A talk against rabid Linux fanboys, it would seem.
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| dinotrac Jan 28, 2007 1:42 PM EDT |
Did you catch the little comparison between computers and TVs? Plug the TV in and replace it ten years later? Or the references to DVD players, automobiles and cell phones? He's right on that count, and many a Linux fanboy is just plain unable to grok the idea. They are upset that people don't want to spend a lot of time and effort on their computers, just like they don't want to spend a lot of time and effort on their televisions and cars. |
| Sander_Marechal Jan 28, 2007 1:55 PM EDT |
There's a big difference between computers on the one hand and TV's and DVD players on the other. The latter only has to perform a specific, relatively simple function. Computers are general-purpose. And even a function as simple as browsing the web is far more complex than playing a DVD or displaying a TV signal. |
| jsusanka Jan 28, 2007 3:00 PM EDT |
"He discussed the size of various Windows releases, ending up with Windows XP at 60 million lines. Nobody, he says, understands XP." like this part - why doesn't anybody understand windows? it is suppose to be so easy to use everyone should understand it. to me linux makes my computer more like at tv - plug it in install it and it just works when I want it to. can't say that for windows machines - turning it on sometimes is a hold your breath experience and just hope I can get logged on to do some work. converted some users using this argument and they are still using linux today and they wholeheartedly agree with me. |
| jdixon Jan 28, 2007 3:45 PM EDT |
> And even a function as simple as browsing the web is far more complex than playing a DVD or displaying a TV signal. Well, browsing the web usually involves a display, so of course it's more complex; as it already includes the TV technology. Now saying that a web browser is more complex that a TV might be pushing things. TV's, especially CRT models, are extremely complex technology. Note I didn't say advanced, merely complex. Manipulating three electron beams so that the correct beam strikes the correct screen location with the correct intensity at the correct time is not simple. And that doesn't even consider the encoding, transmission, and decoding of the TV signal. The technology upon which CPU's are based is actually simpler, since at its core it's only a whole bunch of simple NAND gates. |
| dinotrac Jan 28, 2007 4:53 PM EDT |
>Computers are general-purpose. Yes. Which is why game consoles are so popular. They are single purpose and optimized to their task. Still, one must keep in mind that even "general purpose" machines don't tend to get used for very many purposes -- BY A SINGLE USER. Any group of 100 users is bound to turn up a dizzying array of computer uses, but individual users mostly do a few things. Just like more sophisticated drivers may appreciate manual transmissions (I so miss mine), highly-tuned engines, and suspensions that leave room for the driver to actually driver the car, sophisticated users will want to learn more about there OS's and computers. However, more people drive Hondas than Corvettes/Jaguars/BMWs and most computer users want to pretend the computer isn't there beyond the nees of their personal application needs. Mind you -- that last bit describes not merely a system on which you can install any software you want, add any peripheral you please, and get going, it describes one that doesn't crash and isn't under constant attack from viri and the like. Closest thing to that is probably the Mac. Linux may or may not be second, depending on how you weight the importance of the different pieces. Once Vista is more common, I'm guessing Linux is a sure second, whether or not installs match the facts. |
| bigg Jan 28, 2007 5:48 PM EDT |
> They are upset that people don't want to spend a lot of time and effort on their computers, just like they don't want to spend a lot of time and effort on their televisions and cars. I used to believe that, but when I see studies like the one recently reported on digg http://supportsoft.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=press_releases&... I have my doubts that people do anything other than complain. Surely once you have set up a Linux machine it will go for long stretches with no problems. That is, in fact, the top reason I moved from Windows completely: Windows absolutely does not work, no matter what you do. You will sink many hours into security, software conflicts, and so on. The study indicates 12 hours a month is spent on computer problems. Given that many of these are the granny types that don't even know how to start spending time on computer problems, the typical Windows user must be spending a lot more than 12 hours a month. Yet none of them do anything about it. (The study didn't focus only on Windows users, but as we all know, nearly all the users would have been on Windows.) |
| tuxchick Jan 28, 2007 6:07 PM EDT |
I think we should imitate Dilbert and give Etch-a-Sketches to the rockeaters. They won't know the difference. |
| tracyanne Jan 28, 2007 7:00 PM EDT |
I find it interesting that so many people complain about Windows, but won't switch to Linux - because it doesn't have XYZ, or hardware support is not as good as Windows. But if all those people who spend so much time grizzling about windows were to switch to Linux, the software companies would have to follow, the hardware manufacturers would have no choice but to support. |
| jimf Jan 28, 2007 7:14 PM EDT |
> They won't know the difference. Indeed, they may not ;-) Actually, many of the experienced Linux users I know are waiting for that to happen, then, real people can get back to using computers. Oh, sorry! That wasn't politically correct.... |
| helios Jan 28, 2007 7:45 PM EDT |
No Jim, it was not politically correct and I really have no choice but to air my opinion about your statement in public: You're my kind of guy. ahem, in a fraternal, manly way of course. (rats...that was politically correct to say, wasn't it?) No...just plain ol' West Texas Homophobic. h |
| tuxchick Jan 28, 2007 7:48 PM EDT |
Not that I have anything against gay men, but I wouldn't want my sister to marry one. |
| jimf Jan 28, 2007 8:02 PM EDT |
> West Texas Homophobic Would seem out of place in WI, but believe me it isn't :) |
| Sander_Marechal Jan 28, 2007 10:16 PM EDT |
Quoting:Now saying that a web browser is more complex that a TV might be pushing things. It is. The difference between TV and the web is that with TV the input format is defined. A browser needs to be able to deal with all kinds of wrong input, plus the barrage of attacks made on it from phishers, viruses, etcetera. Which brings me to my second point: A computer is hooked up to the internet. A DVD player or TV is (usually) not (and if it were possible, I'd definitely not hook them up). Anything exposed to the net will need updates. Always. Especially if it holds private data which is interesting to crackers/scammers. |
| jdixon Jan 29, 2007 2:38 AM EDT |
> with TV the input format is defined. A browser needs to be able to deal with all kinds of wrong input... Actually, no, it doesn't. That's a design decision. The browser could be designed to follow a specific HTML spec and simply drop anything which doesn't conform. Whether people would use such a browser is a completely different matter. > ... plus the barrage of attacks made on it from phishers, viruses, etcetera. Most of which are aimed at the user, not the browser. Any virus which can exploit the browser is a bug which should be fixed. Again, you're trying to allow for user behavior. It's not a given that the best place to do this is in the browser. In this context, complaining about these things is like complaining that your 1980's era TV can't receive HDTV. > Anything exposed to the net will need updates. Always. This is, unforutantely, probably true. Continuous attacks do have a way of revealing previously unknown bugs and design mistakes. |
| Sander_Marechal Jan 29, 2007 3:00 AM EDT |
So, you agree then that you can't really make a usable "browser appliance" that allows someone to browse the web, simply by plugging it in and it'll run reliably for a decade? That was my point actually. The average end-user computing task (browsing, e-mail, IM -- anything hooked to the net) simply isn't suitable to be turned into a reliable appliance-like piece of kit. The simple notion that you need updates prevents it. Unless you want to introduce pop 'n mom non-geek to regular firmware upgrades :-) |
| jimf Jan 29, 2007 3:25 AM EDT |
Bill just loves to spout proclamations out of his lower orifice. Most of that's nonsense for the proletariat, but, I'm convinced that MS really wants to get out of the computer business. They've made a mess of it and they know it. Turning the computer into an appliance with minimum set functions for mom, pop, and the kiddies makes perfect sense for them. Something with a lot of shinny buttons, rented web based apps, and a relatively short life cycle would make sense (3 years?). Combine that with a game boy and you have a real market winner. Piracy DRM, and control/activation would be nicely handled. Yeah, there would still problems with security, but, it would be a lot more compartmentalized. And who cares about security as long as you're making money... |
| jdixon Jan 29, 2007 3:31 AM EDT |
> So, you agree then that you can't really make a usable "browser appliance" that allows someone to browse the web, simply by plugging it in and it'll run reliably for a decade? Not really, no. Updates can be handled without user intervention or even knowledge. That's merely a matter of a secure server and a secure channel between the server and the device. I think the problem you're seeing is simply that the standards and user expectations for the web are continually changing. The standard for NTSC TV was in place for something like 40 years, and user expectations did not change much in that time. That makes for a much easier design task. Unless we have a static web standard and relatively standard user expectations, designing a web browser is a much harder problem. But that's not because of the technology involved. It's a people problem, not a technological one. |
| DarrenR114 Jan 29, 2007 8:52 AM EDT |
If MS is so all-fired successful at predicting what will be a successful user experience, then why hasn't WebTV been more of a success?
If MS knows what their end-users desire (the end-users are not their customers,) then why hasn't the X-box dominated the game-console market?
If MS is king of marketing, then why did they have to extend the MS-Windows98 lifecycle? The answer to all three is the same and simple: MS doesn't know how to contend with the end-user segment. They just know how to make secret, backroom deals with OEMs that at least border on the unethical, if they're not illegal outright. Gates and Ballmer got lucky with the original "licensing" deal with IBM, and now they supposedly are "geniuses of business". |
| jimf Jan 29, 2007 9:12 AM EDT |
> got lucky with the original "licensing" deal with IBM Boy, are you naive... No luck involved in that one. Mommy's on the board, and daddy's a lawyer. |
| dcparris Jan 29, 2007 10:24 AM EDT |
I'll give them "geniuses of marketing". Or should that be lying? Sometimes its hard to tell the difference. ;-) |
| dthacker Jan 29, 2007 2:29 PM EDT |
Bigg, your link reminds me of my old slashdot tagline:
My wife is like unix. Lots of commands. Lots of arguments. DT |
| Sander_Marechal Jan 29, 2007 3:35 PM EDT |
> My wife is like unix. Lots of commands. Lots of arguments. How true :-) I've added it to my quote DB. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!