I have this weird 'problem' that the products that I want and/or need tend to not exist or are extremely hard to get, even though they are technically feasible and shouldn't even be expensive. Kind of odd but I've gotten used to it. Saves me from spending too much money.
What's even worse is that people are piling up layers after layers without really caring about bug ratios and error tolerance. It's like building a skyscraper out of parts that all have a little bit of structural damage and saying each time: "Nah, that little hairline crack won't matter. I'm fairly confident that the whole thing will hold."
The language doesn't matter, the framework matters. I couldn't care less which language I use as long as the APIs are reasonable. But if I have to start considering abhorrences like HTML, encoding data into URLs, "cookies" and dealing with the intricacies of client/server responses, then my reaction is "no, thanks" - unless I'm forced to use the framework anyway.
In other words, your language could be the shittiest possible and I'd still be fine with it as long as it allows me to write ordinary GUI apps with a reasonable gadget-based API that can be packed and deployed into browser-based applications easily. Most frameworks I've seen are simply too full of web-monkey crap. I don't want to fiddle around with lines and lines of boilerplate that has nothing to do with application development.
Proprietary closed source software will always contain a backdoor and will have countless security vulnerabilities. That's obvious to anyone who studies how proprietary software companies have dealt with security problems in the past. If you to trust Crypto AG and the likes, go ahead, but don't be surprised if it turns out later that you've spent tons of cash on snake oil.
It should be noted that no updates will go out to regular users until they have been vetted through several rings of testing, including over a million people in the Insider Program.
I am using Windows 7 (for gaming) since it was released and can testify that several updates caused severe troubles that could not have been fixed by ordinary users. You need to check each update for problems before installing it.
There is no reason to expect that Windows 10 will fare better in that respect, and I would never recommend a system with automatic updates to anyone.
Well, the German BND was directly funded by Nazis under US oversight and the German Verfassungsschutz (counterintelligence agency) was pretty much directly involved in the recent right-wing radical NSU serial killings, so it's hardly surprising that they don't give a fuck about privacy (or democracy, for what it's worth).
How would you run secret programs on a computer shared with NOAA and NSF? The NSA don't need it, they have their own supercomputers. Even their budget it secret.
Say that again after you have been filmed by a drone in your living room. It happened to me, and there is ordinary no line of sight into my room. The experience is very unpleasant and intrusive, because you don't know how long you've been filmed, who has been filming you and why.
The problem with drones is that until the police arrives they are often gone already, and it's generally hard to identify their owners. It's better to shoot them down.
Of course he has the right to privacy in his own backyard. How on earth could anybody question that?
And yes, I personally also think that shooting down the drone was also justified. There should be jammers that bring down these things and it should be legal to possess and use them in the appropriate circumstances such as a drone hovering over your backyard.
Celebrities have had the same problem for ages and they learned to get along with it, too. If you don't want to embarrass yourself, don't put embarrassing photos of yourself on the Internet. Even an 8 year old can understand that.
The real problem is that in order to monetize software under GPL, a company will benefit from making it hard to compile, hard to install and hard to use, because most of the money will come from the service you offer and not from the software itself. Even worse, the GPL encourages dual licensing for commercial purposes, using the GPL as a corset from which a customers can free themselves only by paying a hefty fee. Companies then use tricks in the legal grey zone to discourage the use of the GPLed version, for example delaying publication so it always lags behind the version with commercial licence.
AdaCore is a good example. They offer a GPL version of GNAT, but in contrast to the FSF version it is under the full GPL and not under the mGPL. Since Ada more or less requires a runtime engine, this means that all your executables from the GPL version will be licensed under GPL. Or, you can pay a hefty fee for the commercial license. At the meantime, they make sure to bundle their GPL version with a lot of essential, but GPLed code that is not in the FSF mGPL version and ensure (with delayed contributions) that the FSF version lags behind. With that strategy they have managed to boost sales for their commercial license, but it is probably also one of the main reasons why Ada has not gained and will never gain any widespread popularity.
Your suggestion is not good, though, because it would just institutionalize the bad behaviour that companies are already demonstrating currently in a legal grey zone - delaying the release of source code, making it hard to understand, branch, compile on your own, etc. The only one who would win from this change would be proprietary software makers, and they are constantly being unfair already by taking away essential freedoms from their users.
Slashdot Mirror
I have this weird 'problem' that the products that I want and/or need tend to not exist or are extremely hard to get, even though they are technically feasible and shouldn't even be expensive. Kind of odd but I've gotten used to it. Saves me from spending too much money.
What's even worse is that people are piling up layers after layers without really caring about bug ratios and error tolerance. It's like building a skyscraper out of parts that all have a little bit of structural damage and saying each time: "Nah, that little hairline crack won't matter. I'm fairly confident that the whole thing will hold."
Here are my 2 cents on this "web thing":
The language doesn't matter, the framework matters. I couldn't care less which language I use as long as the APIs are reasonable. But if I have to start considering abhorrences like HTML, encoding data into URLs, "cookies" and dealing with the intricacies of client/server responses, then my reaction is "no, thanks" - unless I'm forced to use the framework anyway.
In other words, your language could be the shittiest possible and I'd still be fine with it as long as it allows me to write ordinary GUI apps with a reasonable gadget-based API that can be packed and deployed into browser-based applications easily. Most frameworks I've seen are simply too full of web-monkey crap. I don't want to fiddle around with lines and lines of boilerplate that has nothing to do with application development.
He just sounds like a reasonable guy to me.
You generalize too much. I use it daily for work, so it depends on what you're doing. People have different computing needs.
I agree 100%.
There is Cyanogen mod...
Proprietary closed source software will always contain a backdoor and will have countless security vulnerabilities. That's obvious to anyone who studies how proprietary software companies have dealt with security problems in the past. If you to trust Crypto AG and the likes, go ahead, but don't be surprised if it turns out later that you've spent tons of cash on snake oil.
Hey, my upgrade strategy is almost the same, to keep Windows 7 for games and audio recording and otherwise stay with GNU/Linux.
It should be noted that no updates will go out to regular users until they have been vetted through several rings of testing, including over a million people in the Insider Program.
I am using Windows 7 (for gaming) since it was released and can testify that several updates caused severe troubles that could not have been fixed by ordinary users. You need to check each update for problems before installing it.
There is no reason to expect that Windows 10 will fare better in that respect, and I would never recommend a system with automatic updates to anyone.
Well, the German BND was directly funded by Nazis under US oversight and the German Verfassungsschutz (counterintelligence agency) was pretty much directly involved in the recent right-wing radical NSU serial killings, so it's hardly surprising that they don't give a fuck about privacy (or democracy, for what it's worth).
Wouldn't it be possible to have both in the same appliance?
How would you run secret programs on a computer shared with NOAA and NSF? The NSA don't need it, they have their own supercomputers. Even their budget it secret.
Only crap keyboards have a power button.
Well, the point is that you cannot see or know whether they film you or not. That alone should be reason enough to ban them.
You miss an important point that the original poster understands: Laws are made by lawmakers who need to be elected.
Say that again after you have been filmed by a drone in your living room. It happened to me, and there is ordinary no line of sight into my room. The experience is very unpleasant and intrusive, because you don't know how long you've been filmed, who has been filming you and why.
The problem with drones is that until the police arrives they are often gone already, and it's generally hard to identify their owners. It's better to shoot them down.
Of course he has the right to privacy in his own backyard. How on earth could anybody question that?
And yes, I personally also think that shooting down the drone was also justified. There should be jammers that bring down these things and it should be legal to possess and use them in the appropriate circumstances such as a drone hovering over your backyard.
Celebrities have had the same problem for ages and they learned to get along with it, too. If you don't want to embarrass yourself, don't put embarrassing photos of yourself on the Internet. Even an 8 year old can understand that.
We don't make one of these toys, so you shouldn't have one of these toys.
FTFY.
I totally agree. Piss off with your Windows10 stories.
Yeah, well, you are certainly among the people who get the GPL wrong ...
But GPL means,"If you use my stuff, you can't charge for your stuff and have to make all your code public."
It doesn't even remotely mean that.
The real problem is that in order to monetize software under GPL, a company will benefit from making it hard to compile, hard to install and hard to use, because most of the money will come from the service you offer and not from the software itself. Even worse, the GPL encourages dual licensing for commercial purposes, using the GPL as a corset from which a customers can free themselves only by paying a hefty fee. Companies then use tricks in the legal grey zone to discourage the use of the GPLed version, for example delaying publication so it always lags behind the version with commercial licence.
AdaCore is a good example. They offer a GPL version of GNAT, but in contrast to the FSF version it is under the full GPL and not under the mGPL. Since Ada more or less requires a runtime engine, this means that all your executables from the GPL version will be licensed under GPL. Or, you can pay a hefty fee for the commercial license. At the meantime, they make sure to bundle their GPL version with a lot of essential, but GPLed code that is not in the FSF mGPL version and ensure (with delayed contributions) that the FSF version lags behind. With that strategy they have managed to boost sales for their commercial license, but it is probably also one of the main reasons why Ada has not gained and will never gain any widespread popularity.
Your suggestion is not good, though, because it would just institutionalize the bad behaviour that companies are already demonstrating currently in a legal grey zone - delaying the release of source code, making it hard to understand, branch, compile on your own, etc. The only one who would win from this change would be proprietary software makers, and they are constantly being unfair already by taking away essential freedoms from their users.
Too bad that's not correct either. The GPL has nothing to do with the question whether you sell software or not. It's all about distribution.