I thought this was an option too, however I'm more concerned with the return policies of the store. It'd be difficult to fight a store that wouldn't take it back. You'd have to put it on a credit card and contest the charges. The same applies to Windows software with the EULA in the box, I would to buy it, take it back to the store and tell them I can't run it because I won't agree to the terms. So I choose the traditional route, I don't do Windows.
Yeah I gripe about that too, but only because I'm most used to the Berkeley (for the most part) syntax of Linux, had I grown up using AT&T I'd probably like that better. But I'd still prefer a Unix over a Windows any day.
In a forum like slashdot I only have enough space to generalize but I'll throw a couple of answers out. Let's start with the fact that I have the source to my software, if there's something I don't like about a particular piece of software I can change it, that is power, that is flexibility, that is customization and that's at the lowest level and is an inherent characteristic of OSS. Two, good linux software offers infinitely more cutomization than Windows in that I can choose what file manager to use, what window manager, and the ability to write my own very easily if that's what I wish. If I want a full featured desktop I can have one, if I want a small lightweight blazing fast window manager, I can have one of them as well. More importantly many window manages, such as Sawfish, allow unlimited customization in the form of embedded scripting.
Three, let's look at your absolutely clueless statementL
You see I find that Windows as a whole is more stable than the components of linux. Just because the webserver in my workstation doesn't go down, it doesn't mean that my work isn't interrupted when my X server/web browser/email client/cd burning software/etc. crashes. I personally don't have that problem, on the rare occasion when software does crach (which is certainly less often than windows) it is obvious that having only the bad process crash is preferable to having the whole system brought down by a user process. Let's look at it in detail, you and I are working on the exact same project, we both have open a web browser, an email client, and some terminals. Both of our web browsers crash at exactly the same time. IE takes down your whole machine, blue screen... reboot, I restart my browser and continue working. It's not that hard to see who is better off. Not to mention the fact that you have just lost all unsaved information in the other processes where I have not.
Four, Linux has more power in that all desktop functionality has its equivalent in the filesystem in a format that makes intergrates the two seamlessly, unlike windows which hides the gui aspects from the user.
Five, my desktop software doesn't store files in a binary proprietary format, which by the way is bloated to ridiculous sizes by copyright lines and privacy invading user id's.
Six, (this is fun), My spreadsheet can handle more than 65,000 rows.
Seven, the majority of Linux distributions come pre configured for invaluable tools like ssh, traceroute, and tcpdump.
Eight, I didn't have to pay for my software.
Nine, The whole concept of a GUI is fluff to your day to day desktop use, you can get everything done with just a command prompt... faster.
Ten, I can create a professionally typset document in less time than you, without removing my hands from the keyboard. Cavemen pointed at things and grunted, it's no suprise that that's the only way that Windows users can interact with their machines.
Eleven, I have complete control over my OS. In the extremely unlikely event that my software decides to send personal information back to the makers I can turn it off and continue to use the product. You have absolutely no control.
I could go on forever, but like I said, space limitations. It's ridiculous for a Windows user to argue the technical superiority of windows over Linux. As of right now my work desktop Linux box has been up for over 203 days. Which coincidentally is the last time I upgraded the kernel. How long has your Windows machine been up?
As far as Windows being more stable, that's simple laughable, Windows isn't even stable running under it's own power with no extra software. Hell 95 had a timed meltdown, if you left it running you could predict to the minute when it would go down, if it managed to make it that far.
I didn't even have to go into the whole spectrum of tools that are available for *nix that are unheard of on Windows.
, but petty things like this are surely pointless. If a HCI group found that Linux was _easier_ to use, then that would be something to applaud but in the days of Gigabit networks and massive processor speeds and huge RAM these sorts of performance things are less important than ever.
Thus spake the virgin programmer. That bullshit about hardware invalidating the need for fast efficient code, is the bullshit rhetoric taught in college classes that brought us the blue screen of death in the first place. Speed and performance do matter as does not hogging memory and efficiency. You will always run into limits on what a machine can do, and in the case of business, writing code that allows 5 servers to do the work of ten at helf the bandwidth is a big deal.
The key to success has already been gained by Linux, it is used by the people who matter (not matter as in personal worth but matter as in matter to the advancement of computing). I couldn't give two shits about Joe Schmoe who wants to check his email and surf for porn, let him use Windows, it's not necessary for everyone to use the same operating system. Use the right tool for the job, and for developement *nix is the best tool.
Uh the reason so many people will pick apart studies claiming Windows superiority is because heistory has shown us that they are usually untrue. I know Linux is technically superior to Windows I know Linux is more powerful than Windows, I don't need a study to prove it. And as far as Linux desktops being mediocre, that's entirely a matter of opinion. I love my GNOME desktop, I love the fact that it's more powerful, flexible, and customizable than Windows. And I really love the fact that my linux workstation works the way it's supposed to and doesn't constantly crash.
It's not a flame, it's flame bait. Succesful businesses do use Linux, we do. In fact it out performs Solaris for our applications. I'm just happy I get to use a *nix instead of windows. Keep windows where it belongs, catering to people who don't know what they're doing.
Read my post. I explicitly pointed out that the DMCA does not have that big of an impact on the populace at large. IMO if the ridiculously alarmist predictions you posted were to begin to come to pass they would cause a much greater outcry than the DMCA did. Music restrictions have a much farther reaching impact than restrictions on reverse engineering and copyright correction. Your average Joe doesn't care that he can't crack the encryption on a piece of software, only that it works. He will however be affected by cd prices jumping up two or three dollars, especially when they are allready over-priced as it is.
That's a pretty cynical view. It's not as simple as all that. Those are extreme laws to have passed and simply "buying" them isn't necessarily going to work. The companies don't get to make the rules your cynicism notwithstanding. Ultimately it's the people who get to decide, even if congress passes the law a referendum will put it on the ballot to be voted down. You're not talking about an issue that is invisible to all but a small number of people (UCITA, DMCA) but something that would affect, directly, the majority of the population.
You think they're not losing money, think again, they're spending tons of cash every time they try to fight one of these services. The number of services that can pop up is limitless, their cash flow is not. Their business model is dead, I like many others will refuse to buy a single cd that I can't rip to mp3 (or whatever, better format comes along). This is not to say that I condone what may be stealing, I would be perfectly willing to pay for a file download if the quality were guaranteed and the proce was reasonable (it would have to be less than a dollar for me to accept it).
That's an awul lot of "they will control's" floating around. A ridiculously extreme idea. They will not control these things because the people of this country will not stand for it. There are limits to what the general public will take from government and ultimately it is OUR decision what is and is not legal.
It doesn't help for him to have been offensive to me. I get pissed easily when someone is naive enough to call a difference of opinion a troll.
If you read the whole thread you'll see that I did address his point. When you are available to the public you give your consent to be contacted, you have the right to ignore this contact or tell the party involved that you do not wish any sort of communication. It does not matter in the least if it costs you (in time, money or anything) you have made yourself available to the public. Now if the person (company or whatever) insists on repeatedly trying to talk (advertise or whatever) to you, then they're crossing the line into harrassment. A one time attempt to initiate communication is entirely under the blanket of free speech.
Bullshit. The net is public, if you put your server on it, you share in the handling of traffic. If you can't handle that take down your box, stop crying about non-existent cost increases and go back to beating off and watching after school specials.
Troll my ass. You don't know how to properly set up your mail clients if you're getting mail you don't want. In your earlier post you claimed you wanted mail only from those you gave explicit permission to. Which means that ANY mail not from that list can be piped to/dev/null. I'll agree that forged, missing and incorrect header are wrong, but when you let your address get out to the public you are implicitly allowing at companies to attempt to contact you at least once. Which is perfectly legal and a valid expression of free speech.
Hey I didn't make the laws. Besides the whole point was that the entire statement was a paradox, not the bit that you chose to quote out of context.
Pushing aside the fact that you so rudely mis-quoted me;> let's look at energy (I'll play along regardless of my original point and contrary to my personal opinions being the DA is fun). Energy is a catch all term we use for the ability to do work. It doesn't exist in and of itself. Let's look at the particular form of energy otherwise known as heat. Heat does not exist as a discrete phenomenon it is soley a characteristic of things that do exist namely it is the measurement of the excitement of atoms in an object. A similar argument can be used for any form of energy you come up with. These things do not exist, they are attributes of objects that do. Energy is something we made up to explain the world around us.
Interesting? We need a new moderation category, try asinine. There is plenty of profit to be made from people who want to recieve the advertising. It's called direct marketing and it works. If you could filter out the people who wouldn't want to see it you wouldn't have to send out nearly as many emails, and your response rate would be much higher. You apparently labor under the delusion that direct email marketing doesn't work, well if it didn't these companies wouldn't exist in the first place. You apparently believe that nearly no one wants to see these emails, but since they get them anyway they click on the links and buy the product. Use you head before posting, a keyboard is not a toy.
You choose to go on a public system, you make you address available to the public. Anyone can send you mail, it's that simple. If you don't like it, get off of the public net. If you only want mail from people you have given permission to, then filter out all email addresses except the ones on you list. All this crying about you're higher costs for ISP's is bullshit rhetoric. Number one the cost is negligible if not non-existent. I have yet to have my ISP raise the price of my service for any reason, much less specifically because of increased bandwidth use. And if you think that ISP's would lower their prices if such laws were passed, you're seriously deluding yourself, or you're very young. They're going to squeeze as much cash out of you as they can either way.
All that being said, I am definitely against email that I recieve that I can't opt out of, but there is a huge difference between spam and legitimate business.
Re:Emacs emulation in vim?
on
VIM 6.0 is Out
·
· Score: 2
Nah, why would a vi user want to use emacs? Emacs users have vi envy so they need the emulation mode;)
I figured there may be something like that, but I'm sorry that doesn't work for me, it may be weeks before they refund me my money. I want my money back the instant I see that the product I bought was unusable. If I have to wait I want interest on my payment.
Hmmm I took a chance and bought a used one last night, I didn't see a manufactured on on the unit. The girl at the store knew that the information was in the bar code but didn't know how to read it. I've seen on a couple of sites that the whole not reading CDR things was a rumor, soemthing that was never implemented in the US. Mine works, I'll check over it again to make see when it was made. Is it possible that you made a coaster the first time burning a disc for your original DC?
Good science fiction does not violate physical laws. Science Fantasy does, which is essentially what Star Trek is. Science Fiction does not allow for things which cannot happen to happen. If you want to violate a scientific law (or more accurately what we believe is a law of nature) in science fiction you must explain how and why the event (or whatever) is possible. Not that I'm knocking Star Trek, but it's like Star Wars, call it Space Opera of Science Fantasy or whatever, but it is not really science fiction.
On another not though, I'm kinda dissapointed I didn't watch Enterprise, (I was busy buying a DreamCast and putting homebrew software on it damn./), I was never a big fan of Star Trek, haven't watched it since I was a kid, but even with the problems people have been pointing out, my curiosity has been piqued.
According to the laws of science a thing must have mass and take up space in order to exist, the laws of science do not have mass, the loaws of science do not take up space, therefore by the laws of science the laws of science do not exist.
... that I just read recently about some court decision that basically told a company that tried to sue over the resale of their product to go fuck themselves. This should apply to software as well. Of course from reading the other comments I see the common thread that you are licensing the software, not buying it. In a sense this is true, UCITA and the DMCA try to make sure of that, however un-constitutional they may be. But I do own the packaging. The box, the papers in it, the cd itself, they are all mine even if I'm just leasing the information stored on them. This is all certainly true just as it's true for any book that I've bought. In a capitalistic society it's my right to try and make money off of things that I own, and if I want the money from reselling software you can be damn sure I'm going to do it. I don't care if it is easier to copy software than it is a book, that doesn't take away from my rights in any way, shape or form. If they want to protect their software from being copied they must find other legal (and moral means) of doing so other than trying to restrict the rights of normal people.
Ever since UCITA passed here in MD I've been tempted to go to stores and buy copies of Windows, and return them opened the next day. Since I'm bound now by the license in the box, and I must open the box to see the license I am legally in the right to return the product if I refuse to agree to the license. It shouldn't matter what the return policy of the store is.
That's a terrible analogy, and does not fit the situation at all. I can read GPL code learn how to do something and then write my own versions that do not use GPL code at all and it's free of the license. USING the code in my product is a completely different situation.
I could make a comment about the phrase "stupid ranting" that you used but I'll let it slide:)
It doesn't matter if they changed the code, it is being distributed and falls under the GPL. Not to mention that earlier it was pointed out that their license says that they own all the software and that you cannot reverse engineer it. Wich renders the license null and void, because I DO have the right to reverse engineer ANY GPL code. Actually I'll go a step further, I have the right to reverse engineer ANY code.
You don't get it do you. All it takes is someone to fight it, even if the offending company has deeper pos=ckets and wins it's a win for us all, it sets precedent that liceses are non legally binding, that means everyones not just GPL coders.
Not that I think this would happen, you don't need much in the way of lawyers to show that they violated the license and in doing so they broke the law. When they have to pay damages less and less companies will steal OSS software.
What if they had embedded a minimal Linux setup in an EPROM? Seems it'll be a pain to use Linux in an embedded device if you have to keep provided source media even if you didn't change any GPL'ed code and just added your own programs.
Uhhh tough shit even if it is a pain. That's the price they pay for not having to do their own coding. We have to pay in currency for their products, thay have to pay according to the licensing rules. I think we're providing a much better deal: just follow these rules and you can use our work.
Slashdot Mirror
I thought this was an option too, however I'm more concerned with the return policies of the store. It'd be difficult to fight a store that wouldn't take it back. You'd have to put it on a credit card and contest the charges. The same applies to Windows software with the EULA in the box, I would to buy it, take it back to the store and tell them I can't run it because I won't agree to the terms. So I choose the traditional route, I don't do Windows.
Yeah I gripe about that too, but only because I'm most used to the Berkeley (for the most part) syntax of Linux, had I grown up using AT&T I'd probably like that better. But I'd still prefer a Unix over a Windows any day.
Three, let's look at your absolutely clueless statementL
You see I find that Windows as a whole is more stable than the components of linux. Just because the webserver in my workstation doesn't go down, it doesn't mean that my work isn't interrupted when my X server/web browser/email client/cd burning software/etc. crashes. I personally don't have that problem, on the rare occasion when software does crach (which is certainly less often than windows) it is obvious that having only the bad process crash is preferable to having the whole system brought down by a user process. Let's look at it in detail, you and I are working on the exact same project, we both have open a web browser, an email client, and some terminals. Both of our web browsers crash at exactly the same time. IE takes down your whole machine, blue screen... reboot, I restart my browser and continue working. It's not that hard to see who is better off. Not to mention the fact that you have just lost all unsaved information in the other processes where I have not.
Four, Linux has more power in that all desktop functionality has its equivalent in the filesystem in a format that makes intergrates the two seamlessly, unlike windows which hides the gui aspects from the user.
Five, my desktop software doesn't store files in a binary proprietary format, which by the way is bloated to ridiculous sizes by copyright lines and privacy invading user id's.
Six, (this is fun), My spreadsheet can handle more than 65,000 rows.
Seven, the majority of Linux distributions come pre configured for invaluable tools like ssh, traceroute, and tcpdump.
Eight, I didn't have to pay for my software.
Nine, The whole concept of a GUI is fluff to your day to day desktop use, you can get everything done with just a command prompt... faster.
Ten, I can create a professionally typset document in less time than you, without removing my hands from the keyboard. Cavemen pointed at things and grunted, it's no suprise that that's the only way that Windows users can interact with their machines.
Eleven, I have complete control over my OS. In the extremely unlikely event that my software decides to send personal information back to the makers I can turn it off and continue to use the product. You have absolutely no control.
I could go on forever, but like I said, space limitations. It's ridiculous for a Windows user to argue the technical superiority of windows over Linux. As of right now my work desktop Linux box has been up for over 203 days. Which coincidentally is the last time I upgraded the kernel. How long has your Windows machine been up?
As far as Windows being more stable, that's simple laughable, Windows isn't even stable running under it's own power with no extra software. Hell 95 had a timed meltdown, if you left it running you could predict to the minute when it would go down, if it managed to make it that far.
I didn't even have to go into the whole spectrum of tools that are available for *nix that are unheard of on Windows.
, but petty things like this are surely pointless. If a HCI group found that Linux was _easier_ to use, then that would be something to applaud but in the days of Gigabit networks and massive processor speeds and huge RAM these sorts of performance things are less important than ever.
Thus spake the virgin programmer. That bullshit about hardware invalidating the need for fast efficient code, is the bullshit rhetoric taught in college classes that brought us the blue screen of death in the first place. Speed and performance do matter as does not hogging memory and efficiency. You will always run into limits on what a machine can do, and in the case of business, writing code that allows 5 servers to do the work of ten at helf the bandwidth is a big deal.
The key to success has already been gained by Linux, it is used by the people who matter (not matter as in personal worth but matter as in matter to the advancement of computing). I couldn't give two shits about Joe Schmoe who wants to check his email and surf for porn, let him use Windows, it's not necessary for everyone to use the same operating system. Use the right tool for the job, and for developement *nix is the best tool.
Uh the reason so many people will pick apart studies claiming Windows superiority is because heistory has shown us that they are usually untrue. I know Linux is technically superior to Windows I know Linux is more powerful than Windows, I don't need a study to prove it. And as far as Linux desktops being mediocre, that's entirely a matter of opinion. I love my GNOME desktop, I love the fact that it's more powerful, flexible, and customizable than Windows. And I really love the fact that my linux workstation works the way it's supposed to and doesn't constantly crash.
It's not a flame, it's flame bait. Succesful businesses do use Linux, we do. In fact it out performs Solaris for our applications. I'm just happy I get to use a *nix instead of windows. Keep windows where it belongs, catering to people who don't know what they're doing.
Read my post. I explicitly pointed out that the DMCA does not have that big of an impact on the populace at large. IMO if the ridiculously alarmist predictions you posted were to begin to come to pass they would cause a much greater outcry than the DMCA did. Music restrictions have a much farther reaching impact than restrictions on reverse engineering and copyright correction. Your average Joe doesn't care that he can't crack the encryption on a piece of software, only that it works. He will however be affected by cd prices jumping up two or three dollars, especially when they are allready over-priced as it is.
You think they're not losing money, think again, they're spending tons of cash every time they try to fight one of these services. The number of services that can pop up is limitless, their cash flow is not. Their business model is dead, I like many others will refuse to buy a single cd that I can't rip to mp3 (or whatever, better format comes along). This is not to say that I condone what may be stealing, I would be perfectly willing to pay for a file download if the quality were guaranteed and the proce was reasonable (it would have to be less than a dollar for me to accept it).
That's an awul lot of "they will control's" floating around. A ridiculously extreme idea. They will not control these things because the people of this country will not stand for it. There are limits to what the general public will take from government and ultimately it is OUR decision what is and is not legal.
If you read the whole thread you'll see that I did address his point. When you are available to the public you give your consent to be contacted, you have the right to ignore this contact or tell the party involved that you do not wish any sort of communication. It does not matter in the least if it costs you (in time, money or anything) you have made yourself available to the public. Now if the person (company or whatever) insists on repeatedly trying to talk (advertise or whatever) to you, then they're crossing the line into harrassment. A one time attempt to initiate communication is entirely under the blanket of free speech.
Russian Coders? How about U.S. gorvernment coders?
Bullshit. The net is public, if you put your server on it, you share in the handling of traffic. If you can't handle that take down your box, stop crying about non-existent cost increases and go back to beating off and watching after school specials.
Troll my ass. You don't know how to properly set up your mail clients if you're getting mail you don't want. In your earlier post you claimed you wanted mail only from those you gave explicit permission to. Which means that ANY mail not from that list can be piped to /dev/null. I'll agree that forged, missing and incorrect header are wrong, but when you let your address get out to the public you are implicitly allowing at companies to attempt to contact you at least once. Which is perfectly legal and a valid expression of free speech.
Pushing aside the fact that you so rudely mis-quoted me
Interesting? We need a new moderation category, try asinine. There is plenty of profit to be made from people who want to recieve the advertising. It's called direct marketing and it works. If you could filter out the people who wouldn't want to see it you wouldn't have to send out nearly as many emails, and your response rate would be much higher. You apparently labor under the delusion that direct email marketing doesn't work, well if it didn't these companies wouldn't exist in the first place. You apparently believe that nearly no one wants to see these emails, but since they get them anyway they click on the links and buy the product. Use you head before posting, a keyboard is not a toy.
All that being said, I am definitely against email that I recieve that I can't opt out of, but there is a huge difference between spam and legitimate business.
Nah, why would a vi user want to use emacs? Emacs users have vi envy so they need the emulation mode ;)
I figured there may be something like that, but I'm sorry that doesn't work for me, it may be weeks before they refund me my money. I want my money back the instant I see that the product I bought was unusable. If I have to wait I want interest on my payment.
Hmmm I took a chance and bought a used one last night, I didn't see a manufactured on on the unit. The girl at the store knew that the information was in the bar code but didn't know how to read it. I've seen on a couple of sites that the whole not reading CDR things was a rumor, soemthing that was never implemented in the US. Mine works, I'll check over it again to make see when it was made. Is it possible that you made a coaster the first time burning a disc for your original DC?
On another not though, I'm kinda dissapointed I didn't watch Enterprise, (I was busy buying a DreamCast and putting homebrew software on it damn
According to the laws of science a thing must have mass and take up space in order to exist, the laws of science do not have mass, the loaws of science do not take up space, therefore by the laws of science the laws of science do not exist.
Ever since UCITA passed here in MD I've been tempted to go to stores and buy copies of Windows, and return them opened the next day. Since I'm bound now by the license in the box, and I must open the box to see the license I am legally in the right to return the product if I refuse to agree to the license. It shouldn't matter what the return policy of the store is.
Can anyone verify this though. Or at least explain where to find the manufacturing date on a DC?
That's a terrible analogy, and does not fit the situation at all. I can read GPL code learn how to do something and then write my own versions that do not use GPL code at all and it's free of the license. USING the code in my product is a completely different situation.
It doesn't matter if they changed the code, it is being distributed and falls under the GPL. Not to mention that earlier it was pointed out that their license says that they own all the software and that you cannot reverse engineer it. Wich renders the license null and void, because I DO have the right to reverse engineer ANY GPL code. Actually I'll go a step further, I have the right to reverse engineer ANY code.
Not that I think this would happen, you don't need much in the way of lawyers to show that they violated the license and in doing so they broke the law. When they have to pay damages less and less companies will steal OSS software.
Uhhh tough shit even if it is a pain. That's the price they pay for not having to do their own coding. We have to pay in currency for their products, thay have to pay according to the licensing rules. I think we're providing a much better deal: just follow these rules and you can use our work.