Ministry of Information agents will collect incorrect history book and provide corrected versions. The agent will also collect the book "Unix Haters Handbook" as it contains numerous typos, including the title. A corrected version, "Unix Lovers Handbook", will be provided.
Actually, I didn't use Google's cache as an authoritative reference, or I didn't intend to at least. I merely posted the cache link because at the time I wrote the post, the actual nist.gov webpage wasn't loading. If you noticed, I also posted the actual non-cached link to the webpage.
It's easy to say that these systems are completely useless. But there unfortunately has been a lot of confusion with manufacturers referring to mega-, kilo- etc. both in terms of powers of 10 and 2. The only way to clearly and properly distinguish between the two systems is to follow different nomenclatures. Although I'm forced to agree that they could have put a bit more thought into the name instead of deciding on kibi-, mebi-, etc.
Before I forget, apologies for saying that they were SI units instead of IEC units.
Jee, ever bother trying Mozilla or Firebird? You obviously haven't, because Firebird has a submenu under Bookmarks called Imported IE Favorites, so you don't lose all your sites.
If you want to criticize, fine, but at least check what the competition has to offer before you do.
1 TB (terabyte) = 10^12 bytes, NOT 2^40 bytes. 2^40 bytes is represented by a value known as a Tebibyte.
Don't believe me? Check out http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/binary.html or google's cache at http://www.google.ca/search?q=cache:lbDn9HCN0SAJ:p hysics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/binary.html+gibibyte+sit e:gov&hl=en&start=1&ie=UTF-8
Java.net a step in the right direction
on
Sun Opens Java.net
·
· Score: 1
At the risk of sounding a bit trollish, java.net is certainly a step in the right direction for Java as a whole. My first impression of it is pretty good, and the concept of a meeting and sharing place for people interested in and/or developing in Java is a great idea. I can't wait to see how java.net turns out in the future. Hopefully this is a sign that Sun is turning Java into a more and more open standard as time progresses.
Yes definitely. The problem is, in most forums and discussions, the people are impassioned zealots who do not have any information to back up their arguments. A good argument is one in which each side has the respect to acknowledge the strengths of the other side.
Anyway, good luck, and hopefully you'll enjoy working with Linux and find it a pleasant experience.
That's it. SCO is now at the top of my hitlist. Come on people. They are waging war on the open-source community itself. It's clear that they don't care if Linux lives on or dies. They clearly said, "Linux comes from Unix and we own the Unix operating system". Its evident that they don't care about Linux, and think that since it comes from UNIX, they don't care if it lives or dies as long as they get their precious royalties. This is war! We can't let this go!
It is always interesting to note that our difference of opinion on this topic, is mostly because of what we use our computers for. I develop a lot, and I find the Linux environment very suitable for my development purposes. Although I am not sure what you use your machine for, I am sure Windows must be satisfying your needs, and I have no problem with that.
In terms of support, when you purchase any software (individually, not as a company with a support agreement), as far as I know and out of experience, you only get online support by means of e-mails and messages. You do have to pay for direct, person-to-person customer service (this is as far as I know and was true the last time I checked). To be fair, even Linux distros only offer direct person-to-person customer service for a period of 30 to 90 days, depending on the distribution you buy.
I never have to worry about compiling, or library dependencies, or anything like to get programs to work.
I disagree. In the open source world, (specifically the Linux world), there is a growing trend to providing binaries of all programs in the form of RPMs or DEBs, depending on the specific platform you are using. Although until a few years ago, RPMs had to be installed through the command line, nowadays, double-clicking them will open a small window, that does a complete installation for you, including adding shortcuts to your main menu. Of course, because it is open source, you always have the option of obtaining the source and compiling it for yourself. But virtually all major open-source programs, including Mozilla, OpenOffice, Tcl, the X server, KDE, etc. all have binary distributions that hardly require any technical expertise to install. What you said does not hold true so much any more. Yes, a few years ago, virtually everything had to be compiled, etc. Why, now you even have a kernel configurator in KDE to configure and tweak the kernel graphically if one wishes to do so. So you see, the Linux world has changed a lot even in just a few years.
In terms of documentation, I don't mean troubleshooting manuals, etc. I mean documentation that gives you information on security, tips on optimising your system. Although installation guides are provided, the big distributions have wonderful, fully-graphical installers that do all the groundwork for the user, and even a complete newbie needs to know virtually nothing about installation itself.
In terms of the full version, many people need full versions if they ever need to re-install their system from scratch. I don't know about you, but me, and most of the people I know have to reinstall Windows every once in a while (about once or twice a year). This is either because our system gets too cluttered with all our files and programs, or because we encounter problems with our computer/operating system. Well we could always install our original full version, then upgrade once again to Windows XP, but that might not even be possible in some cases. One more reason why I, and many others, like to do a clean re-install is because Windows, over time, tends to store too many system files, and temporary files that are next to impossible to find and get rid of. Well, I could always use commercial programs like Window Washer (which I do) to clean my system tracks, but it's far from being perfect. So for people like us, if we intend to buy an OS, we usually tend to go for the full version. And personally, I would be surprised if a person started out with Windows 95 and has only upgraded all the way to Windows XP (although I certainly don't mind if they choose to do so).
By saying given a chance, I don't mean that people are blocked by a mysterious magic force from downloading and installing another browser. All I'm saying is, the creation of IE as the default browser hurts web standards and other browsers (I have already explained why it hurts other browsers) Maybe the fault is in the users for not finding out about other alternatives, but since I do not have any
Sorry I failed to say this before, but before labeling someone a zealot, you should at least read through what they generally say. If you make the effort to read through my posts, you can clearly see that I'm not an impassioned bigot who hates Microsoft products because they are created by Microsoft. In fact, I am even ready to commend the company for facilitating the placement of a computer in so many homes around the world. My arguments against Microsoft are fairly justified, and hopefully the tone and content of my posts reflect that. I don't think I would classify as the classic, stuck-up person who hates a company due to no reason. And once again, I don't HATE Microsoft. All I am doing is speaking out against its policies, not being a zealot.
they didn't have to do nearly the work to come up with the Linux product as Microsoft had to to develop Windows XP.
Honestly, the amount you get by paying 99 dollars for a commercial Linux distro is MUCH MUCH more than what you would get from a Windows box. In fact, most modern Linux distros (not server editions, of course) cost only about 30 - 50 bucks, depending on the distro and your location. Also, you get a LOT for what you pay. Moreover, almost all versions of these distros (in most circumstances, i.e.) can be downloaded free of cost. What about the documentation? It's available in pdf/html format. One of the main reasons Distro companies charge for their OS is due to the cost of packaging, printing books, etc. The amount these companies ship in one box without paying over 30 - 50 bucks is amazing. Most distros offer good tech support, including speaking on the phone with customer service. Fortunately or unfortunately, I've had experience with Microsoft tech support, and it certainly could be better. In fact, correct me if I'm wrong, don't you have to pay to speak to them?
And, if you say, "Well these distros don't have to do nearly the amount of work Microsoft has to.", each distribution offers a HUGE number of customized features in order to attract users. Although some people are against Red Hat, let me use it as an example. Red Hat recently included its own interface/theme known as BlueCurve. As soon as you look at it, it's quite clear that they put a lot of work into it. In fact, I speak from experience. Due to BlueCurve, GNOME applications run wonderfully on KDE, and vice versa. Also, the interface changes are minimalized. Hence, users can switch between the two without having to adapt to too many changes. Trust me, and if you're interested, check it out. In fact, when you buy a distro, you get basically everything you'll ever need for your work. Don't tell me that that's the case with any of Microsoft's Windows products.
As for IE, I am certainly not going to go back to Windows 95, as I know it's not a strong point. But however, remember that a significant part of the population still uses 95/98/Me, where IE isn't great. Also, to tell you the truth, I run Windows 2000 on another partition, and I have had quite a number of experiences where IE has crashed to my disappointment. It usually happens when I try to access an FTP server that's down (not online, whatever). I see a message, "Server name could not be resolved, then IE stops responding. Obviously, I have no other option other than giving the three-finger salute (Ctrl-Alt-Del:-) (And yes, if you want to know if I keep my system up2date, yes.) Anyway, that was only one instance where IE repeatedly succeeds to crash.
Coming back to the main point about IE, I don't mind most users liking IE, or using it. I was only talking about the problem of most users using a browser that isn't standard-compliant and what that does to the web and standards in general. In fact, integration of the browser is not a bad idea, and I agree with you on that point. (If you're familiar with KDE, it does sound a bit like Konqueror being both a file manager and a browser, right?:-)
Maybe you're right about the upgrade price for the Home edition not being too expensive. But take Windows XP Professional itself as an example. The full version, here in Canada, costs us 450 - 499 CAD (you could convert that I guess:-) I am just not able to justify that price for what you really get along with the OS. In fact, whether you accept it or not, one of the main reasons why Windows XP is so popular is 1. Stability has certainly been improved 2. Games run better and crash less frequently and 3. (most importantly) the interface looks much nicer compared to the previous versions of the OS.
However, if you as a user are only interested in having a better interface, he/she can check out Object Desktop. A
If you want to be a zealot, that's all fine and dandy. But don't make the mistake of assuming everyone else is, too.
Hmm, what makes you say I'm a zealot? All I was doing was responding to what he said that he likes Windows XP and didn't like UNIX. It was meant to be a gesture, not an insult, at all. Believe me if you please. I really find it hard to understand how you extrapolate that I think that all Windows XP users (those who enjoy it) by definition, hate all other operating systems. What makes you think that I assume everyone else is a zealot? If you like an operating system, go ahead and use it, who am I to question you? I never even hinted that fact in my post (or any part of it) at all. That wasn't my aim, sorry if you misunderstood it.
If you still think of me as a zealot, I don't mind. But I think you must think twice before labeling anyone a zealot just due to a single sentence. One line can have more than one meaning or intention you know...
It's not as if it is impossible to write something that can open and create Office documents.
Yeah sure, it isn't that hard is it? I am sure you will agree that reverse engineering formats is a VERY tedious and hard process. Especially when the company changes the format every once in a while. Do you know how much trouble the Linux NTFS project went through to reverse engineer the NTFS file system? If you're interested, please check out how they were able to do it. Not making a format, or a technology open, or not releasing documentation on it, (at the very least) hurts the software industry, and consumers as well. For Microsoft, this is great isn't it? They don't have to release documentation, no one forces them to, and they get to keep all the secrets of the Windows API to themselves. Other than money, what more could a software giant want?
You asked for an example. Although off the top of my head, I can't think of an example that exactly fits the definition "triple the price", I do have what I consider to be a fairly good example. Take Windows 2000 and Windows XP for instance. I can comfortably say, I am fairly experienced in both the operating systems, especially Windows 2000. You must agree with me, that the differences between these two operating systems are not very great. Some people would not agree with me because to them it LOOKS entirely different. But hey, other than that, are there a lot more differences? According to me at least, no.
But, Microsoft expects users to pay close to $ 200.00 USD to upgrade to this completely new, full featured version. Frankly, after using both these operating systems, I find that upgrade price ridiculous. The new featurescertainly do NOT justify the price. Just for an upgrade, that price is completely absurd.
Coming back to Office, even if it is easy to create a program that can write and open Office documents, what about slightly more advanced features such as text-boxes? I don't know if you have experience with OpenOffice, but OpenOffice does not display all text boxes created in Word. Also, numbering and bulleting isn't always the way it was intended to be when you transfer between applications. The problem isn't writing or reading the Office formats. The problem is when you transfer files between the two suites. You can't exactly blame the OpenOffice group. They've only been at it for 2 years! See what the creation of closed file formats can do?
One more point I forgot to make last time, sorry if I am bringing up something new. The inclusion of Internet Explorer and it being chosen by default as the default browser isn't exactly fair. Why? Because users tend to think that is the only browser that they can use. That's their link to the internet. You might say, "Well the users can always check out other browsers if they're interested." Sure, that's fine, but sad fact is, most don't. You are welcome to check statistics if you want, but IE is the most popular browser out there. What does this mean? Web designers are forced to focus mainly on making their web pages work on IE. If you don't know, IE isn't exactly a standard-compliant browser at all. This means web pages created using the standards may not look the same in IE, and hence web designers have to customize their web pages to work on IE. Some web designers ignore other browsers all together, and this creates a problem. You have a vicious cycle again. Users don't know other browsers exist, and hence they use IE. In response, web designers create more and more web pages exclusively for IE. In response to that, the users trying to switch to other browsers, don't, because most "IE-designed" web pages display poorly on non-IE browsers. Once again, you have the problem of Microsoft not following web standards, or even trying to switch to open, standard formats.
If you're tempted to say that IE might be popular because it's a great browser, you're welcome
Well, have you ever seen Microsoft's advertisements or their web site regarding their new, latest products? Take Office XP, for example. They were talking about smart tags and a new extensible architecture. But were the smart tags really something of use?
The primary reason why Microsoft profits is because it has the money, and because a lot of consumers do not know any other options, and think it is perfectly normal for their computer to crash occasionally.
If you give me the example of Windows XP not crashing often, what percentage of the population really uses Windows XP? Not everyone, in fact only a small portion of the population owns the latest and greatest computers running Windows XP.
Also, the reason why Microsoft's software, and proprietary software is popular, is because people often find ways of obtaining the software through illegal channels. Although the law is trying to stop this, it is an uphill task to completely eradicate software piracy. If everyone had no other option other than buying Microsoft's software, I think the percent of the population using Windows/Office will be much, much lesser.
Name a product that this has ever happened to.
As I said earlier, and I repeat myself, Internet Explorer (which was originally Spyglass' browser), the Windows GUI, why even DOS itself. All these products were not ORIGINALLY designed by Microsoft. They were either bought by MS, or were ideas that were copied from other software companies. Unfortunately, when the small companies try to retaliate, it has proven quite tough for them to win. There's nothing much you can do when you are up against a huge, monopolistic behemoth.
Another problem is Microsoft's closed approach to most of its products, and formats. If a user creates Office documents at his workplace, he is literally forced to use Office at home in order to make sure there's complete compatibility. This is because, as you all know, of Microsoft's closed document formats. Once Microsoft has control over Office, it automatically forces the user to use Windows, because Office works best on it. Office v.X (for the Mac) is a joke compared to Office XP, and it doesn't even come close to offering all of the features in the Windows version. Hence, you have a consumer lockdown cycle. Once Microsoft makes a change to its format, its customers are forced to make upgrades, through legal/illegal means. Once Microsoft has monopolized the OS market, software companies are forced to develop primarily, or even entirely for Windows. When users see that all their products work only on Windows, they automatically are attracted to it, and are helpless even if it crashes regularly, because no other platform supports all the proprietary formats they use every day.
This is why Microsoft is able to sustain such huge profits.
When I say many users, that doesn't include every single one. The majority doesn't mean or even IMPLY 100%. Go ask people around you, those who are non-technically inclined. Not surprisingly, MANY people have not heard of alternatives at all. Technically-inclined people would have naturally heard of alternatives because they are into that kind of stuff.
Microsoft has taken old products and polished them so many times. Explorer, DOS, and the Windows GUI are only a few examples!
And by the way, you are welcome to love Windows XP and hate UNIX.
The reasons Microsoft profits from its products are:
Many users haven't heard of alternatives
Most users fall for Microsoft's marketing gimmicks
Most uers fall for it when Microsoft takes a product, polishes it, then resells it at triple the price.
Most users think that every computer comes built-in with a nice windozey interface that has an explorer where you can see some cute drive icons: A:, C:, D:
Microsoft has money. It has the money, and the strength to push its might on to hardware manufacturers. It also has its own advertising machine, as said before. And lastly, it has the ability to bulldoze the competition quite easily.
Seriously, when is the last time Microsoft has made a drastic change to its system? And, how many users have heard of OpenOffice? Microsoft has been pretty good at its game, hasn't it?
Isn't it more important for underdeveloped countries to have a solid underlying infrastructure? I mean, many such countries do not even have adequate water and healthcare facilities. The citizens need food, not advanced technology at this stage. It is more important for the world community to help these countries get on their feet before trying to wire them. How do you expect a country where telephones are a luxury to even think about the Internet?
I have to agree with you on the fact that not everything has been misused, or will be misused. And yes, the internet is definitely a great place to facilitate the sharing of information to benefit the scientific community as a whole. Plus, I am not really being fussy about this. All I am doing is being a little wary and asking whether posting such information on the internet is the greatest thing to do..
Also, if we don't really understand the sequence of letters that make up the genome, why post it on the internet for the world to see? What good is it going to do? Isn't it better if we spend our time understanding what the letters mean rather than just putting the sequence up for viewing? Of course, this is an entirely different issue altogether.
You might say that this will help research facilities around the world in some way or the other, and I certainly agree with that.
Maybe posting the genome on the net is good, maybe it isn't. And as you said, if an evildoer wants to get something, he will get it anyway. All I'm saying is, why make his task easier?
Well of course I am aware that potentially *useful* information is printed in scientific journals. I am just not too sure if it's a wise idea to post the genome sequence of a possibly deadly pathogen. And by the way, how can one be so sure that other countries are not working on projects to understand genomes and use the information for potentially bad reasons.
One may say I am being paranoid... but is it really necessary to post the genetic sequence online?
As much as some of us would like it to happen, Microsoft is not going to lose it's desktop share very soon. It possesses several advantages over its competitors, whether we accept it or not.
The most obvious reasons why Microsoft dominates are because it locks down consumers, it's UI (although simple, and in my opinion, primitive) is appealing to the average Joe, and because it uses a very simple point-and-click interface.
The average user only needs his/her PC to write documents, play a few games, check e-mail and surf the internet. He/she does not care about the OS wars, and doesn't want anything at all to do with the command line. He/she wants an interface that's familiar to him/her. If the interface is too powerful or configurable, (or too different from the standard Windows UI) he/she gets worried. He/she does not want to write config files, and does not want to reinstall the OS that came with his PC. He/she also wants to use what he/she uses in his workplace. He/she does not want to lose any formatting, or have to install new products, or run an emulator. These are some of the reasons why Microsoft dominates.
Lastly, Microsoft has a huge edge, i.e. money. It uses this money to aggressively advertise and get the message out to the common man. Most users have not HEARD of UNIX/Linux. If Linux wishes to dominate the market, it needs some serious advertising. Also, more hardware manufacturers must incorporate Linux into their PCs, and distro companies must obviously convince the main manufacturers. (This is already happening, and I am glad).
Although Linux certainly satisfies my needs, I don't think it's SIMPLE and EASY enough for the average Joe.
As someone said before, I really don't think it's very wise for the lab to post its results online. The internet is a place where anyone can possible access anything at any time. If this information falls into the wrong hands, things can turn ugly...
P.S.: By the way, it's great that they used a Linux Beowulf cluster to achieve this. Another feather in Tux's hat!
Slashdot Mirror
Shouldn't that be the Ministry of Truth?
Actually, I didn't use Google's cache as an authoritative reference, or I didn't intend to at least. I merely posted the cache link because at the time I wrote the post, the actual nist.gov webpage wasn't loading. If you noticed, I also posted the actual non-cached link to the webpage.
It's easy to say that these systems are completely useless. But there unfortunately has been a lot of confusion with manufacturers referring to mega-, kilo- etc. both in terms of powers of 10 and 2. The only way to clearly and properly distinguish between the two systems is to follow different nomenclatures. Although I'm forced to agree that they could have put a bit more thought into the name instead of deciding on kibi-, mebi-, etc.
Before I forget, apologies for saying that they were SI units instead of IEC units.
Jee, ever bother trying Mozilla or Firebird? You obviously haven't, because Firebird has a submenu under Bookmarks called Imported IE Favorites, so you don't lose all your sites.
If you want to criticize, fine, but at least check what the competition has to offer before you do.
Sincere apologies. When I began posting, there was honestly nothing about tebibytes and terabytes. I know, I know, I'll speed up.
I know, I know, I'm nitpicking.
p hysics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/binary.html+gibibyte+sit e:gov&hl=en&start=1&ie=UTF-8
1 TB (terabyte) = 10^12 bytes, NOT 2^40 bytes. 2^40 bytes is represented by a value known as a Tebibyte.
Don't believe me? Check out http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/binary.html or google's cache at http://www.google.ca/search?q=cache:lbDn9HCN0SAJ:
At the risk of sounding a bit trollish, java.net is certainly a step in the right direction for Java as a whole. My first impression of it is pretty good, and the concept of a meeting and sharing place for people interested in and/or developing in Java is a great idea. I can't wait to see how java.net turns out in the future. Hopefully this is a sign that Sun is turning Java into a more and more open standard as time progresses.
Yes definitely. The problem is, in most forums and discussions, the people are impassioned zealots who do not have any information to back up their arguments. A good argument is one in which each side has the respect to acknowledge the strengths of the other side.
Anyway, good luck, and hopefully you'll enjoy working with Linux and find it a pleasant experience.
That's it. SCO is now at the top of my hitlist. Come on people. They are waging war on the open-source community itself. It's clear that they don't care if Linux lives on or dies. They clearly said, "Linux comes from Unix and we own the Unix operating system". Its evident that they don't care about Linux, and think that since it comes from UNIX, they don't care if it lives or dies as long as they get their precious royalties. This is war! We can't let this go!
It is always interesting to note that our difference of opinion on this topic, is mostly because of what we use our computers for. I develop a lot, and I find the Linux environment very suitable for my development purposes. Although I am not sure what you use your machine for, I am sure Windows must be satisfying your needs, and I have no problem with that.
In terms of support, when you purchase any software (individually, not as a company with a support agreement), as far as I know and out of experience, you only get online support by means of e-mails and messages. You do have to pay for direct, person-to-person customer service (this is as far as I know and was true the last time I checked). To be fair, even Linux distros only offer direct person-to-person customer service for a period of 30 to 90 days, depending on the distribution you buy.
I disagree. In the open source world, (specifically the Linux world), there is a growing trend to providing binaries of all programs in the form of RPMs or DEBs, depending on the specific platform you are using. Although until a few years ago, RPMs had to be installed through the command line, nowadays, double-clicking them will open a small window, that does a complete installation for you, including adding shortcuts to your main menu. Of course, because it is open source, you always have the option of obtaining the source and compiling it for yourself. But virtually all major open-source programs, including Mozilla, OpenOffice, Tcl, the X server, KDE, etc. all have binary distributions that hardly require any technical expertise to install. What you said does not hold true so much any more. Yes, a few years ago, virtually everything had to be compiled, etc. Why, now you even have a kernel configurator in KDE to configure and tweak the kernel graphically if one wishes to do so. So you see, the Linux world has changed a lot even in just a few years.
In terms of documentation, I don't mean troubleshooting manuals, etc. I mean documentation that gives you information on security, tips on optimising your system. Although installation guides are provided, the big distributions have wonderful, fully-graphical installers that do all the groundwork for the user, and even a complete newbie needs to know virtually nothing about installation itself.
In terms of the full version, many people need full versions if they ever need to re-install their system from scratch. I don't know about you, but me, and most of the people I know have to reinstall Windows every once in a while (about once or twice a year). This is either because our system gets too cluttered with all our files and programs, or because we encounter problems with our computer/operating system. Well we could always install our original full version, then upgrade once again to Windows XP, but that might not even be possible in some cases. One more reason why I, and many others, like to do a clean re-install is because Windows, over time, tends to store too many system files, and temporary files that are next to impossible to find and get rid of. Well, I could always use commercial programs like Window Washer (which I do) to clean my system tracks, but it's far from being perfect. So for people like us, if we intend to buy an OS, we usually tend to go for the full version. And personally, I would be surprised if a person started out with Windows 95 and has only upgraded all the way to Windows XP (although I certainly don't mind if they choose to do so).
By saying given a chance, I don't mean that people are blocked by a mysterious magic force from downloading and installing another browser. All I'm saying is, the creation of IE as the default browser hurts web standards and other browsers (I have already explained why it hurts other browsers) Maybe the fault is in the users for not finding out about other alternatives, but since I do not have any
Sorry I failed to say this before, but before labeling someone a zealot, you should at least read through what they generally say. If you make the effort to read through my posts, you can clearly see that I'm not an impassioned bigot who hates Microsoft products because they are created by Microsoft. In fact, I am even ready to commend the company for facilitating the placement of a computer in so many homes around the world. My arguments against Microsoft are fairly justified, and hopefully the tone and content of my posts reflect that. I don't think I would classify as the classic, stuck-up person who hates a company due to no reason. And once again, I don't HATE Microsoft. All I am doing is speaking out against its policies, not being a zealot.
Honestly, the amount you get by paying 99 dollars for a commercial Linux distro is MUCH MUCH more than what you would get from a Windows box. In fact, most modern Linux distros (not server editions, of course) cost only about 30 - 50 bucks, depending on the distro and your location. Also, you get a LOT for what you pay. Moreover, almost all versions of these distros (in most circumstances, i.e.) can be downloaded free of cost. What about the documentation? It's available in pdf/html format. One of the main reasons Distro companies charge for their OS is due to the cost of packaging, printing books, etc. The amount these companies ship in one box without paying over 30 - 50 bucks is amazing. Most distros offer good tech support, including speaking on the phone with customer service. Fortunately or unfortunately, I've had experience with Microsoft tech support, and it certainly could be better. In fact, correct me if I'm wrong, don't you have to pay to speak to them?
And, if you say, "Well these distros don't have to do nearly the amount of work Microsoft has to.", each distribution offers a HUGE number of customized features in order to attract users. Although some people are against Red Hat, let me use it as an example. Red Hat recently included its own interface/theme known as BlueCurve. As soon as you look at it, it's quite clear that they put a lot of work into it. In fact, I speak from experience. Due to BlueCurve, GNOME applications run wonderfully on KDE, and vice versa. Also, the interface changes are minimalized. Hence, users can switch between the two without having to adapt to too many changes. Trust me, and if you're interested, check it out. In fact, when you buy a distro, you get basically everything you'll ever need for your work. Don't tell me that that's the case with any of Microsoft's Windows products.
As for IE, I am certainly not going to go back to Windows 95, as I know it's not a strong point. But however, remember that a significant part of the population still uses 95/98/Me, where IE isn't great. Also, to tell you the truth, I run Windows 2000 on another partition, and I have had quite a number of experiences where IE has crashed to my disappointment. It usually happens when I try to access an FTP server that's down (not online, whatever). I see a message, "Server name could not be resolved, then IE stops responding. Obviously, I have no other option other than giving the three-finger salute (Ctrl-Alt-Del :-) (And yes, if you want to know if I keep my system up2date, yes.) Anyway, that was only one instance where IE repeatedly succeeds to crash.
Coming back to the main point about IE, I don't mind most users liking IE, or using it. I was only talking about the problem of most users using a browser that isn't standard-compliant and what that does to the web and standards in general. In fact, integration of the browser is not a bad idea, and I agree with you on that point. (If you're familiar with KDE, it does sound a bit like Konqueror being both a file manager and a browser, right? :-)
Maybe you're right about the upgrade price for the Home edition not being too expensive. But take Windows XP Professional itself as an example. The full version, here in Canada, costs us 450 - 499 CAD (you could convert that I guess :-) I am just not able to justify that price for what you really get along with the OS. In fact, whether you accept it or not, one of the main reasons why Windows XP is so popular is 1. Stability has certainly been improved 2. Games run better and crash less frequently and 3. (most importantly) the interface looks much nicer compared to the previous versions of the OS.
However, if you as a user are only interested in having a better interface, he/she can check out Object Desktop. A
Hmm, what makes you say I'm a zealot? All I was doing was responding to what he said that he likes Windows XP and didn't like UNIX. It was meant to be a gesture, not an insult, at all. Believe me if you please. I really find it hard to understand how you extrapolate that I think that all Windows XP users (those who enjoy it) by definition, hate all other operating systems. What makes you think that I assume everyone else is a zealot? If you like an operating system, go ahead and use it, who am I to question you? I never even hinted that fact in my post (or any part of it) at all. That wasn't my aim, sorry if you misunderstood it.
If you still think of me as a zealot, I don't mind. But I think you must think twice before labeling anyone a zealot just due to a single sentence. One line can have more than one meaning or intention you know...
Yeah sure, it isn't that hard is it? I am sure you will agree that reverse engineering formats is a VERY tedious and hard process. Especially when the company changes the format every once in a while. Do you know how much trouble the Linux NTFS project went through to reverse engineer the NTFS file system? If you're interested, please check out how they were able to do it. Not making a format, or a technology open, or not releasing documentation on it, (at the very least) hurts the software industry, and consumers as well. For Microsoft, this is great isn't it? They don't have to release documentation, no one forces them to, and they get to keep all the secrets of the Windows API to themselves. Other than money, what more could a software giant want?
You asked for an example. Although off the top of my head, I can't think of an example that exactly fits the definition "triple the price", I do have what I consider to be a fairly good example. Take Windows 2000 and Windows XP for instance. I can comfortably say, I am fairly experienced in both the operating systems, especially Windows 2000. You must agree with me, that the differences between these two operating systems are not very great. Some people would not agree with me because to them it LOOKS entirely different. But hey, other than that, are there a lot more differences? According to me at least, no.
But, Microsoft expects users to pay close to $ 200.00 USD to upgrade to this completely new, full featured version. Frankly, after using both these operating systems, I find that upgrade price ridiculous. The new features certainly do NOT justify the price. Just for an upgrade, that price is completely absurd.
Coming back to Office, even if it is easy to create a program that can write and open Office documents, what about slightly more advanced features such as text-boxes? I don't know if you have experience with OpenOffice, but OpenOffice does not display all text boxes created in Word. Also, numbering and bulleting isn't always the way it was intended to be when you transfer between applications. The problem isn't writing or reading the Office formats. The problem is when you transfer files between the two suites. You can't exactly blame the OpenOffice group. They've only been at it for 2 years! See what the creation of closed file formats can do?
One more point I forgot to make last time, sorry if I am bringing up something new. The inclusion of Internet Explorer and it being chosen by default as the default browser isn't exactly fair. Why? Because users tend to think that is the only browser that they can use. That's their link to the internet. You might say, "Well the users can always check out other browsers if they're interested." Sure, that's fine, but sad fact is, most don't. You are welcome to check statistics if you want, but IE is the most popular browser out there. What does this mean? Web designers are forced to focus mainly on making their web pages work on IE. If you don't know, IE isn't exactly a standard-compliant browser at all. This means web pages created using the standards may not look the same in IE, and hence web designers have to customize their web pages to work on IE. Some web designers ignore other browsers all together, and this creates a problem. You have a vicious cycle again. Users don't know other browsers exist, and hence they use IE. In response, web designers create more and more web pages exclusively for IE. In response to that, the users trying to switch to other browsers, don't, because most "IE-designed" web pages display poorly on non-IE browsers. Once again, you have the problem of Microsoft not following web standards, or even trying to switch to open, standard formats.
If you're tempted to say that IE might be popular because it's a great browser, you're welcome
Well, have you ever seen Microsoft's advertisements or their web site regarding their new, latest products? Take Office XP, for example. They were talking about smart tags and a new extensible architecture. But were the smart tags really something of use?
The primary reason why Microsoft profits is because it has the money, and because a lot of consumers do not know any other options, and think it is perfectly normal for their computer to crash occasionally.
If you give me the example of Windows XP not crashing often, what percentage of the population really uses Windows XP? Not everyone, in fact only a small portion of the population owns the latest and greatest computers running Windows XP.
Also, the reason why Microsoft's software, and proprietary software is popular, is because people often find ways of obtaining the software through illegal channels. Although the law is trying to stop this, it is an uphill task to completely eradicate software piracy. If everyone had no other option other than buying Microsoft's software, I think the percent of the population using Windows/Office will be much, much lesser.
As I said earlier, and I repeat myself, Internet Explorer (which was originally Spyglass' browser), the Windows GUI, why even DOS itself. All these products were not ORIGINALLY designed by Microsoft. They were either bought by MS, or were ideas that were copied from other software companies. Unfortunately, when the small companies try to retaliate, it has proven quite tough for them to win. There's nothing much you can do when you are up against a huge, monopolistic behemoth.
Another problem is Microsoft's closed approach to most of its products, and formats. If a user creates Office documents at his workplace, he is literally forced to use Office at home in order to make sure there's complete compatibility. This is because, as you all know, of Microsoft's closed document formats. Once Microsoft has control over Office, it automatically forces the user to use Windows, because Office works best on it. Office v.X (for the Mac) is a joke compared to Office XP, and it doesn't even come close to offering all of the features in the Windows version. Hence, you have a consumer lockdown cycle. Once Microsoft makes a change to its format, its customers are forced to make upgrades, through legal/illegal means. Once Microsoft has monopolized the OS market, software companies are forced to develop primarily, or even entirely for Windows. When users see that all their products work only on Windows, they automatically are attracted to it, and are helpless even if it crashes regularly, because no other platform supports all the proprietary formats they use every day.
This is why Microsoft is able to sustain such huge profits.
When I say many users, that doesn't include every single one. The majority doesn't mean or even IMPLY 100%. Go ask people around you, those who are non-technically inclined. Not surprisingly, MANY people have not heard of alternatives at all. Technically-inclined people would have naturally heard of alternatives because they are into that kind of stuff.
Microsoft has taken old products and polished them so many times. Explorer, DOS, and the Windows GUI are only a few examples!
And by the way, you are welcome to love Windows XP and hate UNIX.
- Many users haven't heard of alternatives
- Most users fall for Microsoft's marketing gimmicks
- Most uers fall for it when Microsoft takes a product, polishes it, then resells it at triple the price.
- Most users think that every computer comes built-in with a nice windozey interface that has an explorer where you can see some cute drive icons: A:, C:, D:
- Microsoft has money. It has the money, and the strength to push its might on to hardware manufacturers. It also has its own advertising machine, as said before. And lastly, it has the ability to bulldoze the competition quite easily.
Seriously, when is the last time Microsoft has made a drastic change to its system? And, how many users have heard of OpenOffice? Microsoft has been pretty good at its game, hasn't it?:-) Yep, many like that... :-)
Isn't it more important for underdeveloped countries to have a solid underlying infrastructure? I mean, many such countries do not even have adequate water and healthcare facilities. The citizens need food, not advanced technology at this stage. It is more important for the world community to help these countries get on their feet before trying to wire them. How do you expect a country where telephones are a luxury to even think about the Internet?
I have to agree with you on the fact that not everything has been misused, or will be misused. And yes, the internet is definitely a great place to facilitate the sharing of information to benefit the scientific community as a whole. Plus, I am not really being fussy about this. All I am doing is being a little wary and asking whether posting such information on the internet is the greatest thing to do..
Also, if we don't really understand the sequence of letters that make up the genome, why post it on the internet for the world to see? What good is it going to do? Isn't it better if we spend our time understanding what the letters mean rather than just putting the sequence up for viewing? Of course, this is an entirely different issue altogether.
You might say that this will help research facilities around the world in some way or the other, and I certainly agree with that.
Maybe posting the genome on the net is good, maybe it isn't. And as you said, if an evildoer wants to get something, he will get it anyway. All I'm saying is, why make his task easier?
I rest my case...
It's interesting to see what two harmful (okay, maybe caffeine isn't so harmful) agents put together can be used for...
One may say I am being paranoid... but is it really necessary to post the genetic sequence online?
The most obvious reasons why Microsoft dominates are because it locks down consumers, it's UI (although simple, and in my opinion, primitive) is appealing to the average Joe, and because it uses a very simple point-and-click interface.
The average user only needs his/her PC to write documents, play a few games, check e-mail and surf the internet. He/she does not care about the OS wars, and doesn't want anything at all to do with the command line. He/she wants an interface that's familiar to him/her. If the interface is too powerful or configurable, (or too different from the standard Windows UI) he/she gets worried. He/she does not want to write config files, and does not want to reinstall the OS that came with his PC. He/she also wants to use what he/she uses in his workplace. He/she does not want to lose any formatting, or have to install new products, or run an emulator. These are some of the reasons why Microsoft dominates.
Lastly, Microsoft has a huge edge, i.e. money. It uses this money to aggressively advertise and get the message out to the common man. Most users have not HEARD of UNIX/Linux. If Linux wishes to dominate the market, it needs some serious advertising. Also, more hardware manufacturers must incorporate Linux into their PCs, and distro companies must obviously convince the main manufacturers. (This is already happening, and I am glad).
Although Linux certainly satisfies my needs, I don't think it's SIMPLE and EASY enough for the average Joe.
P.S.: By the way, it's great that they used a Linux Beowulf cluster to achieve this. Another feather in Tux's hat!