The games companies didn't kill the PC gaming market, the PC gaming market killed it. When there are almost limitless ways to configure a computer, and then as a development team you have to account for all of these, or at the very least be very aware of what does and doesn't work for your game, the costs rise pretty significantly.

Or, you can go to the console market, that has at best two very well defined platforms that do not vary (three if you have a wide audience that includes the Wii). Let's see... Should I develop for two platforms that will not change for at least five years after their initial release, or develop for a single "platform" that has an infinite number of almost unique configurations that changes at almost a constant rate and holds the mantra that "if it wasn't released within the past week it's obsolete"?

You tell me. Personally I was tired of being told that my hardware was too old, and prefer to pony up $300 every five years instead of every 6 months.

The same market that also believes that Internet Explorer and the Internet are logically equivalent.

From their site:

I would imagine that sure, they had that taken care of, but let's not forget that TWC has already been firmly established in this area already, so it wouldn't be a complete startup to begin with. Much of their equipment could be upgraded, and the new equipment or facilities that would be required to be installed would not match the amount of zoning/permitting that the government needed to get through. Perhaps you'd differ, but I'd consider this advantage to "level" the playing field between Gov't and TWC. Remember, Gov't isn't a telecommunications company that has been doing this for decades, it's (in this case) a general-purpose decision-making body.

And once again I'd point to the response I just made, TWC isn't a startup therefore it wouldn't need to allocate new resources (or the wealth needed to start a venture like Greenlight). The resources that they would need to allocate could either be pulled from elsewhere, or they could use resources from their national-level company, etc. Regardless, once again I'd say the fact that they would use pre-existing Gov't resources should be "allowed" if this is viewed as a cost-competition, because they are starting a telecommunications business from the ground-up.

You may not (and probably don't) agree with me, but you brought up some great points that I clearly neglected and honestly didn't think about. Touche.

The fact that a CITY GOVERNMENT was able to enter the market FROM THE GROUND UP, cover all entry costs associated with starting the business, and then still offer a monthly fee that beats the pants off of the best private company in the area? That REALLY tells you how lazy the cable companies have gotten.

I'm not really big on having bigger government, but really this article (or discussion) shouldn't center on that idea. What happened here is in essence great, and it really is still an extension of the free market. The reason why this worked for the city of Wilson is that TWC got big, fat and lazy (as all bigger companies do from time to time). In fact, a lot of businesses and individuals (see: Detroit) have gotten the same way recently, and the economic downturn/recession/whatever has forced them to re-think their business model. TWC needs to go thru and re-do their entire business model rather than running and crying to Uncle Sam for help.

Like I said before, the fact that the GOVERNMENT (even if it's just city-level), an entity that is widely known to be the most wasteful, most bureaucratic and least efficient, was able to start a telecommunications business from nothing, purchase install and then sell TV, internet and phone services at a price that beats the pants off of a private company? Wilson called TWC's hand, and now they're embarrased.

What?! We shouldn't suggest that our company buy the biggest, baddest, best-performing supermachine just based on the cost efficiency that it can achieved if pushed to it's optimum limit? Even if we only need a shovel? You're no fun!

Tell Grandma to "google how to install that" and she won't know what the hell you're talking about.

The Grandma I'm speaking about wouldn't have installed ANYTHING since the last time I saw her computer because she doesn't know what "install" means. She thinks its just a box that does things.

If you get someone who has never used a PC before in their life but wants to do the bare basics (like email, etc.) then sure, give them a crash course and they can do it in Linux. My whole point was, however, is that the vast majority of people who are using computers have already used (and are used to) Windows and how it does things. Telling them to drop everything they've learned to do it in Linux is so confusing to them. Most of them probably dont even know what Linux is to be honest ("Windows, Linux, Mac, what is that?")

You are really taking for granted how much you know and understand about computers. And I'll be honest, most "grandmas" aren't even interested in getting email and whatnot because computers don't even fit their understanding and they don't care to understand it ("I've gotten along this way for 75 years, why can't I keep doing that?")

I've never said Linux (or specifically Ubuntu) were worse than Windows. What I've been saying all along is that Windows has had the vast majority of market share, therefore more people understand it and have created abstractions on top of it. I'm not even necessarily saying Linux has to be competing with Windows for that market share (I think it should, there's a need to be filled there), but for any culture-wide adoption of Linux, it's going to have to bridge the gap between Windows and Linux in order to bring those people over, because that's all they care about.

Besides, most people who run Windows have it do what they want to already, why are they going to want to switch? They've already paid for the software and have it installed, they're used to it. All that Linux looks like is a big hassle just to switch. I only speak from experience, several family members of mine would not switch over to Linux when I explained it to them and asked them. They're comfortable with Windows and that's what they want.

"No one's ever against change. They're just against changing themselves."

Take this experience, then switch seats. This is exactly how every other Windows user feels regarding Linux. It's all in the context. You're used to Linux, so your abstractions deal with what Linux uses. Windows users are used to Windows, so their abstractions are based on Windows.

Why does everyone tend to point to a single event (such as your experience) and then automatically hoist it up as the end-all conversation stopper? Do you truly believe that Windows is the more difficult solution, and millions of people worldwide continue to use it while a minority of Linux users continue with theirs? Has nothing to do with historical market share? Come on guys.

Yes, but said chimpanzee could also go to local retail store, ask 19 year old associate what's the best media player to purchase, points them to certain box, chimpanzee then purchases that software, takes it home and installs it. They insert the media, it automatically installs it, then asks them if they'd like to run it once its done.

How is this harder than having to switch to a paradigm in which they're not familiar with in order to install software that must also have separate packages installed with it in order to properly decode the DVDs for playback?

Look, *nix was created for a very specialized purpose which was for programmers. No one is saying that the standard *nix that is around nowadays should or will go away. It serves a very detailed purpose, fine. But there has been talk and there is a certain need that many people feel Linux can serve, and that is compete with Windows for the everyday user (and I mean users that think Internet Explorer IS the internet, for example). These people don't understand what the hell a repository is (they might think you're suggesting they're constipated, actually). How will they know where to find "Add/Remove", or know TO FIND "Add/Remove" when all they want to do is play a DVD. ("What, it can't do that? But it has a DVD drive in it...")

The large problem in this debate is the difference of perspective and scope of experience. For programmers and those considered "computer savvy", it's very easy to learn how to use Linux and its differences from Windows. But to someone who isn't into computers, doesn't care to learn or whatever, you can't fault them for that. They have most likely learned a very specific abstraction that works for them but is not very flexible in terms of shifting to new paradigms (move from Windows to Linux).

If Linux is to go mainstream it is indeed mandatory that more steps are taken so that Grandma can truly run Linux on her computer and not take two shakes about it. Don't make the mistake that certain engineers make regarding their product: Just because the customer doesn't understand the product or appreciate its engineering ingenuity doesn't mean the customer is not sophisticated or smart. If Grandma is your customer, you make sure Grandma (and not just you) can use the product.

Paging Bobby Knight...