BSD isn't bad per se, but it allows a 'bad player' like Microsoft to modify standards in ways that break interoperability. If you are attempting to write standards-compliant code, and you don't want that code to be used to sabotage the very standards you're trying to support, then the BSD's not for you.
GPL cleverly prevents such a situation. It strikes a nice balance between commercial interests (ability to charge for products based on the code) and the ongoing freedom of the original writer to have the benefit of the code. Not necessarily financial benefit (though that's possible too), but the benefit of outside contributions and a developing ecosystem that makes the code ever more valuable. Up to GPL2 that worked great - witness the success of Linux vs BSD. Linux is much more flexible, because many more players saw the benefits of getting involved.
GPL3 has delved beyond freedom into politics. I believe it attempts to address 2 issues.
The first is Tivo'ization, which I think is a good thing, but some don't like. Yes, Tivo might not exist without Linux, but Linux has gotten a huge boost from being usable in appliances like this. Tivo (or Apple, in this case) still contributes any changes they make under GPL2, so that's not the problem. The problem is that you can't take their loss-leader hardware and use it any way you want. I have no problem with that, but others do (I think they're being unreasonable, and by the way, so does Linus Torvalds).
The second is patents. That's a serious problem, but the best solution is patent reform - not 'I'm taking my ball and going home'. I guess this could work, but depriving Mac users of Samba over unrelated patent issues (I assume Apple has no patents relevant to Samba) is getting beyond the goal of 'keeping the code free'. Software patents are mostly an abomination, but GPL3 is an awfully blunt instrument to attack them with.
The article mentions that GCC has now been made GPL3, and Apple's stopped contributing.
Now, I understand why the Samba folks might not want their code to be used to produce an unmodifyable network appliance. GPL3 can help there, I guess. But Apple's not preventing Mac owners from updating Samba modules on their systems, so it's not that part of GPL3 that's causing the problem. And GCC isn't likely to appear in locked-down appliances at all. In fact GCC, as a dev tool, is probably a candidate for LGPL-type licensing.
So the Mac ends up being collateral damage to something else in the GPL3. And I assume the problem is the part of GPL3 about patents. I hate software patents as much as the next guy, but I don't see how Apple's embrace of them affects Samba users on Macs one bit. So, it's a political position, not a practical one. And a self-defeating one, if you ask me. All it does is make Macs work worse in Windows-based networks, ceding a bigger segment of the market to Microsoft.
Could this be the beginning of a new wave of patent suits following on the recent 'patent reform' that changes to a 'first to file' system. Because these 'innovations' don't seem innovative at all - in fact they don't seem particularly Microsoft'y. But I don't doubt that Microsoft is out there filing patents on every common software trick in the book. And now with the 'first to file' rule bought and paid for, they can actually get 'em.
Seriously, if the US is going to accept garbage patents like this, we've got to at least provide a non-bankrupting way to have them challenged as obvious. Is even that too 'anti-business' for the supposed free marketers in this government to tolerate?
By the way, I'd bet HTC's licensing cost them exactly nothing, and was probably more than counterbalanced by payments from Microsoft for building WP7 phones. Not sure what Amazon has that Microsoft wants, but I doubt they're paying serious cash to license these patents either. In any case, the Kindle is a seriously stripped down device that couldn't run WP7 even if they wanted too. The Nook, on the other hand, is shaping up to be the cheap tablet of choice for a lot of people. Good luck getting WP7 tabs to compete with a $200 Nook 3 color when that shows up.
Microsoft is in the 'play nice to get into the game' phase. Sure, they'll cooperate with jailbreakers for the time being. Anything to make them more appealing than Apple. They always do this. Play nice upfront, grab market share, go all monopolist back-stabber later.
This is (I think) a red herring. The GPL3 restriction on tivoization refers to running GPL software on a system that doesn't allow changes to that software to be loaded and run. In the case of Tivo, they're talking about the linux 0S that tivo provides with the device. Tivo doesn't allow user-installed apps at all.
In the case of WP7, the user can install apps, and presumably modified apps can also be installed - though the way to install them is to get them into the app store. So, is the GPL3 problem that you can't install apps without using the app store? Isn't that true for iOs and locked Android phones as well?
Personally, I think Microsoft is deliberately misreading the spirit of the rule. Kind of like the way they implemented ODF formulas in Excel. "The spec doesn't say how to do it, so it's perfectly valid to do it in a way that's unusable". Sure, Microsoft. No bad intentions there...
The GPL is pretty flexible - hell, they let you link to closed source Windows libraries, don't they?
How this deal serves MS... patents?
on
Why Nokia Is Toast
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
Could it be that with Nokia dependent on MS for phone software, the biggest holder of smartphone related patents is no longer a threat to Microsoft? Apple and Microsoft have some kind of patent sharing deal, which is good for Microsoft, but does Apple no good against Nokia's phone patents.
And Google's pretty much on their own. Maybe Motorola's got some protection to offer Android, but I personally don't like the idea of an emboldened Microsoft waving bullshit UI patents as a threat to Android with nobody left to countersue.
What is this 'contesting services development' bullshit? I've seen it in other comments as well. Android allows any services you want to put on it. Didn't Verizon put Bing on some of their Android phones?
And what Google services are provided with Android that Microsoft won't attempt to clone with WP7. Wouldn't that leave Nokia 'contesting services development with Microsoft, who incidentally control their platform'?
Re:In that case, MS has failed beyond belief
on
Why Nokia Is Toast
·
· Score: 1
How is 3 any different with Windows than Android? The only Nokia 'service' I've read about that might survive is their mapping app. Nokia's a hardware company. They don't compete in services, never really did, and don't need to.
And who's to say that if Windows phones really take off, that won't be another race to the bottom? Unless Nokia gets an exclusive on Windows phone (and there are rumors to that effect), then Android is the better choice - if only because it's more successful upfront. Going Android now would not prevent taking up W7 later if that looks like a profitable choice.
HTC, Samsung and Motorola seem happy enough in their race to the bottom. At least, they're still in the race, and Moto's come back from a Nokia-style near death.
One of the supposed big appeals of HuffPost is its talkback system, but I can't stand it. Slashdot's talkback system may be a huge resource hog, but it's the only one I've seen that can handle large threads in a way that's useful. If nothing else, Huff should emulate Slashdot's ability to take you back to your posting to see any responses. All HP has is the ability to page through hundreds of pages of stuff in an LIFO order, so you post just keeps getting buried deeper and deeper.
what if the owner/creator of a search engine doesn't want any data generated by it to be sent to Bing - where does ~he~ opt out of MS' data-sculling program?
He doesn't. He is publishing information to the public. This is like complaining that your facebook page is public. If you don't want it public, don't broadcast it to everyone, or in this case, require people to sign up for your search service.
That's just silly. You're in effect saying that publishing is an invitation to steal. I'm sure Google has are terms and conditions on the publication that don't allow the user to pass the results on to a competitor, and just because the technology makes those terms difficult to enforce doesn't mean that if you get caught stealing the info, you're not in violation. Tell that to the RIAA, who, despite using Gestapo tactics to go after 12 year olds, are essentially within their rights. In this case, Google has every right to go after a multibillion dollar operation that can't get its ass off the ground without monopoly tying, paying for placement, and now, downright cheating.
...but it's not taking anything from Google, just from the users. It's bad, because users are not aware of this, but Google is no victim here. They don't own search results.
Of course they do. They don't own the websites searched, but they certainly own their index and ranking of them. Google is granting the end-user rights to view that index and use the results to navigate to a website. They are not granting the end-user ownership of those results and the right to pass them on to a Google competitor.
Pandora lets you listen to music online. They don't own that music, and neither do you. Technology allows you to copy the stream, and you can probably get away with it. But try setting up a website to give away that music that you think you now own. And then spend millions publicizing that website so everyone else can steal it too.
What a dope. The whole 'click fraud' counterargument is downright desperate.
Google isn't using bogus search terms in their business. They used them temporarily to uncover cheating. This is a perfect example of a honeypot, and Microsoft got caught, plain and simple.
But the fact remains that looking at how customers use the competition (especially the frontrunner) is prevalent in all industries, and is a really smart idea from a business standpoint, and only serves to benefit your customers
It would be one thing if they looked at Google's search results and used that to attempt to reverse-engineer Google's algorithm. Then you might have a point. But to just build an algorithm around weighting results based on whether they're high on Google's list is not reverse engineering. It's copying.
I used vi for years, and had convinced myself I actually preferred it to, say, the editor in Visual Studio. It's definitely true that there are things you can do super-fast in vi once you commit its commands to sense memory - once you've mapped the brain-dead 'join' command away from the Shift-J keystroke. Is there anybody who hasn't been driven nuts by having their entire file collapsed into a single line just by trying to 'scroll down' with Caps Lock on?
That said, I've gotten used to using a PC editor (EditPlus) on files in a Samba-mounted filesystem, and I'm probably not going back. Not a second too soon, it turns out, since the unix server where those files live has been moved to another site, and vi over a VPN is nasty. I still find it useful for quick editing at the command line, though - in a DOS command window too. But if you're gonna teach 'em vi, teach 'em how to remap the commands while you're at it.
I assume we Nexus One users will eventually get 2.3. But it's kind of discouraging to know that, even though the Nexus One was used as an internal 2.3 testbed for most if not all Google employees, those of us that bought into the Google reference platform still don't have 2.3. But we have a nifty gingerbread statue on the Google campus. What's up with all the 'gingerbread coming soon' rhetoric and the actual vacuum? Is there some serious bug that's still preventing the Nexus One from getting the upgrade.
I don't see why the H.264 patent holders can't just grant an irrevocable free license to anybody for displaying H.264 content. Make their money on the production side. Charge more on that end if that's what it takes. Yeah, some producers may opt for a cheaper format, but as it is, they may end up losing the whole game.
Ultimately, internet technologies are healthiest when the consuming end is free (in every sense of the word). And it's not really necessary to attempt to collect royalties from the consumer. They're not making the choice to use the technology - they're just trying to consume what's out there. The producer chooses the technology, and the producer should bear any royalty costs.
Do you know what a militia is? The second ammendment does not mention self defense. It would allow laws to permit gun ownership for any reason, but only requires the law to permit it in order to maintain a militia.
It's as if they were trying to file the most ridiculous patent they could think of just to prove the system's broken, and it got accepted. Because the system's so broken it doesn't even get the joke.
the kernel module isn't compilable against any kernel that your distribution is currently shipping and supporting...and how can that happen within a 'stable' kernel series? Somewhere along the line it was deemed that there's no need for an unstable kernel dev process. Everything gets thrown into the mainline series. But the above post implies that kernel API's have changed in a way that makes Intel's driver not work. If that's true, it's the kernel folks' fault IMHO.
Much as I'd like to believe you're right, you should never underestimate the power of the literal interpretation.
I, for one, have a hard time believing that fundamentalists actually believe in a 6000 year old Earth (and most of the rest of it). Surely, they must just think that 'people are inherently selfish and they need our stories to keep them in line'. And that could be true of some of 'em. But unless they come clean, it's impossible to know. May as well deal with them as though they mean what they say.
Their motives here are blindingly clear: to service their customers so that they make money.
Is that why they essentially gave away Windows XP for free on netbooks? To make money? Nope. It was also blindingly clear there that they were putting a potentially costly thumb in the dyke to prevent this Linux netbook fad from catching on. Ultimately, I guess, that makes them money by maintaining Windows' market share, but that's the ultimate goal of all their underhanded stuff. They didn't open up the Office XML formats to make money - they did it to stop a competitor. And just because that allows them to continue making money, the motivation still seems pretty 'ulterior' to me.
...and thin client is a good thing (where it works well).
The web browser is just the latest implementation of a thin client. It's a pretty nice and flexible one too. It doesn't matter whether your data's on the internet or a corporate server. If it's available via a web app, that's 'the cloud' in this new context.
So if all your needs can be met by web-style applications (with the browser as your GUI), then 'cloud computing' works for you. And I don't think Google is even suggesting that such typical desktop-centric things as video editing, etc can be moved to the cloud. If you need to do that kind of stuff, then Chrome OS is not for you. In that case, load the Chrome browser on your (whatever system) box, and you've got 'the cloud' for when you want it, and the traditional desktop for when you want that.
I for one want ChromeOS to succeed to bring the Netbook back to its roots. A cheap, quick starting, long battery lived device for internet browsing. There's still a market for that, and if nothing else, that market enables you to buy a 'cheaper than Windows' box that you can then load the Linux OS of your choice onto.
Android (and other mobiles - and for that matter, the iPad) are a funny hybrid. They're mostly network centric devices, but with some limited local storage and support for some limited local apps for when you're not connected. And that's probably an even more useful combination than the pure cloud ChromeOS. I.e. there's proven to be a huge market for that combination. The only differences have to do with form factor. Touch screen, GPS, tilt sensors, cameras, etc that smartphones have and that notebooks tend not to have. So some Android apps would work on both kinds of devices, and some wouldn't.
How am I supposed to know Plasma and Dolphin are KDE apps now?
Here's a better question. Why should I need to know whether Dolphin (I'll leave out Plasma, since it's functionality is so KDE-specific) is a KDE app? If I like it, I should be able to use it seamlessly regardless of which DE I prefer. To the extent that I can't, the 'open desktop' has failed. To the extent that it's becoming easier and easier, the OD is inching (not fast enough, IMHO) toward (the potential for) success.
Well, that's really dopey. Of course you don't 'feel' the keys in the sense of feeling the letters, but how do you think 'typing by position' works? Once you find your home keys, the feel of the keys lets you know you're still in position. Otherwise, there's nothing to keep you from drifting out of alignment with the 'keyboard'.
I use PCLinuxOS primarily because I like that they use a rolling release model. Prior to that I was using Mandriva, which I actually think worked a little better. But I got tired of waiting for the latest Firefox, etc. Truth be told, recent Mandriva's were better about updating Firefox and other components, but you still had to do a full upgrade periodically. That should be okay too, except that I never got (or trusted) an upgrade to work, and usually did a fresh install to a new partition to check it out. And setting up all the 'non-free' stuff in a new install is a big pain - especially on a commercial distro like Mandriva that doesn't include stuff you want and sticks you with stuff like Fluendo that you don't.
Anyway, all that said, do rolling releases make it harder to support software that does not come from the distro's repositories? It's the old backward compatibility issue - if new libraries are likely to break apps, you've got to include new versions of those apps too. This would be less of an issue if they excluded libraries that break backward compatibility, but that would be limiting in its own way.
Slashdot Mirror
BSD isn't bad per se, but it allows a 'bad player' like Microsoft to modify standards in ways that break interoperability. If you are attempting to write standards-compliant code, and you don't want that code to be used to sabotage the very standards you're trying to support, then the BSD's not for you.
GPL cleverly prevents such a situation. It strikes a nice balance between commercial interests (ability to charge for products based on the code) and the ongoing freedom of the original writer to have the benefit of the code. Not necessarily financial benefit (though that's possible too), but the benefit of outside contributions and a developing ecosystem that makes the code ever more valuable. Up to GPL2 that worked great - witness the success of Linux vs BSD. Linux is much more flexible, because many more players saw the benefits of getting involved.
GPL3 has delved beyond freedom into politics. I believe it attempts to address 2 issues.
The first is Tivo'ization, which I think is a good thing, but some don't like. Yes, Tivo might not exist without Linux, but Linux has gotten a huge boost from being usable in appliances like this. Tivo (or Apple, in this case) still contributes any changes they make under GPL2, so that's not the problem. The problem is that you can't take their loss-leader hardware and use it any way you want. I have no problem with that, but others do (I think they're being unreasonable, and by the way, so does Linus Torvalds).
The second is patents. That's a serious problem, but the best solution is patent reform - not 'I'm taking my ball and going home'. I guess this could work, but depriving Mac users of Samba over unrelated patent issues (I assume Apple has no patents relevant to Samba) is getting beyond the goal of 'keeping the code free'. Software patents are mostly an abomination, but GPL3 is an awfully blunt instrument to attack them with.
The article mentions that GCC has now been made GPL3, and Apple's stopped contributing.
Now, I understand why the Samba folks might not want their code to be used to produce an unmodifyable network appliance. GPL3 can help there, I guess. But Apple's not preventing Mac owners from updating Samba modules on their systems, so it's not that part of GPL3 that's causing the problem. And GCC isn't likely to appear in locked-down appliances at all. In fact GCC, as a dev tool, is probably a candidate for LGPL-type licensing.
So the Mac ends up being collateral damage to something else in the GPL3. And I assume the problem is the part of GPL3 about patents. I hate software patents as much as the next guy, but I don't see how Apple's embrace of them affects Samba users on Macs one bit. So, it's a political position, not a practical one. And a self-defeating one, if you ask me. All it does is make Macs work worse in Windows-based networks, ceding a bigger segment of the market to Microsoft.
Could this be the beginning of a new wave of patent suits following on the recent 'patent reform' that changes to a 'first to file' system. Because these 'innovations' don't seem innovative at all - in fact they don't seem particularly Microsoft'y. But I don't doubt that Microsoft is out there filing patents on every common software trick in the book. And now with the 'first to file' rule bought and paid for, they can actually get 'em.
Seriously, if the US is going to accept garbage patents like this, we've got to at least provide a non-bankrupting way to have them challenged as obvious. Is even that too 'anti-business' for the supposed free marketers in this government to tolerate?
By the way, I'd bet HTC's licensing cost them exactly nothing, and was probably more than counterbalanced by payments from Microsoft for building WP7 phones. Not sure what Amazon has that Microsoft wants, but I doubt they're paying serious cash to license these patents either. In any case, the Kindle is a seriously stripped down device that couldn't run WP7 even if they wanted too. The Nook, on the other hand, is shaping up to be the cheap tablet of choice for a lot of people. Good luck getting WP7 tabs to compete with a $200 Nook 3 color when that shows up.
Microsoft is in the 'play nice to get into the game' phase. Sure, they'll cooperate with jailbreakers for the time being. Anything to make them more appealing than Apple. They always do this. Play nice upfront, grab market share, go all monopolist back-stabber later.
This is (I think) a red herring. The GPL3 restriction on tivoization refers to running GPL software on a system that doesn't allow changes to that software to be loaded and run. In the case of Tivo, they're talking about the linux 0S that tivo provides with the device. Tivo doesn't allow user-installed apps at all.
In the case of WP7, the user can install apps, and presumably modified apps can also be installed - though the way to install them is to get them into the app store. So, is the GPL3 problem that you can't install apps without using the app store? Isn't that true for iOs and locked Android phones as well?
Personally, I think Microsoft is deliberately misreading the spirit of the rule. Kind of like the way they implemented ODF formulas in Excel. "The spec doesn't say how to do it, so it's perfectly valid to do it in a way that's unusable". Sure, Microsoft. No bad intentions there...
The GPL is pretty flexible - hell, they let you link to closed source Windows libraries, don't they?
Could it be that with Nokia dependent on MS for phone software, the biggest holder of smartphone related patents is no longer a threat to Microsoft? Apple and Microsoft have some kind of patent sharing deal, which is good for Microsoft, but does Apple no good against Nokia's phone patents.
And Google's pretty much on their own. Maybe Motorola's got some protection to offer Android, but I personally don't like the idea of an emboldened Microsoft waving bullshit UI patents as a threat to Android with nobody left to countersue.
What is this 'contesting services development' bullshit? I've seen it in other comments as well. Android allows any services you want to put on it. Didn't Verizon put Bing on some of their Android phones?
And what Google services are provided with Android that Microsoft won't attempt to clone with WP7. Wouldn't that leave Nokia 'contesting services development with Microsoft, who incidentally control their platform'?
How is 3 any different with Windows than Android? The only Nokia 'service' I've read about that might survive is their mapping app. Nokia's a hardware company. They don't compete in services, never really did, and don't need to.
And who's to say that if Windows phones really take off, that won't be another race to the bottom? Unless Nokia gets an exclusive on Windows phone (and there are rumors to that effect), then Android is the better choice - if only because it's more successful upfront. Going Android now would not prevent taking up W7 later if that looks like a profitable choice.
HTC, Samsung and Motorola seem happy enough in their race to the bottom. At least, they're still in the race, and Moto's come back from a Nokia-style near death.
One of the supposed big appeals of HuffPost is its talkback system, but I can't stand it. Slashdot's talkback system may be a huge resource hog, but it's the only one I've seen that can handle large threads in a way that's useful. If nothing else, Huff should emulate Slashdot's ability to take you back to your posting to see any responses. All HP has is the ability to page through hundreds of pages of stuff in an LIFO order, so you post just keeps getting buried deeper and deeper.
what if the owner/creator of a search engine doesn't want any data generated by it to be sent to Bing - where does ~he~ opt out of MS' data-sculling program?
He doesn't. He is publishing information to the public. This is like complaining that your facebook page is public. If you don't want it public, don't broadcast it to everyone, or in this case, require people to sign up for your search service.
That's just silly. You're in effect saying that publishing is an invitation to steal. I'm sure Google has are terms and conditions on the publication that don't allow the user to pass the results on to a competitor, and just because the technology makes those terms difficult to enforce doesn't mean that if you get caught stealing the info, you're not in violation. Tell that to the RIAA, who, despite using Gestapo tactics to go after 12 year olds, are essentially within their rights. In this case, Google has every right to go after a multibillion dollar operation that can't get its ass off the ground without monopoly tying, paying for placement, and now, downright cheating.
...but it's not taking anything from Google, just from the users. It's bad, because users are not aware of this, but Google is no victim here. They don't own search results.
Of course they do. They don't own the websites searched, but they certainly own their index and ranking of them. Google is granting the end-user rights to view that index and use the results to navigate to a website. They are not granting the end-user ownership of those results and the right to pass them on to a Google competitor.
Pandora lets you listen to music online. They don't own that music, and neither do you. Technology allows you to copy the stream, and you can probably get away with it. But try setting up a website to give away that music that you think you now own. And then spend millions publicizing that website so everyone else can steal it too.
What a dope. The whole 'click fraud' counterargument is downright desperate.
Google isn't using bogus search terms in their business. They used them temporarily to uncover cheating. This is a perfect example of a honeypot, and Microsoft got caught, plain and simple.
But the fact remains that looking at how customers use the competition (especially the frontrunner) is prevalent in all industries, and is a really smart idea from a business standpoint, and only serves to benefit your customers
It would be one thing if they looked at Google's search results and used that to attempt to reverse-engineer Google's algorithm. Then you might have a point. But to just build an algorithm around weighting results based on whether they're high on Google's list is not reverse engineering. It's copying.
I used vi for years, and had convinced myself I actually preferred it to, say, the editor in Visual Studio. It's definitely true that there are things you can do super-fast in vi once you commit its commands to sense memory - once you've mapped the brain-dead 'join' command away from the Shift-J keystroke. Is there anybody who hasn't been driven nuts by having their entire file collapsed into a single line just by trying to 'scroll down' with Caps Lock on?
That said, I've gotten used to using a PC editor (EditPlus) on files in a Samba-mounted filesystem, and I'm probably not going back. Not a second too soon, it turns out, since the unix server where those files live has been moved to another site, and vi over a VPN is nasty. I still find it useful for quick editing at the command line, though - in a DOS command window too. But if you're gonna teach 'em vi, teach 'em how to remap the commands while you're at it.
I assume we Nexus One users will eventually get 2.3. But it's kind of discouraging to know that, even though the Nexus One was used as an internal 2.3 testbed for most if not all Google employees, those of us that bought into the Google reference platform still don't have 2.3. But we have a nifty gingerbread statue on the Google campus. What's up with all the 'gingerbread coming soon' rhetoric and the actual vacuum? Is there some serious bug that's still preventing the Nexus One from getting the upgrade.
I don't see why the H.264 patent holders can't just grant an irrevocable free license to anybody for displaying H.264 content. Make their money on the production side. Charge more on that end if that's what it takes. Yeah, some producers may opt for a cheaper format, but as it is, they may end up losing the whole game.
Ultimately, internet technologies are healthiest when the consuming end is free (in every sense of the word). And it's not really necessary to attempt to collect royalties from the consumer. They're not making the choice to use the technology - they're just trying to consume what's out there. The producer chooses the technology, and the producer should bear any royalty costs.
Do you know what a militia is? The second ammendment does not mention self defense. It would allow laws to permit gun ownership for any reason, but only requires the law to permit it in order to maintain a militia.
It's as if they were trying to file the most ridiculous patent they could think of just to prove the system's broken, and it got accepted. Because the system's so broken it doesn't even get the joke.
the kernel module isn't compilable against any kernel that your distribution is currently shipping and supporting ...and how can that happen within a 'stable' kernel series? Somewhere along the line it was deemed that there's no need for an unstable kernel dev process. Everything gets thrown into the mainline series. But the above post implies that kernel API's have changed in a way that makes Intel's driver not work. If that's true, it's the kernel folks' fault IMHO.
Much as I'd like to believe you're right, you should never underestimate the power of the literal interpretation.
I, for one, have a hard time believing that fundamentalists actually believe in a 6000 year old Earth (and most of the rest of it). Surely, they must just think that 'people are inherently selfish and they need our stories to keep them in line'. And that could be true of some of 'em. But unless they come clean, it's impossible to know. May as well deal with them as though they mean what they say.
Their motives here are blindingly clear: to service their customers so that they make money.
Is that why they essentially gave away Windows XP for free on netbooks? To make money? Nope. It was also blindingly clear there that they were putting a potentially costly thumb in the dyke to prevent this Linux netbook fad from catching on. Ultimately, I guess, that makes them money by maintaining Windows' market share, but that's the ultimate goal of all their underhanded stuff. They didn't open up the Office XML formats to make money - they did it to stop a competitor. And just because that allows them to continue making money, the motivation still seems pretty 'ulterior' to me.
...and thin client is a good thing (where it works well).
The web browser is just the latest implementation of a thin client. It's a pretty nice and flexible one too. It doesn't matter whether your data's on the internet or a corporate server. If it's available via a web app, that's 'the cloud' in this new context.
So if all your needs can be met by web-style applications (with the browser as your GUI), then 'cloud computing' works for you. And I don't think Google is even suggesting that such typical desktop-centric things as video editing, etc can be moved to the cloud. If you need to do that kind of stuff, then Chrome OS is not for you. In that case, load the Chrome browser on your (whatever system) box, and you've got 'the cloud' for when you want it, and the traditional desktop for when you want that.
I for one want ChromeOS to succeed to bring the Netbook back to its roots. A cheap, quick starting, long battery lived device for internet browsing. There's still a market for that, and if nothing else, that market enables you to buy a 'cheaper than Windows' box that you can then load the Linux OS of your choice onto.
Android (and other mobiles - and for that matter, the iPad) are a funny hybrid. They're mostly network centric devices, but with some limited local storage and support for some limited local apps for when you're not connected. And that's probably an even more useful combination than the pure cloud ChromeOS. I.e. there's proven to be a huge market for that combination. The only differences have to do with form factor. Touch screen, GPS, tilt sensors, cameras, etc that smartphones have and that notebooks tend not to have. So some Android apps would work on both kinds of devices, and some wouldn't.
How am I supposed to know Plasma and Dolphin are KDE apps now?
Here's a better question. Why should I need to know whether Dolphin (I'll leave out Plasma, since it's functionality is so KDE-specific) is a KDE app? If I like it, I should be able to use it seamlessly regardless of which DE I prefer. To the extent that I can't, the 'open desktop' has failed. To the extent that it's becoming easier and easier, the OD is inching (not fast enough, IMHO) toward (the potential for) success.
Well, that's really dopey. Of course you don't 'feel' the keys in the sense of feeling the letters, but how do you think 'typing by position' works? Once you find your home keys, the feel of the keys lets you know you're still in position. Otherwise, there's nothing to keep you from drifting out of alignment with the 'keyboard'.
I use PCLinuxOS primarily because I like that they use a rolling release model. Prior to that I was using Mandriva, which I actually think worked a little better. But I got tired of waiting for the latest Firefox, etc. Truth be told, recent Mandriva's were better about updating Firefox and other components, but you still had to do a full upgrade periodically. That should be okay too, except that I never got (or trusted) an upgrade to work, and usually did a fresh install to a new partition to check it out. And setting up all the 'non-free' stuff in a new install is a big pain - especially on a commercial distro like Mandriva that doesn't include stuff you want and sticks you with stuff like Fluendo that you don't.
Anyway, all that said, do rolling releases make it harder to support software that does not come from the distro's repositories? It's the old backward compatibility issue - if new libraries are likely to break apps, you've got to include new versions of those apps too. This would be less of an issue if they excluded libraries that break backward compatibility, but that would be limiting in its own way.