As it stands, I think we're seeing a lot of selection bias.
Agreed, to an extent. There are several things very wrong with the GIMP, such as layer sizes, the multiple windows, the vast amount of screen real-estate (unless you put everything into one panel like I have), the number of tools that should be merged into one, the brush sizes, needing to go through 10 dialogues just to save a png (or some format other than xcf), the transformation tools mess the image up if used more than once, the obfuscated way to add the alpha channel.
Those are just things that come to mind after just a cursory glance around the GIMP, am sure there are many more. Most of these are not problems if you know how to deal with them, but for a new user (or someone coming from Photoshop) they're annoying and counter-intuitive. That's not to say Photoshop isn't counter-intuitive in many ways, but using Photoshop as an excuse is a little like saying you didn't do your homework at school because your friend didn't: it's not going to wash with the teacher and, in the world of software, it isn't going to grow your market share (granted this is secondary, but what's the point of creating FLOSS software if no-one uses it?)
I like the idea, but will the folks who use ingimp be at all representative of the user population at large?... Especially of the user population that would complain about accessibility / usability.
My wife does Web design for University of Waterloo and she's always moaning about the usability of the GIMP. I too am more into design than development these days, so that makes two people who're--more or less--ideal for the task.
Not to mention we have both customised our GIMP's to look and behave more like Photoshop (the missus was fiddling with the keyboard-shortcuts for ages). It seems this data should be collected in this project, as I doubt we're the only ones who've changed everything to our tastes, the developers should finally realise what people want in an image editor.
On a related, by tangential, note: GIMP's new core (GEGL) seems to be nearing completion, with that comes all the things people have been clamouring for. Such as non-destructable layer effects, CMYK etc. If they fix the usability and shift to GEGL as the core of GIMP it might finally become the Photoshop killer we've all been waiting for! Failing that Krita is coming along very well as an image editor, it lacks a few features, but is far more usable than the GIMP.
Overall, I don't think anyone should be saying: 'year of the Linux desktop!' just yet. But this is definitely a step in the right direction.:)
She is under the impression that issuing a coupon is the same thing as distributing - that if any of Microsoft's coupons are redeemed for a GPLv3-licensed product, that Microsoft has then distributed it.
From the article:
First, "distribution" isn't the issue with GPLv3. That is a GPLv2 question, as I'll show you. GPLv3 talks about "propagating" and "conveying", not just distribution. Propagation includes anything, including distribution but not limited to it, that would make you directly *or secondarily* liable for infringement if you lack permission. Convey means "any kind of propagation" that enables another party to make or receive copies of a work. Like selling them the vouchers, perchance?
Had you bothered to read the article you would have know that too.
I don't think you should ever be held accountable for past actions under a new license. [...] Furthermore, much of this whole argument assumes that all this software is definitely moving to GPLv3
Quite right, which is why it's so important that the vouchers they have been conveying have no expiry date. When, in the future, someone goes to Microsoft with a voucher and Microsoft conveys a copy of SLES with Samba (or some of the other projects who're switching) then the GPLv3 will apply:
Your views are interesting, however you have not convinced me as we see this in slightly different ways:
Just to take one example: if a system of license plate readers can detect a plate that has been flagged by some agency and prevents one, e.g., car bombing, why is that not a valid mechanism to use?
Just because it can be abused?
No, it's not that it can be abused it is an abuse. I don't believe anyone should have the right to watch me going about my business (unless I am suspected of committing a crime of course: that's a subject for another debate). What gives the police the right to watch everyone? Who is watching the police? Following the entire population makes everyone suspects of every crime, everyone on the planet is becoming guilty until proven innocent: a worrying proposition.
There is no reason surveillance cameras in public places or license plate readers in stationary locations or on aircraft should be vilified any more than any other piece of technology.
Indeed, I have nothing against the technology itself, it's the application that's the problem. You are trying to say that installing surveillance cameras in public places is a technology. It's not, it's an application of technology.
Whether or not such systems actually do deter crime or terrorist activity, or whether they are worth the money, is really what is at issue. Not kneejerk reactions about 1984 likely to dominate some (most?) debates on this issue.
This paragraph is where our views are very different, your points--in my opinion--aren't as important as the question: 'Is this beneficial to society and the individuals within it?' Indeed, we could eliminate crime by throwing anyone without a job into jail, eliminate terrorism by shooting everyone who's a Muslim (or previously in the UK, shoot all Catholics). These methods are both cost-effective and problem solving: if these are your only two metrics, society is in trouble.
I despise the term: 'knee-jerk reaction'. It's so over-used, and how do you know how carefully someone has considered that government abuse of technology is leading to 1984-esque states? It's just an annoying debating tactic, used to discount someone else's opinion without reason.
It had nothing to do with Iraq, Iran or the "missile shield", it was about IP rights.
No, I think that was sorted out a long time ago (conditions on Russia joining the WTO). I believe the only reason they went fishing was so Bush could regail Putin with some crap jokes he found on Slashdot:
In Soviet Russia fish catch YOU!
All your allofmp3 are belong to us!
In Soviet Russia missiles shield YOU!
???
International Diplomacy!
Putin would have been pissed off with all this, but whilst George W. was talking shit: he caught a fish.
Linux's lack of a standard GUI layer in the OS - modern menus, buttons, lists, even windows - is the primary issue for us.
I don't really understand why this would be a problem. You choose either QT, GTK or whatever. If someone wants to run your application then the libraries are only an apt-get/yum/[insert package manager here] away.
If you distribute your software as deb and rpm packages those pesky dependencies are handled by the package manager. Moreover integration between the widget sets has been getting better: using Firefox under KDE has pretty-much the same look as a native QT application (such as Konqueror) for me. The situation will only improve.
I could understand if you're developing proprietary software though. That stuff doesn't seem to gain much traction in the FLOSS world. Pixel is a good example: great photo editor, low price, but not many people use it. Why? On Windows/Mac everyone pirates/buys Photoshop and on GNU/Linux people would rather use the GIMP than a proprietary product (sorry I don't have any evidence to back that up, just personal experience from reading forums and such).
The UK has been trying to manipulate the way other countries run their business with the anti-trust bullshit for a while, and nobody questions the high tariff's throw on them when they get there.. by their own government.
United Kingdom != European Commision.
Secondly, where's the evidence to back up this serious allegation? Thirdly states that make up the EU are sovereign, if companies want to sell their products there they have to abide by the rules. If not, they can take their wares and go home.
Now that Moonlight is finished Miguel and his team should, having listened to customer demand (I believe that's the excuse Microsoft always uses), build some Free extensions on to Microsoft's work. Meaning the best experience can only be had by people running Moonlight under GNU/Linux and that some functionality will be unavailable to other platforms.
Gosh, does that mean people will be locked-in to using GNU/Linux? Well Microsoft could use the GPL'ed code if they want to! We'll call it 'Freedom lockin'.:)
What kind of good CIO has that kind of failure on his watch?
One that's using Windows? He seems wiser than you think as he's now trying to find an alternative. This month it's SuSE, then he'll be testing Ubuntu next, in July. From TFA:
That summer, Halamka had embarked on a quest to find a viable alternative to the Microsoft desktopfed up as he was with Windows instability.
[...]
They suggested he try SUSE [...] and Ubuntu. So he did. Keep reading to find out what Halamka thinks of Novells SUSE Enterprise Linux Desktop (SLED), and stay tuned in July for his take on Ubuntu.
He was probably one of the legions who subscribe to the 'Nobody was fired for buying Microsoft' meme, seems he's learnt his lesson now though. Wonder if we'll see this on Microsoft's 'Get the Facts' web site?:)
I agree 100%. If a suspect runs from the police, they should be required to shoot them in the back if they don't stop when asked to.
I realise you're being sarcastic, but this is exactly how things work in the UK. Of course he must have had something to hide, otherwise he wouldn't have run away would he?
What's also scary here is that, although chaired by a Conservative (from Alberta too), the committee is made up of members from all parties. Have a look at the list, there're Liberals, NDP and Bloc Québécois in there: I have trouble believing someone from the Bloc would go along with this. Do none of them bother to turn up to committee meetings, does everyone just fall asleep and let the chair do all the work, or is this just a horrible case of group think?!
Either way, our legislature needs some education. Time to get letter writing!
In response to claims that Vista's "Instant Search" slows competing products, Microsoft agreed to give competitors technical information to help optimize performance.
The bit most interesting to me was this. Does this mean that Microsoft have done again what they were penalised for in 2000? Two of the restrictions placed upon it then were:
Requiring Microsoft to disclose technical details about the inner workings of its operating systems to those wanting to write software for them. Competitors had complained that Microsoft had secret "hooks" in Windows that it used to make its applications perform better.
Barring Microsoft from including code in its programs that would hurt the performance of competing products. Competitors charged that Microsoft deliberately designed products to hamper the way other programs work.
So, I imagine they're back to using the secret API for the Microsoft search, while slowing down the 'official' APIs third parties must use. Although the press item only has one sentence on it, this 'optimisation' issue is as important as Microsoft providing a competing product to Google Desktop Search in my opinion.
I assume the technical information handed over to Google will be details of how to access key parts of Microsoft's hidden-hook goodies?
Does this do something to actually improve RF systems (eg, testing new antennas, filters, etc etc), or is it merely a dumb stunt of only interest to guys who have a lot of empty Pringles cans around?
Neither, if you read the PDF about the experiment, you'll see the aim is to discover whether stock equipment can be used to connect remote areas to the Internet. Connecting people in rural locations is a challenge being faced in many countries, others have different solutions.
although I suspect the left wing of Slashdot might chime in about its applicability for solving all the problems of Mugabe's Zimbabwe, etc.
Really, I consider myself a bit of a leftie and I'd like to see Mugabe slung out of power as much as any Tory would. Comparing Mugabe to the liberal left is like comparing Karl Marx with Ronald McDonald: pointless and stupid.
It's not too suprising, although Microsoft seem to have had a few victories recently these are very small. Who're Novell, Xandros and Linspire anyway? Small fry really (with the possible exception of Novell, who've been badly burnt by the whole experience). Also remember SCO managed to sell a few of its spurious 'licenses' before IBM made mince meat of them in court. Their claims were even more daft than those made by Microsoft (remember copyright vs. patents).
However, a GPL monoculture has been seen time and again to be the end goal. Stallman's ideal scenario would be every bit as much a monoculture as Microsoft's
A license monoculture is not the same as a software monoculture under the control of one company. As for the rest of your post: weird and reality-twisting. Richard Stallman would like everyone to use the GPL? That's hardly a suprise. Yet you make it appear that promoting the GPL is the same as threatening to shoot anyone who doesn't. Only Microsoft would go that far!:)
Methinks you are a BSD user with a chip on their shoulder. That you actually agree with what is probably a joke is particularly astounding.
Communism, as preached by Mark, has never been implemented. What you're thinking of, is some kind of Bolshevism.
You're absolutely right of course, I was 'dumbing down' the issues somewhat. The average westerner's definition of 'Communism' is that totalitarian state I was referring to: Soviet Russia under Stalin typifies Communism for most people.
My apologies for continuing to perpetuate mis-information.
This is such a hilarious troll, normally I wouldn't feed but the parent post is so ridiculous that it's gone beyond trolling into some random fantasy land.
Go to hell, communists.
The GPL is not Communist in nature, in fact when I distribute software under the GPL it's all about me and my choice to share work with others. In a Communist scenario all the sofware would belong to the state, the choice of sharing would not be mine. Secondly, nowhere in the GPL does it say you cannot charge for your work, Studio to Go is a good example of this.
You democrats are trying to destroy the United States' only hold over China: They need Microsoft software. When they can get crappy free solutions to do the same, the United States will just continue to become indebted to China and other countries. And it will be all your fault, you Hillary fanboys.
Right, because Free software is all a conspiracy to ruin the US. Of course most of the people who answered the survey in this MIT study, when asked what their motivation is, said: 'I'm a Hillary fanboy and want to ruin the US!' Or could it be that FLOSS developers enjoy coding and want to share stuff they like? Which do you think is more likely?
I like FLOSS but am not a Hillary fanboy. In fact am not really interested in your elections, suprise: there are people who live outside the US!
For the sake of national security, free software efforts must become against the law.
This is the funniest thing I've read for a long time. It would be interesting to see this happen, my hypothesis is that this would ruin software development in the US. Am pretty certain your country would suffer rather badly if it outlawed FLOSS but the rest of the world continued developing it. Think of all those savings your corporations would be missing out on! What about the US corporations who're distributing FLOSS, e.g. IBM, Sun, HP, Dell, RedHat et al?
Besides, free software destroys our free market, creating monopolies, by selling at excessively low prices. Would Microsoft get away with giving away free products to take competitors' market share away? No. Neither should these ****ing tree-hugging, Prius-driving free software zealots. The captcha is appropriately "planking."
Oh dear, that's funny. Free software does not destroy the free market, but encourages it. With FLOSS there's much less possibility for vendor lock-in (since everything is out in the open and I can't imagine the many volunteers working on FLOSS projects being happy with creating proprietary file formats etc.). Theoretically Microsoft would not get away with giving away software for free, yet that's exactly how they gained their monopoly: by turning a blind eye to piracy. Your point is invalid in another respect: Microsoft is a company whereas Free software is an ecosystem/licensing model. If all proprietary software disappeared tomorrow there would still be plenty of competition, this is one of the things people complain about with GNU/Linux: there's too much choice!
I'd almost like to see your post modded up as 'Funny', just because it's so stupid and full of hilarious vitriol. Also I feel it's important to debunk rubbish like this sometimes, just in case someone else read your post and thinks that you've got a point (a scary prospect).
"EU government snooping"??? There is NO such thing.
Putting words in capitals doesn't make them true. I call holding information on all the sites I visit, for possible perusal by the government, 'snooping'. You may entrust them to use the data honourably, but from the article linked to earlier it seems the copyright lobby groups already have designs upon that data. In short you don't call it snooping, I do. A matter of semantics really.
Sorry, the way you Brits ALWAYS blame the continent for... everything, is pathetic.
I never blamed the EU for anything. In fact am one of the few Brits who--openly at least--likes the idea of a unified Europe. Example: last time I flew into Bordeaux airport, some old Brit was complaining that the trolleys required a Euro, but she had no change. I pointed out to her that if Britain had joined the Euro she probably would have had some change in her purse. She wasn't very pleased, but couldn't argue such a simple point.:) Also That idea of data retention originally came from Britain (if memory serves). It appears many governments seem to think if one allied country is doing something it's fine for them to do it too. The proliferation of US DMCA-esqu laws is a good example.
Slashdot Mirror
Agreed, to an extent. There are several things very wrong with the GIMP, such as layer sizes, the multiple windows, the vast amount of screen real-estate (unless you put everything into one panel like I have), the number of tools that should be merged into one, the brush sizes, needing to go through 10 dialogues just to save a png (or some format other than xcf), the transformation tools mess the image up if used more than once, the obfuscated way to add the alpha channel.
Those are just things that come to mind after just a cursory glance around the GIMP, am sure there are many more. Most of these are not problems if you know how to deal with them, but for a new user (or someone coming from Photoshop) they're annoying and counter-intuitive. That's not to say Photoshop isn't counter-intuitive in many ways, but using Photoshop as an excuse is a little like saying you didn't do your homework at school because your friend didn't: it's not going to wash with the teacher and, in the world of software, it isn't going to grow your market share (granted this is secondary, but what's the point of creating FLOSS software if no-one uses it?)
My wife does Web design for University of Waterloo and she's always moaning about the usability of the GIMP. I too am more into design than development these days, so that makes two people who're--more or less--ideal for the task.
Not to mention we have both customised our GIMP's to look and behave more like Photoshop (the missus was fiddling with the keyboard-shortcuts for ages). It seems this data should be collected in this project, as I doubt we're the only ones who've changed everything to our tastes, the developers should finally realise what people want in an image editor.
On a related, by tangential, note: GIMP's new core (GEGL) seems to be nearing completion, with that comes all the things people have been clamouring for. Such as non-destructable layer effects, CMYK etc. If they fix the usability and shift to GEGL as the core of GIMP it might finally become the Photoshop killer we've all been waiting for! Failing that Krita is coming along very well as an image editor, it lacks a few features, but is far more usable than the GIMP.
Overall, I don't think anyone should be saying: 'year of the Linux desktop!' just yet. But this is definitely a step in the right direction. :)
From the article:
Had you bothered to read the article you would have know that too.
Quite right, which is why it's so important that the vouchers they have been conveying have no expiry date. When, in the future, someone goes to Microsoft with a voucher and Microsoft conveys a copy of SLES with Samba (or some of the other projects who're switching) then the GPLv3 will apply:
Your views are interesting, however you have not convinced me as we see this in slightly different ways:
No, it's not that it can be abused it is an abuse. I don't believe anyone should have the right to watch me going about my business (unless I am suspected of committing a crime of course: that's a subject for another debate). What gives the police the right to watch everyone? Who is watching the police? Following the entire population makes everyone suspects of every crime, everyone on the planet is becoming guilty until proven innocent: a worrying proposition.
Indeed, I have nothing against the technology itself, it's the application that's the problem. You are trying to say that installing surveillance cameras in public places is a technology. It's not, it's an application of technology.
This paragraph is where our views are very different, your points--in my opinion--aren't as important as the question: 'Is this beneficial to society and the individuals within it?' Indeed, we could eliminate crime by throwing anyone without a job into jail, eliminate terrorism by shooting everyone who's a Muslim (or previously in the UK, shoot all Catholics). These methods are both cost-effective and problem solving: if these are your only two metrics, society is in trouble.
I despise the term: 'knee-jerk reaction'. It's so over-used, and how do you know how carefully someone has considered that government abuse of technology is leading to 1984-esque states? It's just an annoying debating tactic, used to discount someone else's opinion without reason.
No, I think that was sorted out a long time ago (conditions on Russia joining the WTO). I believe the only reason they went fishing was so Bush could regail Putin with some crap jokes he found on Slashdot:
Putin would have been pissed off with all this, but whilst George W. was talking shit: he caught a fish.
I don't really understand why this would be a problem. You choose either QT, GTK or whatever. If someone wants to run your application then the libraries are only an apt-get/yum/[insert package manager here] away.
If you distribute your software as deb and rpm packages those pesky dependencies are handled by the package manager. Moreover integration between the widget sets has been getting better: using Firefox under KDE has pretty-much the same look as a native QT application (such as Konqueror) for me. The situation will only improve.
I could understand if you're developing proprietary software though. That stuff doesn't seem to gain much traction in the FLOSS world. Pixel is a good example: great photo editor, low price, but not many people use it. Why? On Windows/Mac everyone pirates/buys Photoshop and on GNU/Linux people would rather use the GIMP than a proprietary product (sorry I don't have any evidence to back that up, just personal experience from reading forums and such).
United Kingdom != European Commision.
Secondly, where's the evidence to back up this serious allegation? Thirdly states that make up the EU are sovereign, if companies want to sell their products there they have to abide by the rules. If not, they can take their wares and go home.
Actually I'm being blatantly paid-off to tout this shit (literally): The Wipe-Ready Business. Is your business wipe-ready?
Unfortunately I can't claim the credit for this masterpeice. :)
Exactly why I wrote it.
Now that Moonlight is finished Miguel and his team should, having listened to customer demand (I believe that's the excuse Microsoft always uses), build some Free extensions on to Microsoft's work. Meaning the best experience can only be had by people running Moonlight under GNU/Linux and that some functionality will be unavailable to other platforms.
Gosh, does that mean people will be locked-in to using GNU/Linux? Well Microsoft could use the GPL'ed code if they want to! We'll call it 'Freedom lockin'. :)
One that's using Windows? He seems wiser than you think as he's now trying to find an alternative. This month it's SuSE, then he'll be testing Ubuntu next, in July. From TFA:
He was probably one of the legions who subscribe to the 'Nobody was fired for buying Microsoft' meme, seems he's learnt his lesson now though. Wonder if we'll see this on Microsoft's 'Get the Facts' web site? :)
I realise you're being sarcastic, but this is exactly how things work in the UK. Of course he must have had something to hide, otherwise he wouldn't have run away would he?
That makes a lot of sense, either that or a Microsoft grunt was playing a practical joke (whoever is responsible: they're playing with chairs IMO).
The breadcrumbs for that page backup your theory:
Pretty weird place to put the download if they meant to be distributing it. :)
Good idea, I'd only have one moderation option though: 'SoftwareIsNotPatentable'. :)
Good question, my first instinct was to blame Bev Oda and her unrivalled industry access. But she's not even on the committee!
What's also scary here is that, although chaired by a Conservative (from Alberta too), the committee is made up of members from all parties. Have a look at the list, there're Liberals, NDP and Bloc Québécois in there: I have trouble believing someone from the Bloc would go along with this. Do none of them bother to turn up to committee meetings, does everyone just fall asleep and let the chair do all the work, or is this just a horrible case of group think?!
Either way, our legislature needs some education. Time to get letter writing!
Me too, although I wouldn't be suprised if there isn't some Postscript, network printer out there that runs embedded Linux...
Well here it is, a quick Scroogle search finds: Red Hat's Open Source Embedded OS to Power Post-PC Printer Device From Brother.
From TFA:
The bit most interesting to me was this. Does this mean that Microsoft have done again what they were penalised for in 2000? Two of the restrictions placed upon it then were:
So, I imagine they're back to using the secret API for the Microsoft search, while slowing down the 'official' APIs third parties must use. Although the press item only has one sentence on it, this 'optimisation' issue is as important as Microsoft providing a competing product to Google Desktop Search in my opinion.
I assume the technical information handed over to Google will be details of how to access key parts of Microsoft's hidden-hook goodies?
Neither, if you read the PDF about the experiment, you'll see the aim is to discover whether stock equipment can be used to connect remote areas to the Internet. Connecting people in rural locations is a challenge being faced in many countries, others have different solutions.
Really, I consider myself a bit of a leftie and I'd like to see Mugabe slung out of power as much as any Tory would. Comparing Mugabe to the liberal left is like comparing Karl Marx with Ronald McDonald: pointless and stupid.
Yes, but Red Hat said it in this context. If you watch the advert you'll see it's attributed correctly to Gandhi.
It's not too suprising, although Microsoft seem to have had a few victories recently these are very small. Who're Novell, Xandros and Linspire anyway? Small fry really (with the possible exception of Novell, who've been badly burnt by the whole experience). Also remember SCO managed to sell a few of its spurious 'licenses' before IBM made mince meat of them in court. Their claims were even more daft than those made by Microsoft (remember copyright vs. patents).
As Red Hat pointed out in their excellently thought-out advert:
Ok, so I added the profit bit: no /. list should be without it. :)
A license monoculture is not the same as a software monoculture under the control of one company. As for the rest of your post: weird and reality-twisting. Richard Stallman would like everyone to use the GPL? That's hardly a suprise. Yet you make it appear that promoting the GPL is the same as threatening to shoot anyone who doesn't. Only Microsoft would go that far! :)
Methinks you are a BSD user with a chip on their shoulder. That you actually agree with what is probably a joke is particularly astounding.
You're absolutely right of course, I was 'dumbing down' the issues somewhat. The average westerner's definition of 'Communism' is that totalitarian state I was referring to: Soviet Russia under Stalin typifies Communism for most people.
My apologies for continuing to perpetuate mis-information.
This is such a hilarious troll, normally I wouldn't feed but the parent post is so ridiculous that it's gone beyond trolling into some random fantasy land.
The GPL is not Communist in nature, in fact when I distribute software under the GPL it's all about me and my choice to share work with others. In a Communist scenario all the sofware would belong to the state, the choice of sharing would not be mine. Secondly, nowhere in the GPL does it say you cannot charge for your work, Studio to Go is a good example of this.
Right, because Free software is all a conspiracy to ruin the US. Of course most of the people who answered the survey in this MIT study, when asked what their motivation is, said: 'I'm a Hillary fanboy and want to ruin the US!' Or could it be that FLOSS developers enjoy coding and want to share stuff they like? Which do you think is more likely?
I like FLOSS but am not a Hillary fanboy. In fact am not really interested in your elections, suprise: there are people who live outside the US!
This is the funniest thing I've read for a long time. It would be interesting to see this happen, my hypothesis is that this would ruin software development in the US. Am pretty certain your country would suffer rather badly if it outlawed FLOSS but the rest of the world continued developing it. Think of all those savings your corporations would be missing out on! What about the US corporations who're distributing FLOSS, e.g. IBM, Sun, HP, Dell, RedHat et al?
Oh dear, that's funny. Free software does not destroy the free market, but encourages it. With FLOSS there's much less possibility for vendor lock-in (since everything is out in the open and I can't imagine the many volunteers working on FLOSS projects being happy with creating proprietary file formats etc.). Theoretically Microsoft would not get away with giving away software for free, yet that's exactly how they gained their monopoly: by turning a blind eye to piracy. Your point is invalid in another respect: Microsoft is a company whereas Free software is an ecosystem/licensing model. If all proprietary software disappeared tomorrow there would still be plenty of competition, this is one of the things people complain about with GNU/Linux: there's too much choice!
I'd almost like to see your post modded up as 'Funny', just because it's so stupid and full of hilarious vitriol. Also I feel it's important to debunk rubbish like this sometimes, just in case someone else read your post and thinks that you've got a point (a scary prospect).
Putting words in capitals doesn't make them true. I call holding information on all the sites I visit, for possible perusal by the government, 'snooping'. You may entrust them to use the data honourably, but from the article linked to earlier it seems the copyright lobby groups already have designs upon that data. In short you don't call it snooping, I do. A matter of semantics really.
I never blamed the EU for anything. In fact am one of the few Brits who--openly at least--likes the idea of a unified Europe. Example: last time I flew into Bordeaux airport, some old Brit was complaining that the trolleys required a Euro, but she had no change. I pointed out to her that if Britain had joined the Euro she probably would have had some change in her purse. She wasn't very pleased, but couldn't argue such a simple point. :) Also That idea of data retention originally came from Britain (if memory serves). It appears many governments seem to think if one allied country is doing something it's fine for them to do it too. The proliferation of US DMCA-esqu laws is a good example.