My first time with iTunes

On Monday, I bought from iTunes. I had to. I mean, it was a necessity. You see, I'm in the high school theatre group, and I'm serving as an aid to to the light and sound crew. Now, the play calls for a song called "The Skater's Waltz" by Emile Waldteufel. Carl told me that he couldn't install iTunes because of some Registry errors. (Nice job, Microsoft.)

Since I already had iTunes on my computer, I decided to fire up the iTunes Music Store. I hadn't ever purchased songs from iTunes before, so I had to create an Apple Account. I entered my e-mail address and details into the form (all in iTunes), and after getting my dad's credit card (with his permission, of course), I was ready to make my first purchase. The process was painless and easy.

After that, I found the version of "The Skater's Waltz" that I liked best (and trust me, there were plenty of versions). I clicked the Buy Song button, and a little confirmation window asked me if I was sure that I wanted this song. After confirming the purchase, the M4P file downloaded to my iTunes folder in a matter of seconds. But I wasn't done yet.

Since I had to send the song to Carl for its inclusion on the soundtrack CD that would be played whenever a song or sound effect was required. So I found a program called myFairTunes (0.5.8). myFairTunes automatically detected my purchased music, and converted it to MP3 with the help of iTunes' MP3 converter.

After all of that, I had an MP3 fit for use in the show. And our performance will have the song we need.

If Apple sold MP3s, I would buy them. But since they sell only songs with DRM attached, "The Skater's Waltz" will very likely be the only song I ever buy from iTunes.

User Account Control

A new security feature in Microsoft Windows Vista is User Account Control, a mechanism that confirms actions that affect the operating system. Microsoft has been criticized for the implementation of this feature. I'm laughing on the inside.

you know why the situation is ironic? Normally Microsoft is criticized for implementing too little security. The tables have turned. Now Microsoft is being criticized for implementing too much.

What's the problem with added security, you might ask? (If you are familiar with the situation, you aren't asking this question.) Well, imagine this situation:

I. Put. A. Period. After. Every. Single. Word. In. This. Sentence. And. I. Make. You. Pause. After. Every. Single. One.

You'd want to punch me in the face for writing my blog like that, right? (Fortunately, currently there is no device that allows people to punch me in the face over the Internet, so I feel safe for the time being.) Well, I don't blame you. I'd punch myself in the face, too. (If I fought back, who would be the winner?)

This is like airport security: No liquids! That's too much security you've got there, Mr. Gates. It's not the wrong kind of security: If programs are making changes to the root of your OS, you'd sure as hell want to be notified beforehand! But it's too much.

For a very funny rendering of this situation (and, from various accounts by Vista users, very accurate), click here:

Quicktime video from Apple's Get A Mac marketing campaign

The Man is censoring me, or something (I better get my tin foil hat)

Just a note. I finally discovered that I can change the date and time of my posts. Oh, the things you learn when you actually look for the answers.

---

On Friday, my English class went to the school computer lab to work on research for a persuasive essay. The computer lab consists of approximately 35 or 40 computers running Windows 2000. But who can blame school districts for saving money?

Before I go on, I'd like to talk fondly about breaking Windows 2000 security features. Windows 2000 is more insecure than you think. Although admins can block access to certain drives and folders in Win2000 Professional, it doesn't work as well as it should. At my high school, the C:\ drive, which stores program info, is blocked. The block can easily be bypassed by creating a shortcut. This enables users to install everything from Mozilla Firefox to MapleStory, instances of which have remained on the network for months. The only limitation is that software installed can be accessed only on the computer on which it was installed.

And so now I will relate to you the wonders of bureaucracy. By the end of the period, I had compiled a list of worthwhile weeks that I needed to save. I went to my favorite online word processor, Google Docs, with the intention of creating a document full of links. To my surprise, I was greeted with the WebSense warning that the website I was attempting to access was deemed inappropriate under the category "Personal File Storage and Backup" or something of the same nature. Harrumph! I tried to outsmart the filter by going to Writely.com (now transformed into Google Docs); such an effort was held at bay with the same WebSense Enterprise warning.

Frustrated, I did the only thing I could do: Beat the system with irony. And when you're battling WebSense, you need lots and lots of irony. I went to Zoho Writer, another online word processor with whom I had an account, and as expected, this time WebSense was nowhere in sight. Oh, the irony - the delicious, tragicomic irony. I created a new document and saved the links just as the bell rang, and I made it in time for my next class.

A couple periods later, when I again had to use the computer lab for an individual assignment. It was by chance, I suppose, that not only did I get access twice in one day, but both system administrators were in the same room, as well as one of my friends, who had the same problem as I. I approached the admins, having no time restraints on my assignment, and told them that I believed that WebSense was unnecessarily blocking a useful website. I told them about the situation, and my friend chimed in. They checked the site and found the situation I had detailed.

Next, the real kicker came: They couldn't change anything, because the district was in charge of the filter, and the district had chosen to add a bunch of new websites to to the blacklist that very day. You can just imagine me jumping for joy at learning about the tangled web of bureaucrats.

Naturally, I will have no trouble getting around the useless filter by going to a site that does the same thing as Google Docs - until the filter is removed, but there's little chance of the district actually doing anything useful. The irony is that only one online word processor was touched. Just Google Docs. I suppose it must be evil, and everyone is at risk of contagion when people use it. Or something like that. Come to think of it, I can't imagine a situation where the school district has ever proved to be good at much of anything. Did you know that Arizona is next to last when it comes to spending on public education per student? Just one of the nifty things I learned growing up.

Arizona: Come for the warm weather, stay for the... erm... um... warm weather, I guess

The operating system holy wars are getting ridiculous

Why does there have to be mudslinging in the world of computers? I mean, computers are basically tools. Your hammer and nails don't determine your identity, so why should your computer? Your brand of hammer in the long run is irrelevant. But when you get into operating systems, it's off to the world of religious wars!

"You use Windows? You're dumb/unenlightened/very patient."

"You use a Macintosh? You're a simpleton/enlightened/snobby."

"You use Linux? You're a genius/square/weirdo."

Seriously, am I the only one that believes that an argument like that is reserved for elementary school kids or children under ten? You are not your computer. You know why tech evangelists get on my nerves? Because the underlying message subtly says that the evangelist is right, and if you don't agree, you're not. Never mind if you have chosen your computer platform based on merit - such as usability and features. To the evangelist, it all comes down to whether or not you agree.

It goes back and forth on Digg. One day is ruled by the Linux evangelists, the next the Mac people, and the day after that the Windows disciples. Obviously the evangelists don't represent the majority of each user group. If that were true, I would opt not to read the Apple and Linux sections.

It boggles my mind how people can stay obsessed about this stuff. Each OS has its own advantages. Can't we at least establish that? You know what? I'm rambling. I have no idea where I'm going. But let me leave you with this: If you can't accept other people's opinions, get off the Internet.

Macworld 2007 doesn't mean anything to me

So, Macworld San Francisco saw Steve Jobs' keynote address. Breakdown of the subjects:

• Apple TV


• iPhone, with Cingular partnership


• New and improved iPod


• Apple Computer, Inc. is now Apple, Inc.

I can't say that I would want the Apple TV. I don't intend to ever buy content from the iTunes store, so paying $300 for a box to stream iTunes media to a TV is obviously a bad idea.

The iPhone, on the other hand, looks sweet. Oh my God, what a beauty. I was skeptical that Apple would actually produce a cell phone, but wow. Take a look at the current series of phones, and the iPhone looks so much better. Bu I would never spend $500+ on any cell phone, and I definitely wouldn't want to sign a two-year contract with Cingular. Even if the iPhone has some sweet features (no plastic buttons!), it's economically too expensive - both in explicit costs and implicit costs. Not only would I be spending a far-fetched amount of cash on a cell phone that I wouldn't use all that much (even with the MP3 player built into it), But I already have hundreds of cheap minutes on my Tracfone that has no monthly fee attached.

Notably missing from the keynote was a mention of Mac OSX Leopard. The Mac fanboys, what with Windows Vista's imminent arrival January 30, have been itching to pick a fight with the new kid on the block. Apparently announcing the arrival of new consumer electronics was more important than bolstering the reputation of the Macintosh operating system.

I tried Ubuntu

On Friday, I tried Ubuntu - "tried" being the key word. I downloaded the v6.10 ISO file, burned it to CD, and booted from it, but each time I tried to use it live I would see nothing but an I/O error message and a line telling me that Disk Error 10 had occurred.

I supposed that the CD hadn't been burned properly, or there was some damage on it, so I burned a new CD today, and I booted from it. This time, great success!

I waited a few minutes as the desktop was loaded from the CD, and upon completion I was gazing upon the maroon-tan-greenish desktop. I noticed that the right edge of the desktop exceeded my LCD monitor, but I was barely concerned. I browsed to the Applications menu and ran through the list of programs available to me - not too shabby! There was even a sizable list of games. I tried solitaire briefly, a bit dissatisfied with the blurry graphics. I realized that the screen resolution was too small!

I navigated to the Preferences/Administration menu and found the Device Manager. Yes, Ubuntu recognized my ATI Radeon card. So I went to the Screen Resolution setting, and lo and behold, the only resolutions available to me were "800 x 600" and "640 x 480". Huh? Well, I'd heard that ATI didn't have the best driver support in Linux, so I opened up Firefox from the top taskbar so I could find the cause of my trouble.

Well, Firefox looked just like it did on Windows (except a bit greener), and I typed "blogger.com" into the navigation bar, so I could record my exploits on my blog. That was a great time to find out that I wasn't connected to the Internet!

The Device Manager told me that Ubuntu knew the model of my PCI wireless network adapter, so I tried to open up a wireless connection. Unlike Windows, Ubuntu doesn't have any way to search for wireless networks. If I wanted to connect to the network, I needed to know the network name. (Unfortunately, I forgot it.)

At this point, I decided that I would not attempt to use Ubuntu for any prolonged period of time, but instead just see what I could do with the system.

I opened up the Examples folder on my desktop, to see what the Ubuntu team wanted to tell me. I opened up the Ubuntu welcome video, only to discover that I could hear nothing - and I knew my Altec Lansings weren't deaf. I went to the Sound configuration window, but Ubuntu didn't recognize my Creative PCI card - only my Realtek chip that came on the motherboard. using the Volume Manager, I tried switching back and forth between the sound sources available to me (none of which were recognized as being a Creative card) and making sure that nothing was muted, but I could hear nothing, even when playing the sax recording.

I was not pleased wit my first fifteen minutes of Ubuntu. I couldn't change to a higher resolution, Ubuntu couldn't search for nearby wireless networks (which is more a lack of a feature than it is a fault), and Ubuntu wouldn't recognize my Creative sound card. The bright side was that it was all painless. Ubuntu is fast. I mean, faster than the time it takes Donald Trump to sound like a pompous ass. If only Ubuntu were more co-operative with my hardware, I might just be tempted to use it again.

Some Linux users are just too good for me, I suppose

Thanks to Digg, I happened to stumble across this analysis of why Linux is not Windows, at the blog OneAndOneIs2, by Dominic Humphries. By all means, "Linux != Windows", the blog entry I am trying to dispel, is quite long. I didn't attempt this task on a whim, but I believe that "Linux != Windows" was very wrong for several different reasons, and as such I decided that I would use my blog to do what I like to do most when it comes to blogging, speak my mind. This blog entry is divided into sections, according to each "problem" that divides each component of the opinion I am refuting. This essay relies heavily on the original article, so I suggest you read that first. At any rate, I shall proceed.

Point 1. How is it impossible to expect Linux to be better than Windows and have the same features? Isn't that called an upgrade? Doesn't that imply that improvements have been made upon central concepts? Claiming that Linux cannot be like Windows and better than it is like claiming that Windows Vista could not possibly exist, because it's Windows XP, but better. Mr. Humphries is missing the point of Windows users who try Linux. Those users want an upgraded Windows; they're not looking for something exactly the same. If those users wanted an operating system that's exactly the same and Windows, why not choose Windows in the first place?

Firefox succeeded not because it was different, but because Firefox built off of IE and had better, upgraded features. Just look at FF2 and IE7: For the most part, the GUI is the same! You navigate to different websites by typing the URL into the navigation bar and press Enter or click Go; you navigate through your window/tab history by using the Backward and Forward tabs; you save websites by putting their paths in bookmarks. Is the Find function an ability that Firefox devs invented? Of course not! Its presence in the bottom of the browser is (you may disagree) and improvement, an upgrade! It's not superior because it's different; it's superior because it has better functionality! Better != different! Sites like OldVersion.com exist because changes to software made the new versions worse! Firefox's features, when IE6 was competing with Firefox, were better than those in IE because they were easier to use and faster to use! If Firefox changed the default language to Swahili, would that make it better than IE? But Mr. Humphries' reason, yes, because it's different. Again, if users were looking for a copy of IE, they would just use IE! I myself switched to Firefox, because I heard that Firefox had better features, not because it was different. Firefox was similar enough in use to IE that I had no trouble adapting to it.

Point 2. This section is quite misleading. It asks whether or not there's really any big difference in the differences in Linux distributions and then compares Linux to a car: If you can drive one car, you can drive them all!

But you see, the difference in choices is more complicated than that. When you want airbags in your car, you don't choose between "Baag," "Baglite," "Big Bag," or "Sfebag" type airbags, all of which do the same thing but conform to standards that ordinary (most) people won't understand. When you have lots of choices in interfaces, file managers, desktops, and even window managers, people who just want to use a computer will be confused when presented with a choice. If you have to explain all of the intricacies of an operating system to someone who just wants to get work done, chances are that person will give up and move to what he or she is used to - Windows XP, which comes in the consumer-friendly name differentiations of "Home" and "Professional." When your operating system has dozens, if not hundreds, of minute differentiations without any clear advantage in any, that is one example of too many choices. When you have so many choices for both underlying and trivial options, you have to do one of two things, or a combination: Differentiate, or consolidate. Give the user reasons to choose, not options; most people just want to get their work done! Give the people the means to the ends, not the means to the endless! The problem is that there are too many choices there they don't need to be.

Ah, and here we come to desktop Linux. Let me admit that I am an experienced Windows user, and I believe that Linux is not ready for the desktop. But remember, correlation does not equal causation. I have considered switching to Linux, as I've mentioned in my last blog entry. (I'm not going to rehash it, for the most part.) Mr. Humphries is ignoring the big reason that Linux is not ready for Dell and blaming the whole thing on Windows junkies. Honestly, if it was only our fault, why is Linux so slow in moving onto the computers of the masses? We're not getting in your way!

Or is it because of the work ethic involved: You might have to adjust Linux to get it working, and if you need help you have to go to some forum. That's just the problem: The masses want to use their computers, not work with them. I worked with MS-DOS and had no trouble using at after I learned the commands. I'm not rigid to one set of controls, and I have no doubt that a beginning computer user who works with Linux will have little trouble learning what buttons to press. But what if something isn't working? What if you can't find something? The average person doesn't even care about what the problem is! People just want to fix it and go - wham bam, thank you, ma'am. That leads me to...

Point 3a. I'm not panning forums. Forums are great. I've used a great many forums!

You're not going to endear many Linux switchers by telling them that they have to get used to tech support from a loose organization of volunteers. When I search 'Windows help' in Google, I get Microsoft's support site; when I search 'Linux help,' I not only get Linux Questions, but LinuxSelfHelp, Linux Online, linuxhelp.blogspot.com, linuxhelp.co.za, and JustLinux, just to name a few. These websites may be comprised of fine, fine people; I don't know. But what I do know is that with Windows, you know who to ask: The guys that make it. Coincidentally, the guys that made it also have a website for it! Linux is like Windows in that regard, ironically: The guys that made it also have a website for it - and thousands of people made it! The problem is that there is too much choice where there shouldn't be.

And is it just me, or is Mr. Humphries criticizing Windows users because most users only use software after it's stable? Sorry to rain on your parade, but that simply is not going to fly for most people, except for the most hardened Linux veterans or the peopel actually working on the program. Let me give you an example: Songbird. Songbird is at release version 0.2.1. It's barely usable. (I've tried it myself.) But when the media library fails to comprehend my Weird Al library because the metadata has quotation marks (among other random quirks), it's NOT ready for use. Should I apologize for expecting my programs to work when I run them? I run my programs to get something done, and I'm not about to compromise my productivity for "new" software. I have standards: I shouldn't need to fool around with software to get it to work. Only in the world of Linux is that expected!

Furthermore, Mr. Humphries criticizes Linux switchers for expecting their software to be polished to a grade as high as Windows. Remember that they "don't owe you anything?" For God's sake, Linux is competing against Windows! Like it or not, Linux is trying to compete in the same market in which Windows operates. They're trying to convert people to this OS, and they're complaining that people expect it to be good? That's their own damn fault! They shouldn't cry that it's impossible them you to deal with, because those Linux heads got themselves into it! They're trying to compete against an OS with 95% of the market share, and they expect to wow people by not providing comprehensive, easy service and telling users to find the answers for themselves? Some call me a waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahmbulance! I'm crying my eyes out that those poor Linux devs are overworked and paid nothing. Hey, they chose to do what they do; programming is not a task that can be performed by the unskilled, and managing programmers isn't, either. If you have a product to sell, the free market doesn't care about how much work you put into it: Only the quality of its mettle. Root, hog, or die.

Point 3b. It is in fact more elitist to say, "Everybody knows this," than, "Everybody ought to know this." According to Mr. Humphries, everyone who has never used Linux before is a novice. Let me build on that an offer a parable:

Imagine, if you will, a Beginning French class. None of the students before have ever taken French in their lives; they don't even know the alphabet or the diacritic marks. So one of the students raises his hand and asks about the alphabet. The teacher shrugs it off, replies that the alphabet is something everyone knows, and goes on.

In that example, it sure sounds like the teacher telling the student that he ought to know that would be the same thing as saying everybody knows that.

The difference is that telling someone that they ought to know something places emphasis on what is not learned and that it is in fact crucial. That phrases places emphasis on the fact, not the person. Would it be elitist for a French teacher to tell the students what they ought to know in order to prepare for the test?

By contrast, telling someone, "Everybody knows that!" puts the emphasis on the person. Saying that assumes that the person who is hearing it is a Have Not in a world of Haves. Claiming that everybody knows something - and you don't - puts you at a lower level. There's no emphasis on even learning what is unknown. If you don't know it, then you're sunk.

And now I get to talk about the Lego metaphor. It's completely wrong. When you download a distribution of Linux (especially a desktop distribution), you get an environment that is set up for you - just like a Windows installation. That's not like getting a Lego set at all! I honestly don't know of a right metaphor, but this one is completely irrational. If you're comparing Linux to Windows, then the only difference is that the Linux toy car comes with the tools to take it apart, build, find, or purchase extensions, and customize it how you like, while the Windows care comes with a paint set. I absolutely hated this section of "Linux != Windows". Linux doesn't come broken up into many different pieces. Would you really compare downloading programs to a Lego car? If so, then Windows would also be a Lego car! Besides, the focus of Linux should be the focus of any other operating system - providing a platform for getting things done. Emphasizing how much you can take apart only skims the purpose of an operating system's usefulness. What is the worth of Linux if its only purpose is to be taken apart and put back together again?

Just because you use open source software doesn't mean you want to open up the code and spill its guts. Though I may use Mozzila Thunderird, Mozilla Firefox, StepMania, and Foobar2000, I really don't care about how they work. Generally, software being open source is just an added bonus, not an important feature.

Point 4. This is just another attempt to brush off the users who simply want to get things done, by claiming that the software was created for a difference target audience.

Now, obviously there is nothing wrong with designing tools for programmers; I find no faults with developing an efficient IDE, for instance.

But when you don't tell the beginning users what is most efficient for them, that's your fault. Face it; people who just want to get work done just want to know how to do it in the quickest way possible. Even if you have just developed the most powerful text editor on Earth, there's no way you should advertise it to a person with the goal of expediency if it takes a few hours to learn. Chances are, Vi is one of those programs. It may certainly be an excellent program, but give the novices something like OpenOffice if they just want to type a list or two! Don't you think you're missing the mark if you're trying to sell a newbie on a program so complex that it requires special effort to close it?

Point 5. Look, is it too hard to write a program that has both keyboard shortcuts and menus? I definitely see the point here: Different users have different needs. Once you know the shortcuts, any other way is painfully long. So, I have to disagree on this point, but I totally respect where the opinion is coming from. My version of "user-friendly" says, "Programmed to be usable by those familiar with simple commands and by others who can understand non-obvious shortcuts."

Point 5a. While Point 5 is respectable, its folow-up is less so. While Ctrl-X and Ctrl-V are non-intuitive, they are very efficient. All you need to cut and paste are only but a couple keystrokes away, and the only finger you need to shift is your index finger.

So what does d5w offer? That's just as non-intuitive as Ctrl-X or Ctrl-V to the uninformed. But when you get to know either keystroke combination, that combination becomes familiar and efficient. To the uninformed, d5w doesn't look like much at all. But if you've worked with it before, of course you'll know what it is!

Point 5b. I liked reading the first half of this section, and it all goes downhill from there.

Dominic Humphries is complaining that coding menus takes time. Well of course it does. But if you can't compete with the market, that's your own problem.

Secondly, how is MS Word inferior to Vi and Emacs, because the latter are used for coding? Here's a reality check: MS Word wasn't designed for programming. It was designed for word processing! If you want programming, use an IDE! For God's sake, MS Word is not inferior to Vi or Emacs because they're aimed at different audiences! Is there a joke that I missed, due to lacking a sense of humor? If not, then I can hardly believe the nonsense that I just read.

And again comes up the issue of appealing to the masses. Believe it or not, it's more efficient for some people to just click on what they want instead of learning commands. If you're not going to develop frontends for the programs you're putting into Linux, you're going to have lots of users who will find Linux to be a complete waste of time.

Point 6. This whole portion of the article is one great straw man argument. I don't know how anyone in their right mind would believe that Linux is copying Windows for developing a GUI. What is Point 6 trying to prove?

Point 7. It's this last category that makes this article worth debunking. This "problem" demonstrates arrogance to the highest degree possible. To the common user, it's the middle finger. it's like saying, "Screw you and your little dog, too," to everyone not fortune enough to be in the know. Here, let me sum up "problem 7":

We don't care about you or your needs, and if you don't know what we know, then you're not worth our time.

What a callous choice of words for a community so intent on convincing people that Linux is better. I suppose all those people on Digg who relate tales of switching and never looking back are fringe radicals, hm?

What is so supremely ironic is that Humphries claims that the goal of Linux is to create the best operating system ever. But if you don't accept feedback, how is it going to be usable?

This point is the gotcha clause. The excuse clause. It makes Linux sound like a colossal waste of time to the whole world except for a few people. But the truth is that Linux is usable, and if you're listening to Mr. Humphries, then asking whether or not you are good enough for Linux is an excuse for not supporting you.

Asking the users to do everything for themselves will not only frustrate good people but convince the smart but unexposed people that they'd be wasting their effort on such callous people. Let me ask you something, Mr. Humphries: Are you saying that you're developing an operating system and then not expecting people to use it? That proposition is so laughable that it's hard for me to even refute it. It's ridiculous. It doesn't make sense at all. I'm finding difficulty finding the sense in it. You're developing a usable operating system, not expecting anyone to use it, and criticizing people who expect it to work but have trouble? Doesn't that violate the philosophies of the desktop Linux distros, who are trying to convert the common people? Doesn't that even contradict the goals of Firefox, since Firefox is built from user input?

Mr. Humphries, I really hope that you're not naive enough to believe what you're saying. I sincerely hope that you do not reflect a majority of the Linux community, because "problem 7" is your problem. I sincerely believe that Linux is about the people, not the machines, and if you're crazy enough to insist that the computers matter more than the people, you're not doing anything for Linux. The last category in your article will do nothing to advance your cause.

Don't switch to Linux just because you can

Let me sum up the situation: Yes, it's Linux. But there's no reason for me to use it. Yes, it's free, and yes, it's secure, but I don't need it.

I'm not against Linux: I think it's a great OS, certainly, but I'm not going to switch to it. Reading Digg every day exposes me to a slew of articles about why now is the right time to switch to Linux and how "So-And-So moved from Windows to Linux and never looked back!" but I really see no incentive to move to Linux.

You how everyone knows that Microsoft is copying Apple, and everyone is pretty vocal about it? Well, if you think about it, Linux is copying Microsoft, but no one seems to be talking about it. Admit it, Linux developers are trying to copy Microsoft, even going so far as to emulate it (a.k.a. WINE). Why should I switch to Linux when there's still a desire in the community to run Windows programs? Isn't Linux supposed to replace Windows? It would be like switching to a Mac and claiming that OSX is superior to XP, but then installing Parallels and XP on the Mac. If Linux is really so great, why does it need offerings compatible with another operating system? I know it looks like I'm saying that a smaller software library for Linux makes it inferior, but it is inferior to me.

I have considered switching. But every time I've considered it, I've found a reason to not do it. The big reason is that Windows is easy to use. Ignore the stigma that Windows always crashes; I seemly suffer it naught. Windows recognizes any worthwhile device I can throw at it (not advisable), and it's simple. The Linux community as a whole believes that you should only bother with Linux if you're willing to make it work. This attitude even prevails among the community of desktop Linux users. Lost is my ability to count the numerations of the aforementioned comments on Digg stories. Few Linux supporters that I have witnessed actively believe that Linux should be so easy to use that you don't have to tinker it; that for me is enough to drive me away. I have installed MS-DOS, Windows 95, Windows 98, Windows 2000, and Windows XP on various computers. (I love how you need to install DOS on your computer before you can install Windows 95 on it!) Windows XP is such a cinch to install and use that there's no reason to switch. I'm happy that my computer works just like that. I don't want to use an operating system that needs tinkering to work. You know what I call that? Beta software.

I know I haven't covered security. One word: Router. Now, I'll not be disingenuous. Symantec Antivirus 9 is installed on my computer, although I've never had any viruses on my computer. Simply put, I've never had a security crisis on my computer. If you're smart enough, it won't happen. I'm not advocating Windows to the general public based on my experience, because generally people don't have common sense. (Why on Earth would you click on a pop-up that says, "Click me!"?) Even if Linux does have better security, I don't need it.

Yes, yes, Linux is not all that shabby. But I'm not about to switch to Linux just because it's Linux/it's not Windows. Look, Linux people. You want to hook me in? Here's what I want: Your operating system has to be so easy to use that it will work right out of the box, no tinkering whatsoever; it has to have support from developers that will port all of their Windows software to Linux; it has to have compatibility with every driver Windows can handle; and it must do everything Windows can do, and more. Until then, I'm happy where I am.

Free games (as in beer)

The free multiplayer game scene is really lacking: Sporadic, disunified, and stagnant. With no accounting incentive in the market, the incentives for developing such programs are too implicit for programming teams to find worthwhile.

Everybody wants stuff for free. Admit it, if someone gave you everything on a platter, no strings attached, I guarantee you'd take advantage of it. People love free stuff. (Some proponents of the free programs movement also believe that code should be free.) There are tons of games that have been developed to meet this demand, ranging from Runescape, to GunZ, to War Rock, and beyond. Some of the people behind these games are in it for the money; others, the achievement; others, the community. Whatever the motivation is for writing these games, there seems to be a fair amount of people willing to satisfy the demand for free stuff.

Of course, simple economics become a significant problem simply at the mention of free stuff. Programming a fully 3D, immersive, interactive world is by far an exceedingly complicated task. Programmers work for high salaries because programming is not for everyone. And there it is: What do the developers of free games get in return? Some only work on games in their spare time; others, who would like to participate, can't. The reality of the situation is that performing a difficult task for little compensation isn't feasible. Not only is it hard to support a project with donations, but resources become more scarce when there are competing projects. There are hundreds of free games! Obviously some people have to be excluded from the donation collecting process.

Therein lies a further problem, one that (not coincidentally) plagues the open source scene, as well (but to a much lesser extent): Disunity. There are so many games that it's a challenge to find talent that can do significant work. Programming in a team is like forming a band: If you don't know what to do, it's not like you're going to be able to do a lot after a few weeks of practicing. Learning how to program takes months, and programming promotes a never-ending process of learning. That is the premium that corporations like Apple and Microsoft pay for. How are you going to convince people on the Internet who you don't know to do it for free?

Re:Comments relating to "Mac blogs talking about the Zune"

Imagine my surprise on Monday night when, after writing my Tuesday item, I discover that my Sunday entry has comments. My first two comments ever on my blog! My e-penis went over NINE THOUSAND. I'm now an Internet celebrity, even though I could count the number of returning visitors on both hands. (I'm not ashamed of using StatCounter.com to track that sort of thing.) To be fair, both comments didn't agree with me, and I wish my first comment would've went something along the lines of, "FATHER MY BABIES!!!!!1ONEONEONE." Granted, I'll take what I can get. Perhaps I can build a readership by pissing off all the Apple fans and becoming the opposite of Daniel Eran. (That would never work out, since there is nothing wrong with Apple.)

Now, of course, I have to deal with the comments. I have to either constructively take heart or disregard them. I knew that decision before I started writing this entry. So, please pardon me while I take two sentences and run with them.

Microsoft didn't set themselves up to compete with the iPod. Microsoft never announced that they intended to compete directly with the iPod. Microsoft has never said that such was their intention. Everyone else has been saying that Microsoft is trying to compete against the iPod. How has Microsoft set themselves up? By entering the market? By simply entering the market, Microsoft was automatically aiming for the neck of the juggernaut? What a load of baloney.

To be fair, though, Microsoft was inadvertently competing with Apple. Let's say a consumer doesn't have an MP3 player, and that consumer wants to buy a fully featured device between $200 and $300 - nothing unusual. So you have Apple, iRiver, Microsoft, Creative, and Sandisk all competing against each other. So, at one point in the process, the consumer has to make a choice between Microsoft and MP3 Player X. So, Microsoft isn't competing directly against the Zune - I'll explain why in the next sentence. Microsoft may be competing with Apple, but they are also competing with at least three other companies, all of whom are viable players. Just because Microsoft is in the market, you can't justify the assertion that Microsoft is trying to kill Apple.

Now, I'll not be disingenuous. Microsoft is definitely trying to get into the consumer markets, and they've been doing so for a decade or so. (Trying is the key word.) The Xbox 360, until the Zune, was the most recent iteration of that. Microsoft is trying to convince you, the consumer, that your living room and ears should be supported by big M. Who stands in their way? Apple, of course. Microsoft would love nothing more than to knock Apple out of the market - Apple, who has an outstanding track record in product quality. Of course, Microsoft is smart enough to know that a goal like that is impossible. However, I am sure that they would like to become the other elephant in the room and become oligopolies. And while Microsoft is a small player in that arena at the moment, nothing would surprise me less than if Microsoft became a major player in the consumer markets in the next 10 to 20 years. That is, if Microsoft doesn't gloriously screw themselves by making stupid firmware.

And then I get to address the second comment. I don't really know what to say to you, Anonymous. I'm trying not to be hypocritical? I'm sorry? Would you come back later and generate more traffic for my blog?

Corporate allegiance

Why is it that consumers who specialize in a certain product tend to treat that product's producer as a patron saint? I'm looking at you, all you Microsoft devotees, you Apple fanboys, you Linux saints. Why is it we are all engaged in OS holy wars? How is it that the competition between Windows, OSX, and Linux became personal? The battle has practically become a war. Inevitably, people on the Internet cannot meet without eventually dividing themselves from each other simply for their choice in operating system. Good Lord, people are disliking each other for no real reason!

It would be impossible to say that any one 'group' started it. Rather, the fight has existed for a decade or two. UNIX and OS/2 used to be a part of the holy wars! So it's impossible to lay the blame solely on specific supporters, since the shift in OS popularity involved separate groups of people. Instead, I'll categorically blame everyone: Everyone for being simple-minded, everyone for being confrontational, everyone for acting like stuffy, arrogant aristocrats.

Right now the major conflict lies between Windows and Mac users, with a touch of Windows vs. Ubuntu on the side. But when you look at the sides that are fighting, you have to ask, what's the big deal? I mean, if you look at Windows XP/Vista and OSX, it's critically apparent that the two are fundamentally the same. It's not like one operating system has a magic program that does everything better; it's not like one is solidly superior. Techies use the tools they choose because those are the tools with which they are most efficient. Just because you like your Mac doesn't make you superior; just because you like your Dell doesn't make you more cost-effective; just because you like Ubuntu doesn't mean that everyone else should.

What aggravates me so much about this issue is how pervasive it is; even I have been drawn into it. The problem of course is that every conversation about operating systems eventually turns into deciding which is better. The answer is that none is clearly supreme. You can cry and kick and moan, but operating systems all have advantages and disadvantages. Ignore, for a minute, the advertising and the branding and the image and the perspective, and in the end there really isn't that much difference. Operating systems simply have different methods of accomplishing the same objective.

Let me give you a little bit of American history. In the debates between the presidential candidates for the election of 1860, between Stephen A. Douglas and Abraham Lincoln, both candidates slapped one another with labels and epiphanies: Douglas called Lincoln a Negrophile, and Lincoln called Douglas a slavery lover. However, if you were look at both candidates' true facets, we see a strikingly similar picture: The two are practically identical. Both candidates perceived slavery as a problem with no easy solution; both candidates were comfortable with slavery; both candidates grew up in Illinois. American history does not fail to recognize their similarity, but in 1859, the two candidates seemed radically different.

Windows XP and OSX and Ubuntu and even OpenBSD all have several traits in common: They are all able to get things done; they all have tools for maximizing performance; they all have tools for managing data. Why is there so much fuss? Type on your keyboard and hit the Enter key already. There shouldn't even be an argument here. It's not like one side is right and the other wrong - not by a long shot.

But here's the big picture: Your choice of computer does not matter. History will not recognize your brand of laptop; nobody will scrutinize your distribution of Linux of choice. Computers are like cars - tools for getting things done. I wholly believe that arguing about which kind of computer you use is not only detrimental to your potential contributions to society but also detrimental to your mental health, creating a virtual arena where choices become boxing matches and every option becomes a dual. The real world isn't about fighting; get up from your computer chair and experience the world for what it is - an opportunity to build a better Earth. There is absolutely nothing to gain in getting lost in the details - not even the size of your e-penis is consequential.

The myth of monopolies

I have oft heard a myth about companies that manufacture consumer products. The myth is that companies with expansive market shares have monopolies in those markets. I will take an objective (as much as I can) look at two controversial companies, Apple and Microsoft, and determine their potential status as monopolies.

First, we must understand the criteria for monopolies. To be a near-monopoly or a monopoly, a firm needs to have close to or all of, respectively, the sales in a specific market. That means, to be a near monopoly, one of three specific things must happen:

1. A firm controls a resource critical to a market.


2. A government signs a contract with a firm that makes the firm the only competitor.


3. A firm can make a product cheaper than anyone else can.

Any of those three things can turn a corporation into a monopoly. For instance: A company patents a specific technology and then sells it; the government contracts a single company to produce trains for a public railway; a firm can launch cheap long-distance telephony service by launching satellites cheaper than anyone else.

Once you are a monopoly, you have the market. There is no one else. You have all the sales. No one can compete with you, since there are no close substitutes. Coke and Pepsi are close substitutes, for instance, so they can't be monopolies. And the best part is that you can keep other companies out of your market by use of technology, legality, or force. That sounds great, doesn't it?

What really makes a company a monopoly is the presence of barriers to entry. If your company can keep other people out of the market, you have exclusivity. You are a monopoly. Now, there are many potential barriers to entry. If you are a large company, you are an incumbent. That means you have a big legal team, loyal customers, patents, research and development, and lots of advertising. Those are all factors that can keep another company out of your market. A new company is building a new operating system? Threaten the little guy with patents and advertise how great you are, and you have successfully kept another firm out of the market, etc.

So is Apple a monopoly in regards to the iPod? Well, the iPod has 75% of the market share. That's hardly limiting anyone else from entering the MP3 market - hey look! There are lots and lots of MP3 players! There are other big competitors in the market, like Creative, Sandisk, and Microsoft. Apple hardly controls the means of productions, since any of the other companies listed above produce MP3 players that can replace the iPod. Apple certainly doesn't have any legal power that prevents anyone else from creating a similar MP3 palyer - hell, apparently Apple can't stop companies from producing identical fake iPods!

Next up is Microsoft. You would probably say that Microsoft is a monopoly. First, are they the only operating system producer in the market? Nope. Say hello to Linux, Macintoshes, BSD, YouOS, and a Windows clone, ReactOS. Microsoft is certainly not alone. And certainly some of those are close substitutes for Microsoft Windows. Apple OS X is an obvious choice, as would be the Ubuntu distribution of Linux. Does Microsoft possess any resources crucial to the market? Maybe. Microsoft, like any large technology corporation has patents on code - in Windows. Microsoft likes to talk about those patents when bringing up the possibility of litigation to keep Linux from competing with Microsoft. That is a barrier to entry if I ever saw one. Threatening a group of volunteers with litigation is taking advantage of your status in the market. While it is possible to build an operating system without violating Microsoft's patents, Microsoft can scare businesses into shying away from Linux by making Linux look illegal.

Microsoft also has deals with hardware manufacturers, like Dell and HP. Windows is bundled with that hardware. That in turn makes life difficult for the other competing operating system developers, since the hardware companies won't bundle anything but Windows. That in turn leads to customer loyalty: Consumers know that Windows comes with every OS they buy, so they feel safe. The hardware companies in turn don't want their customers to feel alienated by bundling different OSes.

I covered iPods and Windows because those are the most frequently discussed brands when it comes to monopoly debates. While there are certainly more monopolies and mistaken monopolies in the wild, such examples are not particularly relevant at this point in time. I know that there are people who will disagree with me and those who will hold me up, but the fact of the matter is that the evidence truly decides. I have not covered all the evidence, to be sure: There are other mentionable examples of Microsoft's status as a monopoly that I deemed insignificant overall. All I can do is hope that I've convinced at least one person of the true status of the iPod and Windows in the market.

R&D v. Advertising

The technology sector is a very interesting area of the economy. It's not like other kinds of products - used by many, understood by few. And unlike most products, technology is dependent not only on public awareness but also on development. Computers are improving at a rate faster than any other product in history. If cars were computers, in the space of less than three minutes you could successfully complete an order for a Mercedes Benz that costs $3.99 and gets 1,000,000 miles per cubic centimeter of compressed air. (Sort of.)

The thing is, consumers hardly care about advanced technology. For most consumers, the most important criteria are, "Does it run fast?" and, "Does it work?" That is the image that technology companies - especially consumer technology firms - try to project. Every company wants to say about their computers, "These computers are so easy, a caveman could use them," and, "There is so much that you can do with our products." Thus, technology companies are faced with two challenges: To appeal to the public, and to build products that are one step ahead of anything a competitor can offer.

If a company builds a computer that is the best in the world - but never tells anyone about it - what good is it? If somebody builds a piece of crap - and then tells every person possible how beautiful it is - what good is it? That is the reason why firms specializing in computer-related products face such a challenge. Unlike the cola market, consumers can evaluate for themselves the quality of the product and make a conscious choice, and their preferences can change.

But once you buy a computer, you're stuck with it; not to mention that most people wouldn't be able to make a choice if they had to choose. I'm not just being arrogant. How did e-mail virii spread so quickly? People opened their e-mail attachments, unaware that it could do something. People just don't know. Many people think of computers as many people think of cars: You can use a car, but you don't know how it works. When it breaks, you take it to someone who can fix it; the same goes for computers.

Thus, firms have to not only stay ahead of the game and be able to tell people that. If a technology firm fails at the first objective, the firm loses market share in industries that purchase and depend on computers, because other firms will know which product is superior. If a technology firm fails at the second objective, the firm loses market share in consumer industries, which are just as important. In both the corporate and consumer markets, if the market finds that there is a better choice, the market will choose the better product. If neither the corporate nor consumer markets know about the product, then there is no point in producing it. Both objectives are important, and firms are continually evaluating which strategy to take: Whether to spend more resources developing a product, or more resources advertising a product.