After reading Sander's response to my post, I came up with a plausible reason for the adoption of Linux on the home computer.
If a Linux support company and a PC vendor (such as Dell) were to team up to sell Linux boxes, Linux could succeed on the desktop. The primary problem is that I don't see how Dell (insert favorite PC vendor here) would make money on such a move. Undoubtedly the expense for them would be in hiring support to handle the Linux PCs. I suggest that they could either sell that support off to Ubuntu, Novell, or Redhat. As long as they don't spend more than $6 per box, then they should come out winning. I say this, because I've read that they pay $6 per license to Microsoft for Windows. The only benefit I can see for Dell in this venture is that they would reduce the considerable burden of support for their PCs, one of the most difficult things for large companies to do right.
So that gets Linux to a place where a majority of people could use it. Dell would also have to create a joint advertising venture with the Linux Support Company (ubuntu) in order to sell that product. Ultimately, it could generate enough home user interest to actually capture worthwhile market share.
It's a risky venture for any PC maker to do, and it would no doubt cause Microsoft to reconsider their pricing structure with the vendor, so we may never see this happen. If I were Dell I would try to brand this line against the Apple OS X for two reasons. You'll be generating that same "this is better" mentality that Apple has been using against Windows for so long. Might even get Microsoft off the back of the PC vendor (Dell).
Sunday, February 18, 2007
Wednesday, February 7, 2007
Why you should NOT buy an Apple Computer
I'm going to start by saying that I LIKE Apple products. I have some gripes, but mostly I do think they are still innovating. Apples spends more time on the user experience than Microsoft (despite the name xp, short for experience). Apple develops for the user. That being said, there's one great big reason to avoid the apple. Apple really *is* evil (Evil Apple, has a nice ring). I know the Apple Fan boys (and girls) don't like hearing that, but someone has to say it. Allowing apple to gain market share hurts us all. Plenty of people are saying, "but Apple's so much better than Microsoft."
Microsoft is evil. Microsoft has an enormous amount of control over the IT industry, and Microsoft has abused that power. They routinely re-invent the wheel, and they actively work to force their products down your throat despite your best efforts to spit it out. For example, video games force me to use Microsoft. And if I have to use it in one place, then it's easier to use it everywhere. What would be Microsoft's incentive to help make video game companies use alternate OSes. They're glad they only work in Windows.
Apple tries the same evil tactic. Apple would likely be worse. After all, a PC doesn't restrict you to Microsoft only hardware. Apple does. You cannot buy the Apple OS and then go out and buy ASUS's latest and greatest motherboard and use it. You just can't do that. ASUS is just one example, there are literally dozens of big companies that are threatened by Apple, and those companies (many are great companies) keep the price we pay for a computer down by providing competing products. Why did Apple switch to Intel chips? Market pressure, IBM couldn't keep up with AMD and Intel with their chips. That would never have happened if those companies didn't exist. Apple wouldn't be pushing the inexpensive Mac mini. They are because they want to gain market share. Real example of this? Look at my Rig in the top right. That was a top of the line machine when I bought it (5/26/2005). And it still runs the latest games. Total Cost: $764.47. High End Apple $2,499.00, and you're still only getting 1MB RAM, you get Dual Core processors, but only 2.66 Ghz.
Don't buy Apple. At least, not yet. Not until they free their Operating System. Not until they allow DELL, HP, etc to sell their Desktops with an Apple OS. For all the great thinking Steve Jobs has done to "turn Apple around," he's still missing something, something very important. No savvy IT person is going to say that you should buy Apple. Save the world, buy a PC. If you really want to be a Hero, try a real operating system like Linux or Unix. Install Ubuntu, you'll find it to be easier than installing Windows, easier than installing Apple products. You'll have to learn the interface, but when you're done, you'll be a good IT citizen. And you be more tech savvy than all your neighbors.
My message to Steve Jobs: We don't want a vertical monopoly in place. Microsoft was able to monopolize the Market because they didn't try to get a vertical monopoly. The world is yours if would just follow the path to success.
I can't leave Bill Gates out. If I was Bill (which I'm not), I would keep with the Windows strategy until it died (which is inevitable). In preparation for that day I would be following the Mac/Sun strategy. Enhance an existing open source OS like Unix or Linux. Be ready for it, sooner or later the hardware vendors (ASUS, DELL, HP) will realize they win if Open Source wins. So you'd better be prepared for that day.
Microsoft is evil. Microsoft has an enormous amount of control over the IT industry, and Microsoft has abused that power. They routinely re-invent the wheel, and they actively work to force their products down your throat despite your best efforts to spit it out. For example, video games force me to use Microsoft. And if I have to use it in one place, then it's easier to use it everywhere. What would be Microsoft's incentive to help make video game companies use alternate OSes. They're glad they only work in Windows.
Apple tries the same evil tactic. Apple would likely be worse. After all, a PC doesn't restrict you to Microsoft only hardware. Apple does. You cannot buy the Apple OS and then go out and buy ASUS's latest and greatest motherboard and use it. You just can't do that. ASUS is just one example, there are literally dozens of big companies that are threatened by Apple, and those companies (many are great companies) keep the price we pay for a computer down by providing competing products. Why did Apple switch to Intel chips? Market pressure, IBM couldn't keep up with AMD and Intel with their chips. That would never have happened if those companies didn't exist. Apple wouldn't be pushing the inexpensive Mac mini. They are because they want to gain market share. Real example of this? Look at my Rig in the top right. That was a top of the line machine when I bought it (5/26/2005). And it still runs the latest games. Total Cost: $764.47. High End Apple $2,499.00, and you're still only getting 1MB RAM, you get Dual Core processors, but only 2.66 Ghz.
Don't buy Apple. At least, not yet. Not until they free their Operating System. Not until they allow DELL, HP, etc to sell their Desktops with an Apple OS. For all the great thinking Steve Jobs has done to "turn Apple around," he's still missing something, something very important. No savvy IT person is going to say that you should buy Apple. Save the world, buy a PC. If you really want to be a Hero, try a real operating system like Linux or Unix. Install Ubuntu, you'll find it to be easier than installing Windows, easier than installing Apple products. You'll have to learn the interface, but when you're done, you'll be a good IT citizen. And you be more tech savvy than all your neighbors.
My message to Steve Jobs: We don't want a vertical monopoly in place. Microsoft was able to monopolize the Market because they didn't try to get a vertical monopoly. The world is yours if would just follow the path to success.
I can't leave Bill Gates out. If I was Bill (which I'm not), I would keep with the Windows strategy until it died (which is inevitable). In preparation for that day I would be following the Mac/Sun strategy. Enhance an existing open source OS like Unix or Linux. Be ready for it, sooner or later the hardware vendors (ASUS, DELL, HP) will realize they win if Open Source wins. So you'd better be prepared for that day.
Thursday, January 4, 2007
The year of our Lord, 2007.
Anytime I hear "the year of our Lord," I always associate that with something distinctly Medieval Europe. Anyways, happy new year.
Quick Update: Visual Basic (.Net) is still paying the bills. :) I'm still in Branson. And still living in my Condo. So, not much has changed. I did buy a new bicycle, which I hope I will actually use. It's a fairly cheap Target bike.
I did finish the Primary campaign in NWN2, and was somewhat disappointed after it was all said and done. It is a good RPG, and it does an excellent job of crafting a story where you feel your decisions have a radical impact on future experiences in the game as far as opening up differently dialog, quests, and even the "feel" of the game. There were some supremely well scripted parts that were both fun and technically impressive. And the dialog was typically well written and different for each character, although there are parts that almost seemed forgotten or never were re-read, and that's odd. When you're reading a book it's either poorly written or well written. Same with most games. This one was either typically above average with specks of total lameness thrown in (Voice acting was exactly the same). Mostly, it made me want to buy a newer video card, the graphics were good.
I found a really interesting podcast today, The Economics of Religion. Most interesting was the demographics of Atheism which was towards the end, but I don't want to take anything away from the rest of the podcast. It just so happens that I, mostly, fit the profile of an atheist: single, young, male. Although beyond that I don't. It helped shed some light to me on individuals such as Richard Dawkins, and why they are out to get anybody who's religious. It's been interesting to watch his PR campaign unfold on both digg and youtube that attacks Christianity primarily and religion in general. He seems to have had some success, judging by the comments on Digg.
A quote from wikipedia: "...a theory is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations that is predictive, logical and testable." In this precise definition, it is difficult to put forth the argument that Intelligent Design is valid Scientific Theory, or for that matter Evolution. Neither is testable. The fact that mutation has never produced testable, predictable empirically knowable evidence suggests that both are theoretical discussions of origins, rather than valid Scientific Theory.
The baffling item to me is that no one has proposed a theory surrounding what is predictable, logical, testable, and even observable is the amazing de-evolution, for lack of a better term, of human and animal life on planet earth. The entire time of recorded human history, as well as fossil discovery, we factually know that what has happened has been genetic information loss, the shrinking of the gene pool. For example, a community of animals, cut off from the rest of the group, will have genetic information loss that will render them genetically abnormal from the other "original" population, and instead of being a new species or type, will in fact have become a genetically reduced smaller gene pool group, a sub group with less variation. In terms of global impact we have seen in the last 5 years scientists and businesses who are trying to keep different variations of plants stored due to the growing concern of genetic loss that would make entire crop fields susceptible to certain bacteria because they are so sparse in their variation. This problem is largely due to genetically engineered crops and farmer selection to replant only the most successful crops. The result has been to create a higher overall crop yield, but hasn't produced greater variation within the plants to actually provide a higher yield individually, per plant. Although, you often hear about the second law of thermodynamics in regards to this phenomena, it is often brushed aside by Evolutionists as being incorrectly applied to the planet Earth, despite factual evidence to the contrary. Much ado has been made about whether or not global warming is valid, but while the theory may accuse the wrong thing, it's predictive nature is very accurate and very real, and that is where theories should either sink or swim.
Quick Update: Visual Basic (.Net) is still paying the bills. :) I'm still in Branson. And still living in my Condo. So, not much has changed. I did buy a new bicycle, which I hope I will actually use. It's a fairly cheap Target bike.
I did finish the Primary campaign in NWN2, and was somewhat disappointed after it was all said and done. It is a good RPG, and it does an excellent job of crafting a story where you feel your decisions have a radical impact on future experiences in the game as far as opening up differently dialog, quests, and even the "feel" of the game. There were some supremely well scripted parts that were both fun and technically impressive. And the dialog was typically well written and different for each character, although there are parts that almost seemed forgotten or never were re-read, and that's odd. When you're reading a book it's either poorly written or well written. Same with most games. This one was either typically above average with specks of total lameness thrown in (Voice acting was exactly the same). Mostly, it made me want to buy a newer video card, the graphics were good.
I found a really interesting podcast today, The Economics of Religion. Most interesting was the demographics of Atheism which was towards the end, but I don't want to take anything away from the rest of the podcast. It just so happens that I, mostly, fit the profile of an atheist: single, young, male. Although beyond that I don't. It helped shed some light to me on individuals such as Richard Dawkins, and why they are out to get anybody who's religious. It's been interesting to watch his PR campaign unfold on both digg and youtube that attacks Christianity primarily and religion in general. He seems to have had some success, judging by the comments on Digg.
A quote from wikipedia: "...a theory is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations that is predictive, logical and testable." In this precise definition, it is difficult to put forth the argument that Intelligent Design is valid Scientific Theory, or for that matter Evolution. Neither is testable. The fact that mutation has never produced testable, predictable empirically knowable evidence suggests that both are theoretical discussions of origins, rather than valid Scientific Theory.
The baffling item to me is that no one has proposed a theory surrounding what is predictable, logical, testable, and even observable is the amazing de-evolution, for lack of a better term, of human and animal life on planet earth. The entire time of recorded human history, as well as fossil discovery, we factually know that what has happened has been genetic information loss, the shrinking of the gene pool. For example, a community of animals, cut off from the rest of the group, will have genetic information loss that will render them genetically abnormal from the other "original" population, and instead of being a new species or type, will in fact have become a genetically reduced smaller gene pool group, a sub group with less variation. In terms of global impact we have seen in the last 5 years scientists and businesses who are trying to keep different variations of plants stored due to the growing concern of genetic loss that would make entire crop fields susceptible to certain bacteria because they are so sparse in their variation. This problem is largely due to genetically engineered crops and farmer selection to replant only the most successful crops. The result has been to create a higher overall crop yield, but hasn't produced greater variation within the plants to actually provide a higher yield individually, per plant. Although, you often hear about the second law of thermodynamics in regards to this phenomena, it is often brushed aside by Evolutionists as being incorrectly applied to the planet Earth, despite factual evidence to the contrary. Much ado has been made about whether or not global warming is valid, but while the theory may accuse the wrong thing, it's predictive nature is very accurate and very real, and that is where theories should either sink or swim.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)