You seem to have forgotten the 2000 executions. And the fact that, unlike Castro, he stepped in to "free" the country from an elected government (but Allende was a socialist, so must've been bad). After all, Latin American dictatorships of the time with their ideological cleansing were supported by the U.S., so they must've been good guys....
You can disagree all you want. It doen't make that disagreement sound or valid.
Yes, of course. Unfortunately for you, that goes both ways.
Seems that everybody forgets that months ago Microsoft latest strategy against OSS was to cut "interoperability" and "patent protection" deals with every Linux distribution it could (a move that allowed them both to throw FUD and -potentially- profit on OSS at the same time).
Well, it isn't that everyone forgets, the fanaticism died down and they were able to look at the details of the deals to find that what was being said about them wasn't true. Only the truely foolish and the fanatics continue to spout ideas like you are.
Sorry, but bashing and name calling won't get you nowhere, and judging by the level of your "argumentation" I'm pretty sure you're the one acting as a fanatic. Perhaps it would be best if you just shed some light on the details you're talking about which supposedly disprove my view.
It was the release of the GPLv3 (which among other things, closed that possibility) what made them back out; something which was accomplished without needing any actual project to change their license (the mere threat that it could happen was enough).
Well, it was more or less Novell that backed them out. But something more interesting is that Linspire, xandros or whatever it is called now and a few other companies made a deal with Microsoft knowing full well about the GPLv3 and what it said. Or are your forgeting about those?
I'd say that alone justify it's existence and is prove enough that there is a point to GPLv3.
I would say your either ignorant of how it didn't accomplish that or you are attempting to pump up the GPLv3 hoping that people are dumb enough to believe you. Either way, what I wouldn't say is that you are correct in your interpretation.
Ooops, you caught me there. I guess there's no point in keeping it secret any longer: I'm a GPLv3 zealot payed by RMS himself to post on Slashdot as part of the worldwide FSF conspiracy to take over the world.... (you know, your username almost honours you...)
Back to reality, I stand by my original point: even is the GPLv3 were impractical in most cases, it has already had a significant positive impact on OSS by putting an end to that. I'm afraid that to prove your point you'll have to do a bit more than posing a false dichotomy where I must either be completely ignorant or have some obscure agenda.
Just because it's not perfect it doesn't mean that it's not better than it's predecessor (and it certainly doesn't mean it's worst). That
I disagree. Seems that everybody forgets that months ago Microsoft latest strategy against OSS was to cut "interoperability" and "patent protection" deals with every Linux distribution it could (a move that allowed them both to throw FUD and -potentially- profit on OSS at the same time). It was the release of the GPLv3 (which among other things, closed that possibility) what made them back out; something which was accomplished without needing any actual project to change their license (the mere threat that it could happen was enough). I'd say that alone justify it's existence and is prove enough that there is a point to GPLv3.
Just because it's not perfect it doesn't mean that it's not better than it's predecessor (and it certainly doesn't mean it's worst). That said, I can understand that in some scenarios the new previsions are not exactly a win (TheRaven64 (641858) makes a good point a few post above), but for a lot of projects (especially those not concerned at all with embedded software) I think the GPLv3 is an improvement.
what a load of crap... the early release of KDE 4.0 was meant to provide a stable API for people to start porting their apps. it obviously had nothing to do with developer egos, which would be completely ridiculous (why the heck would they insist on releasing, according to your own view, a shitty product?).
i thought anonymous cowards trolling and talking from their asses weren't supposed to be moded +5 informative...
Nope, KDE 4.1 would be more suitable for users because it will be a lot more polished and it will introduce features that couldn't be included in the 4.0 release. However, KDE3 apps would be able to run on KDE4, so you won't miss things like K3B.
i wouldn't worry about publishers. i'd bet there's more than enough people willing to contribute with that part of the project (especially people already involved in education) and, even if they weren't, the governments there have more than enough incentive to promote it. they are already expending millions into this project so expending a comparatively very small amount on generating the contents is more than justified.
Yes, look at the change in Office 2007. EVERY single button icon is the same as since Windows 95. you mean the very same icons that every other office suite has been also using since the beginning of time? (of course, they are not pixel by pixel the exact same icons -neither are the ones in ms office across different versions- but they are conceptually the same).
Groupings are different, but the icons are the same. For 14 years, those icons have been the same. and yet a lot of people used to the older versions complains, so by your logic they shouldn't have changed anything. but someone will always complain (even if it could eventually become better suited by the change), that doesn't mean software should target the ones who can't cope with the slightest of changes as that would hamper any chance of improvement.
THAT is the standardization of UI that's needed, and short of a monopoly will never happen. not only is your assertion wrong (we don't need to make a goal from something we already have), your emphasis on this triviality is as ridiculous as your assertion that only a monopoly will bring us something we already have, when there are in a fact a lot of important things that do need standardization and having a monopoly who refuses to play nice with everyone else is what has and is stopping most efforts in that department.
Great, when you can find me that version of Alibre 3D design software that runs on Windows, Mac, and Ubuntu, let me know... Heck, when you find a common version of a spreadsheet program that runs on those three platforms let me know! I know this is/. and hating MS is de rigeur, but in some cases having a monopoly platform is what enabled the explosion in IT and the penetration of computers into the corporate and home worlds. I remember the way things were back in the late 70s and early 80s. I remember headaches trying to get a Wang document to translate to an Osborne CP/M system. you don't need a monopoly to have interoperability, that's what open standards, documented formats and protocols are for (and those works reasonably well, they just are not used enough -specially by some players).
Having a common platform, and for some applications a completely common interface, is really a good thing. Think cars, road dimensions, and gas nozzle sizes. Standardizing is the important thing here - your car can pretty much drive on any road, and stop at any gas station because of these standards. some of that would be good, but i don't see why a monopoly would help with it. or did we need to have only one company building all the cars and making all the roads to come to the current situation?
If you want to do the BEST thing for the consumer world, don't push to add lots more choices to the OS platform; that's going to end up with the BlueRay/HD-DVD issue where J6P doesn't know what to buy, so chooses not to participate. that's never going to happen... J6P might be a complete ignorant when it comes to computers but, at the very least, he knows he needs one.
Push to get a stable, common API exposed on that platform - whoever supplies it - and go from there. Push to standardize the meanings of common icons - file save/open/new; copy/cut/paste; help/e-mail/launch web; and other common tasks. So that J6P can sit down in front of your application and intuitively know what to do. Otherwise you'll always end up with people sticking with what they know. Because the reality most people simply want to do the task at hand with the least amount of effort - INCLUDING effort to learn a new application interface. If they're familiar with the Excel interface, then getting them to change to something else is near-Herculean. Choice is only useful to those who understand their choices; to the rest, it's needless obfuscation, anxiety, and yet another barrier to entry. standards, protocols, frameworks and common sense has already taken care of most of that, but for other things it's never going to happen, which i think it's a good thing ("let's stick with what people already know" should not become the driving force behind any standardization). in any case, a monopoly is no guarantee of what you propose (just look at what microsoft has done with the user interface in the latest office version).
...and that's before you even take into consideration the lengths to which most communist countries go to keep people from escaping. ...and the lengths developed countries go to keep people from entering.
Thanks for vindicating my statement about zealotry for me... It's funny for you to say that, since I wasn't advocating F/OSS and you were the one gratuitously calling names on its proponents.
I'm talking about the definition the world at large uses, not the definition of a bunch of people on a tech blog. Yes, of course you are, and that's the whole point. You're intentionally making this argument about something it's not: an argument about what "open source" definition is the correct one, instead of about what does this QNX announcement means (something which incidentally has confused a lot of people commenting here). BTW, the OSI open source definition is not used just by "a bunch of people on a tech blog" but by almost everyone in the IT world (you know, people actually concerned with the term).
Are you trolling or just retarded? Nobody is claiming that the code won't be made available for everyone to see, just that when something is labeled as "Open Source", people who reads this site (by a large number, despite your claims) usually expect another whole other bunch of things (rights) with it (damn, even most anti-F/OSS people understand that much).
I'm beginning to get to the end of my tether with the zealotry and politics involved in the FOSS community. It's rapidly becoming a cult where no sense can be talked to the brainwashed members.
You blindly refusing to understand the discussion doesn't make F/OSS proponents irrational or brainwashed. And you having a similar argument with someone some other time doesn't make you right either. You're the one pushing the narrow view you're bitching about on others ("End of story"?).
For the record, I agree that the OSI doesn't have any more rights than you and my to define what open source is. They just happen to provide the definition most people here use.
The added value is enough that I move back to Windows from Linux after over a year of running on the desktop. At the same time, I moved my eight year old linux server to Windows server, for the same reasons. i didn't questioned your personal experience, just your misleading general claims.
I never said nobody should be using linux or the like either; get off your defensive horse. But to pretend there are NO costs associated with using linux is absurd. i assume you're not referring to me, since i didn't said that. on the other hand you don't seem to have a problem with suggesting that windows is cheaper than linux, which is at the very least misleading (if not just bullshit); even though it's probably true in some scenarios, such as a) when you already own all the windows software (or can get it for free), b) you are already locked-in into the platform (there's plenty to choose from in this category) or c) you only know windows and just refuse to cope with anything else (*).
I never said there were no alternatives either. I will say most of them sucked, and maintaining / upgrading them was pure hell, but they are there. what the hell are you talking about? what kind of maintenance do you have to perform on things like openoffice, firefox (or even apache, if the server suits your argument better)? or perhaps you meant administration? (but windows also have those costs) same goes for upgrading... most linux distros nowadays have integral management and update of the software they provide built into them so i don't see the big problem there either (and certainly won't call it hell).
i don't know, maybe things really have changed in the last year you've been using windows...
(*) yes, surely there are other better and legit cases where using windows is cheaper. in case you missed it, i was making a point; sadly those are probably the real reasons why linux is not regarded as cheaper than windows.
He said it was cheaper in opportunity cost. even if he had just said so, it wouldn't be true (the OS is not the only cost associated with running windows!)
He also didn't claim that comparable programs don't exist, but that it would take time to find them. yes, he didn't outright say it, he implied it (by stressing out the terrible loss of not having microsoft products).
To an average computer user, that would be a considerable amount of time. i didn't say otherwise. you're reading too much into my comment: i was only objecting to a misleading post.
I also don't know where you think you're saving that much money; Windows pre-installed is practically free, and $100 isn't a lot to spend. Considering that will likely be the only OS ever loaded onto that computer, that's quite a value. And with the link I specified, you can move your OS to your next computer, if you so choose. i see... and how much is the added value of all other applications you mentioned? how much the value of all the other application you didn't mentioned? what if you have more than one computer?
you also make it sound like there are no alternatives to microsoft and other windows programs, which is not the case. even if the existing ones are not perfect replacements for you (and without any doubt for some), they are more than enough for most people, and steadily improving. and they are free, just like most of the other gazillion programs you can run on linux.
arguing that windows is cheaper than linux is a task you better let microsoft itself handle (they are the only ones with enough marketing power to successfully pull that crap).
your right of course and i apologize. for some reason i never made it past "World Wildlife Fund" (despite "reading" your post several times). i'm starting to believe i'm not sleeping enough...
i'm not familiar with the issue but you seem to imply that buying votes is the same as getting more people to vote on an issue. let me clue you in: it's not (yes, even despite the bias the one pushing the more votes may have). now if you can point to irregularities on why those other countries voted like that then you may have a case, otherwise there's no reason to assume something inherently wrong with more votes.
it looks like China won't care for talk once they're in a position to do away with the US. that sounds an awful lot like the WMD bullshit used to justify the invasion of Iraq.
enough with the paranoid FUD.
I seriously doubt supporting geeks (whom, except for hardware problems, would probably prefer to handle problems on their own) is more expensive than supporting users that don't know what an OS is.
They can't get past the idea of (for example) "abolish public education" -- as if the libertarian only says that because he "doesn't want to help others". Never mind the philosophy and logic of it all -- no, the libertarian is simply uncaring, and that's that! Well, considering that millions wouldn't have any chance to receive education without public education systems, I don't see much point in considering the "logic" of it all. However, please, do explain it. I would hate to think that my preconceptions prevented me from seeing the "benefits" of abolishing public education.
I was just making fun of RMS and criticizing the ideas behind the move to the GPL3 anyway. which most supporters of the spirit of the license wholeheartedly agree with.
Maybe, but it's probably valid to conclude it based on the FSF position (they do have lawyers, you know) and Microsoft going into damage control mode (and they have a lot more than just lawyers).
WTF? When did "socialist" and "communist" became interchangeable words around here?
I guess we can expect the preventive wars against Sweden or Norway anytime now...
Slashdot Mirror
maybe offtopic... but troll?
Just curious... What's the AbiWord-like cross-platform notion and how it differs from the other ones?
You seem to have forgotten the 2000 executions. And the fact that, unlike Castro, he stepped in to "free" the country from an elected government (but Allende was a socialist, so must've been bad). After all, Latin American dictatorships of the time with their ideological cleansing were supported by the U.S., so they must've been good guys....
Yes, of course. Unfortunately for you, that goes both ways.
Sorry, but bashing and name calling won't get you nowhere, and judging by the level of your "argumentation" I'm pretty sure you're the one acting as a fanatic. Perhaps it would be best if you just shed some light on the details you're talking about which supposedly disprove my view.
No, Microsoft was actually the only one to back out from the deal: http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/misc/07-05statement.mspx (Novell response: http://www.novell.com/prblogs/?p=365)
Microsoft-Xandros: june 4, 2007 http://www.xandros.com/news/press_releases/xandros_microsoft_collaborate.html
Microsoft-LGE: june 6, 2007 http://www.microsoft.com/Presspass/press/2007/jun07/06-06MSLGEPR.mspx
Microsoft-Linspire: june 13, 2007 http://www.desktoplinux.com/news/NS9642338710.html
GPLv3 release: june 29, 2007 http://www.fsf.org/news/gplv3_launched
But I'm sure they had studied the license extensively (even though the GPLv3 was released weeks after the last deal...)
Ooops, you caught me there. I guess there's no point in keeping it secret any longer: I'm a GPLv3 zealot payed by RMS himself to post on Slashdot as part of the worldwide FSF conspiracy to take over the world.... (you know, your username almost honours you...)
Back to reality, I stand by my original point: even is the GPLv3 were impractical in most cases, it has already had a significant positive impact on OSS by putting an end to that. I'm afraid that to prove your point you'll have to do a bit more than posing a false dichotomy where I must either be completely ignorant or have some obscure agenda.
I disagree. Seems that everybody forgets that months ago Microsoft latest strategy against OSS was to cut "interoperability" and "patent protection" deals with every Linux distribution it could (a move that allowed them both to throw FUD and -potentially- profit on OSS at the same time). It was the release of the GPLv3 (which among other things, closed that possibility) what made them back out; something which was accomplished without needing any actual project to change their license (the mere threat that it could happen was enough). I'd say that alone justify it's existence and is prove enough that there is a point to GPLv3. Just because it's not perfect it doesn't mean that it's not better than it's predecessor (and it certainly doesn't mean it's worst). That said, I can understand that in some scenarios the new previsions are not exactly a win (TheRaven64 (641858) makes a good point a few post above), but for a lot of projects (especially those not concerned at all with embedded software) I think the GPLv3 is an improvement.
what a load of crap... the early release of KDE 4.0 was meant to provide a stable API for people to start porting their apps. it obviously had nothing to do with developer egos, which would be completely ridiculous (why the heck would they insist on releasing, according to your own view, a shitty product?).
i thought anonymous cowards trolling and talking from their asses weren't supposed to be moded +5 informative...
Nope, KDE 4.1 would be more suitable for users because it will be a lot more polished and it will introduce features that couldn't be included in the 4.0 release. However, KDE3 apps would be able to run on KDE4, so you won't miss things like K3B.
i wouldn't worry about publishers. i'd bet there's more than enough people willing to contribute with that part of the project (especially people already involved in education) and, even if they weren't, the governments there have more than enough incentive to promote it. they are already expending millions into this project so expending a comparatively very small amount on generating the contents is more than justified.
...and that's before you even take into consideration the lengths to which most communist countries go to keep people from escaping. ...and the lengths developed countries go to keep people from entering.For the record, I agree that the OSI doesn't have any more rights than you and my to define what open source is. They just happen to provide the definition most people here use.
i don't know, maybe things really have changed in the last year you've been using windows...
(*) yes, surely there are other better and legit cases where using windows is cheaper. in case you missed it, i was making a point; sadly those are probably the real reasons why linux is not regarded as cheaper than windows.
you also make it sound like there are no alternatives to microsoft and other windows programs, which is not the case. even if the existing ones are not perfect replacements for you (and without any doubt for some), they are more than enough for most people, and steadily improving. and they are free, just like most of the other gazillion programs you can run on linux.
arguing that windows is cheaper than linux is a task you better let microsoft itself handle (they are the only ones with enough marketing power to successfully pull that crap).
your right of course and i apologize. for some reason i never made it past "World Wildlife Fund" (despite "reading" your post several times). i'm starting to believe i'm not sleeping enough...
i'm not familiar with the issue but you seem to imply that buying votes is the same as getting more people to vote on an issue. let me clue you in: it's not (yes, even despite the bias the one pushing the more votes may have).
now if you can point to irregularities on why those other countries voted like that then you may have a case, otherwise there's no reason to assume something inherently wrong with more votes.
you forgot the US... or is it too considered a banana republic this day?
enough with the paranoid FUD.
I seriously doubt supporting geeks (whom, except for hardware problems, would probably prefer to handle problems on their own) is more expensive than supporting users that don't know what an OS is.
Maybe, but it's probably valid to conclude it based on the FSF position (they do have lawyers, you know) and Microsoft going into damage control mode (and they have a lot more than just lawyers).
WTF? When did "socialist" and "communist" became interchangeable words around here?
I guess we can expect the preventive wars against Sweden or Norway anytime now...