actf

"it's just defrag, install, show 'em how to use Synaptic, and they're out."

I think it would be really interesting to see some statistics from this, for example the % of computers on which the default install works without additional configuration, the % of users who encounter problems a week later, the % of users who give up and reinstall windows within a month, the technical saviness of the users, etc. It seems like there's a lot of interesting data we could learn from an install-fest.

"The basic things have been mostly ironed out by now (wireless is still a bit iffy), but the more advanced things, sure, they'll take some time and swearing."

This seems to confirm my objection to the original point, no? I wouldn't consider wireless advanced. If my wireless connection, my printer, and my touchpad don't work out of the box (nevermind my entire graphics subsystem in 10.04) that's a show-stopper in my opinion.

"My point is that you don't need to fiddle with Linux. You can, but you don't have to. You don't need to spend hours configuring anything."

What are you basing that claim on, just your own personal experience? It's a pretty extraordinarily claim to say that linux on the desktop requires no configuration, and I think such a claim deserves at least a little bit of evidence above and beyond your own personal experience.

As a counter example to your claim, I just finished installing Ubuntu 10.10 on an Asus EeePC 1015. In the process I ran into the following issues: 1) Wireless doesn't work without additional drivers 2) Multitouch input doesn't work 3) Samba sharing with a windows pc doesn't work. The Asus EeePC isn't exactly an exotic piece of hardware, so it's difficult for me to comprehend why ubuntu can't get wireless working, let alone the other issues. Rewind back to Ubuntu 10.04, and in the default install, X won't even start.

"In Linux, all drivers come bundled with the operating system. On Windows or a Mac you have to install them yourself." In my experience the complete opposite is true. When installing linux I have to go download my wireless drivers using a wired connection, same goes for my printer. On a fresh install of windows 7 (from a RTM version - i.e. not what the manufacturer includes on the machine) everything works "out of the box", including wireless, the touchpad, and my wireless printer.

Now I'm not disputing the fact that linux has made significant gains in usability over the past 17 years, but I will strongly dispute the claim that everything generally works without additional tinkering and configuration.

To those suggesting Vim/Emacs require less mouse usage than an IDE: I see little more than anecdotal evidence to support this. I personally use Visual Studio extensively in combination with the ViEmu pluggin, and I'd like to think that doing so is both more productive and utilizes the mouse less than a combination of screen/vim would. After configuring keyboard shortcuts, there is almost nothing I need to use the mouse for in Visual Studio. I get the benefits of using Vim plus I get the additional benefits of code completion, project management facilities, debugging utilities, and much more.

Honestly, I fail to see the advantage to this approach.

> For example you entirely discount people like me, who grew up in a family that doesn't play sports and who has a mild coordination problem on top of that, would have no chance at such an "interview". However my actual on the job performance has been extremely good

I obviously interpreted the article very differently than you did. I don't see the fact that you've never played sports before as a disadvantage in such a hypothetical screening process at all. You say that you have a mild coordination problem, but again I don't see that as a disadvantage. The definition of "sport" is very loosely applied these days. Even poker is considered by many people a "sport" these days (at least in North America). So replace ultimate frisbee with poker and your coordination argument is no longer meaningful. I've played sports with many people who have physical disabilities ranging from muscular dystrophy, cerebral palsy, to blindness or deafness and in every case I've seen it's very easy to separate those who are willing to put in effort, willing to try something new, willing to take risks, and show sportsmanship from those who aren't.

I believe what the author is advocating is the use of a sport (I'll call it a competitive game to be more accurate) to screen for the ability to persevere in the face of adversity, show drive, and most importantly show willingness to learn in an unfamiliar, unexpected situation. I could easily make an argument for why each of those traits are desirable to have in an employee.

> But you would never consider hiring me so you'll never see that

I think the author would choose not to hire you, not based on your lack of coordination or inexperience in sports, but would do so based on your stubbornness and unwilliginess to participate in something new. I equate this to the same attitude that I occasionally see in programmers who dismiss new technologies without even giving them a fair chance.

That said I can see how it would be possible to misinterpret the author's use of the word "sport" for a physically competitive game - and if that's the case then what I said above doesn't apply. Nonetheless, in my opinion even if the author had strictly meant a "sport" in terms of a physically competitive game there are some valid points that can be taken from the article.

Based on what? It sure didn't work out for Sun, what makes you think it'll work for Microsoft?

It's no secret that part of the reason Microsoft makes so much money is because of vendor lockin. Embracing open source would make it easier for users to switch vendors - and I really don't see that as beneficial to Microsoft.

> Often this ends up as a big mess

Care to give us a concrete example? Maybe I'm misunderstanding your point here, but my experience has been somewhat the opposite. The tight integration of the Microsoft development tools (for example Visual Studio, SQL Server) is what makes it such an appealing and easy to use development platform for so many enterprise developers.

> a decade and 1000s of devs can also introduce many new flaws with each update.

I find that silly - what are you basing that argument on other than anecdotal evidence? Using that same logic you'd expect linux to be extremely flawed since so many developer's hands touch it.

Very well said - I really can't understand why so many people on HN think turnkey == closed. Sure there is a correlation, but is it just me or does it seem like everyone has forgotten that correlation != causation.

>it being about my Mum being able to use it without having to phone me saying that it's all gone wrong again

You're confusing correlation with causation. The fact that your Mum has been unable to use devices in the past is not _caused_ by the devices being open platforms. Lots of people can't even operate a dvd player and they are certainly locked down devices. Being easy to operate and being locked down are mutually exclusive.

> Up until fairly recently you had to hack around with text files in shell in order to set up simple things like multiple monitors

I still have that problem in 9.10 - same goes for getting wireless to work

> That sort of stuff got a lot better with version 8, and with the current version, 9.10 i'd say that using Ubuntu is as easy as using windows

I completely disagree, until there's better device support it'll still be a pain to use compared to windows. More importantly installing software is still a pain, in my opinion, compared to Windows. Sure it works fine if you try to install from Canonical's list of supported software, but as soon as you want to install anything else (example Firefox 3.6 see the recent thread on HN) it's a usability nightmare.

Unfortunately I think this type of thinking that it's good enough and already surpasses windows is partially what leads to so little progress being made on this front. How does the old saying go? "The first step in solving a problem is admitting that you have one"

>Are tightly closed environments like this where we want personal computing to go next?

I think all signs to point to yes (assuming you use "we" to mean the population at large and not HN). Outside the mobile world, look at the example provided by consoles. They epitomize the idea of a locked down environment. Look at how popular they are compared to PC gaming. I think that consumers want the slick, easy to use, "it just works" environment much more than they want an open environment.

People don't like it when they have to sort through the web to find software of marginal quality. With a closed system a gatekeeper filters this out for them.

I think there will always be a market for those who want an open system, but it will take a back seat to closed systems. It'll be interesting to see how this can be implemented in practice. The idea of a "root mode" for advanced users and "simple mode" for regular users seems like one possible solution.

I think the reason people feel this way is because of the competitive capitalistic nature of the society we live in.

If I know X% of the population has acquired something for free, how am I supposed to feel when I'm expected to pay for it. Our society places a lot of emphasis on being the best and always being competitive with one another. How am I supposed to be the best or be competitive with others, when the playing field isn't level. The only way in this case to level the playing field is to also engage in piracy.

You're building a straw man here.

Large-scale piracy is very different than ensuring "the practical security of digital IP always and everywhere". Putting a _practical_ stop to services such as the Pirate Bay would be incredibly simple if it were enacted by national governments. If it turns out that in practice it's not enough there's numerous other easy, cost effective measures that could taken.

A solution doesn't have to stop 100% of piracy to be effective.

I don't I buy that argument without data to back it up. I'd hypothesize that the amount of piracy a title gets is directly proportional to its popularity.

Sure with an indie title you have fans that are more sympathetic to the producer, but with mass market titles you have the entire mass-market demographic. Do you really think that the number of people in the mass-market who are too lazy, dumb, or otherwise choose not to pirate out-weigh the ratio that sympathize with indie producers?

Show us some statistics please if you're going to make this argument.

> No, producers will move to platforms where it is difficult to impossible.

Short of increased enforcement I completely agree with you - this is the only viable long-term solution. Ad supported software is always suggested as a another workable solution, but I don't buy that argument. Ad supported software suffers the exact same problem, it can be hacked to the point where eventually all the ads are removed.

Oddly enough I've always wondered why publishers haven't fought harder against the e-books. Books were already "on a platform where it is difficult to pirate". The move by publishers towards the Kindle seems to directly contradict: "producers will move to platforms where it is difficult to impossible".

Like you say, even the most basic markets require external factors like laws to function. The real estate market for example would, I believe, break down if it weren't for laws prohibiting people from trespassing, squatting, etc. The retail market would also break down if it wasn't for the enforcement and existence of shoplifting laws.

It seems software is in a position where the existing laws (or the enforcement of such laws, depending on how you look at it) are not adequate to sustain the market.

> Unfortunately for digital media, stealing and getting caught are both extremely impersonal acts, so there's very little embarrassment or guilt involved. And getting caught is so rare that the financial penalties are all but meaningless.

I think your assessment is absolutely spot on and I couldn't have said it better myself. Right now other than my own personal guilt, there is absolutely no reason for me not to pirate software. The chances of getting caught are extremely slim. I know many people who use pirated software extensively in a business environment and even there they stand almost no chance of being caught - and even if they were there would be very minor consequences. I feel that it's getting to the point where to be competitive in the market you have to use pirated software. How can you stay competitive when those you're competing against aren't competing on a level playing field.

I see only two possible solutions to the problem: 1) Some sort of miracle fix from the software industry - for example everything going to the web (in reality I doubt this will happen though) or 2) Actual enforcement and or the addition of new piracy laws so that piracy has some real consequences.

Can you provide a link to your games or more info? I'd be curious to see.

I'm still not entirely convinced. In both of your examples it's not clear that it's possible to make a sustainable income, 10k is not imo a sustainable income, admittedly that's partly my fault though for not making my original question clear. I upvoted you for your examples though, since you did technically meet the requirements I asked for.

Directly from the article: "Programmers should give away their software and make money from consulting."

I read that as meaning open source, what do you take that to mean? Maybe my requirement that it be open-source is too restrictive - I'd be just as happy to see an example of a freely available closed source game that earns its creator a decent living.

In regards to 2dboy, while I think it's certainly an interesting economic model, which has a lot of potential, I don't think it's a counter-example of what the article is arguing in-favor of since it's still not free.

This tool looks really interesting - and I love the idea that it can be programmed using python. I've used a number of GUI automation tools in the past like autohotkeys (which I can also highly recommend) - this one looks like it would make it easier to do certain tasks that are difficult in autohotkeys, for example: interacting with webpages or other applications that don't have standard interfaces that can be examined with system api's.

The screenshot approach this tool takes is very unique. My only criticism is that, judging by the video, the image processing approach seems slow compared to an autohotkey's script.

What I'm really waiting for is a tool that can take this one step further and do OCR on any on screen text. This would make it easy to interact with gui's that present text that can't be read using system api's - imho that would be the holy grail of gui automation.

If that's the case then why haven't smart people figured out a way for game developers to make money while releasing their software as open source? Point me to an example that illustrates how this is possible and I will concede that you're right.

I think this article presents an interesting argument, even though much of it is anecdotal. Some of the author's points are very interesting:

> He says he’s an empiricist and that data have convinced him he was dead wrong. He now says that the idea of giving away intellectual property as advertising bait is unsustainable and will have dire consequences.

It's too bad the author doesn't go into more detail about this. I'm curious to see his "data".

>It’s OK for a potter to sell pots, but a musician should not sell music.

I think I agree with the author - why should a musician not be able to sell their music if they choose. Those who choose to give their music away for free can do so, but suggesting that it's morally wrong to sell music seems, ironically, morally wrong itself.

Not that I necessarily agree, but just to play the devil's advocate - there a really easy solution to the fact that it's so easy to copy intellectual property. The solution is for our governments to disallow it. I'm willing to bet that if the government began criminally prosecuting those who pirated music, movies, and software the problem would significantly decrease.

I'd argue that the real problem isn't that it's too easy to copy intellectual property, but that it's too easy to copy intellectual property over the internet. Intellectual property has been copied for thousands of years, it's only very recently that it became _so_ easy to do it though. 15 years ago there would have been a lot more effort required to copy music than there is today. The problem is that today anyone can copy intellectual property from everyone else on the planet in a matter of seconds. In the past copying intellectual property would have required a much more physical connection to the source: For example exchanging cassette tapes with a friend, or going to the library to checkout a book and photocopy it. These barriers were enough to prevent casual piracy. The barriers today are so insignificant though that casual piracy has become a real problem. I don't think piracy by those who are motivated enough will ever be stopped (just like crime by those who are sufficiently motivated will never be stopped), but I think that curtailing this casual piracy would be enough to solve the problem.

After reading that article I'm very interested in checking out Jaron Lanier's book. Has anyone read it yet - is it a worthwhile read?

I'm not sure I understand the point of the article. Security through obscurity does work in the sense that it decreases crimes of opportunity (I'm sure this is true even in the world of IT). Obviously it doesn't prevent someone who is motivated from getting in, but I don't think any reasonable person would suggest that it does. Does having a lock on something decrease your chance of having it stolen? I think the answer is: Absolutely, yes.

If you don't believe that security through obscurity is effective the following experiment should easily be able to confirm this: Place a couple of expensive bikes propped up on the street in random locations around town. A day later repeat the experiment, this time putting a lock on the bikes. Now I'm pretty sure no one is actually going to perform this test, precisely because the outcome is so obvious.

I actually really like the look of the site, the bookshelf works well imho. I can see where it might get unwieldy as the site expands, but as a main page I think it works really well. Of course this is just my personal opinion and I think the best way to validate what design works best would be to do some A\B Testing on the page.

I like the idea of having some books available for free though!

Nice work though the site looks really good and it's certainly the type of product I could see my self purchasing.

I couldn't agree more. The last time I ran Ubuntu as my primary OS its desktop experience was a long ways from Windows or OSX. Compviz was full of bugs that in my opinion significantly detracted from the the overall desktop experience. I'd constantly run into problems where windows wouldn't be placed correctly on the screen or would have artifacts drawn in them. Some of the compviz effects would fail to run altogether - with almost no indication of why. On top of that I found the general desktop performance to be much slower than Windows and OSX. Specific examples of this would include: hiding/restoring/maximizing windows, scrolling through text and graphics, and moving windows. Add to that performance issues in firefox (which have been well documented), incomplete drivers (sleeping, graphics drivers, etc), and the obvious compatibility problems with running linux. Ubuntu is still more frustration than it's worth for a desktop OS imho.

This was true back in the days of cmd.exe, but with powershell the state of the windows command line is a different story.

Powershell is a huge step forward for Microsoft. I've been using it for about a year now and so far I'm very impressed. I'd even go so far as to say I prefer it to bash for certain tasks. The concept of passing objects around is, while strange at first, surprisingly intuitive and powerful.

If you're currently using a combination of windows + cygwin (as I was) I'd strongly suggest picking up a copy of "Powershell in Action" and giving powershell a shot for a couple of weeks. I'd be surprised if you don't switch to powershell.

I'll concede that overall powershell still has some significant obstacles to overcome before it's better than the linux command line, but just like when windows xp came out and people stopped making legitimate complaints about window's stability - with powershell released now, I think we'll start to see the same trend with people complaining about the windows command line - these complaints will no longer be legitimate.

Sure, I'll provide some examples

The companies copying Microsoft products:

C# -> Novell

Visual Studio -> Just about every other IDE out there rips off features that appear in Visual Studio first.Intellisense is the obvious example here.

Office -> Open Office, parts of Google Docs

Powershell -> Open source projects are directly copying this shell for linux

WPF -> KDE 4, Nokia

Gazelle -> Google is doing something very similar to this

As for the line: Apple: IPhone

I was trying to get the point across that this was the only product from apple that I could think of which has been copied by others. Perhaps you could make a case for parts of OSX as well. Either way my main point was that it's easy to find products that illustrate Microsoft's innovation.

I find it frustrating when people dismiss Microsoft's products as inferior to the alternatives when they haven't even given them a fair evaluation. I find I encounter a lot of people where I work that immediately dismiss Microsoft's products, just because it's Microsoft or because it costs more than the open source alternatives. In my mind this is nothing more than "software racism". It shows that these people are just closed minded.

Wow I honestly can't believe that pg is so short sighted.

Let's compare work that's being directly copied by competitors:

Microsoft: C#, actually for that matter the entire .NET Framework, Singularity, Gazelle, Visual Studio, Powershell, Office, WPF, Silverlight, Photosynth, the list goes on and on

Apple: iPhone

Microsoft is by no means "dead" or "irrelevant". Generally I like reading Paul Graham's essays, but I think this one is a bunch of gibberish.

I disagree. There's a large number of microsoft products that I would gladly use over the alternatives.

C#? I'd much rather use C# over java.

Office? What's the alternative there? Open Office? Come on Open Office is far buggier, less user friendly, less productive, and has far less features. Google Docs? Missing tons of features, not to mention it's utterly useless when I don't have a network connection.

Visual Studio? Again nothing comes close to the features, speed, and stability. Eclipse is the nearest competitor imo - and it's still trailing behind a long ways.