While all of them are most certainly NOT drug dealers, users, or the like, how can we know how many are just homeless because of their bad habits?
When I give change to a homeless person, it's very difficult to assess whether that person was there because he or she had unfortunate life events or whether he or she is just getting by through his or her own satisfaction. When I give or deny change, it's really a choice between thinking all homeless people are just trying to survive or all homeless people are just bumming around.
To make it easier, I say that if the person is just holding a cup out WAITING for change, then that person is probably not going to struggle to get their life back together, so I need not help them.
As an aside, I have NEVER seen a homeless person wear decent, or even wearable, footwear.
While I do not believe that iBooks (or Macbooks) are of unprecendented quality, I do not think it is fair to automatically assume that Apple notebooks are of superior quality to ALL PCs because of your one bad experience.
As a counterexample, I owned an IBM Thinkpad 760EL several years ago. It was nothing close to your beast, but it served my petty purposes well at the time. To make a long story short, it was slammed against the floor (purposefully) and quite difficult to piece back together. However, it STILL turned on and still was ready to boot Windows (even though the external memory module may have been destroyed; I did not confirm that). Even the LED battery timer remained intact!
A few years later, I get handed a HP nw8240 workstation notebook. Widescreen, fast graphics, awesome form; the ultimate road monster. To date, I have had THREE motherboard replacements, TWO screen replacements, TWO keyboard replacements, ONE partial case replacement, and ONE battery replacement (for a battery that died about a year into its run). I do not think that I have had that computer consecutively for more than three months. Matter of fact, to make things worse, I cannot stay in the text mode portion of the Windows installation process for more than FIVE minutes without a backup DESKTOP fan cooling it.
I really like the Macintosh computing platform; it can be as easy or as difficult as you want to make it, and it works with their hardware perfectly (and now runs Windows!). But PCs are still awesome to use; it just depends on who you trust.
When an old article on Slashdot is posted, everyone gets on top of it like white on rice. But when an old article about Linux is posted, it seems to be coined as "another victory..."
Linux could have many drivers available, but none of that matters when the quality of the drivers are questionable to begin with. Perfect example: video cards. There might be VESA drivers available, allowing the user to browse in 640x480x8, but what happens when he/she wants more than that? RTFM?
Before the framework can work, the drivers themselves have to work. Installing ATI's Control Panel, for example, should be just as easy as it is to install on Windows (that is, not having to
init 3, su -l
every time I need to install the suite). After that is established, then frameworks and other top-level concepts should work fine.
Unfortunately, this is another problem with GNU/Linux that will prevent it from agglomerating any success in the desktop market. For Fedorda Core, the installation is pretty well guided and is, as you said, a click of button. Try saying that about Debian Sarge, or about Gentoo, or even about Fedora Core without the proper drivers (which would fit a lot of ATI people...)
This is why standardization is key. The installation procedure should be done around a set of guidelines, so that each Linux install is somewhat streamlined. Maybe Joe Dell Customer does not usually set up an operating system, but when he needs to, he shouldn't have to type an array of commands to get to an interface.
...but I think in order for them to gain anything close to mainstream status, they have to offer a lot of what the mainstream offers.
There are two things that stand out in my mind as being critical for the success of Linux in the home environment. First, they would have to offer driver support. Lots of it. Microsoft has each vendor test almost all of their hardware for full compatibility with Windows, and even Microsoft tests out some units for compatibility. Apple manufactures their own hardware, which decreases the burden. GNU/Linux would have to rely on "the community" to do this level of testing, but its nearly impossible for this to happen. Linux developers would have to depend on users buying almost all of the popular hardware out there and then test it fully on every popular distribution of Linux. There are several of those: Mandriva, Fedora Core, Red Hat, SuSE, Gentoo, etc. By the time this gets done, Windows Vista would have become the new standard.
Second, Linux really needs a standard GUI. It's very confusing for a new user to learn one desktop interface, say KDE, and then realize that some distributions use another, like GNOME, as a default. Furthermore, not every application "just works" on every window manager; NetworkManager for GNOME has never worked on KDE for me. What makes Linux a pretty amazing operating system is the vast amount of options available, but they really need a standardizing factor for the new crowd.
Linux has made some excellent inroads to prove itself to the crowd as a serious operating system, but I don't think that they will achieve "world domination" by 2008. Even the idea itself is just childish, in my honest opinion. What they should be striving for is pushing it as "an alternative" to Microsoft Windows instead of "the better option." And doing that alone takes a while.
I have been eagerly waiting for WiMAX to come out for some time now; I think that this technology would be revolutionary to even the typical Joe RAZR.
As one poster already mentioned, wireless internet can be costly (even though some cellular companies are driving this down; last time I checked, T-Mobile has the full package for $20 a month). WiMAX would make revolutionary inroads to mobile connectivity, as well as better mobile devices in the long run. I think that if this technology flourishes, we should expect to see full PDA-like cell phones coming out and being used by almost everyone. That means that we would have more choice for real work being done on our phones rather than to have to get a Treo or a clumsy Windows-Mobile device as our options.
Also, this would be great for Skype and its users, since we would be able to talk on our phones while paying for internet, which is a lot more worthwhile than paying for lots of minutes that may not be used.
While I agree with you and see your point, where does the 'limiting factor' stop? One thing is for a laptop to last about 3 - 5 years, and another is to last nearly six months before giving out! At that point, any laptop should be reaching their prime, not their failure!
Furthermore, this isn't the only case where I have heard of quick degredation of HP's products. My cousins had an HP Pavillion which also kicked the bucket before the end of that year!
If I had to purchase a laptop for business/corporate use, I would rather purchase a single-core Thinkpad T series rather than any new HP/Dell computer. As I have seen this trend for quite some time now, I think most people in this position would agree with me.
I actually own the workstation edition of this laptop (the model from last year, nw8240). I think that while the specs (at that time) were top notch and could not be beat in a smaller package, the build quality of the computer is kind of bad. The casing is quite easy to break and is easier to look "beat up." The screen is also questionable, as mine had dead pixels and "yellow" spots after less than six months of use. The service department of my school replaced that computer's motherboard two times in the last year alone, and I am not one to put my computers through the rough.
Why aren't any of IBM/Lenovo's Thinkpad offerings on that list? I see that computer used more often than the high-end HP's in business anyway, which is well deserved because they are rock solid and last a really long time. I had their 760L from 10 years ago working until 2 years ago when someone took the computer and smashed it to the floor. And even after that it still worked! The same went for my Thinkpad 600.
If my computer's internals hadn't been replaced, the thing would have been gone in less than six months, which is unacceptable to me.
I have tried to use OpenOffice, like it, and adapt to it. I tried to use it as a full alternative to Office, but I just can't.
Example: I do a lot of mathematical writing for class and my own personal interests. I use LaTeX for this too, but when I need something done quick, Microsoft Word plus MathType 5.2 is a powerful combination. It looks good, feels good, and looks presentable to my professors and peers. I could never, in Windows or Linux, get that kind of quality.
I have tried using MathType on Writer, but it handles the equations like anchored objects that are really hard (and not worth the effort) to remove. I have also tried to use their Equation Editor, but its more work for a hell of a lot less quality. If I have to put TeX-like code, I would like to see TeX-like results. OO Writer just simply cannot do this. Furthermore, headers come out wrong, the "Times" font doesn't look the same for some reason, and formatting is a little off. I even tried to put it as a replacement for Word for my family's computer, and that failed miserably.
I've tried AbiWord and KWrite for this reason, both of which do even worse.
...or was that article a complete toss-up of run-ons and fragments?
From what I could understand from the article, the title doesn't match up. This list seems more like a joke than a real list. I was expecting stuff like Klez (1999, I think), Melissa, ILoveU, "Hacked by Chinese," etc. Instead I get somewhat opinionated and controversally-worded (at best) topics that really make this read a waste.
Just looking at the article makes the organization behind BadVista laughable and completely immature. There are quite a number of significant problems with Windows Vista, yet the site seems to make the most mention of problems that, as said before, are completely speculative and misconstrued.
I will disclaim here that I have no problems with GNU/Linux Operating System. I have used several distributions in the past, but despite its problems, I think it is a decent OS. With that said and the fact that the FSF is behind this, I think that the group should have thought of how many of their 'not-have' reasons apply to their favorite OS as well:
Vista introduces a new variant of the SMB protocol called SMB2, which may pose problems for those connecting to non-Microsoft networks, such as Samba on Linux.
Has anyone tried to access SMB1 shares on Fedora Core 5 or 6? It's horror! I could go on and on, but it just shows that this is opinion.
Vista includes thousands of drivers, but most have been created directly by Microsoft. Many hardware manufacturers do not yet have drivers available for Vista.
Uhmm...maybe it's because it hasn't been publicly released yet? Counterexample: ATI just updated their drivers four days ago as their last preparation for RTM release. And this begs the question: where are the Linux drivers, FSF? I would love to get my external 5.1 surround sound card working sometime before I graduate (3 years from today)...
With Vista taking as much as 10 Gbytes of hard drive space, big and fast hard drives will be a must.
Has this guy tried to install a full Linux install. NO, I'm talking about the install that actually gives you everything. That's well over 10 GB.
The funniest one on that list to me was:
Vista is just different enough from XP that technicians and users will need training.
Obviously, FSF or whoever did not really use Vista before making bland assertions like this. Vista may have lots of GUI improvements, but a lot of knowledge about XP's GUI can still be applied here. It took me about 5 minutes to get used to Vista, and I'm sure a lot of users won't take much longer than that. And there are Linux professionals and experts who only know a fraction of the operating system; the learning curve is Mt. Everest steep.
There are a whole lot more than can be made fun of, but it just comes to show that organizations such as these give themselves a bad name by doing things like these. Bad mouth Vista all you want, but at least be factual about it...
That was a pretty good article, even though most of the stuff on there was pretty obvious (for most of us/.'ers) to begin with.
I think it was only inevitable that internet searching focuses more on the "type as you speak" initiative rather than the older term-by-term searching of the past. This would be great for us, but I really see that the benefits would cater more to the average man/woman who already has a difficult time searching because they are using "the wrong terms."
I really think that Google will be the first search engine to implement most of these changes, since their user-base and R&D is already above the roof. I think that Microsoft will also implement this soon with Live, since a sizable portion of their research teams are testing searching based on semantics as well.
After reading the article, what I concluded was that the "statisticians" who collected, measured, and sampled this data are saying that even though on its face the laptop will cost $100-$200 each for select countries, that external events related to the laptop will make it cost significantly more.
Kudos to those editors for finding out how every product ever made in recorded human history operates.
If you buy a product that requires maintance and care to function, say a laptop (you can pick any one you want), for some amount of money, extra money is always going to have to be spent in order to ensure the upkeep of the product. If it is a company buying laptops in bulk, they are going to have to train their IT department (or at least give them the right information, if my presumption is correct) to make sure that they know how to service those laptops. Individuals buying them have the option to purchase warranty, but for those who do not make this purchase, they will have to spend some money getting it fixed if they really want to use it in the long run. I could go on and on about this: protective gear, accessories, "pretty things," and so forth.
I said before that these costs apply if one really wanted to maintain their laptop for a longer period of time than specified. I would imagine that the governments of the countries involved in the purchase of the OLPC initiative will want to make sure each laptop lasts as long as possible, so extra money will be needed to spend on training, deployment, promotion, etc.
All of the other costs, like internet access and networking, really have nothing to do with the laptop itself. That's an external cost, meaning that the customer has the option to either accept or decline that purchase just like anything else. There's no reason why that should be added to the "real" sum of the laptop.
This site just wants traffic and attention. Or they just want to destroy the credibility of the initiative to unknowing people who have not researched the computer. Of course, individuals that are researching have no part in the decision purchase anyway, since it doesn't quite work like that.
While I am a Linux supporter and wish it the best of luck and patience in moving forward, is there really an absolute need to switch to that OS in an area such as education?
Let us compare what advantages Linux would have over Windows (in the area of education, mostly students and faculty and excluding IT since they are minor). So, Linux would definitely be more secure, as there are no viruses, spyware, or any malicious programs or scripts that could break the operating system. But with a correctly configured computer (antivirus and spy/malware protection on Windows), how much does this advantage really weigh? You can make something completely foolproof, but a better fool will find a way to break it. If a student really doesn't care about the status of his or her computer or laptop, then what makes one think that Linux will solve this?
Which brings me to my next point. While I believe that Linux is an operating system chock full of potential and capability, I sincerely do not think that it is ready for real desktop deployment. I hope nobody considers this flamebait of any sort, but I cannot fathom how it would be easier or manageable for a student to have to deal with the inconsistencies that run rampant in Linux. Heck, most typical students (or adults) freak when their wireless isn't working; I am sure that they will have a field day trying to set up NetworkManager for GNOME (and don't even get me started with wireless under KDE).
As a debater, I assume the most practical and extreme situations, so let us consider the possibility that these students are willing to put up with that. A typical Windows user can get the wireless working, but they might need that extra call to the Help Desk to learn how to properly configure the security settings. Putting Linux in an environment where IT is constantly plagued with calls and issues on Windows alone would possibly result in absolute chaos. I can see lots of the staff at IT constantly having to deal with ATI driver issues (because we all know that the instructions are consistent for every computer...).
At my college (which happens to be a technology institute, so roll out the stereotypes), the Help Desk gets flooded (literally) with help requests just for simple issues related to Windows and even Mac. And my school is a small school (10,000 students...
But that is just my opinion. I am not a systems manager.
I think people have already run the gamut about the materialistic aspect of this, but how safe is this service from a security standpoint? One is basically giving some web site their personal information to purchase 'fake-friends,' but God only knows what the other side could be doing with this intel...They could be selling it to third-parties, spammers, or otherwise. Or maybe their systems are totally insecure and are vulnerable targets for hackers, thus putting every client's information on the line...
I'd say that if I really had an incentive to purchase some fake friends, I would think about how safe my purchase will be first.
I think Mandriva will be the best choice for Linux transitioning to desktops. It's easy to install (probably the quickest and most straightforward installation next to Ubuntu), pretty simple to maintain, and is in my opinion the most user-friendly operating system for home and small-business users. I think of it as the Red Hat of Home Linux; it has fully dedicated support channels, premium content that is pretty nifty to have, and a very solid online community for those that cannot afford support. Last time I checked, the only other two mainstream Linux distributions that have all of those advantages are SuSE Linux (Novell) and Red Hat Linux.
Every time I have used Linux, I land up turning to Mandriva or Fedora. Fedora is good for ultra bleeding edge stuff, while Mandriva is the Linux distribution that "Just Works" (save the casual Linux stuff, of course). I think that if they do not use the other two said distributions, Mandriva will be a very probably candidate. I would most certainly switch to this distribution if I had a project of this magnitude.
It's already pretty well understood that the hardware and legal limitations of the Zune are early shortcomings. However, I happen to think that one of its bigger shortcomings is not the player, but the advertising for it.
I've seen only one commercial for the Zune, and it was the first time I wanted a refund of my time for a commercial. All I can remember was a dog wagging its tail and the owner asking it to go outside. The Zune was never shown. As a matter of fact, I cannot really recall any advertisement where the Zune was displayed. I mean, after looking at a commercial like that, it just begs the question of WHY? Did the owner want to go outside to get a Zune? Did its dog see one and get excited about it, thus sparking a reaction from the owner to chase it or something? If I have to do a close analysis of a 30-second or less commercial, what would make me or anyone want to research further into the product, let alone buy it? The "let's-get-lots-of-interest-by-being-enigmatic" strategy for marketing and advertisement only works for ideas and philosophies, in my opinion.
Let me not even get started on what they think is "welcoming the social." I think that seeing some random Spanish (?) girl looking like she has other intentions with something cylindrical or an Asian girl seemingly fornicating (this can be looked at in so many different angles) makes me wonder what "social" I really want to be a part of. Using the verb "to squirt" to describe sending music or data doesn't help the situation either. Developers, developers, developers.
Plus, it's not like Microsoft hasn't made cool advertising before. Its advertisements for Office have been pretty interesting, and so was its commercial for Windows Vista while it was still in beta. Why couldn't they do this with the Zune? Were they afraid that the RIAA would come down on them if they played a song or anything related to music?
To be fair, when the iPod was first launched, I don't remember the advertisements for it exactly but I think they centered around the same theme that Apple uses today: showing people using iPod to listen to music. They showed people dancing, jumping, freaking out, going crazy, and doing all sorts of things that have to deal with the enjoyment of listening to music. Hell, when I saw those ads I wanted to dance. Plus, the white iPod looked really cool in them. No wonder it became a chic item to have. Hell, just for kicks Microsoft could have creative around this idea. Why didn't they?
Even though I really hate Britney Spears, I must admit that before she got pregnant, she actually looked kind of hot. However, after she got pregnant, she gradually turned into a monstrosity (or was it years of lyrical and systematic infection of our American youth finally striking back...?). If the value premise of the case were true, that meant that if I used Photoshop to exaggerate her hideous appearance to blatant unrealistic proportions, then posted it back on my MySpace, I have used the image of Britney Spears illegally under copyright law and will be subjected to all sorts of governmental discipline. Does this make any sense?
I'm glad that the court realized the flawed logic of this case. It would have been a shame if that person had to pay some consequence solely for using merely the image of a character humorously (or not). I knew the dinosaur had some evil in it...
I think it will take a while for internet to replace TV, but when it does I do not think that there will be much difference in the amount of isolation that will occur.
Think about it: if families current sit down around the TV to watch their favorite program, will replacing the TV with a Media Center and a LCD screen do anything different to this experience? If it does, how could it hamper it? Why would replacing the medium change the way that the content is viewed and perceived?
Furthermore, do you think that mobile phones are a viable way of viewing your favorite program around your house? Or would increasing the size of the screen of a mobile phone or device make it impractical for mobile situations?
I think that regardless of the way television and digital media evolves, the "quality" time that is shared through the experience is not dependent on the medium in which that is delivered. But as I said earlier, computers would have to be a lot more reliable and convenient before this happens. Windows Vista was supposed to help this by decreasing the boot/resume time to those comparable with CRT TVs, but as far I can see, this has not happened.
I've read other blogs in regards to Windows Vista, and from what I am gathering the primary reason why Windows Vista took so long to complete was because of management. Philip Su argued how the gargantuan amount of code included in Vista slowed it development dramatically, however I think that this strengthens my point and the point made in this article.
However, I'm not terribly surprised that this occurred for Vista. The higher execs at the company wanted Vista to be a revolution and had a clear and concise goal that they wanted this operating system to achieve. In order to do this, from what I've read, they needed to form many more separate divisions inside of the Windows division to concentrate on small parts of the operating system. This probably sounded like a good idea, but the problem was that none of their work was in sync with each other. Some had more work completed than others. Furthermore, rifts within divisions such as the one present here spurred disagreement after disagreement, that including the decision to switch the codebase of the OS to the one present in Server 2003 (something that from what I understand should have been decided from the beginning). With all of this, it was only inevitable that confusion and miscommunication would occur.
All in all, while I think Windows Vista is definitely more capable than Windows XP and warrants itself a much needed upgrade, I feel that the actual improvements of the operating system do not warrant a five-year delay. Okay, so the compositing manager, networking stack, and audio stack may have needed some time to complete, but five-years? I am not a programmer, so my impression may not carry a lot of weight, but being that Linux and UNIX based systems have already included some of these "future technologies," it becomes naive to deem this delay as acceptable.
In my opinion, this is a step backwards. Wireless internet will be a leading standard of using the internet in the up and coming years, especially due to the increase in laptop usage. To continue relying on older wired technologies is not only a waste of money, but a waste of resources. Spending thousands to have to occasionally re-patch the school walls and administrative offices because of cable replacement can easily be spent more efficiently on purchasing WAPs, antennas, and other such equipment...
But then again, it's always about "Thinking of the children," isn't it?
Slashdot Mirror
While all of them are most certainly NOT drug dealers, users, or the like, how can we know how many are just homeless because of their bad habits?
When I give change to a homeless person, it's very difficult to assess whether that person was there because he or she had unfortunate life events or whether he or she is just getting by through his or her own satisfaction. When I give or deny change, it's really a choice between thinking all homeless people are just trying to survive or all homeless people are just bumming around.
To make it easier, I say that if the person is just holding a cup out WAITING for change, then that person is probably not going to struggle to get their life back together, so I need not help them.
As an aside, I have NEVER seen a homeless person wear decent, or even wearable, footwear.
Should have previewed...I meant "While I DO believe..." in the first sentence.
While I do not believe that iBooks (or Macbooks) are of unprecendented quality, I do not think it is fair to automatically assume that Apple notebooks are of superior quality to ALL PCs because of your one bad experience.
As a counterexample, I owned an IBM Thinkpad 760EL several years ago. It was nothing close to your beast, but it served my petty purposes well at the time. To make a long story short, it was slammed against the floor (purposefully) and quite difficult to piece back together. However, it STILL turned on and still was ready to boot Windows (even though the external memory module may have been destroyed; I did not confirm that). Even the LED battery timer remained intact!
A few years later, I get handed a HP nw8240 workstation notebook. Widescreen, fast graphics, awesome form; the ultimate road monster. To date, I have had THREE motherboard replacements, TWO screen replacements, TWO keyboard replacements, ONE partial case replacement, and ONE battery replacement (for a battery that died about a year into its run). I do not think that I have had that computer consecutively for more than three months. Matter of fact, to make things worse, I cannot stay in the text mode portion of the Windows installation process for more than FIVE minutes without a backup DESKTOP fan cooling it.
I really like the Macintosh computing platform; it can be as easy or as difficult as you want to make it, and it works with their hardware perfectly (and now runs Windows!). But PCs are still awesome to use; it just depends on who you trust.
That was Microsoft's ideology with the Zune, and everyone knows what happened there...
When an old article on Slashdot is posted, everyone gets on top of it like white on rice. But when an old article about Linux is posted, it seems to be coined as "another victory..."
This began in August 2006.
Linux could have many drivers available, but none of that matters when the quality of the drivers are questionable to begin with. Perfect example: video cards. There might be VESA drivers available, allowing the user to browse in 640x480x8, but what happens when he/she wants more than that? RTFM?
Before the framework can work, the drivers themselves have to work. Installing ATI's Control Panel, for example, should be just as easy as it is to install on Windows (that is, not having to
every time I need to install the suite). After that is established, then frameworks and other top-level concepts should work fine.Then why am I not floating in a huge B-Field right now?
I feel the karma roasting ...right....now....
Unfortunately, this is another problem with GNU/Linux that will prevent it from agglomerating any success in the desktop market. For Fedorda Core, the installation is pretty well guided and is, as you said, a click of button. Try saying that about Debian Sarge, or about Gentoo, or even about Fedora Core without the proper drivers (which would fit a lot of ATI people...)
This is why standardization is key. The installation procedure should be done around a set of guidelines, so that each Linux install is somewhat streamlined. Maybe Joe Dell Customer does not usually set up an operating system, but when he needs to, he shouldn't have to type an array of commands to get to an interface.
...but I think in order for them to gain anything close to mainstream status, they have to offer a lot of what the mainstream offers.
There are two things that stand out in my mind as being critical for the success of Linux in the home environment. First, they would have to offer driver support. Lots of it. Microsoft has each vendor test almost all of their hardware for full compatibility with Windows, and even Microsoft tests out some units for compatibility. Apple manufactures their own hardware, which decreases the burden. GNU/Linux would have to rely on "the community" to do this level of testing, but its nearly impossible for this to happen. Linux developers would have to depend on users buying almost all of the popular hardware out there and then test it fully on every popular distribution of Linux. There are several of those: Mandriva, Fedora Core, Red Hat, SuSE, Gentoo, etc. By the time this gets done, Windows Vista would have become the new standard.
Second, Linux really needs a standard GUI. It's very confusing for a new user to learn one desktop interface, say KDE, and then realize that some distributions use another, like GNOME, as a default. Furthermore, not every application "just works" on every window manager; NetworkManager for GNOME has never worked on KDE for me. What makes Linux a pretty amazing operating system is the vast amount of options available, but they really need a standardizing factor for the new crowd.
Linux has made some excellent inroads to prove itself to the crowd as a serious operating system, but I don't think that they will achieve "world domination" by 2008. Even the idea itself is just childish, in my honest opinion. What they should be striving for is pushing it as "an alternative" to Microsoft Windows instead of "the better option." And doing that alone takes a while.
I have been eagerly waiting for WiMAX to come out for some time now; I think that this technology would be revolutionary to even the typical Joe RAZR.
As one poster already mentioned, wireless internet can be costly (even though some cellular companies are driving this down; last time I checked, T-Mobile has the full package for $20 a month). WiMAX would make revolutionary inroads to mobile connectivity, as well as better mobile devices in the long run. I think that if this technology flourishes, we should expect to see full PDA-like cell phones coming out and being used by almost everyone. That means that we would have more choice for real work being done on our phones rather than to have to get a Treo or a clumsy Windows-Mobile device as our options.
Also, this would be great for Skype and its users, since we would be able to talk on our phones while paying for internet, which is a lot more worthwhile than paying for lots of minutes that may not be used.
While I agree with you and see your point, where does the 'limiting factor' stop? One thing is for a laptop to last about 3 - 5 years, and another is to last nearly six months before giving out! At that point, any laptop should be reaching their prime, not their failure!
Furthermore, this isn't the only case where I have heard of quick degredation of HP's products. My cousins had an HP Pavillion which also kicked the bucket before the end of that year!
If I had to purchase a laptop for business/corporate use, I would rather purchase a single-core Thinkpad T series rather than any new HP/Dell computer. As I have seen this trend for quite some time now, I think most people in this position would agree with me.
I actually own the workstation edition of this laptop (the model from last year, nw8240). I think that while the specs (at that time) were top notch and could not be beat in a smaller package, the build quality of the computer is kind of bad. The casing is quite easy to break and is easier to look "beat up." The screen is also questionable, as mine had dead pixels and "yellow" spots after less than six months of use. The service department of my school replaced that computer's motherboard two times in the last year alone, and I am not one to put my computers through the rough.
Why aren't any of IBM/Lenovo's Thinkpad offerings on that list? I see that computer used more often than the high-end HP's in business anyway, which is well deserved because they are rock solid and last a really long time. I had their 760L from 10 years ago working until 2 years ago when someone took the computer and smashed it to the floor. And even after that it still worked! The same went for my Thinkpad 600.
If my computer's internals hadn't been replaced, the thing would have been gone in less than six months, which is unacceptable to me.
I have tried to use OpenOffice, like it, and adapt to it. I tried to use it as a full alternative to Office, but I just can't.
Example: I do a lot of mathematical writing for class and my own personal interests. I use LaTeX for this too, but when I need something done quick, Microsoft Word plus MathType 5.2 is a powerful combination. It looks good, feels good, and looks presentable to my professors and peers. I could never, in Windows or Linux, get that kind of quality.
I have tried using MathType on Writer, but it handles the equations like anchored objects that are really hard (and not worth the effort) to remove. I have also tried to use their Equation Editor, but its more work for a hell of a lot less quality. If I have to put TeX-like code, I would like to see TeX-like results. OO Writer just simply cannot do this. Furthermore, headers come out wrong, the "Times" font doesn't look the same for some reason, and formatting is a little off. I even tried to put it as a replacement for Word for my family's computer, and that failed miserably.
I've tried AbiWord and KWrite for this reason, both of which do even worse.
YMMV, however.
...or was that article a complete toss-up of run-ons and fragments?
From what I could understand from the article, the title doesn't match up. This list seems more like a joke than a real list. I was expecting stuff like Klez (1999, I think), Melissa, ILoveU, "Hacked by Chinese," etc. Instead I get somewhat opinionated and controversally-worded (at best) topics that really make this read a waste.
Or maybe that was just modern art.
Just looking at the article makes the organization behind BadVista laughable and completely immature. There are quite a number of significant problems with Windows Vista, yet the site seems to make the most mention of problems that, as said before, are completely speculative and misconstrued.
I will disclaim here that I have no problems with GNU/Linux Operating System. I have used several distributions in the past, but despite its problems, I think it is a decent OS. With that said and the fact that the FSF is behind this, I think that the group should have thought of how many of their 'not-have' reasons apply to their favorite OS as well:
Vista introduces a new variant of the SMB protocol called SMB2, which may pose problems for those connecting to non-Microsoft networks, such as Samba on Linux.Has anyone tried to access SMB1 shares on Fedora Core 5 or 6? It's horror! I could go on and on, but it just shows that this is opinion.
Vista includes thousands of drivers, but most have been created directly by Microsoft. Many hardware manufacturers do not yet have drivers available for Vista.Uhmm...maybe it's because it hasn't been publicly released yet? Counterexample: ATI just updated their drivers four days ago as their last preparation for RTM release. And this begs the question: where are the Linux drivers, FSF? I would love to get my external 5.1 surround sound card working sometime before I graduate (3 years from today)...
With Vista taking as much as 10 Gbytes of hard drive space, big and fast hard drives will be a must.Has this guy tried to install a full Linux install. NO, I'm talking about the install that actually gives you everything. That's well over 10 GB.
The funniest one on that list to me was:
Vista is just different enough from XP that technicians and users will need training.Obviously, FSF or whoever did not really use Vista before making bland assertions like this. Vista may have lots of GUI improvements, but a lot of knowledge about XP's GUI can still be applied here. It took me about 5 minutes to get used to Vista, and I'm sure a lot of users won't take much longer than that. And there are Linux professionals and experts who only know a fraction of the operating system; the learning curve is Mt. Everest steep.
There are a whole lot more than can be made fun of, but it just comes to show that organizations such as these give themselves a bad name by doing things like these. Bad mouth Vista all you want, but at least be factual about it...
That was a pretty good article, even though most of the stuff on there was pretty obvious (for most of us /.'ers) to begin with.
I think it was only inevitable that internet searching focuses more on the "type as you speak" initiative rather than the older term-by-term searching of the past. This would be great for us, but I really see that the benefits would cater more to the average man/woman who already has a difficult time searching because they are using "the wrong terms."
I really think that Google will be the first search engine to implement most of these changes, since their user-base and R&D is already above the roof. I think that Microsoft will also implement this soon with Live, since a sizable portion of their research teams are testing searching based on semantics as well.
After reading the article, what I concluded was that the "statisticians" who collected, measured, and sampled this data are saying that even though on its face the laptop will cost $100-$200 each for select countries, that external events related to the laptop will make it cost significantly more.
Kudos to those editors for finding out how every product ever made in recorded human history operates.
If you buy a product that requires maintance and care to function, say a laptop (you can pick any one you want), for some amount of money, extra money is always going to have to be spent in order to ensure the upkeep of the product. If it is a company buying laptops in bulk, they are going to have to train their IT department (or at least give them the right information, if my presumption is correct) to make sure that they know how to service those laptops. Individuals buying them have the option to purchase warranty, but for those who do not make this purchase, they will have to spend some money getting it fixed if they really want to use it in the long run. I could go on and on about this: protective gear, accessories, "pretty things," and so forth.
I said before that these costs apply if one really wanted to maintain their laptop for a longer period of time than specified. I would imagine that the governments of the countries involved in the purchase of the OLPC initiative will want to make sure each laptop lasts as long as possible, so extra money will be needed to spend on training, deployment, promotion, etc.
All of the other costs, like internet access and networking, really have nothing to do with the laptop itself. That's an external cost, meaning that the customer has the option to either accept or decline that purchase just like anything else. There's no reason why that should be added to the "real" sum of the laptop.
This site just wants traffic and attention. Or they just want to destroy the credibility of the initiative to unknowing people who have not researched the computer. Of course, individuals that are researching have no part in the decision purchase anyway, since it doesn't quite work like that.
FUD.
While I am a Linux supporter and wish it the best of luck and patience in moving forward, is there really an absolute need to switch to that OS in an area such as education?
Let us compare what advantages Linux would have over Windows (in the area of education, mostly students and faculty and excluding IT since they are minor). So, Linux would definitely be more secure, as there are no viruses, spyware, or any malicious programs or scripts that could break the operating system. But with a correctly configured computer (antivirus and spy/malware protection on Windows), how much does this advantage really weigh? You can make something completely foolproof, but a better fool will find a way to break it. If a student really doesn't care about the status of his or her computer or laptop, then what makes one think that Linux will solve this?
Which brings me to my next point. While I believe that Linux is an operating system chock full of potential and capability, I sincerely do not think that it is ready for real desktop deployment. I hope nobody considers this flamebait of any sort, but I cannot fathom how it would be easier or manageable for a student to have to deal with the inconsistencies that run rampant in Linux. Heck, most typical students (or adults) freak when their wireless isn't working; I am sure that they will have a field day trying to set up NetworkManager for GNOME (and don't even get me started with wireless under KDE).
As a debater, I assume the most practical and extreme situations, so let us consider the possibility that these students are willing to put up with that. A typical Windows user can get the wireless working, but they might need that extra call to the Help Desk to learn how to properly configure the security settings. Putting Linux in an environment where IT is constantly plagued with calls and issues on Windows alone would possibly result in absolute chaos. I can see lots of the staff at IT constantly having to deal with ATI driver issues (because we all know that the instructions are consistent for every computer...).
At my college (which happens to be a technology institute, so roll out the stereotypes), the Help Desk gets flooded (literally) with help requests just for simple issues related to Windows and even Mac. And my school is a small school (10,000 students...
But that is just my opinion. I am not a systems manager.
I think people have already run the gamut about the materialistic aspect of this, but how safe is this service from a security standpoint? One is basically giving some web site their personal information to purchase 'fake-friends,' but God only knows what the other side could be doing with this intel...They could be selling it to third-parties, spammers, or otherwise. Or maybe their systems are totally insecure and are vulnerable targets for hackers, thus putting every client's information on the line...
I'd say that if I really had an incentive to purchase some fake friends, I would think about how safe my purchase will be first.
I think Mandriva will be the best choice for Linux transitioning to desktops. It's easy to install (probably the quickest and most straightforward installation next to Ubuntu), pretty simple to maintain, and is in my opinion the most user-friendly operating system for home and small-business users. I think of it as the Red Hat of Home Linux; it has fully dedicated support channels, premium content that is pretty nifty to have, and a very solid online community for those that cannot afford support. Last time I checked, the only other two mainstream Linux distributions that have all of those advantages are SuSE Linux (Novell) and Red Hat Linux.
Every time I have used Linux, I land up turning to Mandriva or Fedora. Fedora is good for ultra bleeding edge stuff, while Mandriva is the Linux distribution that "Just Works" (save the casual Linux stuff, of course). I think that if they do not use the other two said distributions, Mandriva will be a very probably candidate. I would most certainly switch to this distribution if I had a project of this magnitude.
It's already pretty well understood that the hardware and legal limitations of the Zune are early shortcomings. However, I happen to think that one of its bigger shortcomings is not the player, but the advertising for it.
I've seen only one commercial for the Zune, and it was the first time I wanted a refund of my time for a commercial. All I can remember was a dog wagging its tail and the owner asking it to go outside. The Zune was never shown. As a matter of fact, I cannot really recall any advertisement where the Zune was displayed. I mean, after looking at a commercial like that, it just begs the question of WHY? Did the owner want to go outside to get a Zune? Did its dog see one and get excited about it, thus sparking a reaction from the owner to chase it or something? If I have to do a close analysis of a 30-second or less commercial, what would make me or anyone want to research further into the product, let alone buy it? The "let's-get-lots-of-interest-by-being-enigmatic" strategy for marketing and advertisement only works for ideas and philosophies, in my opinion.
Let me not even get started on what they think is "welcoming the social." I think that seeing some random Spanish (?) girl looking like she has other intentions with something cylindrical or an Asian girl seemingly fornicating (this can be looked at in so many different angles) makes me wonder what "social" I really want to be a part of. Using the verb "to squirt" to describe sending music or data doesn't help the situation either. Developers, developers, developers.
Plus, it's not like Microsoft hasn't made cool advertising before. Its advertisements for Office have been pretty interesting, and so was its commercial for Windows Vista while it was still in beta. Why couldn't they do this with the Zune? Were they afraid that the RIAA would come down on them if they played a song or anything related to music?
To be fair, when the iPod was first launched, I don't remember the advertisements for it exactly but I think they centered around the same theme that Apple uses today: showing people using iPod to listen to music. They showed people dancing, jumping, freaking out, going crazy, and doing all sorts of things that have to deal with the enjoyment of listening to music. Hell, when I saw those ads I wanted to dance. Plus, the white iPod looked really cool in them. No wonder it became a chic item to have. Hell, just for kicks Microsoft could have creative around this idea. Why didn't they?
...because this case had no basis.
Even though I really hate Britney Spears, I must admit that before she got pregnant, she actually looked kind of hot. However, after she got pregnant, she gradually turned into a monstrosity (or was it years of lyrical and systematic infection of our American youth finally striking back...?). If the value premise of the case were true, that meant that if I used Photoshop to exaggerate her hideous appearance to blatant unrealistic proportions, then posted it back on my MySpace, I have used the image of Britney Spears illegally under copyright law and will be subjected to all sorts of governmental discipline. Does this make any sense?
I'm glad that the court realized the flawed logic of this case. It would have been a shame if that person had to pay some consequence solely for using merely the image of a character humorously (or not). I knew the dinosaur had some evil in it...
I think it will take a while for internet to replace TV, but when it does I do not think that there will be much difference in the amount of isolation that will occur.
Think about it: if families current sit down around the TV to watch their favorite program, will replacing the TV with a Media Center and a LCD screen do anything different to this experience? If it does, how could it hamper it? Why would replacing the medium change the way that the content is viewed and perceived?
Furthermore, do you think that mobile phones are a viable way of viewing your favorite program around your house? Or would increasing the size of the screen of a mobile phone or device make it impractical for mobile situations?
I think that regardless of the way television and digital media evolves, the "quality" time that is shared through the experience is not dependent on the medium in which that is delivered. But as I said earlier, computers would have to be a lot more reliable and convenient before this happens. Windows Vista was supposed to help this by decreasing the boot/resume time to those comparable with CRT TVs, but as far I can see, this has not happened.
I've read other blogs in regards to Windows Vista, and from what I am gathering the primary reason why Windows Vista took so long to complete was because of management. Philip Su argued how the gargantuan amount of code included in Vista slowed it development dramatically, however I think that this strengthens my point and the point made in this article.
However, I'm not terribly surprised that this occurred for Vista. The higher execs at the company wanted Vista to be a revolution and had a clear and concise goal that they wanted this operating system to achieve. In order to do this, from what I've read, they needed to form many more separate divisions inside of the Windows division to concentrate on small parts of the operating system. This probably sounded like a good idea, but the problem was that none of their work was in sync with each other. Some had more work completed than others. Furthermore, rifts within divisions such as the one present here spurred disagreement after disagreement, that including the decision to switch the codebase of the OS to the one present in Server 2003 (something that from what I understand should have been decided from the beginning). With all of this, it was only inevitable that confusion and miscommunication would occur.
All in all, while I think Windows Vista is definitely more capable than Windows XP and warrants itself a much needed upgrade, I feel that the actual improvements of the operating system do not warrant a five-year delay. Okay, so the compositing manager, networking stack, and audio stack may have needed some time to complete, but five-years? I am not a programmer, so my impression may not carry a lot of weight, but being that Linux and UNIX based systems have already included some of these "future technologies," it becomes naive to deem this delay as acceptable.
... Kind of like the mobile radiation scare of the early millennium, perhaps?
In my opinion, this is a step backwards. Wireless internet will be a leading standard of using the internet in the up and coming years, especially due to the increase in laptop usage. To continue relying on older wired technologies is not only a waste of money, but a waste of resources. Spending thousands to have to occasionally re-patch the school walls and administrative offices because of cable replacement can easily be spent more efficiently on purchasing WAPs, antennas, and other such equipment...
But then again, it's always about "Thinking of the children," isn't it?