So I've been using Linux as my only operating system for a few weeks and I'm starting to wonder why people run Windows. Well, maybe I can think of a few reasons people are scared to stray away from their beloved monstrosity.
Linux is different: No shit. It's not Windows, nor does it try to be. That's like saying you can't drive a BMW 740i because you've been driving a Dodge Neon your whole life.
Emotional Attachment: I don't understand this at all. People get so attached to their OS that they completely ignore it's flaws, no matter how crippling. Why can't I directly mount an ISO file in Windows? Geez. if you like Windows so much, why don't you marry it?
Habit: So what if you're used to doing everything in Windows? Before I was potty trained I shat in my pants, but I adjusted and let me tell you, the toilet is a Hell of a lot better.
It's not user friendly: Have you ever tried to install Windows? What's so friendly about that?
Software Dependency: You don't need Microsoft Word. No, you don't. Dozens of programs can access Word files. Get over it.
It's Confusing: No, it's straightforward. No assigning partitions random letters and masking everything behind a shiny, but misleading interface.
Price Tag: Ever hear the phrase 'You get what you pay for?' It's a lie. Think about this: Are you going to drop $600 to buy Windows Vista?
Hardware Dependency: No Linux drivers for your [insert device here]? No problem. Linux will probably come with one anyway. Unlike Windows, Plug and Play actually works in Linux.
Security: Self replicating viruses are amazing from a programming standpoint. Not so much when you get one. You won't in Linux. Ever.
So if you still don't want to give Linux a chance, that's fine. Just don't run to me (or someone like me) to fix your Windows installation.
Half Assed Rant by Rich Moore
Tuesday, January 23, 2007
Monday, January 08, 2007
The Woes of Wifi
Although wifi is a relatively new technology (at least new enough to be inadequately supported on less popular platforms), it's limitations far outweigh the small amount of convenience we get out of it. Sure, the ability to connect to the Internet without having to use a Cat5 cable is nice, as long as you're close enough to your access point. The severely limited range of the wifi signal shatters the illusion of freedom and makes you feel as though there is a virtual cable attached to your machine, locking you into a rough 30 meter sphere.
Wifi is also a far too ambiguous technology. Instead of having a standardized chipset like other technologies (namely serial, parallel, USB, and firewire ports), there are upwards of 12 different wifi chipsets, many of which won't work with a generic driver. Some chipsets won't work with some operating systems and other hardware, and many manufacturers omit critical drivers for certain operating systems, favoring to provide more support for those who need it-naive Windows users. There is no need for these manufacturers to make things so hard on those who stray away from Windows, but they do.
To replace wifi on a large scale, I have a few possible solutions (listed in order of feasibility):
Massive wifi access towers placed at strategic locations around the globe (starting with countries who are willing to pay for it, of course). We have FM radio towers scattered everywhere. We have cellular phone towers scattered everywhere. Why can't we build towers with high power wifi transceivers on them? Or better yet, add wifi access points to existing cellular towers? That would cut the cost dramatically and eliminate the strategy involved in finding appropriate spots for new towers. These terrestrial antennas could provide millions of people with much needed Internet access, almost anywhere they venture.
The second possibility is also based on an existing technology; satellites orbiting the globe provide almost every means of communication. Television, radio, phone, and even Internet access are being delivered by great machines in the sky as you read this. The problem is that a connection to the Internet via satellite is incredibly expensive because service providers are driven by old fashioned capitalism and want to recuperate the cost of their million dollar investment. For a solution, we should look to NASA. They launch things into space all the time at the expense of tax payers, so why not satellites designed to deliver Internet access to anyone with a small dish?
Article by Rich Moore
Wifi is also a far too ambiguous technology. Instead of having a standardized chipset like other technologies (namely serial, parallel, USB, and firewire ports), there are upwards of 12 different wifi chipsets, many of which won't work with a generic driver. Some chipsets won't work with some operating systems and other hardware, and many manufacturers omit critical drivers for certain operating systems, favoring to provide more support for those who need it-naive Windows users. There is no need for these manufacturers to make things so hard on those who stray away from Windows, but they do.
To replace wifi on a large scale, I have a few possible solutions (listed in order of feasibility):
Massive wifi access towers placed at strategic locations around the globe (starting with countries who are willing to pay for it, of course). We have FM radio towers scattered everywhere. We have cellular phone towers scattered everywhere. Why can't we build towers with high power wifi transceivers on them? Or better yet, add wifi access points to existing cellular towers? That would cut the cost dramatically and eliminate the strategy involved in finding appropriate spots for new towers. These terrestrial antennas could provide millions of people with much needed Internet access, almost anywhere they venture.
The second possibility is also based on an existing technology; satellites orbiting the globe provide almost every means of communication. Television, radio, phone, and even Internet access are being delivered by great machines in the sky as you read this. The problem is that a connection to the Internet via satellite is incredibly expensive because service providers are driven by old fashioned capitalism and want to recuperate the cost of their million dollar investment. For a solution, we should look to NASA. They launch things into space all the time at the expense of tax payers, so why not satellites designed to deliver Internet access to anyone with a small dish?
Article by Rich Moore
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
