No, I'm not. The parent poster used poor wording, but he understands it very clearly, and you misunderstood him. He's splitting hairs over the terminology involved. We all agree you can sell copies of the software, but he's saying that this is not the same as "selling the software", and should not be called such. Technically, he's correct, but unnecessarily picky. Linux is not mine to sell. I don't have ownership of it, and thus can't sell it. I can, however, have ownership of a single copy, and sell that. This is too cumbersome to use in practice, so we call it "selling the software", even though that's technically impossible.
mlwmohawk is being way too picky about it, and his point doesn't actually matter, but he is correct.
You didn't understand his point at all. The reference you cited merely backs him up. He's saying you're not selling the software (in the abstract sense), but the service of providing a copy for them. It's splitting hairs, yes, but he admits as much.
Many other products do the exact same but cost a lower price, and often with more features and at a higher quality. That's why I'm not a fan of the company.
That, and their oppressive business practices, is why I don't like Apple. They have the worst value in their products of any company out there.
Additionally, every single time they do come up with a useful or cool design (G4 iMac, G3 iPod were awesome), they wreck it in the next generation (G5 iMac, iPod G4-Touch were shit). That gets under a guy's skin. I can handle change, as long as it's for the better. With Apple, it never is.
What's funny is that you consider uptimes of months to be significant. I know Linux geeks that will laugh at that. Apparently they don't consider anything measured in units smaller than years to be significant.
It's not funny at all. For a home machine, any uptime longer than a couple weeks is dick waving. For servers, it's a different story, but I'm not running a server. My home machine comes down sometimes once a month just to swap IDE drives, and we want to talk about uptimes of years? Not important.
With Windows, you are always having to reboot the system due to everything from software installs to changing a network connection.
No, you aren't. This hasn't been true since Windows XP, at least. I can get uptimes of months at a time on my Windows box, the only time it comes down is for hardware changes or OS updates.
Additionally, resurrection isn't without penalty (unless I misremember -- which is likely;)). Isn't there a loss-of-XP factor as well, or am I mistakenly mixing up my D&D with EQ?
No, you're right, but it's also one of the more bullshit rules D&D has, considering it's unfair, frustrating, and doesn't even add flavor to the game (since XP is an abstraction of your character learning from his/her experiences, and when you fail at something, you don't suddenly become more inexperienced. You actually become more experienced, or at worst, are where you started). It's one of the idiotic D&D rules that I'd house rule away if I ran a campaign.
Besides, none of that changes the fact that since you're running the game, you can at any point say "No, that didn't happen", and bring your character back. In that way, death in D&D is even less imposing than in a video game, since at least in permadeath video games, your character really dies, no hand-waving possible.
D&D is fine, but a well-made computer game and a well-run D&D game are on par in terms of how much fun and depth they provide. Not to mention that there are a LOT more crappy D&D games than video games.
And yes, when you're dead, you're pretty much dead. Your characters die and don't come back.
That's entirely up to the discretion of the players playing the game. Also, D&D has resurrection spells, so even if your DM won't let you save your character by just making up some hand waving to excuse how he's still alive (and in that case, he/she is a bad DM, since DMs need to work with what the group wants, not lord it over them), you can just resurrect him. Death is no more permanent in D&D than in any video game.
And why the bloody hell would I want to waste time and money teaching someone their job?
How nice for you that we have employers with clearer vision than you. If no one gives the new guys so much as a chance, where the hell do you expect your experienced guys to come from?
Your position is extremely short-sighted, and only works out for you because most people grasp the flaw in it. If they didn't, you'd be SOL.
Well, only someone under 30 would be offended by your statement, but most people would find it really damned stupid. Competence is not caused by age, and you would do well to hire the greenest programmer around if that person is willing and able to be taught, and has basic competence at the job. Hire based on where you think they'll go, not where they are right now.
I do not know which are worse, the folks that know they don't know or don't know they don't know.
Easy. The ones who don't know they don't know. They're often willfully ignorant of their weakness, and in that case, there's no hope for them. I find it's usually people who accept their lack of knowledge that can be taught.
Of course, there's no shortage of people who don't know and don't care to learn, either, so nothing is guaranteed. Still, on balance, I'd say that those who know they don't know are more teachable.
but most people are pretty elitist, and close minded
Fixed that for you.;)
I hate to be cynical, but it does seem to be in human nature to find a bunch of people who share your views, and then sit around looking down on everyone else who's too stupid to see it your way. Makes people feel better about themselves, I guess.
Nah, I don't care for myself, as I avoid Macs like the plague. I was just trying to convey that the OP shouldn't think the platform has been abandoned.
They did mention that they changed the HTTP code for cross-platform compatibility, so maybe that's evidence that they're working on delivering a Mac version? I dunno.
As for going paperless, I've not done it because I'd probably forget to pay the bill!
Heh, it's exactly the opposite for me. When I have a paper bill, I remember that I need to pay the bill, but never to actually do it. I'm always remembering "Oh yeah, I need to send that check out!" while I'm at work. I've even had an envelope with a check in it sit on my counter for weeks... all ready to go, I just needed to remember to take it to a mailbox.
With e-bill, I can accommodate my stupid brain, and pay it when I remember to do it, instantly.;)
At no point did I say anything that contradicts any of this. "They shouldn't do that" does not equate to "Holy fuck, let's force them to stop doing that!".
You'll notice I said "It's not strictly wrong...". I agree that it's their right, but I still think it's shitty of them to not let their departments choose. Different departments are going to have very different needs.
I disagree. It's not strictly wrong, but it certainly is a slap in the face to the ideals that the OSS community seeks to champion. The community advocates choice: individual departments, at the least (individual user choice would be ideal, but impractical), should be able to choose what works best from them.
Also, there's a great deal of humor value in having "free" and "by fiat" together in the same statement. Nothing wrong with recognizing the hilarity!
No, sir, I believe that would be your way. My way is the one that doesn't rely on the philosophy of "Let's let the world go to shit, but try to slow it down". THAT is guaranteeing that things go to shit. You speak of real results, but you'll NEVER SEE THEM, because your way is like paying bullies not to beat you up. Sure, you didn't get beat up, but you're still poorer for it... and will continue to get poorer every day. My way is the only one that offers any actual possibility of things getting better, at the risk of things hitting bottom faster. Yours guarantees degradation at a slower rate.
So, if we pick your way, we're going to hit bottom anyway, but it'll be x + y years from now instead of merely x years from now. Sorry, but fuck that. I want to strive for actual improvement of our situation.
Regardless, I'm done here. As I said, we have no common ground to speak to. Enjoy the life of taking it in the ass with lube, and feeling great because you could be taking it in the ass without lube.
On a second reading, I think my smrt brain also kicked in and I somehow read your sentence as "looks better THAN on the PC"... which isn't what you said at all. Mental fuck-ups FTW!
Oh and LOL at deception. Yeah, and all his DoJ picks (actions matter right?), starting years before an Obama Presidency was even considered, wrote papers and editorials criticizing the expansion of executive power, all in preparation for deceiving America. Sounds like if he really wanted to deceive us he should have voted against the bill he knew was going to pass anyway, so he could have fooled you too!
I merely mention it as a possibility, because talking about the man's intent is PURE speculation, and we have to account for all possibilities if we're going to wildly speculate like that. My entire point was that since we have no way of knowing his true intent (maybe pure, maybe malicious, no one can know), all we can judge is his actions... which were shit.
So maybe you feel good about yourself, but the world still goes to shit. I soundly reject that utterly useless philosophy.
Maybe, but at least if I get my way, the world doesn't go to shit. If you get your way, the world still goes to shit, just not quite as fast. Now that's what I'd call an utterly useless philosophy: actually condoning things getting worse, just because things could be worse yet. Brilliant!
What "evil" did he do, other than not make a meaningless gesture? The bill was going to pass anyway.
He voted for something that was wrong. You say his actions are exonerated by his votes before the crucial one, but it could just as easily be a deception to conceal his true intentions. We have no way of knowing what his intent truly was on that bill, all we know is his actions... which supported it. So no, he didn't "not make a meaningless gesture", he actively supported sweeping an abuse of power under the rug. Not making a meaningless gesture would've been something like not voting on the bill... at least he would've done no harm, then.
Slashdot Mirror
No, I'm not. The parent poster used poor wording, but he understands it very clearly, and you misunderstood him. He's splitting hairs over the terminology involved. We all agree you can sell copies of the software, but he's saying that this is not the same as "selling the software", and should not be called such. Technically, he's correct, but unnecessarily picky. Linux is not mine to sell. I don't have ownership of it, and thus can't sell it. I can, however, have ownership of a single copy, and sell that. This is too cumbersome to use in practice, so we call it "selling the software", even though that's technically impossible.
mlwmohawk is being way too picky about it, and his point doesn't actually matter, but he is correct.
You didn't understand his point at all. The reference you cited merely backs him up. He's saying you're not selling the software (in the abstract sense), but the service of providing a copy for them. It's splitting hairs, yes, but he admits as much.
Many other products do the exact same but cost a lower price, and often with more features and at a higher quality. That's why I'm not a fan of the company.
That, and their oppressive business practices, is why I don't like Apple. They have the worst value in their products of any company out there.
Additionally, every single time they do come up with a useful or cool design (G4 iMac, G3 iPod were awesome), they wreck it in the next generation (G5 iMac, iPod G4-Touch were shit). That gets under a guy's skin. I can handle change, as long as it's for the better. With Apple, it never is.
What's funny is that you consider uptimes of months to be significant. I know Linux geeks that will laugh at that. Apparently they don't consider anything measured in units smaller than years to be significant.
It's not funny at all. For a home machine, any uptime longer than a couple weeks is dick waving. For servers, it's a different story, but I'm not running a server. My home machine comes down sometimes once a month just to swap IDE drives, and we want to talk about uptimes of years? Not important.
With Windows, you are always having to reboot the system due to everything from software installs to changing a network connection.
No, you aren't. This hasn't been true since Windows XP, at least. I can get uptimes of months at a time on my Windows box, the only time it comes down is for hardware changes or OS updates.
and now these people have the fucking gall to say that I should pay 30 euros for each game too?
I know! Paying for the fruits of people's labors... what a concept!
Additionally, resurrection isn't without penalty (unless I misremember -- which is likely ;)). Isn't there a loss-of-XP factor as well, or am I mistakenly mixing up my D&D with EQ?
No, you're right, but it's also one of the more bullshit rules D&D has, considering it's unfair, frustrating, and doesn't even add flavor to the game (since XP is an abstraction of your character learning from his/her experiences, and when you fail at something, you don't suddenly become more inexperienced. You actually become more experienced, or at worst, are where you started). It's one of the idiotic D&D rules that I'd house rule away if I ran a campaign.
Besides, none of that changes the fact that since you're running the game, you can at any point say "No, that didn't happen", and bring your character back. In that way, death in D&D is even less imposing than in a video game, since at least in permadeath video games, your character really dies, no hand-waving possible.
And yes, when you're dead, you're pretty much dead. Your characters die and don't come back.
That's entirely up to the discretion of the players playing the game. Also, D&D has resurrection spells, so even if your DM won't let you save your character by just making up some hand waving to excuse how he's still alive (and in that case, he/she is a bad DM, since DMs need to work with what the group wants, not lord it over them), you can just resurrect him. Death is no more permanent in D&D than in any video game.
And why the bloody hell would I want to waste time and money teaching someone their job?
How nice for you that we have employers with clearer vision than you. If no one gives the new guys so much as a chance, where the hell do you expect your experienced guys to come from?
Your position is extremely short-sighted, and only works out for you because most people grasp the flaw in it. If they didn't, you'd be SOL.
Well, only someone under 30 would be offended by your statement, but most people would find it really damned stupid. Competence is not caused by age, and you would do well to hire the greenest programmer around if that person is willing and able to be taught, and has basic competence at the job. Hire based on where you think they'll go, not where they are right now.
I do not know which are worse, the folks that know they don't know or don't know they don't know.
Easy. The ones who don't know they don't know. They're often willfully ignorant of their weakness, and in that case, there's no hope for them. I find it's usually people who accept their lack of knowledge that can be taught.
Of course, there's no shortage of people who don't know and don't care to learn, either, so nothing is guaranteed. Still, on balance, I'd say that those who know they don't know are more teachable.
but most people are pretty elitist, and close minded
Fixed that for you. ;)
I hate to be cynical, but it does seem to be in human nature to find a bunch of people who share your views, and then sit around looking down on everyone else who's too stupid to see it your way. Makes people feel better about themselves, I guess.
Nah, I don't care for myself, as I avoid Macs like the plague. I was just trying to convey that the OP shouldn't think the platform has been abandoned.
They did mention that they changed the HTTP code for cross-platform compatibility, so maybe that's evidence that they're working on delivering a Mac version? I dunno.
Considering Vista is a decent, working OS, and the problems with it are mainly groupthink at work, that's not a bad thing.
Oh, thank God. I'm not the only one who recognizes this. It's become seriously old seeing the groupthink at work with Vista.
As for going paperless, I've not done it because I'd probably forget to pay the bill!
Heh, it's exactly the opposite for me. When I have a paper bill, I remember that I need to pay the bill, but never to actually do it. I'm always remembering "Oh yeah, I need to send that check out!" while I'm at work. I've even had an envelope with a check in it sit on my counter for weeks... all ready to go, I just needed to remember to take it to a mailbox.
With e-bill, I can accommodate my stupid brain, and pay it when I remember to do it, instantly. ;)
At no point did I say anything that contradicts any of this. "They shouldn't do that" does not equate to "Holy fuck, let's force them to stop doing that!".
You'll notice I said "It's not strictly wrong...". I agree that it's their right, but I still think it's shitty of them to not let their departments choose. Different departments are going to have very different needs.
I disagree. It's not strictly wrong, but it certainly is a slap in the face to the ideals that the OSS community seeks to champion. The community advocates choice: individual departments, at the least (individual user choice would be ideal, but impractical), should be able to choose what works best from them.
Also, there's a great deal of humor value in having "free" and "by fiat" together in the same statement. Nothing wrong with recognizing the hilarity!
No, your way GUARANTEES the world goes to shit...
No, sir, I believe that would be your way. My way is the one that doesn't rely on the philosophy of "Let's let the world go to shit, but try to slow it down". THAT is guaranteeing that things go to shit. You speak of real results, but you'll NEVER SEE THEM, because your way is like paying bullies not to beat you up. Sure, you didn't get beat up, but you're still poorer for it... and will continue to get poorer every day. My way is the only one that offers any actual possibility of things getting better, at the risk of things hitting bottom faster. Yours guarantees degradation at a slower rate.
So, if we pick your way, we're going to hit bottom anyway, but it'll be x + y years from now instead of merely x years from now. Sorry, but fuck that. I want to strive for actual improvement of our situation.
Regardless, I'm done here. As I said, we have no common ground to speak to. Enjoy the life of taking it in the ass with lube, and feeling great because you could be taking it in the ass without lube.
On a second reading, I think my smrt brain also kicked in and I somehow read your sentence as "looks better THAN on the PC"... which isn't what you said at all. Mental fuck-ups FTW!
Any game that is on a console looks substantially better on the PC...
That's a laugh. I have yet to see the console game which has visuals on par with what the PC can offer. Visually, everyone knows PC > console.
Oh and LOL at deception. Yeah, and all his DoJ picks (actions matter right?), starting years before an Obama Presidency was even considered, wrote papers and editorials criticizing the expansion of executive power, all in preparation for deceiving America. Sounds like if he really wanted to deceive us he should have voted against the bill he knew was going to pass anyway, so he could have fooled you too!
I merely mention it as a possibility, because talking about the man's intent is PURE speculation, and we have to account for all possibilities if we're going to wildly speculate like that. My entire point was that since we have no way of knowing his true intent (maybe pure, maybe malicious, no one can know), all we can judge is his actions... which were shit.
So maybe you feel good about yourself, but the world still goes to shit. I soundly reject that utterly useless philosophy.
Maybe, but at least if I get my way, the world doesn't go to shit. If you get your way, the world still goes to shit, just not quite as fast. Now that's what I'd call an utterly useless philosophy: actually condoning things getting worse, just because things could be worse yet. Brilliant!
What "evil" did he do, other than not make a meaningless gesture? The bill was going to pass anyway.
He voted for something that was wrong. You say his actions are exonerated by his votes before the crucial one, but it could just as easily be a deception to conceal his true intentions. We have no way of knowing what his intent truly was on that bill, all we know is his actions... which supported it. So no, he didn't "not make a meaningless gesture", he actively supported sweeping an abuse of power under the rug. Not making a meaningless gesture would've been something like not voting on the bill... at least he would've done no harm, then.