Re: AC @ 12:49 - Google vs Microsoft
> MS big contribtuion was a general operating system that was not tied to proprietary hardware
AT&T and Digital Research already had that one covered.
2419 posts • joined 26 Jan 2009
> MS big contribtuion was a general operating system that was not tied to proprietary hardware
AT&T and Digital Research already had that one covered.
One thing that is different now is that virtual machine technology is commonplace. You can encapsulate your entire decoding envrionment into a nicely encapuslated format. It's been done for DOS games from the age of AutoCAD 1.3, so it can probably be done for any other format you care to mention.
Output to some common standardized format like PS and you've solved a big bulk of the problem right there.
Having documents in a print-ready format that's not vulnerable to client sabotage is a pretty good first step actually. Those formats are a bit more stable and much more standardized.
> all the analogue pictures were pin sharp
Spoken like someone that's never taken or looked at an analog photograph.
Chemical film is no protection from incompetent photography. What you are attempting to describe sounds more like the pre-snapshot era that existed before Kodak made (analog) photography accessible to every incompetent and tasteless amateur.
Snapshot photography really hasn't changed much. If anything, these days you can cheaply take 100 pictures and discard 99 of them. Even with "cheap" film, any analog print was far more dear.
More than just storage technology has improved since 1920.
Any information that's 100 years old is suspect. It doesn't matter what kind of condition the media is in. The more sophisticated the information, the more likely it is to become obsolete before the computer storage format it resides on becomes unusable.
Apple managed to achieve what decades of social conservatives and feminists couldn't accomplish.
Why shouldn't the farmer shoot at trespasser? It doesn't matter if the perpetrator is on the ground, in the skies, or in some sort of tunneling machine.
This sort of "you peasants have no rights" attitude might be fine for the old world.
Yes, it is all fashion nonsense. The problem though is that Apple caters to that kind of person. Apple customers are the kind that are going to buy that nonsense because they are self selecting. You can't project what Apple users will do and apply that to the industry at large.
A Mac-wannabe may fail in the general PC market because non-Apple users likely don't want to buy from Lenovo what they aren't buying from Apple.
PC users care about practical concerns like cost and features and maintainability. They are less willfully ignorant than their Apple counterparts. They are less interested in engaging in conspicuous consumption than their Apple counterparts.
As someone that hasn't bought into the Apple group think, I am much more likely to employ a 5 year old Compaq in place of a brand new Mac Mini. That 5 year old Compaq can be tweaked in ways that makes it much more effective than newer inflexible designs.
That also means that I may not buy a new PC either.
I have a number of machines that do quite well with only 2G. Unless someone wants to say something extreme like claiming that Windows by itself needs 8G or 16G, then I don't see what the fuss is about here. Not everyone is trying to launch Salvage 1 in their back yard.
> Since I am past the age where spending my weekends recompiling the kernel to get sound working, that should tell you something.
It certainly demonstrates your laziness but perhaps not in the way you thought.
> Oh, and never ever forget the mantra "RAID is not Backup" - checksums and snapshots are all very good, but no backup means no safe data!
That kind of undermines much of the point of having the newest and shiniest FS available now doesn' t it?
> Sun didn't want that constraint
Well then that's on Sun. The idea of releasing the source and being specifically hostile to the GPL is a bit of a contradiction. You either are for end user freedom or you aren't. GNU was already here. Linux was already here. Sun chose to be antagonistic to it.
It's not up to the oldest libre projects to pander to the pro-corporate inclinations of the latest shiny thing.
As a home owner, Windows can be serious business. I am talking about the real kind that you look through. The ones that tract home builders put in tend to be crap. Plus you've got house settling. Being a miser when it's time to finally replace them can lead to unsatisfactory results.
Talking about my experiences with real Windows can be entertaining enough for suburbanites. They're into that sort of thing. More than computers actually.
> And I just point out that I write code, and I use a Mac to do i
Yeah. I tell people that I don't do Windows. I don't run it for myself therefore I'm not in a good position to debug it for anyone else.
I tell them that if they decide they want to run some form of Unix, then I'm their man.
Are you kidding?
A Mac Mini is expensive, slow, and unmaintainable. I have an older Mac Mini sitting collecting dust because it's not much good for running anything but Linux. Unlike an older PC, I can't really fix or improve anything on it. It's difficult to get into and back together again. I can't modernize it with a better video card or fix it's busted internal NIC. Replacing an old drive would also be an exercise in pain.
PCs aren't as noisy or as big as they used to be. They aren't usually as tiny as a Mini but they don't really need to be. Fawning over an unmainable form factor is strictly an Apple fanboy passtime.
Disposable PCs are great for Apple's bottom line but not much else.
Nonsense. The tech has just gotten mature. Your old device doesn't suck so bad that you need a new one.
This is where tablets are now.
5 year old trailing edge PCs can still run circles around new ARM devices and do everything end users would request of them. If anything is wanting you can actually upgrade the old thing and keep it running even longer.
A 5 year old craptacular bought-it-because-it-was-the-cheapest-thing-I-could-find-at-the-time can even keep up with more modern machines that have nothing else going for them besides poor heat dissipation and a fruity logo.
The cost of textbooks was never about the paper. It was always about minor revisions forced down your throat every semester. A lot of subjects could be taught out of 50 year old books and you might actually find that it's an improvement. As long as you have middlemen trying to take a thick percentage, it will always be a scam perpetrated upon public school boards and debt ridden college students.
> Unless we want to go the way of subscribed services for everything - and believe me that will drive the cost of watching TV through the roof - then some sort of advertising is necessary
No it won't. You will just have to be picky about what you consume. It's pretty easy to replace an overpriced cable subscription with a much cheaper set of streaming video subscriptions from Amazon, iTunes, and Netflix. First run material really isn't that expense and a lot of reruns are dirt cheap an nearly free (as they should be).
This isn't just theoretical anymore. You can take your collection of Tivo Watchlists to Amazon RIGHT NOW and see what the pricing would be like. It's no great mystery.
Based on the image in the article, it seems that the real problem is not new material but old stuff. Now not only will old shows be mangled to allow for more commercials, they will be themselves altered to allow for product placement. You may see brands in the Huxtable brownstone that aren't available anywhere near Brooklyn.
That there seems to be a good reason to avoid video streaming entirely.
Buy pristine copies of stuff when you can, skip everything else.
Next thing you know there will be product placements for TESLA in Downton Abbey.
Well, the article itself admits that he "went off script" way back in 2001. Why is anyone even giving him a sounding board now? He has clearly been fixated on Microsoft and other non-Unix tech for over a decade now. He's been a Microsoft cheerleader for far longer than he's been anything else.
It would be like any one of us fixating on what we were doing 10+ years ago.
That ship sailed already.
Nope. We understand just fine.
What we understand is that a "hack" like this is so bad that anyone associated with it should put a bag over their heads and never be seen in public again. Its' a situation so bad that it calls for Puritan style public shaming complete with stocks and rotten produce.
If you build trash that makes the rest of us look bad, don't expect any sympathy.
He didn't deprive anyone of anything. AT&T did. He merely pointed out that AT&T was doing the equivalent of sending around customer's personal details on postcards.
What he did deprive people of was their false sense of security.
He poked his head through your unlocked front door and told you you forgot to lock it.
AT&T was perpetrating the real harm here and they're the ones who's heads should be on the block. They should be looking at a 7 or 8 figure tort judgement right about now.
> It is a fair sentence. This isn't the wild west.
You clearly have ZERO understanding of the facts of this case and the so-called "crime".
Burglary? Grand theft auto?
Really. You're either stupid or really dishonest.
No. You're just kidding yourself. You're assuming that the corporation will act in good faith when that is the least likely thing to happen. Even multiple public shamings and large jury awards don't always encourage corporations to do the right thing. Assuming that they would mend their ways because of a polite little note is absurd bordering on being a diagnosable psychological disorder.
Despite his other conduct, exposing this to the world was a valuable public service. We would never have known otherwise and AT&T would never have any motivation to clean up their act.
Building the PC is the easy part really. Regardless of what form you are buying the parts in, you still need to be familiar with those parts. Otherwise, you won't know if they are suitable or overpriced. You just can't get away with letting some merchant do your thinking for you.
PC salesmen and used card salesmen...
New OS hard on old hardware? As if that should be a great revelation around here...
It's a general problem. Even Apple products suffer from it (namely iPhones).
PCs are typically small or cheap but not both. The PI takes both to a new level. It's like an AppleTV or Roku in this regard. You can try to make PCs smaller but then you end up with a $1000 Steam Box or a Mac Mini. It's also nice that the PI achieves it's cheapness without being some ancient thing you retrieved from a dumpster.
Who wants their cool project to fail because it's made of parts that finally decided to die of old age?
It helps to make sense of a post if you don't completely mangle it first.
RAID5 is only a problem if you are trying to artificially constrain yourself with a system that is itself a single point of failure. At least when a rube thinks like that (all eggs in one basket) they have an excuse as they don't know any better.
...and yes, my storage setup can take a bullet and live.
There's a lot of old gear out there. All of the various iThings have already been through several iterations of updated product. You can't say the same for Microsoft's flavor of the month.
The Apple based comparison would be more like pawn shops being full of iPhone 5's and iPad 3's.
Otherwise you're trying to pretend that an Apples an oranges comparison is relevant.
> If you use a PC until it's obsolete...
Then I probably took advantage of the modular nature of that PC to turn it into something else once it was no longer suited (or wanted) for it's original purpose. The problem with Macs is that they are intended to be closed boxes that are difficult if not impossible to maintain. So a slightly used Mac may become obsolete more quickly than it's PC counterpart.
Not enough RAM. Tiny hard drive. GPU that really really sucks.
So instead of getting a new Mini, I can use that P3 and just buy a new video card.
Not everyone needs to prove how quickly they can waste money.
The advantage of the command line is not the syntax of individual commands but how you can string them together in an arbitrary fashion and then package them up. This is a concept that doesn't generally exist in GUIs because GUIs are designed for morons. Everyone is so busy running around preventing people from needing to think that shiny happy interfaces focus on the stupid first use rather than the grind of your daily routine.
It's AUTOMATION, not "ease of use".
> And there you have the root of the problem.
What? That most people won't easily tolerate fools unless it's family or they are being PAID?
If you are an annoying jack*ss that likes to take things out of context, you just might get flamed.
> Sure, you have your entire family using and loving Linux. But that's because you install it, you maintain it, you upgrade it, you fix it when it goes wrong.
The same goes for any OS my family runs.
This "just works" stuff is generally a myth. Even on MacOS you will find yourself retraining n00bs to deal with those annoying secret handshakes and gratuitious bits of deviation.
Helpless twits will find a way to be helpless regardless of what OS they run.
> A normal user will panic when they have to decide what filesystem, what size of partitions, what DE,
Fine. Then don't go out of your way to subject them to Gentoo.
Give them a copy of the Linux they've probably actually heard of. Give them a copy of Ubuntu instead.
I think Slackware 96 was the last Linux installation that bothered me with a lot of the fine grained details.
> Also, the package name isn't necessarily the same as the program/library name.
apt-get install .*myapp.*
Alternately, you can just use the GUI and stop being a retarded troll.
...except I can already do that with Linux.
I can use an actual Unix rather than something that is only Unix when it's time for a sales pitch.
I can also use the same virtualization tools to run all of the same Windows stuff too.
The only thing missing are MacOS only tools that no one seems to be able to name.
Running MacOS apps just isn't a good enough reason to be stuck running Apple hardware.
> The problem is that all those distros mean different toolchains and underlying software.
No it doesn't.
It just demonstrates that you have a highly superficial view of the situation.
Any Linux distribution is just a collection of the same set of upstream projects. Any Linux distribution is just shorthand for a list of those upstream projects and their versions. That applies to any Linux executable from Applixware to Oracle to Steam.
> "It's easier to make coffee in my coffee-maker than on the stove with a saucepan."
You will probably get a better result in the saucepan though. If you care about the result, you will go to the extra effort. That even applies to the coffee-maker and making sure that you use fresh beans and only grind them when you're actually ready to use them.
Coffee is a perfect example of something that can be quickly destroyed by cutting corners.
> If I had to deal with a different Linux distro every time, I'd waste alot of time getting to grips with the environment.
...which would be GNOME or KDE on top and standard GNU userland underneath.
Underneath it is so standardized that not only you can move from one Linux to another but from one Unix to another with very few inconsistencies to worry about.
That's also handy for when MacOS doesn't live up to it's hype.
My Uni's language for the introductory courses was Modula-2. I really hated it until I had a chance to do assignments in COBOL. It turns out I didn't hate Modula-2 nearly as much as I thought I did.
Silent Running is overrated and painful to watch. It's also feels terribly dated and hokey based on when it was made and especially silly given the real horticultural preservation going on right now planet side.
Zardoz is also a bit painful but it seems to be a valiant effort.
What really seems out of place on the list is the first Star Trek film. It's basically one of the old original episodes dressed up with a lot of fluff to make it go on for a feature length run time. That makes it a failure as film making and not so interesting intellectually either.
The first Star Trek film needs to be sterilized.
Collectively we all squander a lot of money on entertainment. Cable is one big culprit here (at least in the US). At least over here, if you take what you're spending on your subscription service and apply that kind of money to something you get to own, then you will end up with a nice media hoard in short order.
> I don't honestly see 5 minutes of adverts to be a legitimate reason to pirate.
You don't have control over your own property.
That's a pretty compelling reason to engage in remedies that reside in a legal grey area.
> I have to queue for 5 minutes to pay for my shopping,
...or you could just shop online. It's great for avoiding nonsense that exists only because not enough people have sufficiently demanding expectations.
> I honestly don't see it as particularly fair that there is an expiry date on their professional profitability that is shorter than their lives. Imagine owning a shop, and after thirty years everything has to be sold at cost price, or is free.
That sounds about what the real world is like. If you have a small shop then YOU ARE the small shop. As soon as you go, so does the shop. Your worthless next of kin can't leech off of your success. They have to go fend for themselves (as it should be).
Why is anyone even arguing for this kind leech anyways?
The value of my labor ENDS as soon as the hour is up. Why should anyone else be any different. Why should "artists" be special?
Got kids? F*cking plan ahead and don't stick it all up your nose.
> Really? Care to share the pearls of wisdom that came forth or is your incredible "Movie stars are paid a lot so I shouldn't pay for films" revelation all you've got?
Clearly there is some industrial engineering that can be done here. It just goes to show that you don't have to blow a million bucks just to produce 60 minutes of hair metal. Perhaps this industry should adjust and not pretend that it can burn money.
I can certainly understand why people who can't burn money would resent those that act like they can.
> Is widespread copyright infringement an issue? Without a doubt yes especially if you are a small time (yet popular) writer/musician or whatever.
If you a a small time producer, piracy is really the least of your worries. If you are fixating on it, then you are distracting yourself from what you really need to be doing. You need to be making up for the fact that your publisher isn't doing squat for you in the way of the advertising and marketing department.
It's not really productive for you to waste your time fixating on "thieves".
> New films are under a fiver on Virgin and you don't want to spend a fiver to see it. That's fine.
What is that? A rental? If so then that's highway robbery.
On this side of the pond, bargain bin movies go for $5 on spinny disk. If you don't want to wait that long you can just use the Netflix mail service. Plus there's Redbox.
It sounds like you have a small number of really bad options.
> I give a crap about the artists who work hard and get next to nothing, partly because it's not seen in any way as morally wrong to steal from them
If you want to shed crocodile tears for the artists, start with the gatekeepers.
Direct your moral outrage at them first. Then focus your attention on the amateur thieves.
> and they should carry on getting away with getting for free
Sure. The cost of enforcement is too high. You are too hell bent on some moral crusade to bother considering the cost of your crusade. It might not be worth it.
This is reflected in the general unwillingess of law enforcement to persue the matter. They have better things to do. This is also reflected in the fact that the industry wants to avoid the costs of enforcement in civil courts. They don't view enforcement as worthwhile either really.
I ran Sim City 3000 on contemporary hardware back in the day. It runs happily on my current setup too.
Also, you don't need to resort to Wine. There is a Linux version.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2017