I am not a programmer, nor do I mainly concentrate on software at the concrete code level, but I believe that the glaring problem that the Open Source community has been plagued with for years is an irrevocable one. In my honest opinion, the main purpose and benefit of Open Source software was that its code, structure and framework were freely distributable to everyone so that everyone, granted the populace is skilled enough, could partake in the software's development process. However, almost all of the problems inherent to FOSS, no matter how obvious or profound, have been due to the same advantage that gets people's interests in it in the first place.
Furthermore, the grand majority of the FOSS projects that have succeeded to success at a commercial echelon have fell into the "trap" that I believe most Open Source developers attempt to stay away from: mainstream popularity. Software that falls into that world have to deal with its consequences: sketchy deals with large, impersonal corporations, obstacles to avoid the competition, and so forth. Red Hat, SuSE, and other Linux distributions that are used in mission-critical operations are textbook examples of this.
I also feel that a lot of the Open Source community is highly contradictory to a point in which any attempt to capture the interests of the standard "computer user" is pointless. "The community" is supposed to welcome any newcomers that attempt to learn and use certain software, but when the question becomes "too simple," those users are told to "RTFM." "The community" wants Open Source software to get more recognized and be on par with the levels of larger players, but when those pieces of software reach that level and have to implement competitive methods to retain that position, "the community" sneers at its commercialism.
Of course, like any business model there are the exceptions and outliers (Firefox and OpenOffice.org come to mind). But they are just that: outliers. I'm almost positive that a grand majority of people who attempt to introduce computer users of a generation that were not wholly familiar with the idea of electronic computing to Open Source platforms such as Linux and OpenOffice.org have a hard time of doing so.
This problem is nothing new, and being that the problem is within its own roots, it will probably not be a curable one. The only possibility for change lies within the core of the movement, which may or may not render the entire "spirit" of the cause meaningless.
First, another link to read this information. Read here
Second, I think this is sort-of FUD. I say sort-of because while one will require permission to fly, the selected quote from the law mentions nothing about the no-fly list. For all that we know, they could just be checking to see if a passenger is even a legal citizen or a citizen on a VISA here. If you are, then no problem. If you're not, then you get caught, which is what would happen to illegals anyway. It is possible that DHS might be searching for people on the black list, but this passage never makes it implied.
Does anyone have the statistic as to how many people were prevented from emigrating out of US (or into her) because of the "no-fly list" exclusion?
First of all, I don't know where many Linux users get the preconceived notion that knowing Linux or UNIX makes the user any more knowledgeable in computing than someone that knows Windows! Knowledge of how to work around Linux means that one can work around an operating system, which is just as easy to acquire when using Windows! I've talked to people who can work around almost any problem in Linux, BSD, or Unix but cannot solve a relatively simple issue in Windows!
I don't think that Linux will ever get the desktop popularity as many people hope. I don't think that's part of the mission of GNU/Linux. It was created as an alternative, not a replacement to, mainstream operating systems of the time. Having multiple distributions, multiple window managers, and so forth, I believe, is part of the nature that makes Linux what it is. To remove all of that, in my opinion, would make Linux nothing more than a Windows-like operating system with a different mask.
Plus, on a home desktop environment, what advantages would Linux have over Windows (other than price, which is starting to change on the Linux front too)? I'm sure the first thing to come to mind is security, but do you not think that a properly configured Windows-based PC with a good antivirus (AVG, for instance) and spyware protection has good enough protection from the outside? I mean, without the security advantage that makes Linux/UNIX popular on the server front, I really do not see any more benefits that Linux can give to an average user. Even for someone like me who has been computing for a while, I do not really benefit much from running Linux over Windows (I get OpenOffice, which is on Windows, TeX frontends which is on Windows, IDEs which are also on Windows, etc).
Then again, I'm no developer, so I could be wrong. If so, correct me then.
Every person that wants an iPod asks for "an iPod." Every person that has an iPod says that they have an "iPod." Do you hear anyone asking or referring to their "Apple iPod?"
I don't think that because users don't care (or have any clue) who makes their favorite product, many people will just throw away their $400 iPods in favor of the Zune.
Don't newer Nextel phones [phonescoop.com] such as the one in the link have GPS and lots of other goodies as well? I mean I know that this phone is kind of small and friendly, but I am sure I have seen this technology implemented on phones of similar size or slightly bigger.
I, for one, welcome our new Windows Firewall pwning overlords.
Seriously though, Windows Firewall is great for very general and basic protection, but it serves no match to free and more efficient [zonelabs.com] firewall software that is actually easier and more understandable to the user.
Even though recently Sony has been making a lot of fudge-ups and bad press, I kind of feel bad that Sony's having to deal with this now. This is the company that fought for better quality video, made portable audio a lifestyle, and innovated/invented several concepts that we could not live without. My family and I trusted the Sony brand for years, and it will be sad to see them getting closer and closer to another great example of a management failure in our business classes.
You really could disable that through Tools > Options.
However, I think that for most people who fail to label their albums correctly (there are a lot of people who do this), WMP does the job really well. Sometimes, it's a lot easier to let WMP find the album info and label everything than using MP3Tag or some other software.
I don't know about you guys, but I don't understand why people would prefer a media player that can't even let you sort through your library by artist, genre, etc. I find it horribly confusing to use iTunes with this limitation, especially with a large media database.
As another user posted, I think the Winamp developers got the media library interfact perfect. It was simple, organized, and efficient. Even though they have also gone off to the wayside with lots of unnecessary bloat [winamp.com], at least they got the concept right.
In 2002, it was estimated that 140 million DVD-ROM drives are distributed worldwide, 75 million of which were sold in the United States alone (approx 54%) [AllOfMp3.com] Centralizing in the United States, this is more than the amount of DVD players shipped that year!
If that's the case, wouldn't this be a "very bad thing" to do? I know at least in my college, most DVD watching is done on computer...
While that may be true, it is only true to an extent.
For example, as you know, RPM managers are usually very different between distributions. Even though all that most people need to master downloading using a RPM source is simple command-line work, there's yum, apt2get, urpmi, and so forth.
Also, correct me if I'm wrong (I'm still new to Linux), but you cannot just install a Debian-based install file of OpenOffice onto Mandriva Linux, or Fedora Core, or any other distribution that isn't Debian based.
I think that if the government of Kerala were to mandate that IT departments test out all possible distributions in all possible situations, using Linux in general would be completely ineffective or worse than using Windows as a main OS, as cross-platform incompatibilities get increasingly harder to deal with as the environment gets larger
While it would be very helpful to have a Microsoft-supported version of Office on Linux boxes, I find little importance as to whether this happens or not for several reasons.
The most important reason why this is just a non-issue is simply because OpenOffice.org does the job "good enough" or better for Linux users. As a new Linux user, why would I be convinced to buy a Linux-compiled binary of Microsoft Office when I have a legally free version of OpenOffice.org that can do everything that Word, Excel, and Powerpoint can do? Let's not even mention Outlook, since there are several e-mail clients that handle that job significantly better.
Furthermore, even if a Linux user had a burning desire for the interface of Word, CrossOver Office handles that job very well under Linux. There will be no need for a Linux-binary when CrossOver can emulate all of the APIs and libraries well enough for Office to function well. Also, can you imagine the wonderful support (or lack thereof) that Microsoft will provide for this product? If you can't, think about receiving an e-mail reply weeks later or paying $20 for useless phone support.
I would go on about what Word lacks and Writer champions (Equation editing, PDF support (which Office 2007 still won't get right), formatting issues, etc), but it doesn't matter since in the end this probably will not happen. The only way I can see a possibility of this happening is if Linux gains significant market share, which I don't see happening in the near future.
It is easily arguable that Google is trying to start up some kind of new method of filesharing, but the difference between what Google is trying to do here and what Napster and its contenders intended to do originally is very far apart. What I tried to imply was that if Google can obtain the kind of rights that the media companies are willing to give them, the companies will win tremendously from the services Google provides, especially in advertising. Therefore, Google have enough power to basically control whatever decision they decide to make. That doesn't necessarily mean that you will be able to saerch for an entire showing of "World Trade Center," but it does mean that you might legally be able to find some pre-selected clips for use as references.
Napster's intent didn't intend on doing this, as you very well know. They wanted to have their cake and eat it too, in that they wanted to share as much as they possibily could with the knowledge that it was very much illegal and the owner was bound to get caught in the act. Also, unlike Google, he had no power to strike a deal with the huge advertisers other than to succumb to making his service legal. While the outcome was beneficial for both the owner and the companies, the onwer had to abandon his original premise and "follow the rules" to avoid any further trouble.
You are correct in that media companies are no friend to anyone except their own kind. However, they will be friendly when lots of money is in the picture, and in this case, it definitely is.
If Google can garner a solid relationship with those large media companies, the possibilities for Google to grow are nearly infinite. Many households today do not own a DVR, but imagine how convenient it would be for a typical Joe User to be able to find a clip from CNN he saw earlier and use it for a research project he's working on. Wouldn't it be great if his daughter could find a clip of her favorite program as easily as searching for web pages?
If this relationship can build, this will all be possible. Furthermore, companies that benefit from AdSense will benefit greatly from those types of users. Everybody wins at the end, and Google keeps its "friendly giant" crown it's been holding for years.
I think that Dvoraks' right on this one. YouTube will definitely suceed in the long run just like Google has. Almost every internet user loves a simple interface with simple procedures to get things done; YouTube caters to that, so everyone is happy. And it's nice to be able to capture something rare on video and then show off your skills to everyone.
However, I don't think that many users of YouTube are very concerned about the business model end of it -- I think that they are enjoying functionality already. Do you really think that the average Joe User thinks about the monthly net profit as he posts a video?
One of the main reasons why Microsoft Windows has the market share that it has is because of Dell. It would take a lot more than promoting Windows on a Mac to make consumers want to start preferring Apple computers over Dells. Also, lots of people get Dell because they are able to sell computers at very reasonable prices, and everyone here knows that Apple isn't exactly the best at doing that.
Also, from what I've noticed, I think that most people buy Macs more to find alternatives to Windows. A lot of Mac buyers that I have talked to over the years have bought Macs because using OS X was easier than using Windows, or that Windows was too insecure for them and they were looking for options that were not Linux. Even though having a closer PC feel by integrating Windows will attract a few members of the PC target audience, I don't think it's going to cause a massive swing in the opposite direction. Macs are not iPods; these are $1000+ computers that can do and perform the same things as a regularly-priced Dell PC.
I don't even think that putting themselves in direct competiton with Dell or any other major PC retailer is part of their plan; I think that if they really wanted to do this, they would have made the switch to Intel earlier and started diversifying their hardware base to make prices more flexible.
As a student in Computer Engineering and Mathematics, I find myself constantly using programs like Maple, Labview, and the like and having large screen resolutions is usually very favorable (try seeing a 3D plot at 1024x768). Furthermore, using the computer for that type of work for hours on end can cause a lot of eye strain, so having a TFT or something similar helps a lot. The huge problem that I have with widescreen LCDs is that at regular DPI settings, everything is mostly illegible, but that is correctable (Vista whitepapers say that they improve this, but when I used it, I didn't find much difference with Windows XP Scaling Technologies).
Slashdot Mirror
The cause.
I am not a programmer, nor do I mainly concentrate on software at the concrete code level, but I believe that the glaring problem that the Open Source community has been plagued with for years is an irrevocable one. In my honest opinion, the main purpose and benefit of Open Source software was that its code, structure and framework were freely distributable to everyone so that everyone, granted the populace is skilled enough, could partake in the software's development process. However, almost all of the problems inherent to FOSS, no matter how obvious or profound, have been due to the same advantage that gets people's interests in it in the first place.
Furthermore, the grand majority of the FOSS projects that have succeeded to success at a commercial echelon have fell into the "trap" that I believe most Open Source developers attempt to stay away from: mainstream popularity. Software that falls into that world have to deal with its consequences: sketchy deals with large, impersonal corporations, obstacles to avoid the competition, and so forth. Red Hat, SuSE, and other Linux distributions that are used in mission-critical operations are textbook examples of this.
I also feel that a lot of the Open Source community is highly contradictory to a point in which any attempt to capture the interests of the standard "computer user" is pointless. "The community" is supposed to welcome any newcomers that attempt to learn and use certain software, but when the question becomes "too simple," those users are told to "RTFM." "The community" wants Open Source software to get more recognized and be on par with the levels of larger players, but when those pieces of software reach that level and have to implement competitive methods to retain that position, "the community" sneers at its commercialism.
Of course, like any business model there are the exceptions and outliers (Firefox and OpenOffice.org come to mind). But they are just that: outliers. I'm almost positive that a grand majority of people who attempt to introduce computer users of a generation that were not wholly familiar with the idea of electronic computing to Open Source platforms such as Linux and OpenOffice.org have a hard time of doing so.
This problem is nothing new, and being that the problem is within its own roots, it will probably not be a curable one. The only possibility for change lies within the core of the movement, which may or may not render the entire "spirit" of the cause meaningless.
First, another link to read this information. Read here
Second, I think this is sort-of FUD. I say sort-of because while one will require permission to fly, the selected quote from the law mentions nothing about the no-fly list. For all that we know, they could just be checking to see if a passenger is even a legal citizen or a citizen on a VISA here. If you are, then no problem. If you're not, then you get caught, which is what would happen to illegals anyway. It is possible that DHS might be searching for people on the black list, but this passage never makes it implied.
Does anyone have the statistic as to how many people were prevented from emigrating out of US (or into her) because of the "no-fly list" exclusion?
First of all, I don't know where many Linux users get the preconceived notion that knowing Linux or UNIX makes the user any more knowledgeable in computing than someone that knows Windows! Knowledge of how to work around Linux means that one can work around an operating system, which is just as easy to acquire when using Windows! I've talked to people who can work around almost any problem in Linux, BSD, or Unix but cannot solve a relatively simple issue in Windows!
I don't think that Linux will ever get the desktop popularity as many people hope. I don't think that's part of the mission of GNU/Linux. It was created as an alternative, not a replacement to, mainstream operating systems of the time. Having multiple distributions, multiple window managers, and so forth, I believe, is part of the nature that makes Linux what it is. To remove all of that, in my opinion, would make Linux nothing more than a Windows-like operating system with a different mask.
Plus, on a home desktop environment, what advantages would Linux have over Windows (other than price, which is starting to change on the Linux front too)? I'm sure the first thing to come to mind is security, but do you not think that a properly configured Windows-based PC with a good antivirus (AVG, for instance) and spyware protection has good enough protection from the outside? I mean, without the security advantage that makes Linux/UNIX popular on the server front, I really do not see any more benefits that Linux can give to an average user. Even for someone like me who has been computing for a while, I do not really benefit much from running Linux over Windows (I get OpenOffice, which is on Windows, TeX frontends which is on Windows, IDEs which are also on Windows, etc).
Then again, I'm no developer, so I could be wrong. If so, correct me then.
Users aren't that stupid. Try getting an iPod owner to switch to a Creative Zen, something better and cheaper. Hard, often futile.
Regular users may not know the difference between the computer box and the monitor, but they know what's cool or not, regardless of price.
Every person that wants an iPod asks for "an iPod." Every person that has an iPod says that they have an "iPod." Do you hear anyone asking or referring to their "Apple iPod?"
I don't think that because users don't care (or have any clue) who makes their favorite product, many people will just throw away their $400 iPods in favor of the Zune.
Don't newer Nextel phones [phonescoop.com] such as the one in the link have GPS and lots of other goodies as well? I mean I know that this phone is kind of small and friendly, but I am sure I have seen this technology implemented on phones of similar size or slightly bigger.
I, for one, welcome our new Windows Firewall pwning overlords.
Seriously though, Windows Firewall is great for very general and basic protection, but it serves no match to free and more efficient [zonelabs.com] firewall software that is actually easier and more understandable to the user.
Even though recently Sony has been making a lot of fudge-ups and bad press, I kind of feel bad that Sony's having to deal with this now. This is the company that fought for better quality video, made portable audio a lifestyle, and innovated/invented several concepts that we could not live without. My family and I trusted the Sony brand for years, and it will be sad to see them getting closer and closer to another great example of a management failure in our business classes.
You really could disable that through Tools > Options.
However, I think that for most people who fail to label their albums correctly (there are a lot of people who do this), WMP does the job really well. Sometimes, it's a lot easier to let WMP find the album info and label everything than using MP3Tag or some other software.
But that's just me.
I don't know about you guys, but I don't understand why people would prefer a media player that can't even let you sort through your library by artist, genre, etc. I find it horribly confusing to use iTunes with this limitation, especially with a large media database.
As another user posted, I think the Winamp developers got the media library interfact perfect. It was simple, organized, and efficient. Even though they have also gone off to the wayside with lots of unnecessary bloat [winamp.com], at least they got the concept right.
In 2002, it was estimated that 140 million DVD-ROM drives are distributed worldwide, 75 million of which were sold in the United States alone (approx 54%) [AllOfMp3.com] Centralizing in the United States, this is more than the amount of DVD players shipped that year!
If that's the case, wouldn't this be a "very bad thing" to do? I know at least in my college, most DVD watching is done on computer...
While that may be true, it is only true to an extent.
For example, as you know, RPM managers are usually very different between distributions. Even though all that most people need to master downloading using a RPM source is simple command-line work, there's yum, apt2get, urpmi, and so forth.
Also, correct me if I'm wrong (I'm still new to Linux), but you cannot just install a Debian-based install file of OpenOffice onto Mandriva Linux, or Fedora Core, or any other distribution that isn't Debian based.
I think that if the government of Kerala were to mandate that IT departments test out all possible distributions in all possible situations, using Linux in general would be completely ineffective or worse than using Windows as a main OS, as cross-platform incompatibilities get increasingly harder to deal with as the environment gets larger
While it would be very helpful to have a Microsoft-supported version of Office on Linux boxes, I find little importance as to whether this happens or not for several reasons.
The most important reason why this is just a non-issue is simply because OpenOffice.org does the job "good enough" or better for Linux users. As a new Linux user, why would I be convinced to buy a Linux-compiled binary of Microsoft Office when I have a legally free version of OpenOffice.org that can do everything that Word, Excel, and Powerpoint can do? Let's not even mention Outlook, since there are several e-mail clients that handle that job significantly better.
Furthermore, even if a Linux user had a burning desire for the interface of Word, CrossOver Office handles that job very well under Linux. There will be no need for a Linux-binary when CrossOver can emulate all of the APIs and libraries well enough for Office to function well. Also, can you imagine the wonderful support (or lack thereof) that Microsoft will provide for this product? If you can't, think about receiving an e-mail reply weeks later or paying $20 for useless phone support.
I would go on about what Word lacks and Writer champions (Equation editing, PDF support (which Office 2007 still won't get right), formatting issues, etc), but it doesn't matter since in the end this probably will not happen. The only way I can see a possibility of this happening is if Linux gains significant market share, which I don't see happening in the near future.
It is easily arguable that Google is trying to start up some kind of new method of filesharing, but the difference between what Google is trying to do here and what Napster and its contenders intended to do originally is very far apart. What I tried to imply was that if Google can obtain the kind of rights that the media companies are willing to give them, the companies will win tremendously from the services Google provides, especially in advertising. Therefore, Google have enough power to basically control whatever decision they decide to make. That doesn't necessarily mean that you will be able to saerch for an entire showing of "World Trade Center," but it does mean that you might legally be able to find some pre-selected clips for use as references.
Napster's intent didn't intend on doing this, as you very well know. They wanted to have their cake and eat it too, in that they wanted to share as much as they possibily could with the knowledge that it was very much illegal and the owner was bound to get caught in the act. Also, unlike Google, he had no power to strike a deal with the huge advertisers other than to succumb to making his service legal. While the outcome was beneficial for both the owner and the companies, the onwer had to abandon his original premise and "follow the rules" to avoid any further trouble.
You are correct in that media companies are no friend to anyone except their own kind. However, they will be friendly when lots of money is in the picture, and in this case, it definitely is.
If Google can garner a solid relationship with those large media companies, the possibilities for Google to grow are nearly infinite. Many households today do not own a DVR, but imagine how convenient it would be for a typical Joe User to be able to find a clip from CNN he saw earlier and use it for a research project he's working on. Wouldn't it be great if his daughter could find a clip of her favorite program as easily as searching for web pages?
If this relationship can build, this will all be possible. Furthermore, companies that benefit from AdSense will benefit greatly from those types of users. Everybody wins at the end, and Google keeps its "friendly giant" crown it's been holding for years.
No sneaky corpse-beating RIAA lawyers required.
I think that Dvoraks' right on this one. YouTube will definitely suceed in the long run just like Google has. Almost every internet user loves a simple interface with simple procedures to get things done; YouTube caters to that, so everyone is happy. And it's nice to be able to capture something rare on video and then show off your skills to everyone. However, I don't think that many users of YouTube are very concerned about the business model end of it -- I think that they are enjoying functionality already. Do you really think that the average Joe User thinks about the monthly net profit as he posts a video?
One of the main reasons why Microsoft Windows has the market share that it has is because of Dell. It would take a lot more than promoting Windows on a Mac to make consumers want to start preferring Apple computers over Dells. Also, lots of people get Dell because they are able to sell computers at very reasonable prices, and everyone here knows that Apple isn't exactly the best at doing that. Also, from what I've noticed, I think that most people buy Macs more to find alternatives to Windows. A lot of Mac buyers that I have talked to over the years have bought Macs because using OS X was easier than using Windows, or that Windows was too insecure for them and they were looking for options that were not Linux. Even though having a closer PC feel by integrating Windows will attract a few members of the PC target audience, I don't think it's going to cause a massive swing in the opposite direction. Macs are not iPods; these are $1000+ computers that can do and perform the same things as a regularly-priced Dell PC. I don't even think that putting themselves in direct competiton with Dell or any other major PC retailer is part of their plan; I think that if they really wanted to do this, they would have made the switch to Intel earlier and started diversifying their hardware base to make prices more flexible.
As a student in Computer Engineering and Mathematics, I find myself constantly using programs like Maple, Labview, and the like and having large screen resolutions is usually very favorable (try seeing a 3D plot at 1024x768). Furthermore, using the computer for that type of work for hours on end can cause a lot of eye strain, so having a TFT or something similar helps a lot. The huge problem that I have with widescreen LCDs is that at regular DPI settings, everything is mostly illegible, but that is correctable (Vista whitepapers say that they improve this, but when I used it, I didn't find much difference with Windows XP Scaling Technologies).