I try over and over and over and over to install linux and actually be productive with it. And I can't. Heck - even google does not make their tools for linux. The only reason I use windows is because I can be productive in it. That is the only reason I use any OS. And I want to be productive without have to do builds, worry about packages, worry about dependencies. I want to have applications to use to be productive with. And that is missing and has been missing and will be missing for a LONG time.
Begone, troll!
I use Linux. When I want to install an application, I open Synaptic, type in the name of the programme I want, click install, done. If I want to install the drivers for my nVidia card, I open Synaptic, search for the driver, click install, done. It hasn't failed me in years, and *never* with my current distro. No worrying about packages, dependencies, and without have [sic] to do builds. And to me, KDE is already a far, far more usable desktop environment than the Windows one. I use PCLinuxOS, but it should be just about the same with any modern, up-to-date distro.
Oh, and if you are having trouble controlling your bladder, you may want to look into getting adult diapers.
It's basic "divide and conquer" because there will be some developers who don't see much wrong with the deal and will support the Novell Microsoft deal and there will be others who will not. The ones who don't MAY start new forks/projects and join other distros, or... they may just move on to other things entirely. This ensures a two-tiered Linux world with crappy underdeveloped software in non-blessed distros (Gentoo, Debian, etc...) and second-rate (compared to Microsoft Windows solutions) software in the intentionally stunted Novell Suse Linux and anyone else who decides to sign on.
Don't think so. Most of the people who really make an important difference to Linux development seem to be against this, even if quite a few other important developers are and remain Novell employees. If there is fragmentation -- if -- I think it will be in favour of the community just due to the sheer numbers.
And even if not: Just because the "blessed" distros will have paid developers working on their projects full-time doesn't mean their programmes / versions of programmes will be superior. If there are enough dedicated people out there who have the talent and truly believe in the spirit of open source and community -- and I do believe there are -- they can easily keep up with the commercial developers, or even surpass them. That's part of the beauty of open source. A big budget does not guarantee high-quality software. Just compare Linux or BSD with Windows, or Firefox with IE.
I'm a bit more worried about the possible IP claims against Linux on Microsoft's part, but even so - Linux is a big thing involving a LOT of people, and it's not easily destroyed.
I think the point TFA is making is that robots that don't just perform set tasks but are programmed to be artificially intelligent - e.g., capable of learning from experience and drawing conclusions in order to adapt to changes in their routine or their surroundings - will one day learn to want things, not that someone will explicitly program them to have rights.
That said... Even so, I agree with you that the article is a load of hogwash anyway.
Everyone saw it coming, but it's still sad. If I broke into your house and got caught, I would never get away with simply having to replace the broken lock and saying I'm sorry. But when Sony violate their customers' rights as gravely as they did, they get away with paying what amounts to little more than a token fee.
Google 'Do No Evil'... is about the biggest lie perp'ed on mankind. Google is the last company aside from the obvious M$ that I would want to control anything. They are about inflated stock, and making you see ads online. Are well all that stupid that we believe Google-ganda?
Oh, do calm down... They never claimed "we do absolutely no evil whatsoever", it's more like - the founders happen to think that "evil should not be done". What's a lie about that? Also, how does inflated stock make them evil?
And how, pray, are they supposed to survive without the adverts? Never mind the fact that Google didn't actually come up with online advertising but were pretty much the first ones to run targeted, non-offensive (as in, no flashing banners, pop-ups, etc.) ads.
I'm no Google fanboy, although I happily use many of their services. But I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with them, and I find it somewhat sad to see this paranoid drivel modded up to +3 Insightful.
Okay, sorry, *I* appear to be a bit disoriented. I somehow thought you were replying directly to me, and completely overlooked the actual post you were referring to.
Not sure whether that's a problem with Slashdot's experimental discussion system or with my lack of sleep. Ah well, my apologies!
Well, the tasks an office software suite should perform haven't changed all that much over the years. I've got an old Macintosh SE standing around somewhere that runs Microsoft Word 4 - and it does essentially the same thing as MS Word or OpenOffice Writer do today. Of course, there are improvements and additional features, but nothing really really *really* major.
I think that basically, there isn't all that much room for real innovation if the software's tasks are that clearly set. Maybe some interface improvements here and there, sure. But there are only so and so many ways to insert a table, change a text's font or change a page's margins.
...if businesses using Linux were to suddenly find themselves without support one day because their Linux partner has just lost a legal battle against Microsoft, they probably wouldn't like it as much.
I do wonder how many people will actually make use of this service. Lots of people still mistrust things that come for free, and even more people (usually rightfully) mistrust things that come completely without a business model.
Add to that the fact that web hosting is pretty affordable these days. If you had a website that actually mattered (say, for business), would you build it on top of something that appears as dodgy as this - or would you just buy "proper" hosting for a little extra cash? I tend to think the latter.
You seem to be missing the point. What's wrong isn't that Sony is trying to be cool. There's nothing wrong with that (even though it seems to have backfired horribly).
The difference is that Apple designates their adverts as such. When you watch/see an Apple ad, it's still clear that this is the company presenting itself to you. Sony wants you to believe it's not them presenting themselves to you but somebody else praising them to high heaven.
A company can go "Hello, we're Apple and we're really hip, just compare this personified PC with this personified mac!" all it wants. But it can't go "We're just a couple of random teenagers with no connection to Sony - but let's all buy PSPs!"
There still is a thin line between marketing and lying. A very thin line, yes, but it's nonetheless there.
Not to mention the fact that a couple of guys with handguns wouldn't be able to do much against the system in the US nowadays. You'd need thousands and thousands of people willing to violently rise up against their government. And if you ever do get to that point, you're beyond the point of caring about gun control laws. Indeed, the entire "I need to protect my rights" argument doesn't make any sense at all.
I pointed out that the fact that there are so many incompatibilities and bugs creates a de-facto lock-in. To which you replied: "Bullshit. What creates the lock-in is incompatibilities and bugs." Aren't we essentially agreeing there?
You haven't given an example of a single problem with the format. All you keep pointing out is bugs in individual implementations. Yes, there are bugs. What the hell do you expect? The format just got approved recently.
I can only repeat myself - once again, I believe in the OpenDocument format and happily use it myself. And the format itself is all fine and dandy, but in the real world, it quite simply won't be able to make a difference unless it is widely used. And if all implementations of it have bugs up the wazoo, many people won't want to touch it with a ten foot pole. Imagine what Microsoft's FUD machine would make of this problem. Especially in business things would be difficult, and to win business over to open source is *vital*.
I'm perfectly aware that software development takes time. I'm perfectly aware there will always be bugs to be ironed out. What I'm on about is KOffice and AbiWord releasing new versions and yelling "We now ship with OpenDocument support too!" even though their OpenDocument support was anything but up to standard. Maybe they should have pushed OpenDocument support to a later release, or maybe they should have moved the release date. It seems to me that they would have needed more time to improve their implementations of OpenDocument.
So, to sum it all up: I believe there is a chance of OpenDocument failing due to implementation problems. That seems like a potential problem to me, and I haven't really seen it mentioned it, so I point it out. But apparently, that makes me a "whiner". And anyway, it was my fault in the first place for not using logical markup.
And MS Office format would be better in this regard... how?
I didn't say it's better. Stop putting words in my mouth. What I did say, though, was that I still prefer OpenDocument and will happily continue using it.
OpenDocument is, for practical purposes, less than a year old. It will take a while for office suites to catch up and fix bugs. Furthermore, even when all the bugs are fixed, your documents will always look slightly different in different apps and different versions of apps. That's true even for Word documents in different versions of MS Word, or the same version of MS Word installed on different machines. Office formats are not designed for bit-identical rendering. You can avoid that by using logical markup and styles properly. Most "it looks different" bugs are due to user error.
This as nothing to do with "bit-identical" rendering. If I make a list in a document, it should bloody well *stay* a list. The margins I put on a document shouldn't just be ignored. Something that is aligned to the right shouldn't suddenly decide to move to the left all by itself. This isn't about thing being not quite perfect, it's about things being ALL WRONG. You can throwing around things like "you should be using logical markup" and "user error" all you want, but IF I ALIGN MY TEXT TO THE RIGHT, IT SHOULD STAY THERE. Look at this from a business perspective. If you have no idea how your OpenDocument files look on your customer's machine/s, chances are you won't send them along in that format. If your secretary has to do a rain dance before using the OpenDocument format to keep the layout from randomly changing in between applications, chances are you won't tell your secretary to save things in that format.
And besides, there's no technical reason why OpenDocument files couldn't be 100% exchangeable between applications one day. There is no basic law in computing that says "all files must look slightly different on different machines".
Bullshit. OpenDocument doesn't "create" the lock-in, it alleviates lock-in. what creates the lock-in is incompatibilities and bugs in how the various office suites implement it.
So first you go on to call what I said "bullshit" and then you repeat it. "what creates the lock-in is incompatibilities and bugs in how the various office suites implement it." Yes, Sherlock, I probably called it an "unintentional lock-in" for a reason, didn't I?
It's still lock-in. It's not as bad as the MS form of lock-in, but lock-in nonetheless. If switching to another product breaks all my documents, chances are I won't be switching, right?
In addition, the primary point of open document formats is not to let large numbers of people switch suites (although that is very useful, too), it's to enable post-processing, indexing, and groupware built on top of the format. That, rather than FOSS competition, is also why MS has made their formats public.
I don't care whether it's the primary point or not - it should still be possible. And that *is* the point most people are interested in, because it allows them to potentially save money they would otherwise be spending on MS-Office licenses.
Once again, I *like* OpenDocument - but nonetheless, it's a simple fact that there are still problems with the format that urgently need to be addressed. If we want OpenDocument to become the industry standard one day, these problems need to be pointed out and fixed NOW. "It's not a bug", "It's all your fault anyway", "You should be using logical markup", "A patch will be out next year", "Fix it yourself", etc. are all answers that might be A-OK within the open source community but are completely unacceptable within a business environment. Ignoring the problem isn't getting anyone one single step further.
...or maybe U2 just happen to think that wanting to make as much money out of their own music as possible isn't on the same level as letting thousands and thousands of people in poverty die from a disease every week for legal reasons.
From a practical point of view, OpenDocument already works for interchanging between multiple open source apps.
I'm an open source enthusiast, use Linux exclusively and love the idea of the OpenDocument format, so I'm definitely not a Microsoft astroturfer or Office fanboy. But I'll have to disagree there.
Frankly, when I create a document in OpenOffice Writer and then open it in AbiWord or KWord, more often than not it looks quite different - pictures are suddenly mispositioned, the bullet points in my list seem to randomly disappear, tables change, the page margins are all wrong, etc etc. The same goes for creating a document in AbiWord or KWord and then opening it with OpenOffice. The document is never really mangled, and definitely never to the point of being unreadable, but it's still slightly wrong almost every time. In my personal experience, anyway.
Yes, OpenDocument does work for interchanging between multiple open source apps. But it doesn't work all that well yet. Basically, it still creates a form of lock-in, even if it's probably unintentional. I can't just switch away from OpenOffice, lest I want to have to fix the formatting on all my documents.
(I'm still a supporter of the OpenDocument format and will continue using it happily - but still, this had to be said.)
I'm for a reasonable copyright term - that is, against copyright extension. But I don't get what you're trying to say here.
What exactly is it you mean? The members of U2 have been talking about AIDS in Africa a lot, so they should be against copyright extension? The members of U2 have been talking about AIDS in Africa a lot, so they shouldn't want to make more money off their music? Or do you mean that U2 shouldn't care about AIDS in Africa if they want to make money off their music? Or perhaps you mean to say that it's not allowed to have a sociable opinion on one issue and an egoistic opinion on another?
You, sir or madam, are probably the worst troll I've seen in a long time, but I'll feed you anyway.
So, computers are somewhat more convenient for learning geometry. So what? They don't make it considerably easier than learning from textbooks and from teachers. And where I live (Switzerland), we still learn geometry from textbooks too, and not with computers. It works fine, and to the best of my knowledge it is done that way in just about every other European country, with decent results. (Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think I am.)
Great early civilizations learnt [sic] geometry first, then became great (not ONLY because of geometry, of course).
How does this have anything to do with anything? We're talking about people in poverty here, not savages trying to come down from the trees and build a civilisation. In today's global age, there is not a single country left where geometry is completely unknown. Of course, maybe the man on the street doesn't know too much about it in some countries, but how will that help him? He is in debt, his fields are suffering from drought, he doesn't have any medical care, he has no electricity or running water - but at least he learned geometry from his hand-powered laptop. Yay!
Programming and other structural thinking is also a neccesity that made civilizations great. [...] I am perhaps a bit more interested in people learning how to think, rather then filling people's minds with loads of unneccessary [sic] data.
Yes, because you don't need any facts or knowledge to think for yourself. Who cares whether people are familiar with history and learn to analyse present-day political situations from that? Let's teach them BASIC, then they'll have analytical minds and will be able to think for themselves! Yay!
As for access for the internet, I already explained in my previous post why I think that a laptop is by far not the best way to sort that out. And you have done nothing to address the disadvantages of laptops over libraries that I have pointed out.
Once again: Laptops offer some benefits over textbooks, but no vital ones. Their disadvantages over textbooks, however, are vast: Expensive to produce, easily broken, not as accessible, requires electricity, requires tutoring to use, harder to keep around and distribute in areas where certain knowledge is persecuted.
And, if you still think computers are so vital to learning, when do you think Western civilisation started out? In 1982, with the release of the Commodore 64? Or perhaps even earlier, with the release of the Apple II? Hmm.
I'd even go so far as to say that cheap energy for all would save the world. I'm not normally a doom and gloom kinda guy, but it seems to me that the path we're headed on right now leads to civilization breaking down.
I think you might be giving a little too much credit to 'cheap energy for all'. Don't get me wrong, it would be a good thing, a great thing in fact, and would indeed solve many of the problems we have on our hands today. But would it change human greed? Would it change religious conflicts? Would it change territorial disputes? Would it change racism? Would it change the sexual inequality that many places still experience? Sadly, not.
If we, the human race, still want to turn this handbasket to hell we're all sitting in around before it's too late, I think we'll have to try even harder than cheap energy for all. A whole lot harder, in fact.
Re:Why can't they still sell PCs without OS?
on
Leopard Vs. Vista
·
· Score: 1
I'm aware of their old contracts, but are they still in effect? Can't they be renegotiated?
I'm surprised that Dell, Gateway and HP would still be taking it up the rear. Ubuntu is a good enough system for a lot of homes that only need to do email, web, and type grade and high school papers.
Why would they still be subject to such ridiculous terms, especially after MS has been convicted of abusing their monopoly status?
Because Microsoft could decide to stop doing business with a company that starts marketing Linux PCs big-time. And for a major hardware company to switch *entirely* to Linux would be very, very risky. Their shareholders would probably react to any such plan by severing their ties with the company as quickly as they can.
Not to mention that the parts HP, Gateway, Dell, etc. buy to build their PCs usually don't have official Linux support (and in some cases, not even inofficial Linux support).
Slashdot Mirror
This almost made me wet myself when I laughed.
I try over and over and over and over to install linux and actually be productive with it. And I can't. Heck - even google does not make their tools for linux. The only reason I use windows is because I can be productive in it. That is the only reason I use any OS. And I want to be productive without have to do builds, worry about packages, worry about dependencies. I want to have applications to use to be productive with. And that is missing and has been missing and will be missing for a LONG time.
Begone, troll!
I use Linux. When I want to install an application, I open Synaptic, type in the name of the programme I want, click install, done. If I want to install the drivers for my nVidia card, I open Synaptic, search for the driver, click install, done. It hasn't failed me in years, and *never* with my current distro. No worrying about packages, dependencies, and without have [sic] to do builds. And to me, KDE is already a far, far more usable desktop environment than the Windows one. I use PCLinuxOS, but it should be just about the same with any modern, up-to-date distro.
Oh, and if you are having trouble controlling your bladder, you may want to look into getting adult diapers.
It's basic "divide and conquer" because there will be some developers who don't see much wrong with the deal and will support the Novell Microsoft deal and there will be others who will not. The ones who don't MAY start new forks/projects and join other distros, or... they may just move on to other things entirely. This ensures a two-tiered Linux world with crappy underdeveloped software in non-blessed distros (Gentoo, Debian, etc...) and second-rate (compared to Microsoft Windows solutions) software in the intentionally stunted Novell Suse Linux and anyone else who decides to sign on.
Don't think so. Most of the people who really make an important difference to Linux development seem to be against this, even if quite a few other important developers are and remain Novell employees. If there is fragmentation -- if -- I think it will be in favour of the community just due to the sheer numbers.
And even if not: Just because the "blessed" distros will have paid developers working on their projects full-time doesn't mean their programmes / versions of programmes will be superior. If there are enough dedicated people out there who have the talent and truly believe in the spirit of open source and community -- and I do believe there are -- they can easily keep up with the commercial developers, or even surpass them. That's part of the beauty of open source. A big budget does not guarantee high-quality software. Just compare Linux or BSD with Windows, or Firefox with IE.
I'm a bit more worried about the possible IP claims against Linux on Microsoft's part, but even so - Linux is a big thing involving a LOT of people, and it's not easily destroyed.
I think the point TFA is making is that robots that don't just perform set tasks but are programmed to be artificially intelligent - e.g., capable of learning from experience and drawing conclusions in order to adapt to changes in their routine or their surroundings - will one day learn to want things, not that someone will explicitly program them to have rights.
That said... Even so, I agree with you that the article is a load of hogwash anyway.
Everyone saw it coming, but it's still sad. If I broke into your house and got caught, I would never get away with simply having to replace the broken lock and saying I'm sorry. But when Sony violate their customers' rights as gravely as they did, they get away with paying what amounts to little more than a token fee.
Google 'Do No Evil' ... is about the biggest lie perp'ed on mankind. Google is the last company aside from the obvious M$ that I would want to control anything. They are about inflated stock, and making you see ads online. Are well all that stupid that we believe Google-ganda?
Oh, do calm down... They never claimed "we do absolutely no evil whatsoever", it's more like - the founders happen to think that "evil should not be done". What's a lie about that? Also, how does inflated stock make them evil?
And how, pray, are they supposed to survive without the adverts? Never mind the fact that Google didn't actually come up with online advertising but were pretty much the first ones to run targeted, non-offensive (as in, no flashing banners, pop-ups, etc.) ads.
I'm no Google fanboy, although I happily use many of their services. But I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with them, and I find it somewhat sad to see this paranoid drivel modded up to +3 Insightful.
Okay, sorry, *I* appear to be a bit disoriented. I somehow thought you were replying directly to me, and completely overlooked the actual post you were referring to.
Not sure whether that's a problem with Slashdot's experimental discussion system or with my lack of sleep. Ah well, my apologies!
You appear to be a bit disoriented. I didn't call anyone stupid, and nothing else in your post applies to me or any statements of mine either.
Or am I feeding a troll I haven't come across before, here? Hm.
...how much time passed in between stories about said AJAX hype hitting Slashdot and stories about "Cutting through the AJAX hype" hitting Slashdot?
Well, the tasks an office software suite should perform haven't changed all that much over the years. I've got an old Macintosh SE standing around somewhere that runs Microsoft Word 4 - and it does essentially the same thing as MS Word or OpenOffice Writer do today. Of course, there are improvements and additional features, but nothing really really *really* major.
I think that basically, there isn't all that much room for real innovation if the software's tasks are that clearly set. Maybe some interface improvements here and there, sure. But there are only so and so many ways to insert a table, change a text's font or change a page's margins.
The people on Slashdot and other such forums and Novell's paying customers are mostly not the same people.
...if businesses using Linux were to suddenly find themselves without support one day because their Linux partner has just lost a legal battle against Microsoft, they probably wouldn't like it as much.
Just saying.
I do wonder how many people will actually make use of this service. Lots of people still mistrust things that come for free, and even more people (usually rightfully) mistrust things that come completely without a business model.
Add to that the fact that web hosting is pretty affordable these days. If you had a website that actually mattered (say, for business), would you build it on top of something that appears as dodgy as this - or would you just buy "proper" hosting for a little extra cash? I tend to think the latter.
You seem to be missing the point. What's wrong isn't that Sony is trying to be cool. There's nothing wrong with that (even though it seems to have backfired horribly).
The difference is that Apple designates their adverts as such. When you watch/see an Apple ad, it's still clear that this is the company presenting itself to you. Sony wants you to believe it's not them presenting themselves to you but somebody else praising them to high heaven.
A company can go "Hello, we're Apple and we're really hip, just compare this personified PC with this personified mac!" all it wants. But it can't go "We're just a couple of random teenagers with no connection to Sony - but let's all buy PSPs!"
There still is a thin line between marketing and lying. A very thin line, yes, but it's nonetheless there.
However, it's also easy to avoid confusion by simply reminding yourself that they are lying weasels with the ethical standards of a rat.
I demand you take that back! I own two pet rats and they would never sink to that level.
Yes, but doing random damage is one thing. Overthrowing a government without letting everything descend into anarchy is another.
Not to mention the fact that a couple of guys with handguns wouldn't be able to do much against the system in the US nowadays. You'd need thousands and thousands of people willing to violently rise up against their government. And if you ever do get to that point, you're beyond the point of caring about gun control laws. Indeed, the entire "I need to protect my rights" argument doesn't make any sense at all.
I pointed out that the fact that there are so many incompatibilities and bugs creates a de-facto lock-in. To which you replied: "Bullshit. What creates the lock-in is incompatibilities and bugs." Aren't we essentially agreeing there?
You haven't given an example of a single problem with the format. All you keep pointing out is bugs in individual implementations. Yes, there are bugs. What the hell do you expect? The format just got approved recently.
I can only repeat myself - once again, I believe in the OpenDocument format and happily use it myself. And the format itself is all fine and dandy, but in the real world, it quite simply won't be able to make a difference unless it is widely used. And if all implementations of it have bugs up the wazoo, many people won't want to touch it with a ten foot pole. Imagine what Microsoft's FUD machine would make of this problem. Especially in business things would be difficult, and to win business over to open source is *vital*.
I'm perfectly aware that software development takes time. I'm perfectly aware there will always be bugs to be ironed out. What I'm on about is KOffice and AbiWord releasing new versions and yelling "We now ship with OpenDocument support too!" even though their OpenDocument support was anything but up to standard. Maybe they should have pushed OpenDocument support to a later release, or maybe they should have moved the release date. It seems to me that they would have needed more time to improve their implementations of OpenDocument.
So, to sum it all up: I believe there is a chance of OpenDocument failing due to implementation problems. That seems like a potential problem to me, and I haven't really seen it mentioned it, so I point it out. But apparently, that makes me a "whiner". And anyway, it was my fault in the first place for not using logical markup.
Hrm.
And MS Office format would be better in this regard... how?
I didn't say it's better. Stop putting words in my mouth. What I did say, though, was that I still prefer OpenDocument and will happily continue using it.
OpenDocument is, for practical purposes, less than a year old. It will take a while for office suites to catch up and fix bugs. Furthermore, even when all the bugs are fixed, your documents will always look slightly different in different apps and different versions of apps. That's true even for Word documents in different versions of MS Word, or the same version of MS Word installed on different machines. Office formats are not designed for bit-identical rendering. You can avoid that by using logical markup and styles properly. Most "it looks different" bugs are due to user error.
This as nothing to do with "bit-identical" rendering. If I make a list in a document, it should bloody well *stay* a list. The margins I put on a document shouldn't just be ignored. Something that is aligned to the right shouldn't suddenly decide to move to the left all by itself. This isn't about thing being not quite perfect, it's about things being ALL WRONG. You can throwing around things like "you should be using logical markup" and "user error" all you want, but IF I ALIGN MY TEXT TO THE RIGHT, IT SHOULD STAY THERE. Look at this from a business perspective. If you have no idea how your OpenDocument files look on your customer's machine/s, chances are you won't send them along in that format. If your secretary has to do a rain dance before using the OpenDocument format to keep the layout from randomly changing in between applications, chances are you won't tell your secretary to save things in that format.
And besides, there's no technical reason why OpenDocument files couldn't be 100% exchangeable between applications one day. There is no basic law in computing that says "all files must look slightly different on different machines".
Bullshit. OpenDocument doesn't "create" the lock-in, it alleviates lock-in. what creates the lock-in is incompatibilities and bugs in how the various office suites implement it.
So first you go on to call what I said "bullshit" and then you repeat it. "what creates the lock-in is incompatibilities and bugs in how the various office suites implement it." Yes, Sherlock, I probably called it an "unintentional lock-in" for a reason, didn't I?
It's still lock-in. It's not as bad as the MS form of lock-in, but lock-in nonetheless. If switching to another product breaks all my documents, chances are I won't be switching, right?
In addition, the primary point of open document formats is not to let large numbers of people switch suites (although that is very useful, too), it's to enable post-processing, indexing, and groupware built on top of the format. That, rather than FOSS competition, is also why MS has made their formats public.
I don't care whether it's the primary point or not - it should still be possible. And that *is* the point most people are interested in, because it allows them to potentially save money they would otherwise be spending on MS-Office licenses.
Once again, I *like* OpenDocument - but nonetheless, it's a simple fact that there are still problems with the format that urgently need to be addressed. If we want OpenDocument to become the industry standard one day, these problems need to be pointed out and fixed NOW. "It's not a bug", "It's all your fault anyway", "You should be using logical markup", "A patch will be out next year", "Fix it yourself", etc. are all answers that might be A-OK within the open source community but are completely unacceptable within a business environment. Ignoring the problem isn't getting anyone one single step further.
...or maybe U2 just happen to think that wanting to make as much money out of their own music as possible isn't on the same level as letting thousands and thousands of people in poverty die from a disease every week for legal reasons.
From a practical point of view, OpenDocument already works for interchanging between multiple open source apps.
I'm an open source enthusiast, use Linux exclusively and love the idea of the OpenDocument format, so I'm definitely not a Microsoft astroturfer or Office fanboy. But I'll have to disagree there.
Frankly, when I create a document in OpenOffice Writer and then open it in AbiWord or KWord, more often than not it looks quite different - pictures are suddenly mispositioned, the bullet points in my list seem to randomly disappear, tables change, the page margins are all wrong, etc etc. The same goes for creating a document in AbiWord or KWord and then opening it with OpenOffice. The document is never really mangled, and definitely never to the point of being unreadable, but it's still slightly wrong almost every time. In my personal experience, anyway.
Yes, OpenDocument does work for interchanging between multiple open source apps. But it doesn't work all that well yet. Basically, it still creates a form of lock-in, even if it's probably unintentional. I can't just switch away from OpenOffice, lest I want to have to fix the formatting on all my documents.
(I'm still a supporter of the OpenDocument format and will continue using it happily - but still, this had to be said.)
I'm for a reasonable copyright term - that is, against copyright extension. But I don't get what you're trying to say here.
What exactly is it you mean? The members of U2 have been talking about AIDS in Africa a lot, so they should be against copyright extension? The members of U2 have been talking about AIDS in Africa a lot, so they shouldn't want to make more money off their music? Or do you mean that U2 shouldn't care about AIDS in Africa if they want to make money off their music? Or perhaps you mean to say that it's not allowed to have a sociable opinion on one issue and an egoistic opinion on another?
Seems like two entirely unrelated things to me.
You, sir or madam, are probably the worst troll I've seen in a long time, but I'll feed you anyway.
So, computers are somewhat more convenient for learning geometry. So what? They don't make it considerably easier than learning from textbooks and from teachers. And where I live (Switzerland), we still learn geometry from textbooks too, and not with computers. It works fine, and to the best of my knowledge it is done that way in just about every other European country, with decent results. (Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think I am.)
Great early civilizations learnt [sic] geometry first, then became great (not ONLY because of geometry, of course).
How does this have anything to do with anything? We're talking about people in poverty here, not savages trying to come down from the trees and build a civilisation. In today's global age, there is not a single country left where geometry is completely unknown. Of course, maybe the man on the street doesn't know too much about it in some countries, but how will that help him? He is in debt, his fields are suffering from drought, he doesn't have any medical care, he has no electricity or running water - but at least he learned geometry from his hand-powered laptop. Yay!
Programming and other structural thinking is also a neccesity that made civilizations great.
[...]
I am perhaps a bit more interested in people learning how to think, rather then filling people's minds with loads of unneccessary [sic] data.
Yes, because you don't need any facts or knowledge to think for yourself. Who cares whether people are familiar with history and learn to analyse present-day political situations from that? Let's teach them BASIC, then they'll have analytical minds and will be able to think for themselves! Yay!
As for access for the internet, I already explained in my previous post why I think that a laptop is by far not the best way to sort that out. And you have done nothing to address the disadvantages of laptops over libraries that I have pointed out.
Once again: Laptops offer some benefits over textbooks, but no vital ones. Their disadvantages over textbooks, however, are vast: Expensive to produce, easily broken, not as accessible, requires electricity, requires tutoring to use, harder to keep around and distribute in areas where certain knowledge is persecuted.
And, if you still think computers are so vital to learning, when do you think Western civilisation started out? In 1982, with the release of the Commodore 64? Or perhaps even earlier, with the release of the Apple II? Hmm.
I'd even go so far as to say that cheap energy for all would save the world. I'm not normally a doom and gloom kinda guy, but it seems to me that the path we're headed on right now leads to civilization breaking down.
I think you might be giving a little too much credit to 'cheap energy for all'. Don't get me wrong, it would be a good thing, a great thing in fact, and would indeed solve many of the problems we have on our hands today. But would it change human greed? Would it change religious conflicts? Would it change territorial disputes? Would it change racism? Would it change the sexual inequality that many places still experience? Sadly, not.
If we, the human race, still want to turn this handbasket to hell we're all sitting in around before it's too late, I think we'll have to try even harder than cheap energy for all. A whole lot harder, in fact.
I'm aware of their old contracts, but are they still in effect? Can't they be renegotiated? I'm surprised that Dell, Gateway and HP would still be taking it up the rear. Ubuntu is a good enough system for a lot of homes that only need to do email, web, and type grade and high school papers. Why would they still be subject to such ridiculous terms, especially after MS has been convicted of abusing their monopoly status?
Because Microsoft could decide to stop doing business with a company that starts marketing Linux PCs big-time. And for a major hardware company to switch *entirely* to Linux would be very, very risky. Their shareholders would probably react to any such plan by severing their ties with the company as quickly as they can.
Not to mention that the parts HP, Gateway, Dell, etc. buy to build their PCs usually don't have official Linux support (and in some cases, not even inofficial Linux support).
I dunno, I prefer to stick to DX10 optimized buffalos, myself.