[Fsuk-manchester] Re: Fsuk-manchester Digest, Vol 43, Issue 8

[Anna Morris]

>> anyone knows about how cars work though I would love a lesson!)
>>
>> Anna
>
> I know something about cars.
> Ask me a question.

How do engines work!? Why cant you see moving parts when you look
inside? I was so disappointed : (


> Ubuntu is a perfectly usable operating system, but in a way its freedom is 
> its own worst enemy. People say "where is the catch?", and no matter how much 
> you say that there isn't one, they will be suspicious. Safer to stick with 
> good-old trusted Windows. It's only £50 after all; oh and we'll give you a 
> discount because you are NHS/student/whatever. I strongly suspect if 
> Canonical started charging £100 for Ubuntu, you'd see its market share 
> increase quite considerably. Not that I hope they do that, but it's the way 
> humans are hard-wired.

I am unsure about how I feel. I think it is unhelpfull that "free
software" is usually "priced at zero" that said, I would never have
got involved had it cost me money, and its a powerful symbol of the
movement that software of this quality can be essentially given
away... its also a real testimony to how ludicrous the amount of money
that Microsoft and apple charge is. And it would really change things
if there was a monetary cost involved to get the software initially,
it would confuse people - I personally find it very hard to separate
the two things when it comes to distribution.


re: wikiparty, not sure I can come to this as I am not very well,
however, I have been considering discussing wikipedia at the ubuntu
event, in terms of free stuff you will already know about. but I don't
really understand the wiki thing to be honest, nor CC. I find it all
very confusing.

> Lacklustre, but is it suprising given recent events?  Wikipedia has
> seemed to be too much about Jimmy Wales lately for my liking.  Yes,
> he's important, but he has special powers in the Wikimedia Foundation
> and his Big Smiling Face on every wikipedia page a few months ago,
> which put me off and I doubt I'm alone.

I know what you mean, but I get why they did it. its noted here
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-12171977 that those banners made
twice the money that the ones without photos made. I think that
putting a face to an institution helps people understand that its
real. Face recognition is very interesting in the human brain, its
quite a special process and I wouldn't be surprised if people like
myself who dont really understand what wikipedia is, only that its
useful, suddenly become attached in a more real what when they see a
face there. Maybe its different for people who have a stronger feeling
for the "thing" already. IF it helps I doubt he is very happy about it
either. I think its especially important at the moment with wikileaks
that wikipedia compounds its separate identity, and faces, like I say,
are important.
>