But ask an Apple fanboi not to run the latest & greatest and you'll get "that's so 2007!" I'll bet that there's more than one fanboi who would buy a new HDCP-compliant projector in order to not have to give up his pretty 2008 MacBook.
'What a bunch of fanbois' does not an argument make.
Why would I buy an old MacBook? The new ones are better in virtually every aspect. The only real negative is the lack of FireWire. HDCP only applies to DRM'd media. Why would I buy one form of DRM (Blu-ray, iTunes) but gripe about another such that I'd run an older, inferior computer just to avoid it? There's nothing 'fanboi' about it.
Also, if I were setting up a botnet, I'd avoid infecting computers that belonged to a government that was known to apply the death penalty frequently, both officially and privately.
Then you'd do well to avoid China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and the USA.
I'm wondering to actually see such unwillingness to learn from people doing _MATH_, which are, by definition, required to be curious into how things work
If you're using the math for a reason (i.e., engineering), then learning how to use a program detracts from solving the problem at hand. If you're into the math as a student or a hobby, again your interest is in the math, not the particulars of the tool.
Your statement more than mildly implies that a more difficult UI is superior because it's a challenge. Certainly there's going to be some learning required to use the program, but people tend to use a programs for a purpose. It's a means to an end. What you're describing is more of the program being the ends itself, where the math (in this case) is irrelevant, but the using of the program is the goal.
I call on slashdot to cut down on religious advocates.
Mathematica runs $2.5k per license. Are you really going to call someone religious for asking about open source alternatives to a $2.5k program? Really?
Use whats best, and if Mathematica puts open source alternatives to shame... so be it.
Hear, hear! That's why I only fly first class, drive a Bently, Benz or Jaguar (depending on the day of the week), have my undergarments hand-tailored, and use only real vanilla extract.
I commend you for recognizing anyone who looks for cheaper or more open alternatives as "religious advocates". After all, what rational reason could someone possibly have for researching open source alternatives to a $2.5k program?
That could just come right back to bite them on the ass, because it might just piss off Microsoft, and the thing is, Microsoft holds all the cards.
MS will not cut off their #2 OS customer.
HP's customers are generally not in the market for a Linux computer, they're in the market for a Windows computer.
Let's say MS were to cut HP off such that HP would have to buy OEM copies of Vista/XP at full price. HP is one of the few companies that could actually make a non-geek oriented Linux PC. They could offer it as a whole new line, and make a huge push, and sell both Linux PCs and Windows PCs.
In fact, you can be sure that HP is considering this very thing (among many other scenarios), and with distributions like Ubuntu becoming very user-friendly, and the Mac weaning people from thinking they must have Windows, such a scenario is becoming more and more reasonable.
In fact, unless Windows 7 (aka Mojave 2) is a home run, I wouldn't be surprised to see something like this happen during its reign.
If you're pissed at Microsoft, a letter won't do anything. You're still preinstalling Vista on every computer.
Yes it will. It will let MS know you are pissed and that while you may be pre-installing Vista now, you may be promoting something other than Windows in the future.
What's more interesting to me here is not that HP is mad (although that is very interesting indeed). What's most interesting is that all the people that are blaming third parties for a poor Vista reception are pointing their fingers at the wrong parties. MS controls those little "Designed for Vista" stickers, and they're the ones that dropped the ball.
According to MS themselves, an abysmal Vista experience was entirely intended. Now we have proof that it wasn't merely an honest mistake. Instead, they explicitly and knowingly lowered their requirements to what they were fully aware is unacceptable.
You seem to think that once A "contributes" code from Foo to Bar that A gives a damn about Bar.
Actually, I'm not. If I were, I would state that the GPL was universally better. And I've never said any such thing. I've stated that the GPL creates a freer system (for A's who care about what happens to downstream projects), and that the BSD license creates more direct freedom (for A's that don't).
The fact is, it's up to A to decide whether or not he does, not you or I. That's why I keep saying they both have their benefits.
All we ask is that you GPL folks get down off your high horse and realize the GPL is just a license, RMS is not the messiah, and that your code simply isn't that important (nor most other code, including mine).
Please quote where I said anything of the sort. You've been away from this thread for a while, so go read all of my posts. There are only a few. I'll wait.
Unless you can, quit flogging this straw man. It makes you look stupid.
And slightly off-topic, and not directed at any one single person here: Does GPL Smug stack with Prius Smug? Because if you add that to Obama Smug you might be able to reach a critical mass of Smug, which would be amusing.
Off topic and directed at you. Claims of smugness are almost universally smug themselves. Go to a mirror and try it for yourself. Go, "you're so smug" in a convincingly realistic manner and see if you don't appear smug.
And besides that, it's pointless. "Does BSD Smug stack with Hummer Smug? Because if you add that to Palin Smug, you might be able to reach a critical mass of Smug." It only works, as a general rule, with those who already agree with you, or with the weak-minded. With everyone else, it just makes you look... you guessed it, smug.
Saying the GPL is more free because it restricts what others can do is disingenuous at best.
I never said it was more free. I said the system it creates is more free. Actually, twice I pointed out that the BSD license is more free on an individual level. Why are you being so obtuse?
Again, that is false. If Developer A releases BSD licensed code Foo, and Developer B turns it into a closed-source system Bar, NOTHING keeps Developers C,D, or E from downloading Foo and doing whatever they want with it.
Again, you seem to be unable to read. A's creation is locked away in Bar. Bar is a direct descendent of A's Foo, and B has locked it away and denied the original creator from using that branching of his code.
Because BSD license proponents seem to miss this point, I'll spell it out for you. Developer A is a contributor to Project Bar, but Developer A is denied free access to Project Bar. You're right that A's original Foo is still just as available to everyone as before. But that's a red herring. It's not in dispute. Pretending it is is not an argument in favor of the BSD license. In fact, in that particular sense, both the BSD license and the GPL are identical.
Just stop pretending it's some mighty paragon of morality, and for fuck's sake, stop trying to redefine "Free" to suit your purposes. Doing so reduces GPL advocacy to simple propaganda.
You've got me confused with someone else. I've said nothing of morality.
Your problem is that you are taking this as a holy war, and that you have to choose the One True Way.
The fact is, both the BSD license and the GPL tackle the same problem from different directions, and neither is objectively superior to the other. The GPL creates a freer system, the BSD license provides more freedom at the individual level.
You're entire point hinges on accepting the premise that code can be anthropomorphized and may possess "freedom".
It can be anthropomorphized, as a means to make talking about it simpler. It can also possess freedom, just as any physical thing can.
However, I'm not talking about the physical freedom of movement. I'm talking about the freedom encoded in the object as applies to those use make use of it, just as you are. The distinction you are trying to make is pointless. When people talk about the "freedom of the code", they are talking about the freedoms of the users and developers. Pronouncing tomayto as tomahto doesn't make it a different fruit.
BSD/MIT/etc.. provide greater freedom for downstream developers.
GPL provides greater restrictions on downstream developers.
Only half-correct. For the BSD license, the greater freedom is not granted to all downstream developers. Only those that keep the software open. Once it's closed, that stream has less freedom for any subsequent developers. The GPL removes, fundamentally, only one freedom. GPL code can never be made as non-free as BSD code can. It's the old tortoise and the hare routine. Is a lesser, but broader amount of freedom superior to a greater, but shorter-reaching amount of freedom? That's the difference, and one for which I do not believe there is a single, overall answer.
So it's not a question of "freedom" so much as "entitlement." Gotcha.
Clearly you don't. Entitlement is a type of freedom. It just sounds less idealistic.
MY code's freedom remains unchanged (if you believe in that sort of thing). If my BSD code is out there, someone modifies and closes it, then further developers are still just as free to download my original code and make the changes of their own.
No, it doesn't remain unchanged. The original code remains unchanged, but the copy taken into a proprietary project has lost some of its freedom.
And *that's* the fundamental difference between the GPL and BSD, what happens with the copies. Which is interesting as we'll see below...
Bollocks. Both BSD and GPL are about distribution rights.
Nonsense. They are about copyrights. The code is yours, you get to decide what rights others have to copy it. It's a broken system (with an unclear solution). It stems from the notion that people should have ownership over their creations. Over the fruits of their labors.
When people copy a GPL or BSD licensed work, they are benefiting from the fruits of someone's labor. The original creator can either give away complete control over those copies (e.g., but not limited to, BSD), or place restrictions on those copies (e.g., but not limited to, GPL).
Neither the GPL nor the BSD is more free than the other. They both approach freedom asymptotically, from the opposite direction. For the initial, and some subsequent copies, the BSD license is more free. For the overall network of code, wherever it makes its way to, the GPL is more free.
Don't SIGN it. It truly is THAT simple. If you sign it then it is YOUR word. If you can't keep that you're nothing. YOU said YOU would do something.
No, I didn't give my word. I performed a physical action required to get a job. Signature != agreement. That's why I can't just trick you into signing a check (for example, placing it under another sheet so it looks like you're signing some perfunctory document, like a shipping invoice).
I can guarantee you very few people sign a non-compete agreement because they truly agree with it. They sign it because they think they have to (and they probably do) in order to get a job.
I don't have a high order for moral values either.
Sorry, I couldn't hear you from way up there on that high horse.
Hell, I think the best business person to walk the Earth was probably Bill Gates. I admire his flare. But no... If I say I'm going to do something than you can bet your ass I do it.
Then you're a jackass. Bill Gates violates more agreements by breakfast than you enter into during a year.
Today is the birthday of the Corps. That might have a small amount to do with my obsession with this topic.
Oh, that explains it. You've participated in an organization where you've given away your freedom and sovereignty over yourself, where the reliability of those around you can mean life and death, and you expect the rest of the world to act in the same way. Sorry, it's just not going to happen.
It has nothing to do with my views/values however. You are only as good as the word you give.
Do you even know what the words "views", "values" and "morals" even mean?
A signature is more valuable than a handshake. Don't sign it if you're not intent on keeping it and willing to keep it no matter what happens.
"Sorry, honey. I can't move to a better job. I promised not to, and my promise is more important than you and the kids. I'm sure you understand."
Not if they want to work for me. If you don't like non-competes, don't work somewhere that requires you to sign one. Capitalism is about making trade-offs.
Capitalism is about competition. Non-compete clauses are the very opposite of competition. If you don't want your employees to work elsewhere, maybe you should pay them more? Or suck it up and accept that you're going to have to compete against him at some point in the future.
You have no right, no right, over the lives of your employees. That's another thing about Capitalism--it's supposed to be about freedom.
My USB travel-drive can install XP on any PC out there, with almost no interaction on my part. How the hell is that "harder to install and get running than Linux"?
Did *you* even read what you wrote?
"I spent quite a bit of time beforehand with nLite, ripping the guts out of XP."
Sorry, that's wrong. I installed XP on my eeepc from a USB stick without any difficulty. Of course, since I have the old 7" model with a 2gb SSD, I spent quite a bit of time beforehand with nLite, ripping the guts out of XP. Making my flash drive bootable and then installing XP from it took very little time, in comparison.
You've managed to make Windows harder to install and get running than Linux. Kudos!
Huh? I can afford an ISP plan that gives me enough bandwidth (but only enough), and yet this makes it impossible for me to afford posting on a free website?
You said you couldn't afford to give people some money. If you can afford a computer, power, housing, and internet, you can almost certainly afford to donate some money. To say you cannot is a lie. To say it would be a burden would be stretching it for, perhaps, $10/month, but that's neither here nor there. The fact is you are extremely wealthy already just by being able to post here from your home.
Much poorer people than you donate their time, money and resources. Don't use "I just barely scrape by" as an excuse. I'm not saying you have to give, but your excuses ring hollow.
If someone can't afford it, they can't afford it. My parents can afford to give money to those in poverty in Africa. I can't. Does this mean I'm somehow selfish?
You can *always* afford to give away money or time or effort of some sort, unless you are literally just barely keeping alive.
I want to reiterate that I'm not saying you must give anything in particular. It's the "it's mine, and I need every little bit that I have", when you almost certainly don't, that's selfish. The problem I'm trying to highlight is not the lack of giving, but the seemingly active desire to not give.
Let's say money truly is that tight for you, and that you pay for bandwidth per megabyte, and it's rather costly. Would you be able to donate a Saturday a month in the community? It's hard to imagine you can't. That doesn't mean you have to. To the contrary, your life is yours to do with as you wish. The problem is you are seeming to react hostilely to the very idea of giving/sharing/donating/volunteering/etc.
However how the heck is buying an ISP plan that has double the bandwidth you need a hobby?
Two things:
1. I never called it a hobby, but I'm not going to quibble over terminology. It's not the buying of the bandwidth that's the hobby, it's the running a bittorrent seeder that's the hobby. In this scenario, the extra bandwidth is like the hops and barley.
2. Most people who seed do not need to buy extra bandwidth. It's just surplus to the plan they already have (which may be the cheapest possible, or may be a premium plan that they take advantage of by stopping the seed and playing WoW or whatever).
i was commenting on the statement of 'using the power of p2p'.
The power of p2p, in this case, is not being a dick and helping share an OS that was given to you for free.
Yes, there are direct download links, and yes, you're free to use them, and eschew p2p altogether. There are plenty of practical reasons to do so. But doing so because "the bandwidth is mine, mine, MINE!!!!" makes you a dick.
I'm on a limited budget. I'm not going to give money away that I could put to better uses. If you can afford to give money to strangers who aren't in poverty, then kudos to you.
This attitude makes your life poorer than the loss of money would have made it.
I'm not saying you should give away money, or anything specific like that. Perhaps you really can't afford to (unlikely given you can afford to post on slashdot, but even so...). What I'm saying is that such a selfish attitude, with no sense of charity or sharing (even on a small or seemingly inconsequential scale, like that of bittorrent sharing), truly limits certain aspects of life.
Why can't you make 1 batch, wait until you finish it (or are very close) and THEN make a new batch?
Clearly he likes making beer.
Or was this some analogy? Because it makes no sense.
It makes a lot of sense. Some people like making a lot of beer, and sharing it, just as some people like to share their excess bandwidth.
Every family of sufficient size tends to have someone who likes to can preserves, or hunt or fish, where the product of their hobbies exceed their needs, which they share amongst friends and family.
I'm somewhat baffled by the notion that creating an excess and sharing it is somehow bad or irrational.
Because one batch might be a 10% alcohol content Imperial IPA with toffee and caramel undertones; another might be a 7% ABV ginger saison with a strong bite and spicy Cascade hop aroma; another may be a thick black stout with a coffee-like backing due to Patent Black Malt; and another might be kolsch. Do you even drink beer?
That, or you could just use Word, OpenOffice, etc, and start typing right away.
You're right that LaTeX gives better looking documents, but it's like you said, "reach a level of self-satisfaction". Most word processing programs give a level of self-satisfaction for the output quality by default, with essentially no effort. The set of people sufficiently dissatisfied with Word's output to delve into TeX/LaTeX is extremely small.
Honestly, "I just saved a file and now I don't know where I put it" is more indicative of the human operating the computer, than it is of the computer apparently lacking facilities to find the files.
And this statement perfectly demonstrates why Linux is not now, and will not be for a very long time, a true Desktop OS.
The Interface Matters. Linux has the technology down pretty well. It's not always the best, but it generally has the most breadth. The problem is the interface is designed around the technology, and not the humans for which the technology exists.
Your statement is, essentially, "Linux can do this task just fine, the problem is most people don't take advantage of it." Simply leaving it at that, and blaming the user, is not going to improve matters. On the other hand, if you look into it further and ask, "why don't people use this functionality?" might lead you to a solution that people will use. However, such inquiry is anathema to the Linux ethos.
The problem lies not with the user, the problem lies with the Linux programmers who show clear disdain for the needs of their users[*], giving primacy to the nature of the technology instead.
Doing that gives Linux all sorts of flexibility and technological capabilities, while simultaneously making it a fundamentally useless desktop OS.
[*] Some people like to imagine the target users are not desktop users, but sysadmins and Linux programmers. Fair enough, but this whole thread is based on the premise of Linux as a Desktop OS. Designing a system for sysadmins and Linux programmers completely precludes any notion of it as a Desktop OS to anyone outside of those groups.
Slashdot Mirror
But ask an Apple fanboi not to run the latest & greatest and you'll get "that's so 2007!" I'll bet that there's more than one fanboi who would buy a new HDCP-compliant projector in order to not have to give up his pretty 2008 MacBook.
'What a bunch of fanbois' does not an argument make.
Why would I buy an old MacBook? The new ones are better in virtually every aspect. The only real negative is the lack of FireWire. HDCP only applies to DRM'd media. Why would I buy one form of DRM (Blu-ray, iTunes) but gripe about another such that I'd run an older, inferior computer just to avoid it? There's nothing 'fanboi' about it.
And even *that* computer doesn't run Vista...
(yeah, I know, but still)
Also, if I were setting up a botnet, I'd avoid infecting computers that belonged to a government that was known to apply the death penalty frequently, both officially and privately.
Then you'd do well to avoid China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and the USA.
I'm wondering to actually see such unwillingness to learn from people doing _MATH_, which are, by definition, required to be curious into how things work
If you're using the math for a reason (i.e., engineering), then learning how to use a program detracts from solving the problem at hand. If you're into the math as a student or a hobby, again your interest is in the math, not the particulars of the tool.
Your statement more than mildly implies that a more difficult UI is superior because it's a challenge. Certainly there's going to be some learning required to use the program, but people tend to use a programs for a purpose. It's a means to an end. What you're describing is more of the program being the ends itself, where the math (in this case) is irrelevant, but the using of the program is the goal.
Let me know when it leapfrogs them in openness.
Sorry, but as a mathematician and a teacher it's more important to me that a CAS application be (1) instructive and (2) correct.
Which aren't mutually exclusive with openness.
I call on slashdot to cut down on religious advocates.
Mathematica runs $2.5k per license. Are you really going to call someone religious for asking about open source alternatives to a $2.5k program? Really?
Use whats best, and if Mathematica puts open source alternatives to shame... so be it.
Hear, hear! That's why I only fly first class, drive a Bently, Benz or Jaguar (depending on the day of the week), have my undergarments hand-tailored, and use only real vanilla extract.
I commend you for recognizing anyone who looks for cheaper or more open alternatives as "religious advocates". After all, what rational reason could someone possibly have for researching open source alternatives to a $2.5k program?
That could just come right back to bite them on the ass, because it might just piss off Microsoft, and the thing is, Microsoft holds all the cards.
MS will not cut off their #2 OS customer.
HP's customers are generally not in the market for a Linux computer, they're in the market for a Windows computer.
Let's say MS were to cut HP off such that HP would have to buy OEM copies of Vista/XP at full price. HP is one of the few companies that could actually make a non-geek oriented Linux PC. They could offer it as a whole new line, and make a huge push, and sell both Linux PCs and Windows PCs.
In fact, you can be sure that HP is considering this very thing (among many other scenarios), and with distributions like Ubuntu becoming very user-friendly, and the Mac weaning people from thinking they must have Windows, such a scenario is becoming more and more reasonable.
In fact, unless Windows 7 (aka Mojave 2) is a home run, I wouldn't be surprised to see something like this happen during its reign.
If you're pissed at Microsoft, a letter won't do anything. You're still preinstalling Vista on every computer.
Yes it will. It will let MS know you are pissed and that while you may be pre-installing Vista now, you may be promoting something other than Windows in the future.
What's more interesting to me here is not that HP is mad (although that is very interesting indeed). What's most interesting is that all the people that are blaming third parties for a poor Vista reception are pointing their fingers at the wrong parties. MS controls those little "Designed for Vista" stickers, and they're the ones that dropped the ball.
According to MS themselves, an abysmal Vista experience was entirely intended. Now we have proof that it wasn't merely an honest mistake. Instead, they explicitly and knowingly lowered their requirements to what they were fully aware is unacceptable.
You seem to think that once A "contributes" code from Foo to Bar that A gives a damn about Bar.
Actually, I'm not. If I were, I would state that the GPL was universally better. And I've never said any such thing. I've stated that the GPL creates a freer system (for A's who care about what happens to downstream projects), and that the BSD license creates more direct freedom (for A's that don't).
The fact is, it's up to A to decide whether or not he does, not you or I. That's why I keep saying they both have their benefits.
All we ask is that you GPL folks get down off your high horse and realize the GPL is just a license, RMS is not the messiah, and that your code simply isn't that important (nor most other code, including mine).
Please quote where I said anything of the sort. You've been away from this thread for a while, so go read all of my posts. There are only a few. I'll wait.
Unless you can, quit flogging this straw man. It makes you look stupid.
And slightly off-topic, and not directed at any one single person here: Does GPL Smug stack with Prius Smug? Because if you add that to Obama Smug you might be able to reach a critical mass of Smug, which would be amusing.
Off topic and directed at you. Claims of smugness are almost universally smug themselves. Go to a mirror and try it for yourself. Go, "you're so smug" in a convincingly realistic manner and see if you don't appear smug.
And besides that, it's pointless. "Does BSD Smug stack with Hummer Smug? Because if you add that to Palin Smug, you might be able to reach a critical mass of Smug." It only works, as a general rule, with those who already agree with you, or with the weak-minded. With everyone else, it just makes you look... you guessed it, smug.
Saying the GPL is more free because it restricts what others can do is disingenuous at best.
I never said it was more free. I said the system it creates is more free. Actually, twice I pointed out that the BSD license is more free on an individual level. Why are you being so obtuse?
Again, that is false. If Developer A releases BSD licensed code Foo, and Developer B turns it into a closed-source system Bar, NOTHING keeps Developers C,D, or E from downloading Foo and doing whatever they want with it.
Again, you seem to be unable to read. A's creation is locked away in Bar. Bar is a direct descendent of A's Foo, and B has locked it away and denied the original creator from using that branching of his code.
Because BSD license proponents seem to miss this point, I'll spell it out for you. Developer A is a contributor to Project Bar, but Developer A is denied free access to Project Bar. You're right that A's original Foo is still just as available to everyone as before. But that's a red herring. It's not in dispute. Pretending it is is not an argument in favor of the BSD license. In fact, in that particular sense, both the BSD license and the GPL are identical.
Just stop pretending it's some mighty paragon of morality, and for fuck's sake, stop trying to redefine "Free" to suit your purposes. Doing so reduces GPL advocacy to simple propaganda.
You've got me confused with someone else. I've said nothing of morality.
Your problem is that you are taking this as a holy war, and that you have to choose the One True Way.
The fact is, both the BSD license and the GPL tackle the same problem from different directions, and neither is objectively superior to the other. The GPL creates a freer system, the BSD license provides more freedom at the individual level.
You're entire point hinges on accepting the premise that code can be anthropomorphized and may possess "freedom".
It can be anthropomorphized, as a means to make talking about it simpler. It can also possess freedom, just as any physical thing can.
However, I'm not talking about the physical freedom of movement. I'm talking about the freedom encoded in the object as applies to those use make use of it, just as you are. The distinction you are trying to make is pointless. When people talk about the "freedom of the code", they are talking about the freedoms of the users and developers. Pronouncing tomayto as tomahto doesn't make it a different fruit.
BSD/MIT/etc.. provide greater freedom for downstream developers.
GPL provides greater restrictions on downstream developers.
Only half-correct. For the BSD license, the greater freedom is not granted to all downstream developers. Only those that keep the software open. Once it's closed, that stream has less freedom for any subsequent developers. The GPL removes, fundamentally, only one freedom. GPL code can never be made as non-free as BSD code can. It's the old tortoise and the hare routine. Is a lesser, but broader amount of freedom superior to a greater, but shorter-reaching amount of freedom? That's the difference, and one for which I do not believe there is a single, overall answer.
So it's not a question of "freedom" so much as "entitlement." Gotcha.
Clearly you don't. Entitlement is a type of freedom. It just sounds less idealistic.
MY code's freedom remains unchanged (if you believe in that sort of thing). If my BSD code is out there, someone modifies and closes it, then further developers are still just as free to download my original code and make the changes of their own.
No, it doesn't remain unchanged. The original code remains unchanged, but the copy taken into a proprietary project has lost some of its freedom.
And *that's* the fundamental difference between the GPL and BSD, what happens with the copies. Which is interesting as we'll see below...
Bollocks. Both BSD and GPL are about distribution rights.
Nonsense. They are about copyrights. The code is yours, you get to decide what rights others have to copy it. It's a broken system (with an unclear solution). It stems from the notion that people should have ownership over their creations. Over the fruits of their labors.
When people copy a GPL or BSD licensed work, they are benefiting from the fruits of someone's labor. The original creator can either give away complete control over those copies (e.g., but not limited to, BSD), or place restrictions on those copies (e.g., but not limited to, GPL).
Neither the GPL nor the BSD is more free than the other. They both approach freedom asymptotically, from the opposite direction. For the initial, and some subsequent copies, the BSD license is more free. For the overall network of code, wherever it makes its way to, the GPL is more free.
Don't SIGN it. It truly is THAT simple. If you sign it then it is YOUR word. If you can't keep that you're nothing. YOU said YOU would do something.
No, I didn't give my word. I performed a physical action required to get a job. Signature != agreement. That's why I can't just trick you into signing a check (for example, placing it under another sheet so it looks like you're signing some perfunctory document, like a shipping invoice).
I can guarantee you very few people sign a non-compete agreement because they truly agree with it. They sign it because they think they have to (and they probably do) in order to get a job.
I don't have a high order for moral values either.
Sorry, I couldn't hear you from way up there on that high horse.
Hell, I think the best business person to walk the Earth was probably Bill Gates. I admire his flare. But no... If I say I'm going to do something than you can bet your ass I do it.
Then you're a jackass. Bill Gates violates more agreements by breakfast than you enter into during a year.
Today is the birthday of the Corps. That might have a small amount to do with my obsession with this topic.
Oh, that explains it. You've participated in an organization where you've given away your freedom and sovereignty over yourself, where the reliability of those around you can mean life and death, and you expect the rest of the world to act in the same way. Sorry, it's just not going to happen.
It has nothing to do with my views/values however. You are only as good as the word you give.
Do you even know what the words "views", "values" and "morals" even mean?
A signature is more valuable than a handshake. Don't sign it if you're not intent on keeping it and willing to keep it no matter what happens.
"Sorry, honey. I can't move to a better job. I promised not to, and my promise is more important than you and the kids. I'm sure you understand."
Not if they want to work for me. If you don't like non-competes, don't work somewhere that requires you to sign one. Capitalism is about making trade-offs.
Capitalism is about competition. Non-compete clauses are the very opposite of competition. If you don't want your employees to work elsewhere, maybe you should pay them more? Or suck it up and accept that you're going to have to compete against him at some point in the future.
You have no right, no right, over the lives of your employees. That's another thing about Capitalism--it's supposed to be about freedom.
And if you try to tell people what they can do after they leave your employment, you are worse than what you're making others out to be.
Non-compete is bullshit and should be illegal/unenforceable.
Huh?
Did you even read what I wrote?
My USB travel-drive can install XP on any PC out there, with almost no interaction on my part. How the hell is that "harder to install and get running than Linux"?
Did *you* even read what you wrote?
"I spent quite a bit of time beforehand with nLite, ripping the guts out of XP."
Sorry, that's wrong. I installed XP on my eeepc from a USB stick without any difficulty. Of course, since I have the old 7" model with a 2gb SSD, I spent quite a bit of time beforehand with nLite, ripping the guts out of XP. Making my flash drive bootable and then installing XP from it took very little time, in comparison.
You've managed to make Windows harder to install and get running than Linux. Kudos!
Huh? I can afford an ISP plan that gives me enough bandwidth (but only enough), and yet this makes it impossible for me to afford posting on a free website?
You said you couldn't afford to give people some money. If you can afford a computer, power, housing, and internet, you can almost certainly afford to donate some money. To say you cannot is a lie. To say it would be a burden would be stretching it for, perhaps, $10/month, but that's neither here nor there. The fact is you are extremely wealthy already just by being able to post here from your home.
Much poorer people than you donate their time, money and resources. Don't use "I just barely scrape by" as an excuse. I'm not saying you have to give, but your excuses ring hollow.
If someone can't afford it, they can't afford it. My parents can afford to give money to those in poverty in Africa. I can't. Does this mean I'm somehow selfish?
You can *always* afford to give away money or time or effort of some sort, unless you are literally just barely keeping alive.
I want to reiterate that I'm not saying you must give anything in particular. It's the "it's mine, and I need every little bit that I have", when you almost certainly don't, that's selfish. The problem I'm trying to highlight is not the lack of giving, but the seemingly active desire to not give.
Let's say money truly is that tight for you, and that you pay for bandwidth per megabyte, and it's rather costly. Would you be able to donate a Saturday a month in the community? It's hard to imagine you can't. That doesn't mean you have to. To the contrary, your life is yours to do with as you wish. The problem is you are seeming to react hostilely to the very idea of giving/sharing/donating/volunteering/etc.
However how the heck is buying an ISP plan that has double the bandwidth you need a hobby?
Two things:
1. I never called it a hobby, but I'm not going to quibble over terminology. It's not the buying of the bandwidth that's the hobby, it's the running a bittorrent seeder that's the hobby. In this scenario, the extra bandwidth is like the hops and barley.
2. Most people who seed do not need to buy extra bandwidth. It's just surplus to the plan they already have (which may be the cheapest possible, or may be a premium plan that they take advantage of by stopping the seed and playing WoW or whatever).
i was commenting on the statement of 'using the power of p2p'.
The power of p2p, in this case, is not being a dick and helping share an OS that was given to you for free.
Yes, there are direct download links, and yes, you're free to use them, and eschew p2p altogether. There are plenty of practical reasons to do so. But doing so because "the bandwidth is mine, mine, MINE!!!!" makes you a dick.
I'm on a limited budget. I'm not going to give money away that I could put to better uses. If you can afford to give money to strangers who aren't in poverty, then kudos to you.
This attitude makes your life poorer than the loss of money would have made it.
I'm not saying you should give away money, or anything specific like that. Perhaps you really can't afford to (unlikely given you can afford to post on slashdot, but even so...). What I'm saying is that such a selfish attitude, with no sense of charity or sharing (even on a small or seemingly inconsequential scale, like that of bittorrent sharing), truly limits certain aspects of life.
Why can't you make 1 batch, wait until you finish it (or are very close) and THEN make a new batch?
Clearly he likes making beer.
Or was this some analogy? Because it makes no sense.
It makes a lot of sense. Some people like making a lot of beer, and sharing it, just as some people like to share their excess bandwidth.
Every family of sufficient size tends to have someone who likes to can preserves, or hunt or fish, where the product of their hobbies exceed their needs, which they share amongst friends and family.
I'm somewhat baffled by the notion that creating an excess and sharing it is somehow bad or irrational.
Because one batch might be a 10% alcohol content Imperial IPA with toffee and caramel undertones; another might be a 7% ABV ginger saison with a strong bite and spicy Cascade hop aroma; another may be a thick black stout with a coffee-like backing due to Patent Black Malt; and another might be kolsch. Do you even drink beer?
Do you?
That, or you could just use Word, OpenOffice, etc, and start typing right away.
You're right that LaTeX gives better looking documents, but it's like you said, "reach a level of self-satisfaction". Most word processing programs give a level of self-satisfaction for the output quality by default, with essentially no effort. The set of people sufficiently dissatisfied with Word's output to delve into TeX/LaTeX is extremely small.
Honestly, "I just saved a file and now I don't know where I put it" is more indicative of the human operating the computer, than it is of the computer apparently lacking facilities to find the files.
And this statement perfectly demonstrates why Linux is not now, and will not be for a very long time, a true Desktop OS.
The Interface Matters. Linux has the technology down pretty well. It's not always the best, but it generally has the most breadth. The problem is the interface is designed around the technology, and not the humans for which the technology exists.
Your statement is, essentially, "Linux can do this task just fine, the problem is most people don't take advantage of it." Simply leaving it at that, and blaming the user, is not going to improve matters. On the other hand, if you look into it further and ask, "why don't people use this functionality?" might lead you to a solution that people will use. However, such inquiry is anathema to the Linux ethos.
The problem lies not with the user, the problem lies with the Linux programmers who show clear disdain for the needs of their users[*], giving primacy to the nature of the technology instead.
Doing that gives Linux all sorts of flexibility and technological capabilities, while simultaneously making it a fundamentally useless desktop OS.
[*] Some people like to imagine the target users are not desktop users, but sysadmins and Linux programmers. Fair enough, but this whole thread is based on the premise of Linux as a Desktop OS. Designing a system for sysadmins and Linux programmers completely precludes any notion of it as a Desktop OS to anyone outside of those groups.