft's share simply because they own the race track?
Application installation isn't just harder, it's incredibly harder. The complexity is prohibitive toward the users who might be looking for an alternative to Windows. The reason it is complex has to do with the vast number of distros and the variations on how they register applications, which libraries they use, when and if they update core functionality, etc. That's hard to overcome but not impossible. Actually, the reason it remains is an excuse rather than a valid reason. You want it complex. As someone stated earlier you couldn't charge money for your services if the program was easy to use and install. Let's temper that with the disclaimer that not all people think this way nor take advantage of others this same way. To the IT guys and those that have looked seriously at linux I would venture that at least some of them feel that FOSS equates to "I'll make my money off the services". Sure there is alot of variation on that but if it weren't so hard to install and use there'd be only the incentive to create that would drive the market. The recognition of the creation and the fact that you are diffusing microsoft's FUD thus allowing others to have a choice is also part of the motivation. But the fact remains that we can see that software installation and use doesn't need to be difficult because we have excellent examples of those OSes that pursue simplification at every turn--OSX and Windows. I watched an elderly lady who was installing WinXP on her new computer with some guidance from me. I saw how she made the critical mistake of investigating every install option that Microsoft permitted during the install. What I did was to direct her away from the complexity involved in making those optional choices and in the end the installation went well without difficulty. I have people bring their machines into me to fix all the time and some of them have attempted to do the installs themselves. The most common problem that I see that motivated them to bring their computer in is that they had difficulty seperating software issues from hardware and that the majority of those having difficulty experienced it due to problemmatic hardware. I'm sure that's more than most people here could say--you don't have people bringing daily their computer problems to you, literally daily. You may see problems here and there. If you did you'd realize that the point about the difficulty of installing WinXP is moot. You have difficulties due to poor choices in the install and problemmatic hardware. Resolve the hardware issues and you have a much better experience installing XP. The average user can stick the disk in, answer the questions with little help if they read, and end up with a functional computer in the end. Adding drivers is usually not an issue if you have the driver CD that came with your motherboard. But, in reality this guy is not talking about installing the OS. He's talking about useability and installation of programs, the meat and potatoes of the average computer user.