jwz claims the idea of having a ton of shit in Netscape, and so in Mozilla, was not his (iirc). Also, at least with current releases of Mozilla, you can install just the components you want (broswer, mail/news client, IRC client, xmlterm, PSM), without installing everything. _____
Because most Debian packages are built to link to dynamic libraries, which are provided through other packages. That way, libraries can be kept up to date. ISTR lots of Slack packages being static-linked back in the day - sounds like it's still so.
Besides, all it takes with Debian is one command. 'apt-get install [packagename]' - makes it pretty damn easy, if you ask me. _____
I love debian, but hate dselect. I tried using dselect ONE time (with slink), and after selecting some pacakges to install, for whatever reason it decided I really meant I wanted _everything_ (and I do mean EVERY THING) uninstalled - and it happily complied with what it thought I wanted done, proceeding to remove EVERY package from the base system that I'd just lovingly installed.
Needless to say, I was a bit frustrated. I then reinstalled, and from then on ran apt-get directly from the command line, never touching dselect again. And I've never had a problem like that since. _____
Mozilla crashes have been increasingly rare for me after 0.9.1 went into sid. It's definitely improving, but it's still a little crashy (mostly if you go to certain menu items, esp. in the mail/news app, that are just plain broken). _____
Why? Why must this be so? Linux is not an OS unto itself, only the foundation of one. Why can we not make room for the different ways people work? Why must it always be one "right" way, and everything else is wrong?
I like Debian. I might give friends who use Mandrake or RH some shit for doing so, but in the end, it's their choice. Debian is my choice. Why must choice be bad?
Oh yeah - the Windows users who can't make a choice, and don't understand anything about what they're doing. I don't know about you, but I've found what I like, and everyone else should be able to choose as well, not have the "one true way" shoved down their throats. _____
Not necessarily technically better... like: "Is this vendor large enough for us to sue if something goes wrong?"
This is a common point that's made - but who's ever sued Microsoft and won? Or at least lived to tell about it? Their license agreement pretty much absolves them of any liability, even if you're using their product for the purpose it's intended for. And if UCITA goes through, then you're really screwed.
This is, IMO, the biggest misconception of buyers of commercial software - that there'll be someone there to back it up, and someone to blame, if it doesn't work. There probably won't be - even if they take responsibility for it now, soon as the next version of their product ships, the old version is then totally your problem - unless you feel like paying again to get what you were supposed to already have. _____
I have users who want that. They absolutely can't understand what the password is for - they seem to think it's there just to annoy the shit out of them. Sigh. _____
CSS sucked. Get over it. Even if Jon Johansen and whoever else hadn't reverse-engineered it, someone else would have. Besides, you still can't dupe a DVD to a DVD-{R,RW,RAM}. So what's the big deal?
Besides, a serious pirating operation would just purchase a DVD duplicator and make their copies that way - it'd pay for itself quickly enough. _____
Consider that those were Apple's highly-touted features of their next-generation OS, and it lacked some of these features (notably CD burning and DVD playback capabilities). I know I wouldn't have expected it, except for the fact that Apple used those features to draw attention to the new OS.
i.e., don't claim it unless you're ready to provide. _____
Umm, I don't think it has anything to do with kernel-level decryption - the CD/DVD driver in OS X's kernel just needs to know how to broker the key exchange between the hardware and userspace, which it must not yet know how to do. That stuff has been added to Linux and FreeBSD kernels as well - the actual decryption work is done in userspace (by the likes of libcss). _____
I dunno, I haven't had problems with DVD rentals, surprisingly. My parents did rent "Space Cowboys" on DVD, and it had a slight problem, but it was just smudged where someone had touched the disc surface. A quick cleaning, and it was good again. And I haven't had any unwatchable rentals yet via Netflix.
In short, I used to think that would be a big problem - but it hasn't been a problem anywhere near on the order I expected. _____
There are already two commercial companies that sell DVD player software for Linux - but only to system integrators, not to end-users. And you definitely can't have an open-source DVD player that uses the DVD book specs - the license fees are outrageous, you must license AC3 from Dolby (more money), your code must be closed, measures must be taken to obfuscate the CSS key in the binary (and since it has to be binary, those on non-x86 archs can't even try to play their DVDs with this theoretical package), you must submit your code to regular checks by the DVD CCA, etc.
There are a lot of stipulations, and then we're more or less where we were before - we have a DVD player, but it can't be extended or improved, it will probably only be available for Linux/x86, and interested people still can't learn how it works.
I do agree that it would be nice to have one player that did everything - however, they're all making progress, and if they haven't already, eventually we'll likely see some cross-pollination among them (most, if not all, of them are borrowing stuff like libspudec, libmpeg2, libac3, and others that have been developed previously, either as part of OMS or other projects). It'll take time, but hell, Xine's already more stable for playing DVDs than the Windows software for my Creative Dxr3 card.
Wasn't that long ago a guy e-mailed the OMS devel mailing list to say that he thought some high-profile Linux company should just license the DVD book specs because NAV support would take too long. Now look - players are actually starting to support DVD navigation, without the DVD book specs. So yeah, it's gonna take time, but as the saying goes, Rome wasn't built in a day. _____
IBM actually ships it with their Linux-based ThinkPad laptop (the T22, iirc). It's not very useful to many of us though, since it is only sold to integrators, and many of us build our own boxen. So, I think most Linux users that are interested in playing DVDs will be sticking with one of the assortment of free players. (wow, hard to believe there are 5 of them now...) _____
How can it allow the reading of DVDs from any region on a region-locked (RPC-II) DVD-ROM drive? I was under the impression that the hardware just wouldn't allow it, but as long as you had a (slightly) older (i.e., pre-RPC-II) DVD-ROM drive, you could read a disc from any region, as well as RPC-II drives with patched firmware. _____
How does it stop anyone from using the fruits of their _own_ labor? If they're using GPL'd code in the first place, they're taking advantage of the fruits of someone ELSE'S labor to base their code on. If the code is their own... well, they CAN dual-license it (like the new orinoco_cs driver in the 2.4 kernel, for example - it's GPL/MPL dual licensed). The GPL does not, and AFAIK cannot, stop someone from doing this.
You never answered the question of the previous poster - what's so terrible about saying "You may make use of the code I've written, so long as you do as I have done"? Reuse is great, but what about companies that sell component software, like many commercial companies (including Microsoft) license for rote jobs like spellcheck? You think that someone wouldn't take them to court if they violated the terms of THAT license? Why should it be any different with open source? It's still licensed - only the license says "This software is available to everyone - if you want to modify it, you must reciprocate". (A slight oversimplification, but I hope you see my point.) _____
I bought ApplixWare for Linux. I've also bought several Loki game titles. There are Linux users who will buy things that they believe to be worthwhile - I for one just don't think Windows happens to be worthwhile.:) _____
I have two words for you: "Use Debian." Debian's package format is _so_ much better in terms of handling dependencies versus RPMs. I've never had to force install DEBs - at most, I might have to add a line to/etc/apt/sources.list, run 'apt-get update' to read the package list, then 'apt-get install <package>'. I've rarely had package installation problems, unlike friends I've known who used a RedHat-derived distro, who seem to frequently have problems with getting packages to install happily.
Really, if you are a RedHat user, and you're having packaging issues - get and install Debian. You just might like it. _____
So what would you _like_ programmers to do, then? People talk about reusing existing code, but then complain when you require more shared libs, due to the fact that you're using someone else's code for some particular functionality instead of writing your own (to redo the exact same thing - why solve the same problem AGAIN?).
People really need to make up their minds. I know I for one would prefer to reuse someone else's code for common functionality, rather than having to rewrite it myself every time I need it (or static link it, making unnecessarily bloated binaries). _____
Slashdot Mirror
Don't need it. Don't want it. Windows has enough problems with mail virii that make use of its scripting host setup.
Rule #1 of making things easy - you're making it easy for everyone, including the "bad guys". Keep that in mind.
_____
Sam: "That was needlessly cryptic."
jwz claims the idea of having a ton of shit in Netscape, and so in Mozilla, was not his (iirc). Also, at least with current releases of Mozilla, you can install just the components you want (broswer, mail/news client, IRC client, xmlterm, PSM), without installing everything.
_____
Sam: "That was needlessly cryptic."
Specifically, is there a central repository that I can goto for Debian 'Beautification'???!!!
Not that I know of. But then, that's not something I'm overly interested in - I'd rather have it be functional than pretty.
And why doesn't Debian have them as default?
Here's a quote I like that will break it down for you:
"Since when has the purpose of debian been to appease the interests of the mass of unskilled consumers?" -- Steve Shorter
_____
Sam: "That was needlessly cryptic."
Because most Debian packages are built to link to dynamic libraries, which are provided through other packages. That way, libraries can be kept up to date. ISTR lots of Slack packages being static-linked back in the day - sounds like it's still so.
Besides, all it takes with Debian is one command. 'apt-get install [packagename]' - makes it pretty damn easy, if you ask me.
_____
Sam: "That was needlessly cryptic."
I love debian, but hate dselect. I tried using dselect ONE time (with slink), and after selecting some pacakges to install, for whatever reason it decided I really meant I wanted _everything_ (and I do mean EVERY THING) uninstalled - and it happily complied with what it thought I wanted done, proceeding to remove EVERY package from the base system that I'd just lovingly installed.
Needless to say, I was a bit frustrated. I then reinstalled, and from then on ran apt-get directly from the command line, never touching dselect again. And I've never had a problem like that since.
_____
Sam: "That was needlessly cryptic."
Mozilla crashes have been increasingly rare for me after 0.9.1 went into sid. It's definitely improving, but it's still a little crashy (mostly if you go to certain menu items, esp. in the mail/news app, that are just plain broken).
_____
Sam: "That was needlessly cryptic."
Why? Because he's right?
_____
Sam: "That was needlessly cryptic."
Why? Why must this be so? Linux is not an OS unto itself, only the foundation of one. Why can we not make room for the different ways people work? Why must it always be one "right" way, and everything else is wrong?
I like Debian. I might give friends who use Mandrake or RH some shit for doing so, but in the end, it's their choice. Debian is my choice. Why must choice be bad?
Oh yeah - the Windows users who can't make a choice, and don't understand anything about what they're doing. I don't know about you, but I've found what I like, and everyone else should be able to choose as well, not have the "one true way" shoved down their throats.
_____
Sam: "That was needlessly cryptic."
... he can just break a company in pieces. There's no precedent for that ...
... made MS look like the poor victim ...
No precedent, you say? Really? Why then, I guess someone should tell that to AT&T and the Baby Bells then, shouldn't they?
Surely you're kidding? Microsoft just doesn't convince me as the victim of anybody.
_____
Sam: "That was needlessly cryptic."
Not necessarily technically better ... like: "Is this vendor large enough for us to sue if something goes wrong?"
This is a common point that's made - but who's ever sued Microsoft and won? Or at least lived to tell about it? Their license agreement pretty much absolves them of any liability, even if you're using their product for the purpose it's intended for. And if UCITA goes through, then you're really screwed.
This is, IMO, the biggest misconception of buyers of commercial software - that there'll be someone there to back it up, and someone to blame, if it doesn't work. There probably won't be - even if they take responsibility for it now, soon as the next version of their product ships, the old version is then totally your problem - unless you feel like paying again to get what you were supposed to already have.
_____
Sam: "That was needlessly cryptic."
I have users who want that. They absolutely can't understand what the password is for - they seem to think it's there just to annoy the shit out of them. Sigh.
_____
Sam: "That was needlessly cryptic."
CSS sucked. Get over it. Even if Jon Johansen and whoever else hadn't reverse-engineered it, someone else would have. Besides, you still can't dupe a DVD to a DVD-{R,RW,RAM}. So what's the big deal?
Besides, a serious pirating operation would just purchase a DVD duplicator and make their copies that way - it'd pay for itself quickly enough.
_____
Sam: "That was needlessly cryptic."
Consider that those were Apple's highly-touted features of their next-generation OS, and it lacked some of these features (notably CD burning and DVD playback capabilities). I know I wouldn't have expected it, except for the fact that Apple used those features to draw attention to the new OS.
i.e., don't claim it unless you're ready to provide.
_____
Sam: "That was needlessly cryptic."
Umm, I don't think it has anything to do with kernel-level decryption - the CD/DVD driver in OS X's kernel just needs to know how to broker the key exchange between the hardware and userspace, which it must not yet know how to do. That stuff has been added to Linux and FreeBSD kernels as well - the actual decryption work is done in userspace (by the likes of libcss).
_____
Sam: "That was needlessly cryptic."
I dunno, I haven't had problems with DVD rentals, surprisingly. My parents did rent "Space Cowboys" on DVD, and it had a slight problem, but it was just smudged where someone had touched the disc surface. A quick cleaning, and it was good again. And I haven't had any unwatchable rentals yet via Netflix.
In short, I used to think that would be a big problem - but it hasn't been a problem anywhere near on the order I expected.
_____
Sam: "That was needlessly cryptic."
There are already two commercial companies that sell DVD player software for Linux - but only to system integrators, not to end-users. And you definitely can't have an open-source DVD player that uses the DVD book specs - the license fees are outrageous, you must license AC3 from Dolby (more money), your code must be closed, measures must be taken to obfuscate the CSS key in the binary (and since it has to be binary, those on non-x86 archs can't even try to play their DVDs with this theoretical package), you must submit your code to regular checks by the DVD CCA, etc.
There are a lot of stipulations, and then we're more or less where we were before - we have a DVD player, but it can't be extended or improved, it will probably only be available for Linux/x86, and interested people still can't learn how it works.
How is this even an improvement?
_____
Sam: "That was needlessly cryptic."
I do agree that it would be nice to have one player that did everything - however, they're all making progress, and if they haven't already, eventually we'll likely see some cross-pollination among them (most, if not all, of them are borrowing stuff like libspudec, libmpeg2, libac3, and others that have been developed previously, either as part of OMS or other projects). It'll take time, but hell, Xine's already more stable for playing DVDs than the Windows software for my Creative Dxr3 card.
Wasn't that long ago a guy e-mailed the OMS devel mailing list to say that he thought some high-profile Linux company should just license the DVD book specs because NAV support would take too long. Now look - players are actually starting to support DVD navigation, without the DVD book specs. So yeah, it's gonna take time, but as the saying goes, Rome wasn't built in a day.
_____
Sam: "That was needlessly cryptic."
IBM actually ships it with their Linux-based ThinkPad laptop (the T22, iirc). It's not very useful to many of us though, since it is only sold to integrators, and many of us build our own boxen. So, I think most Linux users that are interested in playing DVDs will be sticking with one of the assortment of free players. (wow, hard to believe there are 5 of them now...)
_____
Sam: "That was needlessly cryptic."
Impressive. Yet another mistake that the MPAA and friends will be kicking themselves for, I'd guess?
_____
Sam: "That was needlessly cryptic."
How can it allow the reading of DVDs from any region on a region-locked (RPC-II) DVD-ROM drive? I was under the impression that the hardware just wouldn't allow it, but as long as you had a (slightly) older (i.e., pre-RPC-II) DVD-ROM drive, you could read a disc from any region, as well as RPC-II drives with patched firmware.
_____
Sam: "That was needlessly cryptic."
Doesn't VideoLAN support Xv? That'd be a whole lot faster if it does.
_____
Sam: "That was needlessly cryptic."
How does it stop anyone from using the fruits of their _own_ labor? If they're using GPL'd code in the first place, they're taking advantage of the fruits of someone ELSE'S labor to base their code on. If the code is their own... well, they CAN dual-license it (like the new orinoco_cs driver in the 2.4 kernel, for example - it's GPL/MPL dual licensed). The GPL does not, and AFAIK cannot, stop someone from doing this.
You never answered the question of the previous poster - what's so terrible about saying "You may make use of the code I've written, so long as you do as I have done"? Reuse is great, but what about companies that sell component software, like many commercial companies (including Microsoft) license for rote jobs like spellcheck? You think that someone wouldn't take them to court if they violated the terms of THAT license? Why should it be any different with open source? It's still licensed - only the license says "This software is available to everyone - if you want to modify it, you must reciprocate". (A slight oversimplification, but I hope you see my point.)
_____
Sam: "That was needlessly cryptic."
I bought ApplixWare for Linux. I've also bought several Loki game titles. There are Linux users who will buy things that they believe to be worthwhile - I for one just don't think Windows happens to be worthwhile. :)
_____
Sam: "That was needlessly cryptic."
I have two words for you: "Use Debian." Debian's package format is _so_ much better in terms of handling dependencies versus RPMs. I've never had to force install DEBs - at most, I might have to add a line to /etc/apt/sources.list, run 'apt-get update' to read the package list, then 'apt-get install <package>'. I've rarely had package installation problems, unlike friends I've known who used a RedHat-derived distro, who seem to frequently have problems with getting packages to install happily.
Really, if you are a RedHat user, and you're having packaging issues - get and install Debian. You just might like it.
_____
Sam: "That was needlessly cryptic."
So what would you _like_ programmers to do, then? People talk about reusing existing code, but then complain when you require more shared libs, due to the fact that you're using someone else's code for some particular functionality instead of writing your own (to redo the exact same thing - why solve the same problem AGAIN?).
People really need to make up their minds. I know I for one would prefer to reuse someone else's code for common functionality, rather than having to rewrite it myself every time I need it (or static link it, making unnecessarily bloated binaries).
_____
Sam: "That was needlessly cryptic."