Dear Pat

Greg asks: You could and I believe still can, buy all the parts for a PC and build it yourself....

pberry — Sun, 15 Jul 2012 10:28:47 -0700

Greg asks:

You could and I believe still can, buy all the parts for a PC and build it yourself. Where are the entirely open, 100% user repairable, industry standard, kit laptops?

Excellent question, Greg! The answer is quite simple, and in the form of a question: Why buy an expensive kit when you can easily buy all the parts separately? Kits are for lazy people with too much disposable income and no Maker spirit. If you aren’t willing to painstakingly research each individual component, you might as well just sell your soul to the computer retail industrial complex. What good is owning a laptop if you can’t point to it as a marvel of your technical prowess? Or are you one of those people that wants something that “just works”, as if a functional computer is the end goal of all this? You don’t even write your own software do you?

My question now to you, Greg, is how do you even consider yourself a computer enthusiast?

Editor’s Note: Warren will be answering this question. Enjoy. Greg writes: Dear Pat, Why does...

pberry — Wed, 13 Oct 2010 11:33:56 -0700

Editor’s Note: Warren will be answering this question. Enjoy.

Greg writes:

Dear Pat,

Why does Hollywood insist on producing so many remakes? Are remakes as a total percentage of movies produced by large Hollywood studios even that large, or does it just seem larger because of aggressive marketing?

Dear Greg,

By now you should know there are no new ideas, only louder ones. In fact, there are only about 4 stories that have ever been told, and while some of the retellings involve more explosions than others, it doesn’t add anything to the story.

I’ll use, as a for instance, your favorite movie of all time. Let’s say it’s Fletch.

You have terrible taste in movies.

But let us dissect Fletch, boil down its greasy marrow and divine its past and future from the offal that is left. What themes does Fletch depend on? There are the obvious ones. The Byronic Hero, misunderstood and unappreciated. The Loner, set against the Brobdingnagian bureaucracy of both his employer and the LAPD. The Joker, always ready with a quip, an acerbic aside, or a stanza from Moon River even, or especially, in the face of danger or unwanted proctological exams.

Fletch, the character, is a 12-year-old boy’s ideal of “what I would do if…”

Fletch, the character, is the 35-year-old boy’s dream of “what I should have done…”

As for the story, it’s the Little Guy against The Man. People in power taking advantage of the unwitting masses, and only the shining knight of the fourth estate to stand between them and…what, drugs? I suppose?

(An aside: This was the 80’s. The sheer number of creative endeavors whose storylines centered around trying to stop the trafficking of illegal narcotics is ironic, considering that most of the narcotics were being ingested by the very people writing those storylines. But I digress.)

Let’s compare this to your second-favorite movie of all time and see what we get.

In this second movie, the main character is also an unappreciated, misunderstood loner. He spends time with the dregs and scrapings of society. Gamblers, con men, politicians. The Irish. But rather than becoming one with them, he stays apart, and above, them. And he does this with panache, with a smile, with a song.

And the story? Why, it’s that classic tale of victory over oppression, the lone hero drawing a line and saying “beyond this line you shall not pass.” It’s the Little Guy against The Man. He rails against the rats in charge, gathers support of the seething masses, and turns the tide against the forces of evil. He’s the gilded hero, crowned with the victory laurel of his people. He is, of course, Fievel Mousekewitz.

The hero of Don Bluth’s An American Tail.

Q.E.D., bitches.

PS: Jesus Christ, man. An American Tail? Not even, you know, The Great Mouse Detective?

Greg writes: Now that “antennaegate” has died down, would you say it was a high water mark of...

pberry — Mon, 19 Jul 2010 21:35:00 -0700

Greg writes:

Now that “antennaegate” has died down, would you say it was a high water mark of anti-Apple hysteria or just another example of the rotten nature of “tech journalism”? Should Apple have responded earlier to what appears to be mostly non-issue?

Dear Greg,

Disclosure: I own a trivial, but non-zero, number of Apple shares.

I suspect there is a certain psychology at work here and it’s rooted in the fact that Apple didn’t die in 1997. This was to be a glorious event in the tech world. This was to be the time when Apple got their due for the crimes they committed against technology. Crimes? Yes, Greg. Crimes. It’s clear that Apple was out to kill the idea that computers had to be difficult. Can you imagine not having to spends hours upon hours to learn arcane commands to perform even the most trivial of tasks? Sure, you might think that sounds great, but what about all the people that had already put in those hours. They had invested their lives into “knowing” computers and then along comes Apple giving away what they had to earn. Well, I’m sure you can imagine how pissed some folks were about this.

Now, as long as Apple stayed at the bottom of the computer market share, they could easily be ignored or ridiculed. The people that bought Apple products could be dismissed as being too dumb to know when they were being ripped off. Yes, it’s true…Apple tried to turn a sizable profit off their computers. Scandalous, I know. And in America of all places! The shame of being an Apple customer was palpable.

But Apple didn’t die in 1997. Steve Jobs, who had returned to the company he helped start from nothing took over and cleaned house. He unleashed the creative people inside of Apple. Apple looked to have life again, but the drum beat of “beleaguered” seemed to be all you ever read in the press. It had been foretold that Apple was going to die or get bought. Those were the only two options. Apple making a comeback was simply not in the cards. Luckily for Apple, Jobs rarely plays by the rules.

As we fast forward past the iPod, MacBooks, and even the first three generations of iPhones we come to today, where Apple is in a position of power. The company that was probably no more than three months from going bankrupt just over a decade earlier is now climbing to the pinnacle of the mobile device world. Here is where we have the convergence of the original “haters” that have always wanted Apple to simply go away and the type of folks that simply detest things which people seem overly eager to enjoy. We saw it with Obama as well. He had a message, people liked it and they set aside for a moment the fact that it was probably an unrealistic message. These people were ridiculed in a similar manner to those that are commonly referred to as the “Apple faithful.” When you see the world “magical” associated with a piece of electronics do you think “Wow, I wonder how it does that” or do you think “Anybody that believes that deserves a punch in the neck?” This is, of course, an oversimplification of the pathology of an “Apple hater”, but I think you get the point.

So, with this frame of reference I will say that the iPhone 4 antennae hysteria is just a continuation of what we’ve always seen with Apple. Detractors will of course claim that anybody that says anything positive about Apple, or something negative about an Apple competitor, is simply a “fan boy”, a “sheeple”, or an “Apple apologist”. As if ad hominem attacks somehow make facts disappear. You can sense the extreme sense of joy they take from seeing Apple “get theirs”, for being “arrogant”, “closed”, and “telling people what they should like.”

I’m not exactly sure what Apple should have done, but I will tell you one thing, I trust Steve Jobs to do a better job running Apple than anybody writing about Apple. Personally, as a shareholder, I was fine with the approach.

Kim writes: Dear Pat, I don’t understand why there is debate about flash…using it or not using it....

pberry — Tue, 15 Jun 2010 23:45:50 -0700

Kim writes:

Dear Pat,

I don’t understand why there is debate about flash…using it or not using it. Can you explain?

Kim

Dear Kim,

When I hear the word debate I tend to think of the fabled presidential debates of old. What’s going on here is more like some bad Pee Wee Herman skit. There are actually valid arguments to be made for or against, but those haven’t really been discussed much.

Basically, Apple has decided that it doesn’t want Flash running on their mobile devices. There are reasons both historical and technical, but at the end of the day they just said ‘no’ and that was that. Adobe has decided that it really wants Flash to run on Apple mobile devices because it’s like a gold rush for application developers. Why does Adobe care? They make most of their money selling tools to developers and designers. They thought they would extend Flash to make generic “apps” that could run on the iPhone. Oh, and Android-based phones. And whatever other platform they could get their tool to work with.

No, you can imagine how developers that know Flash would totally dig this setup. They do something one time in Flash, hit a button and it craps out an app for every mobile device that could run Flash. Now, you can probably also imagine that Apple telling them that “NO EASY APP FOR YOU” would totally kill their “IMMA GONNA BE RICH” buzz. Well, for now at least, that’s just how the game is going to be played.

Now, this is for mobile devices only. Using Flash for mobile devices right now is silly because not only is it not on the iPhone, it’s not really working on any other mobile device either. Oh, there are some early beta releases floating around and it almost works on youtube, but I’m pretty sure none of them work with Hulu. So, without those two sites we’re basically left with Facebook games and Bejewled. Oh, and Bejewled 2. I’m pretty sure we’ll survive. Somehow.

I hope that has cleared up any questions you had about Flash.

Lauren write: Where do socks go when they disappear? Lauren Dear Lauren, They go to a better...

pberry — Tue, 15 Jun 2010 11:05:51 -0700

Lauren write:

Where do socks go when they disappear?

Lauren

Dear Lauren,

They go to a better place. A place called Socktopia. I’m sure you’ve noticed that socks don’t disappear in pairs. They think they’re being clever and that we wont notice that one of them is gone. It’s like they don’t know we have two feet or something.

Anyway, where is this “Socktopia”? You’ve seen or read The Chronicles of Narnia, yes? Okay, now just imagine that your dryer is the magic wardrobe, but instead of going to Narnia it goes to Socktopia. Here every sock can be an individual, without worrying being conjoined to their sibling.

So there you have it. “Mystery” solved.

Why are the pixies not playing in NorCal?

Mon, 14 Jun 2010 22:12:57 -0700

Dear Anonymous,

The Pixies are not playing in NorCal. Yet. Band touring schedules are often as ridiculous to us as they are annoying to the band members themselves. It’s all about venues, travel times, and trying to keep everybody from killing one another. The current leg of the tour, as listed at their new site, only has one California stop. I’m sure this will be rectified with future shows during additional legs of the tour.

Cody writes: Do you feel a sense of entitlement with age? When does this happen? Can you explain at...

pberry — Sun, 06 Jun 2010 10:52:00 -0700

Cody writes:

Do you feel a sense of entitlement with age? When does this happen? Can you explain at what point in a person’s life they stop viewing themselves as youthful/invincible and start being overprotective about what they have (ex: lawns). Any advice you can offer that can help me prepare for the perspectives of old age would be greatly appreciated. Thanks so much. Cody

Dear Cody,

Get off my lawn. Yes, yes…every softball deserves to fly high into the outfield and hopefully over the fence. But sports metaphors aren’t why we’re here. You’re curious about entitlement with regard to aging and responsibility, which is funny considering your graduating class is being greeted with the worst unemployment in decades. Okay, yeah, that’s not funny at all.

So, when does a sense of entitlement begin? Actually, contrary to what you might think, it starts as soon as you’re born. It grows steadily from then on through the late teens. In certain populations, people not named Paris Hilton for instance, it starts to ebb as life becomes more personally controlled. You know, like when you have a lawn. If you helped that lawn grow to be a lush, yet tiny forest that wastes precious fresh water from our ever dwindling supply, then damn straight your gonna lash out at some punk riding his bike across it for kicks. Of course, as you age, the control over your own life starts to fade again. Real entitlements like Social Security and Medicare start to kick in. You expect your kids to do stuff for you because, well, I’m sure everybody has their own set of reasons and rationalizations. My friend, and sometimes co-author, feels that when the whole “I brought you into this world, I can take you out” no longer applies, you feel entitled because you didn’t take them out. Which I can totally get behind.

My advice to you depends on where you feel you are on the spectrum. If you feel that you have no sense of entitlement I can only assume that you’re nearing middle age, and thus are not in need of any advice. I strongly suspect, given the oh so subtle snark in your question, that you might be emerging from the ebb. Every birthday brings another year where you feel yourself getting dumber because you’re shown daily how much of the world you know absolutely nothing about. You force feed yourself as much knowledge as you can every day, only to discover that you’re just still digging that hole. At which point you just say, you know what, I totally need a lawn. Lawns rarely add to your growing fear that you know absolutely nothing. Even when they die, you know it was from lack of water or the neighbor’s dog pissing on it too much.

In reality, you don’t need my advice at all. You live life as you need to live it, yelling at kids on your lawn when the need arises.

Greg writes: Looking at the long picture of American demagogues, like Limbaugh, Hannity, Coulter,...

pberry — Thu, 03 Jun 2010 22:52:48 -0700

Greg writes:

Looking at the long picture of American demagogues, like Limbaugh, Hannity, Coulter, O’Reilly and Beck, are they only in it for the money? Does anyone who engages in political demagoguery even believe in what they are saying or is it all for entertainment purposes? Who are the demagogues on the left, or is there only Michael Moore?

Dear Greg,

Yes. No. Chompsky. Moore is rich and fat, thus making him ineligible for leftist demagoguery. Sure, there are some who want to put Al Gore in that category, but those people are simply ignorant or are just being intentionally obtuse. Olbermann? Please. The man now makes a living mostly through playing clips of Fox News. Maddow? Too new. Although being a woman and a lesbian probably scores her some serious leftist points. If Chomsky isn’t good enough for you, I guess I would have to say the last great hope for demagoguery on the left rests with Flo, the Progressive Insurance lady. Progressive. Get it?

Greg writes: What will become of poor Flash now that Apple has declared “war” on it, and Microsoft...

pberry — Mon, 24 May 2010 16:38:00 -0700

Greg writes:

What will become of poor Flash now that Apple has declared “war” on it, and Microsoft has announced it will support h.264 in IE9? Will it go the way of the dodo or will it be ultimately vindicated on Google’s Android platforms? Is there even a “war” on Flash at all? Is Flash “open” in the same way that Webkit or Firefox are? What does it mean to be “open” anyway?

Dear Greg,

That’s quite a question! Since you posed this question there have been a few major events that will undoubtedly have an impact on the whole Flash situation. The first is that Android 2.2, aka Froyo (is it bad that the first hit on Google right now for ‘froyo’ goes to Urban Dictionary?), will include a beta version of some kind of Flash plugin for the Android web browser, which as we all know is based on WebKit. The second is that Google is open sourcing WebM, some video thing they bought a while ago, and now h.264 has a legit competitor.

Now, I know you’re thinking Jeebus this crap is boring, where are the jokes? and I wish I could bring the funny on this, but lets face it, nerd fights are about as interesting as watching somebody calculate Pi to 100 digits. By hand. So, lets just get down to it.

Flash will continue to do just fine on the desktop but will struggle in the mobile world. It may be the same failed mentality that Microsoft had with Windows Mobile that will ultimately be its undoing. “Hey, lets take this thing and just make it smaller!” That has pretty much been a disaster for trying to make it in the mobile world and it seems to be how Adobe is going with Flash. We’ll see though. I’ll take the under on there being vindication though.
The “war” on Flash is a PR creation. Apple works with Adobe to make Flash better on the desktop. Apple also decided that Flash wasn’t welcome on iPhone OS devices (iPhone, iPod Touch and iPad). Why does Adobe care? Because mobile is the new gold rush and they want in on that. Of course, up until ‘Froyo’ they didn’t have much to show anybody, so I’m not sure where all the righteous indignation really came from. Then again, it is the valley and most of the CEOs are crazy. I hope this was the non-answer you were looking for.
Flash is “open” in the same way that Microsoft Word documents are “open”, which is to say in ways that nobody really cares about. But, if you want to compare Flash to Firefox, the answer is a simple no.
The ‘openness’ of anything technology related is something that you should avoid discussing at all costs. It’s a conversation killer, in that you’ll either kill people with boredom or instantly polarize the entire room to the point where they will physically attack each other over the language nuances in software licenses. There are many levels of zealotry regarding open, and Flash barely makes the bottom rung.
Bonus answer: WebM is a total unknown right now. Google has promised that’s it’s free, so the hippies at Mozilla and Opera are all jazz hands about it, but they also say that if somebody hits you with a patent suit that you’re on your own. But it’s totally cool to use because Google checked it out and promises you’re in the clear. But seriously, you’re on your own. Even though it’s totally awesome and free and open. Microsoft and Apple now have to decide if they want to bother going through their own legal/technical/patent review or just stick with only supporting h.264. My prediction is that without some patent miracle, Apple and Microsoft will politely decline to include support in their distributions. I’m sure Google will make add-ons, extensions, or plugins available to users of IE and Safari though.

You see, Greg, Flash was created to fill technology gaps in browsers and the HTML standard. Like any technology, it was abused with reckless abandon. You’ll notice that popular extensions or add-ons to browsers today help you block Flash content. It’s not quite irony, but it still cracks me up. You know, when there’s no good lolcats on the internets. Apple has a history of leaving behind things it thinks are crufty. Do you remember the ragegasms that were sparked by the exclusion of a floppy drive in the first iMac? Yeah, nobody else does either. Today those gaps are being filled with new standards and in the end, Flash will either fade away or find new gaps to fill.

Update

It seems I missed the announcement that IE will support WebM (aka VP8). Oh, but I was right about how it could happen:

In its HTML5 support, IE9 will support playback of H.264 video as well as VP8 video when the user has installed a VP8 codec on Windows.

As we said at MIX recently, when it comes to HTML5, we’re all in.

If by all in you mean “we’ll let the user install the codec because we don’t want to distribute it because our lawyers are afraid we would be the target of a patent lawsuit if we did and we’re not going to be on the hook for millions because Google screwed up on the due diligence”, well, then I suppose you are. But, now Apple will be in a tough spot to not at least offer the level of support that Microsoft will have.

Editor’s Note: It’s probably not wise of me to do this, to expose my own writing for the...

pberry — Mon, 03 May 2010 22:06:54 -0700

Editor’s Note: It’s probably not wise of me to do this, to expose my own writing for the shallow, grammatically poor, semi-literate ravings that they are by letting my friend Warren provide answers where I have so completely failed Greg with my own attempts. But screw it. It’s a big innernet and there’s room for both of us on this humble site. So without further ado, or spelling errors, I give you Warren S. Taylor and his response to Greg regarding software developers.

Dear Pat,

Why do software developers think that no one understands but themselves what it is they do?

Dear Greg,

Software developers are sociopaths. They hate themselves and others, and if given the chance, would steal your woman and your truck, and shoot your dog, not out of spite or malice, but because the dog, simply by virtue of lacking dexterous fingers, could not be taught to use EMACS properly.

Historians argue amongst themselves about who was the first programmer. This is because historians have nothing better to do, and are themselves sociopaths of a different nature, ones who have no place in a modern service-based economy. Many of them also cannot be trained to use EMACS. A modern historian’s most repeated phrase is “do you want fries with that?” but his second-most repeated phrase is “those who do not know history are doomed to repeat it.” They often repeat this phrase to prospective employers, when interviewing for jobs that don’t leave them smelling like rendered tallow and dried tears.

The earliest software developers were not computer programmers; for what is software, but a series of rules set down by the figurative godhead known as The Programmer? And what is a computer, except millions of circuits, each consisting of thousands of transistors? A computer is little more than the physical representation of the theological golem that exists in the mind of the programmer; it is a mindless beast of unimaginable power, a beast, not easily tamed, that only exists to serve the whims of the Godhead Programmer. A beast that needs to be coaxed and prodded, controlled through threat and bribe, a beast that does what it’s told, exactly as it’s told…as long as you can make the trains run on time.

As such, there have been software developers as long as there have been systems to program. From the time Medieval Fiefdoms received the first virus in their inbox, software developers have been building and breaking, defending and cracking the systems that life itself runs on. Just ask the Europeans what they thought of the Trojan Horse that led to a cascading failure, and eventually them having to reinstall their OS, but only after calling Tech Support. Unfortunately, not every software developer is created equal, and often a hastily applied patch can leave a back door open that an even more malicious hacker can exploit, leading to another expensive call to Tech Support.

In short, Greg, the modern software developer thinks that no one understands, because they don’t. And he’d have it no other way.

Greg writes: Dear Pat, Why do software developers think that no one understands but themselves what...

pberry — Sat, 01 May 2010 23:33:49 -0700

Greg writes:

Dear Pat,

Why do software developers think that no one understands but themselves what it is they do?

Dear Greg,

As always, you come to me seeking guidance on the more perplexing issues of the day. This is truly a difficult question and I am humbled that you would depend on me to inform you on this topic.

Delusions of grandure, maybe? Honestly, I have no idea.

Greg writes: Dear Pat, Is the iPhone like North Korea? Dear Greg, No.

pberry — Fri, 30 Apr 2010 23:30:48 -0700

Greg writes:

Dear Pat,

Is the iPhone like North Korea?

Dear Greg,

No.

Greg writes: Dear Pat, Is Pat Buchanan a secret Latin Lover, or just a loony? Dear Greg, The Nixon...

pberry — Wed, 28 Apr 2010 20:06:53 -0700

Greg writes:

Dear Pat,

Is Pat Buchanan a secret Latin Lover, or just a loony?

Dear Greg,

The Nixon speech writer? The guy that helped launch Crossfire? They guy that coined the phrase “I’m a contra too”? The one that thought Bonzo going to Bitburg was a good idea because it showed the Jews that Reagan wasn’t subject to their pressure and then got 3,407 votes in the largely Jewish Palm Beach County during the 2000 presidential election? The same Pat Buchannan that still gets a spot of MSNBC, right? You do know what MSNBC is right? It’s not just part of the “main stream media”, it’s “left leaning”. Which means that it’s not right leaning or centrist or … whatever. The point is Pat Buchanan is on MSNBC.

The Pat Buchanan that spoke at the 1992 GOP convention and said:

Yes, we disagreed with President Bush, but we stand with him for freedom to choice religious schools, and we stand with him against the amoral idea that gay and lesbian couples should have the same standing in law as married men and women.

and also said:

Most of all, Ronald Reagan made us proud to be Americans again. We never felt better about our country; and we never stood taller in the eyes of the world.

and also said:

Friends, this is radical feminism. The agenda Clinton & Clinton would impose on America–abortion on demand, a litmus test for the Supreme Court, homosexual rights, discrimination against religious schools, women in combat–that’s change, all right. But it is not the kind of change America wants. It is not the kind of change America needs. And it is not the kind of change we can tolerate in a nation that we still call God’s country.

It’s even better to watch it as it played on TV.

The guy that said, “in a way, both sides were right” with regard to the Civil War. The guy that thought he should sue David Duke because he was stealing his “intellectual property”?

Now, as long as this is the Pat Buchanan you’re talking about, and I think it is, I would have to go with loony. I’m also afraid I’m starting to hate you a little for asking this question which caused me to do the staggering amount of research and read and listen to what this jerk spews. I’m shocked, and frankly a little disappointed, that Rachel Maddow never sucker punched him during a show.

Greg writes: Is Apple the focus of pure EVIL in the modern world? Many people seem to think so, and...

pberry — Wed, 28 Apr 2010 07:05:00 -0700

Greg writes:

Is Apple the focus of pure EVIL in the modern world? Many people seem to think so, and by people I mean Ubuntu users. Isn’t Hitler, like, more evil by comparison?

Dear Greg,

No and yes. In that order. Perhaps I should elaborate on that.

To truly judge Evil we must go back to the beginning and watch Time Bandits. From this, we learn that Evil lives in the Fortress of Ultimate Darkness. Now, I don’t know about you, but I’ve been to Palo Alto and I never saw anything like that. You would think something like that would stick out in a neighborhood, right? Okay, so now we’ve established that the Fortress of Ultimate Darkness is not in Palo Alto.

As we all know, Steve Jobs rules, err… runs Apple by way of being the CEO. Where does Steve Jobs live? That’s right, Palo Alto. Where do we know the Fortress of Ultimate Darkness to not be? Again, Palo Alto. Right there you have enough evidence to stand up in a court of law, proving beyond a reasonable doubt that because Steve Jobs lives in Palo Alto, he can’t live in the Fortress of Ultimate Darkness, which means he is not Evil. If Steve Jobs is not Evil, how can the company that he runs be evil? It can’t! It’s unpossible.

It seems you may have been mislead by these “Ubuntu users.” I tried to figure out what Ubuntu is, and the best I could come up with was an “ancient African word meaning ‘can’t install Debian’”. At that point it seems like a wild goose chase going from one nonsense word to another, so I gave up. Anyway, you got played, my friend. The next time you see an Unbuntu user, I suggest you try not to make eye contact and simply walk the other way. It will save the hassle of all this confusion you seem to have about certain topics.

As to the last part of your question, I’d just assume not get into anything involving Hitler. Unless you count watching Band of Brothers, which is awesome.

Greg writes: Dear Pat, What’s the deal with untucked shirts and loosened ties? I don’t think Jeremy...

pberry — Mon, 26 Apr 2010 22:47:07 -0700

Greg writes:

Dear Pat,

What’s the deal with untucked shirts and loosened ties? I don’t think Jeremy Davies’ character from Lost ought to be setting the sartorial trends for our nation’s youth.

Dear Greg,

The deal with untucked shirts and loosened ties is about looking sharp, while still having the freedom of movement to kick some serious ass. Now, I’m sure you’ll throw the entire James Bond franchise at me as an example of how one would really look sharp and kick ass. To this I answer, it’s complicated. If you haven’t heard of quantum physics, it has to do a lot with that. I would explain it to you in great detail, but as I already mentioned, it’s really, really complicated. I can’t stress enough how complicated it is and how difficult it would be for me to explain it to you in terms that you could understand. It could take years, and that would really only get through maybe half of what you would need. I’m sorry, I just don’t have that kind of time.

As to your notion that Mr. Davies should not be setting the “sartorial trends” for our children, I must strenuously object. I suppose you would welcome back the days of Mark “Don’t Call Me Marky Or I’ll Kill You” Wahlberg in Calvin Klein briefs or perhaps you would have our children take after Miley Cyrus? Britney Spears perhaps? At least with the Davies’ look you can tuck your shirt in and cinch up your tie and in a heart beat you’re ready for dinner with grandma.

Greg writes: Dear Pat, If OSS is free, why isn’t it the dominant force in desktop...

pberry — Sat, 24 Apr 2010 16:38:00 -0700

Greg writes:

Dear Pat, If OSS is free, why isn’t it the dominant force in desktop computing today?

Dear Greg,

OSS (Open Source Software for you non-hipsters) has failed to become a dominant force in desktop computing because most of it royally sucks. It’s really that simple. For every Firefox or Adium I can give you 10 or more utter disasters. But Pat! How is that any different from commercial software? A fair question (although slightly unfair that I put words in your mouth), with multiple answers.

Commercial desktop software needs to be sold. To be sold, potential customers have to know about the software, which leads to advertising and general awareness. Remember when Mozilla bought an ad in The New York Times? Yeah, you have to do stuff like that to get people to know about your stuff. Go figure.
Commercial desktop software has UI (user interface) designers. It’s unfair to say that nobody is designing the UI for OSS desktop software, but more often than not it’s done by programmers for programmers. In my experience with OSS products, this leads to interfaces that generally resemble the cockpit of a Boeing 747. The question isn’t how little can we show the user, it’s how many buttons can we fit in a toolbar? Commercial software can fall prey to this as well, but there is enough commercial software that doesn’t. I’m not sure the same can really be said for OSS. When UI is recognized as an important part of the product, it’s often run by group consensus or random experimentation.
Commercial desktop software has a purpose. Again, it needs to be sold, so there needs to be a market. If there is no market, there are no sales and the product goes away. OSS is often built to “scratch an itch” and not necessarily to meet a market demand. There is often no cost to the developer to just dump their last build up on some free hosting site and leave if there to rot for all eternity, or at least until SourceForge finally shuts down.
OSS often tries to simply clone successful commercial software. Yeah, I’m looking at you, Open Office. That cloning effort often fails, so why bother using it? Dominating a market can be hard when nobody is paying the rent. Not impossible, just difficult.

I would still wager that the main reason, as I listed above, is just that people don’t know about it. The people that do know about it, know if it will work for them. Lets take people that use Photoshop for instance. They pay a non-trivial amount of money to Adobe, although compared to a yearly salary it’s relatively small. They probably know about The Gimp and that it would cost them $0 to download, install, and use. They probably also know that it’s not going to actually do any better at getting them paid for their work. In fact, if their work really does require the complexities of Photoshop, it’s likely that The Gimp would actually hinder their work. To paraphrase jwz, it’s only free if your time has no value. If using Photoshop costs you n hours and you can do the same job using The Gimp but it takes you n*x hours, x better be pretty damn small because over the course of a week, month, or year that’s costing you money.

But mostly, it just sucks. Commercial software sucks too. It just usually sucks less just enough to get people to pay for it. It reminds me a bit of Office Space.

That’s my only real motivation is not to be hassled, that and the fear of losing my job. But you know, Bob, that will only make someone work just hard enough not to get fired. — Peter Gibbons

Commercial software: working just hard enough so that you don’t switch to crappy OSS software.

PS — To the fans of desktop OSS that I’ve offended, I just want to say that you have your opinions and I have mine. It’s a big internet and there’s room for everybody.

Welcome

pberry — Sat, 24 Apr 2010 09:59:00 -0700

I have this friend, Greg. He sends me questions. Here is where I will answer them.

If you have questions, I can probably answer them as well.