What, no flux capacitor?

Today's blog post centers around two images, mainly because I had nothing else to post. My dad gave that e-mail to me after he got it, and I've kept it for five years in a paper preserving environment (i.e. my bulletin board).

I'm pretty sure that you won't get anything if you e-mail TimeTravel@DNS-Host.com, which is why I left the sender's address in. My dad's e-mail is pixelated, so as to preserve his privacy. The guy's "alternate e-mail" is also pixelated for his privacy, but I didn't pixelate the @aol.com portion for nostalgia's sake.

I'm not sure whether the message was sent by a prankster or a guy who really thought that he could travel back in time. Perhaps he was simply smoking too many "blue moon crystals."

Beta

Beta software - oh, how unfinished you are. More refined than alpha, but less stable than gold. Beta software means different things to different people, depending on who you ask. To programmers, beta means "developers only." To Google, beta means a service that is fully functional but unfinished. To gamers, beta is PC games 1.0 - Game developers frequently ship games with flaws that will be ironed out later.

I was playing Warcraft 3 online the other day. There's a cool features for custom maps - single-map campaigns with objectives outside the standard army-building format. The other day, I saw in the menu a beta version of Smash TV. Since I had played Smash TV as it was recreated in Starcraft, I jumped at the opportunity to play this game - even though it was still in beta.

I found an available player slot, where I found several other players and the game developer, who was hosting the map. I discovered a like-minded individual, who had decided that if nobody else would make a Smash TV for Warcraft 3, he would. Unfortunately, when we started the game, the developer noticed that there were no enemies to kill, thereby making victory or defeat impossible, and he realized that the game would need to be revised to fix that. The game ended, and all the players left.

Another time, I found a beta tower defense game. A tower defense game, to all you non-gamers, is a game where the object is to build attacking powers in a maze-like fashion to prevent enemy units from reaching their destination. Anyways, unlike the game of Smash TV, we unsuspecting players found the beta to be an interesting experience. Much of the game was unbalanced in the player's favor, although there were a few instances where the enemy units were too resilient. The game ended 3/4 of the way through, when one of the levels wouldn't start at all. And despite the debug commands the game dev put into the game, there was nothing to do but say good-bye and clear out.

Game developers, I salute you.

Sony PlayStation 3 Revisited

If you haven't noticed, I've been subjective about the PS3 before I started writing for this blog. When in May of 2006 Sony announced that the premium (read: only version anyone would ever consider of the ) PS3 would cost $600, I was pissed. The PS2 is a fine console and by now damn cheap, too. Sony has fumbled with the PS# since the beginning, and they've been arrogant about it to boot.

Sony assumed that people would not care about the exorbitant price tag - relying almost solely on brand name, just like I assumed - and buy the next version of a video game console. Sony's downfall came when they tried to push the PS3 as a media platform as well as a video game console. Here's the golden rule: If it plays video games, people will know it as a video game console. It plays Blu-Ray movies and MP3s? Consumers will still recognize it as a video game console. The Xbox 360? Yeah, it plays media, but if will forever be known as a video game console for consumers.

Sony pissed me off by figuring the cost of a Blu-ray disc player into the PS3, thus raising the price. Not only do I not want to spend $600 on a video game console, but I also have no interest in either of the high-def movie disc formats.

The market actually surprised me. The PS3 craze lasted only a week after the PS3's American launch, and then the whole franchise promptly imploded. When SCEA (Sony Computer Entertainment America) President Jack Tretton promised $1200 to anyone who could find a PS3 on store shelves, the writers of webcomic Penny Arcade found $13200 worth of merchandise in less than an hour. Simply put, PS3s aren't exactly flying off the shelves.

For the best market indicator, we turn to eBay. At the time of this writing, there are 1043 PS3 systems being sold - 98 Used. Two months ago, there ere 10 thousand such auctions. Many Playstation 3 consoles were selling for over $700. At this point, on the other hand, you're hard pressed to find a PS3 selling without a bundle for more than $600 - with games and controllers, $750 at most.

The scalping supply for PS3s is shrinking. Right now, there are 1886 Wii systems for sale on eBay - nine-fifths of the number of PS3s. In a month or two,practically no one will be selling PS3s as they're being sold. We will no longer see the majority of PS3s sold in mint condition. The PS3 seller will turn into a consumer who has finished using his or her console and now wishes to sell it. I'm not going to say that the PlayStation 3 has reached market saturation, but the supply curve is shifting downward; since all PS3s are the same, that means the price is declining, as well.

Sony has managed things very badly. They've completely misjudged the market. Even the future doesn't look bright. You know why? At this very moment, Nintendo Wiis are flying off the shelves. And with those Wiis are games. And when a consumer spends hundreds of dollars on the video game system, the chance of buying an additional console is minuscule - especially when the marginal cost of that second console is over twice what you paid for the first. Couple that with a low penetration of high-def television sets - necessary to fully enjoy the PlayStation 3's capabilities, and you have yourself a quagmire. Sony is taking a hit that will stay with them for years to come.

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

Worst. Hiatus. Ever.

Well, I've decided that I'm going to take baby steps. I've decided that I want to focus on the Internet. (Wow, what a commitment.) I'm going to not mention anything that didn't happen on the Internet or anything that doesn't have to do with the Internet. (Really creative, huh?) Any mentions of real life will be practically unintentional. So that means I'm not going to talk about politics. (Unless it's Internet politics.) I'm going to show you just how much of a nerd I am. (I hope you're not worried.) By the way, you might've noticed that my most recent blog posts have been shorter and less informative. That's because I've had the nasty habit of writing blog posts in fifteen minutes and publishing a short time later, because I was basically forcing myself to write. I'm not going to do that anymore. I will still try to publish at least thrice a week, but I won't be pushing myself to the point where quality suffers.

---

So, guess what? Muslix64 has cracked both HD-DVD and Blu-Ray. Cue the obligatory laugh from Nelson. This sentence is here so that I can quote Wikipedia for the third time in three sentences.

Isn't that funny? AACS is this super-advanced content protection system - two legs up from DVD encryption, which was found to literally be comprised of a few bits, which is pretty weak - and some guy discovers a workaround in eight days. Imagine if it takes you a decade to write this really intricate that's bound to win a Hugo or two, and then some reader discovers this big plot hole in the first chapter of three hundred and you no longer have any credibility. This is only kinda sorta like that. You might be able to fix the hole in later publications (if there are any), but for the present you're screwed. So after bypassing HD-DVD encryption, as an encore Muslix64 went on to bypass Blu-Ray technology.

So you'd expect HD-DVD movie rips to spread across the BitTorrent trackers like wildfire, right? Well, no. For one thing, a high def movie file can be as large as 20 GB. Considering that most hard drives are 200 to 300 GB, no one will be downloading very many HD movie rips. Then there's the fact that most people have Internet connections that don't exceed 11 Mbps - Megabits per second, equivalent to ~1.4 Megabytes per second. Consider that one Gigabyte is 1024 Megabytes. If you were to download a 20 GB - 20,480 Megabytes - file without interruption at 11 Mbps - a speed that few consumers ever experience - it would take you at least five hours (under optimal conditions). And would the quality really be that much better than a 700MB DVD rip? Not enough.

While the AACS bypass won't matter much now, look to the future, let's say five years, in 2012. Imagine that Blu-Ray is, or HD-DVD is, or both are, the dominant high-def video disc formats. One in two Americans has a high def movie player in his or her home. Internet Service Providers - don't forget the Internet - are now offering cheap service packages that are commonly 20 Mbps or even 40 Mbps. (I really think that kind of service will come to America, when in Japan consumers can have packages as fast as 100 Mbps.) At 40 Mbps, or 5 MBps, it'll take you less than three hours (again, under optimal conditions) to download 20 GB. You know what will happen then? The movie industry will, once again, be very concerned about piracy.

In the end, the movie industry will not trounce movie pirates. The Motion Picture Association of America has failed miserably at fighting movie piracy. Content producers will again and again try to combat piracy, but to no avail. There is no perfect defense. Devoted pirates will only find the weak points harder to find, but eventually they will be found. That is a matter of fact. It has been proven through the failure of DVD encryption and AACS encryption. It should be noted that a fix to the current AACS problem is eventual - I should be surprised if it does not come. But that fix will, in the end, be bypassed as well.

Content producers are trying to fight an unwinnable battle against smarter foes. The only way to defeat piracy is to make it impractical. The content producers - the movie studios - will have to compete. The market will change, or the movie studios will lose out. As consumer Internet access becomes faster and home computers become more accessible and monitors show better picture, a market will emerge for watching high definition content. And when your choices for watching that content are using expensive video discs and hardware that requires complex encryption verification or a speedy download that requires only your time, the choice will be clear.

Of course, ask someone more knowledgeable than me. (I may be wrong.)

Blog entry #48

I originally started this blog with the philosophy that a person with something to say should say it. Take that last sentence, for example: I didn't beat around the bush or use a more subtle topic sentence; I came out and said it. Within this past week I have been lax about updating my blog. I won't make excuses for it. It wasn't because I didn't want to write or because I didn't feel like it. My silence stems (not from sibilance but) from a lack of motivation. Simply put, I didn't have anything to say.

I read Digg every day: Thanks to the persistence of bloggers and news junkies who share my interests, Digg has become my primary news site. (I'm not referring, of course, to the blatant FUD articles, the fanboy speculation, and the conspiracy whispers.) But let's face facts; most of the news that people hear about everyday is worthless in a week, and the more important issues are covered by bloggers more well versed, researched, and articulate than I. And then there are the lesser known bloggers, and then the lesser still. I must be a 20th tier blogger. I thank my returning visitors, a few whom I have, according to StatCounter.com. Blogging is like the music industry, in a way: Some work for decades and never get famous. Others get lucky and achieve fame and sometimes fortune. (Of course, then there are the astroturf bloggers who no one will take seriously in a few months, but like pop stars they don't count.) So I'm basically publishing in a field populated by professionals and veterans, and I doubt the CSS theme I designed myself will put me over them. To use a 4chan idiom, I'm pissing in an ocean of piss.

So I'm at a crossroads. I can struggle to write about topics in general, I can specialize in a certain topic, or I can stop blogging entirely. I'm not blogging about my personal life, because that is even more insignificant than my opinions, since I'm not a celebrity (and let's face it, when you're a movie star or other celebrity no one takes your opinions seriously). Is my blog the new Knights of Labor: Failing because I'm trying to accomplish too much? It's difficult for me, because I have no clear path to follow. Maintaining three to four posts a week is difficult when you have nothing to write about, and there's nothing I hate more than filler. I hate writing filler. You can't read Jules Verne without skipping the inanely boring paragraphs.

Social Darwinism will have its way with me, and that's all there is to it. I love writing, but if there's nothing to write then I'll have to move on. I don't know how this is going to end. In the meanwhile, please don't expect much productivity from me within the next few days while I weight my options. Will blog entry #48 by my last? Stay tuned...

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.

I'm giving up on the Wii (for now)

Today I checked out Best Buy and Circuit City, to see if any Nintendo consoles were in stock, yet again. A few minutes before 10 A.M., I got to the big blue box store to find a line of 50 people - a line of kids, teens, adults, and elders that was, to my chagrin, still growing. I could tell from the demographics of the line that I would have virtually no chance of getting my hands on a Wii.

Circuit City was down the street, but the store had none - that is, for anyone to pick up and buy. If you wanted a Wii, you had to be there at 9 o'clock to get a voucher! I talked to a parent, who told me that to get a voucher you had to be in line by eight.

I briefly considered eBay. This standalone Wii sold for $353.53 + $29.99 shipping, for a grand total of $383.52. I could almost buy an Xbox 360 with that amount of money, and I could walk into any store for one, too. I just watched that auction end, too. (It's 11 A.M. here.)

There's not enough incentive for me to continually search for a Wii. There are only two games that appeal to me (Twilight Princess and Metal Slug Anthology), and neither of them have piqued my interest like, for instance, Assassin's Creed, and I won't need to pay $300 to play it when it comes out.

In fact, there are plenty of things I could buy with $300. I could buy an iPod, a Zune, a CD rack, 25 CDs from Amazon (I could get a special edition disc of Gulag Orkestar by Beirut for $18!), a new graphics tablet (My $30 pad works great), a new copy of SONAR 6 by Cakewalk (I could sure use AudioSnap for my music), a full year's subscription to World of Warcraft (not likely), a new cheap PC from Dell or HP (no chance of buying that), or even an external hard disk (I sure like parentheses). I could order any one of the above right now and have it in my hands a week or less from now. I don't even know when the next Wii restock will be, and who knows when I'll actually be able to go into a store and just buy one? I'm not the only one who's apparently having this trouble.

So you know what, Nintendo? Screw you. You should be doing a better job than this. Sony had a good excuse. Sony had screwed up everything else about the PS3 that it was natural that they would screw up hardware production. (In the Circuit City I was in, I found a demo PS3 that wouldn't respond to the controller. The background animation was still running, but nothing worked.) But, Nintendo, you were supposed to deliver four million units by January 1st, and you had the demand to sell that many - and yet you couldn't produce enough! I'm sick of having wasted a dozen hours or so driving around town and looking up rumors on forums.

It shouldn't be that hard to find a Wii!

With great celerity, Sony and Universal shoot themselves in the foot

I was ready to write an article about the PS3. I wrote half of it last night with the intention of publishing it this afternoon, but I got derailed. I had an essay ready about how Sony dropped the ball. Perhaps I'll complete it Saturday or Sunday. But for now, I'm going to rag on Microsoft and the Zune - or, more specifically, the companies behind the Zune.

Engadget has confirmed that the songs of roughly half the artists featured in the Zune Marketplace are nontransferable between Zunes - one of the MP3 player's biggest draws, already limited by the three-play/three-day limitation. Which artists? Musicians signed to Sony BMG and Universal Music Group. Remember that Microsoft is already paying $1 to Universal per Zuen sold? Well, this is what we get in return. Thanks a lot.

So what am I going to do about this? I won't buy any new CDs from artists signed to those labels. Used CDs are just fine. If I decide I want a copy of Good News for People Who Love Bad News by Modest Mouse, I can get it used from one of over a hundred Amazon users. Modest Mouse is, of course, signed to Epic Records, a subsidiary of Sony BMG.

This is no longer a matter of knowing that the Zune will die - I want the Zune to die. Between suing a few dozen thousand suspected file-sharers and trying to pass broadcast flag legislation and trying to even make CD ripping illegal, I've decided that I'm fed up. I will not buy new music from the big labels. Used music is just fine - Not only is it cheaper, but I also won't be contributing to record labels in buying used. Stick it to the Man!

Still no Wii

I guess I'm not the only one who wants a Wii. Right now there are 11,000 Wiis for sale on eBay. I guess I shouldn't be surprised. It's been almost two months since Nintendo released the Wii, and Nintendo still hasn't been able to meet the demand. Good Lord, Nintendo should have had the whole thing in the bag by January 1st - 4 million units sold, as promised? But Nintendo didn't deliver on shipping 4 million Wiis. They're giving waiting consumers like me time to rethink their decisions. If you're a company with the hottest game console in the world, you don't leave your consumers hanging for several months! That gives the hype time to die down, and you can't have that!

Fifty and two hundred dollars is no small price to pay. You can't spend that amount on an impulse buy. Tell consumers that they can buy a Wii and then not let them, and after a while they'll find some other use for that quarter of a thousand bucks. If you let people know that they can live without your product for an extended period of time, they will learn to live without you. I have never seen a Wiimote in person. I have never seen the console in action in person. I'm really frustrated about how badly Nintendo is going about this. Bitter? Yes. Nintendo should be doing a better job than this.

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.

Microsoft as a corporation

Are corporations really evil? Do "the corporations" want to brainwash you, control the media, and make themselves rich?

Do you really believe that?

As a student of economics, hearing people say stuff like, "Linux is better because it's not controlled by a corporation, and Microsoft sucks," makes me want to cry. Let me explain why.

There re four main types of businesses in the United States: Sole proprietorships, partnerships, corporations, and limited liability companies. The difference between partnerships (and proprietorships) and corporations is that corporations are not dissolved when the owners depart, corporations have to file more information with the government, and corporations are treated like people in court. Limited liability companies are small businesses (possibly with only one member) that - as the name implies - have less liability than proprietorships. Creditors can claim the property or assets of the owners of proprietorships and partnerships if the businesses owned by them collapse, but LLCs are not vulnerable to this.

So what exactly makes corporations evil? That's a serious question I'm asking. What's wrong with corporations?

The purpose of businesses, excluding non-profit organizations, is to make money; let us not delude ourselves. Companies don't exist to make the world a better place or provide children with flowers. Proprietors, partners, corporations, and companies all want to make money. So how do you make money? Thornton Wilder wrote it most plainly:

"A million is made by producing something that everybody needs every day."
--Horace Vandergelder, The Matchmaker

These are examples of useful things: Computers, breakfast cereal, paper, clothes. Not coincidentally, all those things are manufactured and sold by corporations.

Let's talk about computers. A while back, I claimed that Microsoft had a monopoly on the desktop OS market for two reasons: Microsoft has patents with which it can threaten other companies, and Microsoft has deals with major PC manufacturers. However, I'm going to correct myself. Microsoft does not have a monopoly on the desktop OS market.

Patents are not necessarily an indicator of a monopoly. Microsoft may have patents on code inside Windows, but other companies have patents on software (IBM, NTP, etcetera.). Microsoft's patents haven't threatened the development of Linux, Apple OS, or other operating systems. That makes it apparent that having patents does not automatically make a company a monopoly.

Microsoft's deals with Dell, HP, and other companies also don't make Microsoft the only game in town. Nothing prevents a person from dual-booting Ubuntu or FreeBSD, and Microsoft sure as hell isn't going to stop Apple from bundling Apple OS with its computers. Also bear in mind that it's possible to get a refund from PC sellers if you can prove that you chose not to accept Microsoft's terms of use when Windows' license agreement was presented to you. If Microsoft persuades PC manufacturers from bundling copies of Linux, that is Microsoft abusing its position as an oligopolist, not a monopolist. A small number of operating systems dominates the market: Microsoft Windows, Apple OS, Ubuntu Linux, and a few others. Microsoft is not the only game in town. They are not preventing other organizations from building their own operating systems.

So the crucial question remains: Is Windows a bad product if Microsoft is a bad corporation? But is Microsoft a bad corporation? No. The simple truth is that Microsoft intends to reduce its costs to a point where they can no longer spend any less - Just like ever other business, Microsoft strives for its efficient point. The people who run Microsoft will do whatever they think will make them the most money for the least cost. To Microsoft, this means the addition of restrictions and exclusivity - all in the name of profit. Microsoft isn't out to hurt the consumer and sing praises to the RIAA. Rather, I blame this on stupidity. Microsoft is afraid of lawyers. Just look at the Zune: If Microsoft enabled song sharing, the Zune would be technologically superior to the iPod, and it would have launched with a bang. But afraid of the RIAA and its member organizations, one of the most powerful companies in the world folded to a media distribution company, Universal.

It sounds like Microsoft doesn't care about the users, right? As long as management signs the OEM deals, nothing else matters, right? Wrong. Like every other software company, Microsoft has to convince you that Microsoft software is the best. There are two reasons for this: First, Microsoft knows that if it doesn't update its operating system, customers can and will move to one that does. Second, Microsoft, like every other software company, makes money when its product sells. Updating the product is an incentive to buy new versions.

I'm not excusing Microsoft for it's "embrace, extend, and extinguish" policy, nor for its shady influence on other companies. Microsoft is only as honest as the people that run it; a downside of corporations is that they give unscrupulous people a shield, since corporations are regarded as persons in the eyes of United States law.

I'm not going to get into whether or not Linux is actually better than a commercial product due to its non-commercial nature. I wrote this essay, because arguing that corporations are evil is just silly. I recognize the consumerist attitude that makes up modern America, but it's not inherently evil. Most Americans (and citizens of much of the rest of the world) want to make a lot of money, and for some people, that means running a business. Corporations don't love you, but they don't hate you either. It's important to remember that corporations are made up of people.

The next-gen disk format fight is hardly over

Blu-Ray and HD DVD - the two biggest contenders in what will soon be the battle for 2007 and the following years in the home entertainment market. Some folks have declared that the battle is handily won, thanks to the introduction of the HD DVD decryption program for the PC, BackupHDDVD by a user named muslix64 on the Doom9 forum website. Some people will surely think that the ability to copy HD DVDs means that people will attract more consumers to the brand.

However, Sony isn't about to give up so easily. The Blu-Ray brand has a larger following in Japan than in the United States, for one thing. As crazy it might sound, also consider the PS3: Those who have brought PS3s have also bought built-in Blu-Ray players. Sony has sold around a million units, whether consumers know about Blu-Ray or not. Sony's willing to bet that they've got their foot in the door and can keep it there.

So what does the HD DVD brand have? It has "DVD" in the name. That's a sort of advertising you can't get from anywhere else. Consumers see DVDs and see HD DVDs, and the two connect - just like that. Though Blu-Ray may have greater storage capacity, people won't know what the hell a Blu-Ray is, but a HD DVD - Why, that must be an advanced DVD! HD DVD also has Microsoft, the richest corporation in the world, singing the praises of the HD DVD. With 80% of the PC market share, you can bet your donkey that Microsoft is going to have the last say in this fight.

Warner Bros. announced two days ago that they're going to produce a disc called Total HD, a disc comprised of a HD DVD disc and a Blu-Ray disc. That will no doubt further the length of the battle. Don't know which format to pick? Why not both?

So who's the real loser in this fight? Everybody. A likely outcome will be that both types survive. This whole thing will be a big headache for everyone for the next five years. There will be Blu-Ray and HD DVD apologists, separately. It'll be an extension of the ol' Windows vs. Apple OS holy wars. Both HD DVDs and Blu-Rays will occupy space on the high definition disc shelf at your local Best Buy or Circuit City - just like DVD-, DVD+, and DVD-RAM, except worse.

Everybody's going to suffer, because neither company was willing to back down - a classic outcome completely along the lines of game theory. Game theory is applied to economics when talking about oligopolies - a few companies that control most of the market share for specific markets. Sony and Toshiba are oligopolies in the HD disc industry, responsible for Blu-Ray and HD DVD respectively. Note the prisoner's dilemma. According to this version of game theory, there are two options for each player - aggressive and passive. When Toshiba and Sony are aggressive, both trying to push formats on consumers, they both profit, but by very little. When both companies are passive, co-operating with each other (and in this case allowing Warner Bros. to step in and develop both formats on a single disc), their profits will be higher than if they both try to win; allowing both formats to work with each other will give customers leeway and encourage them to choose either type. Now, what if Toshiba chooses to exit the HD DVD market, and Sony wins the day? Or vice versa? One company would then take the prize and leave the other guy with nothing; this is a very unlikely conclusion, as both companies know that there is profit to be had - But when both giants are trying to wrestle for it, the profits for each contestant won't be so impressive.

One Apple fanboy in particular

As a devoted Digger through and through, as I have been for some time now, I am fascinated by one particular character from a cast crazier than Gene Wilder, Zero Mostel, and Richard Pryor all put together: Daniel Eran Dilger. The man seems to hate Microsoft for no apparent reason, other than that it's more successful than Apple - the jewel in Dilger's eye.

I first heard of Dilger when hundreds of Diggers in September Dugg a story about how recently announced iTV would change television. My first reaction was, Huh? Would a box with mysterious features really conquer the tube, which we all know to be the gospel? I wasn't very impressed by his article - no more so than I was with Mr. Dilger, who goes by Daniel Eran on his blog. (Eran is his middle name.) For some reason, one guy was calling himself a magazine. (Does that mean I'm a magazine, too? I have a blog!)

What astounded me was Dilger's absolute awe in able Apple's apposition. To Mr. Dilger, Apple is the gospel, the ultimate revelation. Dilger's series of essays on the iTV were speculative at best and unfounded at worst. To be fair, plenty of his other essays have some semblance of fact or solid base, but I did not see anything decent in my first impression. Practically every one of his entries mentions Microsoft - usually in ridicule. While the company undoubtedly deserves a number of lashes, Mr. Dilger seems to attack Microsoft for doing anything at all. It's sort of like beating a dead cow. He's even criticized Microsoft for building the Zune with a screen bigger than the iPod's. Mr. Dilger is at war with Microsoft, or so it seems.

One of his more questionable claims is that success of the Xbox 360 is a myth - an illusion of football players, guns, magic, and sorcery. Apparently selling 8 million units in one year is disappointing. The PS2 sold more units: Three million more! But Dilger doesn't quite seem to understand the console market: Note that last year, Sony sold 20 million PS2 units worldwide. (I'm using his source, from PC vs. Console.) With the arrival of the PS3, is has all but looked like the end of the PS2's life cycle: The Xbox 360 has been on the market for one year, and the PS2 six. The PS2 is an established brand with tons of games. The Xbox 360? One year, definitely not as many games. The reputation of a six-year-old console will bulldoze a newbie. In 2007, we'll see a lot more sales of the Xbox 360, with the arrival of Xbox 360 exclusives and other big wig games. Year two will be big for the Xbox 360, and the next three years will see plenty of Xbox 360 sales. Video game consoles have life cycles of five to six years: The PS2 came out in 2000, and the PS3 2006; the Xbox came out in 2001, and the Xbox 360 2005 (an unusually short lifespan of four years). Also, is it just me, or did Dilger compare a game console to a portable music player? That really doesn't make much sense at all.

But aside from the content, I tend to view Dilger negatively, because it seems someone has been gaming Digg. A Digger even compiled a list of likely fake users, controlled by a real person to artificially inflate the Digg count for Dilger articles. Furthermore, at some point in late November or early December, the Digg team blocked stories originating from RouglyDrafted.com. Dilger cried foul and for a short time appended each of his blog entries with a short, sordid tale of special interest groups like Microsoft paying Digg to censor Mr. Dilger. Excuse me if a claim like that doesn't raise his credibility. (All those appendices are gone, but they were amusing for a week or two.) Daniel Eran then moved to NewsTrust.net. He subsequently started reviewing his own essays, giving them favorable ratings without fail. Integrity, shmegrity. That sure puts to rest any doubts that at one point or another, Dilger was indeed Digging his own stories under different pseudonyms.

I don't like Daniel Dilger. I'm not fond of any fanboys, but Dilger takes the cake as the biggest Apple fanboy with the least amount of integrity. To my knowledge, Dilger has never admitted to Digging his own stories, but it seems pretty certain that he did it.

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?

My game status

Tomorrow, I will go to Best Buy and, once again, for the fifth Sunday in a row, attempt to bring home a Wii. The store opens at eight, I'll be unable to sleep in, grumble grumble, etc. etc. I'll be picking up the console and Twilight Princess. Then, using Buy.com Google Checkout promotion, I might order Metal Slug Anthology for $35. I love Metal Slug, but I'm still contemplating whether or not it's worth $35. Plus, Twilight Princess will keep me busy for a long time - 70 hours perhaps? It'll probably take me longer, since I'm not particularly skilled. Plus, it'll probably take me a little time to get used to the Wiimote.

Right now, I'm concentrating my game-playing efforts to conquering Viewtiful Joe on Adult mode, which is considerably harder than Kids mode. King Blue is really being a bitch to me, and I'll be happy when I finally kick his ass into an episode of Green Acres! I gotta give kudos to Capcom for such an inventive, refreshing game. Even after three years, the game is still good. There's also an anime version , strangely enough.

With winter break quickly approaching, I'll have time to enjoy the fruits of my investment. Rumor has it that Best Buy has been hoarding consoles for tomorrow, which might explain why Best Buy had no Wiis the last two Sundays I went to the store. I really don't want to be one of the people who has to wait until after Christmas to play the Wii. I've seen Wiis in person, but I haven't actually seen anyone in person use a Wii. From all accounts (except those from Gamespot), using a Wii is easy and fun. Ah, Christmas; the one time of the year we can all relax an act like consumer whores!