This is all about "vendor lock" and computing platforms not being able to co-exist. The market dynamic of petty monopolies can manage at best 2 or 3 options assuming it's not just a crushing hegemony like Windows.
This "society" problem is actually generally not a problem for most other things.
A TOS governs authorized access to computers. You could argue that the TOS by itself is a form of protection. It's a weak form of protection like CSS.
If you are reading the law like a programmer, then you're reading it wrong because it will get bent out of shape by lawyers. The worst possible interpretations will be acted upon.
It's like you missed that whole Aaron Swartz case...
50% Apple2 in 1985? I think you need to lay off those drugs.
It is you Apple fanboys that are really impressive.
8bit hardware that cost as much as the 32-bit hardware from anyone else and you seriously think it had 50% market share? Half of the market simply did not have the money for that kind of nonsense.
> Do you know ANYTHING about Islamic extremism? Are you serious?
It's very much like Xian extremism really, or even Jewish extremism. The sort of "let's ban everything" approach that the TSA has brought it is actually very similar to any number of extreme religious groups.
The TSA is just the tip of a very large iceberg. It's an indicator that they were pretty successful in subverting our open society. They have caused us to ignore our founding ideals.
This is especially troublesome in Boston.
It's kind of like opening a Boston Baked Beans factor in Mecca.
People who mindlessly jump on the bandwagon rather than checking reviews and benchmarks and comparing that to their actual needs are going to be disappointed regardless.
Unfortunately, I haven't quite yet bought into all of this "death of the PC" rhetoric and I still need something that's useful on the kit that I still have.
Of course you will get resistance when you try to force an inappropriate interface on someone. A lot of people aren't actually sheep. This is especially true of Unix users.
Gnome3 with some tweaks really isn't a replacement for Gnome2. Until that changes (assuming that it ever does), there will always be a point to a separate fork of Gnome2.
Although the fork never should have been necessary to begin with.
I should have been able to happily use Gnome2 and Gnome3 side by side. Upgrading my distribution to the current version should never have required that my old desktop be completely trashed.
YOU don't get to dictate what the rest of us can use.
> I never understood why sound on Linux was kept separate from X
X is older than gaming PCs.
There are still a lot of remote desktop use cases where lack of sound support is pretty much irrelevant. Actually, I would go further and say that sound on a remote desktop is more likely than not COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT.
Most use cases that call for sound support stretch the abilities of ANY remote desktop implementation.
Sounds like a conventional Windows application installer, doesn't it?
Never wanted to install software from some 3rd party proprietary vendor? It's not like Free Software where you can just integrated it into some yum or apt repository.
Plus you're basically stuck dealing with whatever the vendor wants to give you.
Your bad rhetoric is unconvincing. Your appeal to authority is the mark of a simpleton. Meanwhile, many of us continue to effectively use X remotely both on local networks and across the Internet.
So, that feature needs to be in any attempt to mindlessly flee from X.
It also needs to not suck (like VNC on MacOS does).
Your argument only works so long as you completely ignore any thing that isn't a DOS clone. Once you allow consideration of things that weren't DOS clones, the price situation doesn't seem nearly a grim.
It was the PC that dragged it's feet with a GUI, a real OS, and even reasonable pricing.
My first non-PC cost me 1/3rd what a cut rate and inferior clone of the time would have cost.
Once you stop fixating on secretary terminals, the history isn't quite so grim.
Unless you are really willing to spend $1000 on a software tool, most of what you posted is nonsense.
Games are an interesting problem but that's being addressed by Valve.
Obscure vertical market apps are interesting of course but only for small subsets of the total market of Windows users. For people that don't need to run some sort of office of some particular type, those vertical apps might as well not exist.
That's why you can't name drop any of them, in stark contrast to perhaps to a single video,audio, or CAD tool that costs more than you are willing to spend.
Small business may remain Microsoft's saving grace as end users defect to tablets and larger corporations migrate to platform independent solutions.
Tablets are awkward at best for work and the level of control Apple exerts over the platform is artistically stifling as well as being an unnecessary financial burden.
Meth and Crack only exist because of prohibition. They are cheaper alternatives to other similar substances that are less harsh because they are more herbal.
Prohibition just makes cheap agricultural commodities absurdly valuable.
Not only that but being a snitch would still leave him open to prosecution because he would be essentially incriminating himself. Instead of just being prosecuted, he will be subject to reprisals before going to jail and after going to jail.
Hollywood is outsourcing all of it's IT geeks and artists in the special effects industry. All of those millions they make off of pretty much every movie they release and they are giving shops like Digital Domain the shaft.
It may only be "entertainment" but the are also subverting the law in general. The same laws that apply to useful stuff also apply to "mere entertainment".
That's the problem with letting Micky Mouse run amok in Congress.
Slashdot Mirror
They got their money by having no morals and being well placed to take advantage of strategic alliances with the previous computing monopoly.
Without the IBM relationship, you would be going "Microsoft Who?".
This has squat to do with "society".
This is all about "vendor lock" and computing platforms not being able to co-exist. The market dynamic of petty monopolies can manage at best 2 or 3 options assuming it's not just a crushing hegemony like Windows.
This "society" problem is actually generally not a problem for most other things.
A TOS governs authorized access to computers. You could argue that the TOS by itself is a form of protection. It's a weak form of protection like CSS.
If you are reading the law like a programmer, then you're reading it wrong because it will get bent out of shape by lawyers. The worst possible interpretations will be acted upon.
It's like you missed that whole Aaron Swartz case...
50% Apple2 in 1985? I think you need to lay off those drugs.
It is you Apple fanboys that are really impressive.
8bit hardware that cost as much as the 32-bit hardware from anyone else and you seriously think it had 50% market share? Half of the market simply did not have the money for that kind of nonsense.
> Do you know ANYTHING about Islamic extremism? Are you serious?
It's very much like Xian extremism really, or even Jewish extremism. The sort of "let's ban everything" approach that the TSA has brought it is actually very similar to any number of extreme religious groups.
The TSA is just the tip of a very large iceberg. It's an indicator that they were pretty successful in subverting our open society. They have caused us to ignore our founding ideals.
This is especially troublesome in Boston.
It's kind of like opening a Boston Baked Beans factor in Mecca.
People who mindlessly jump on the bandwagon rather than checking reviews and benchmarks and comparing that to their actual needs are going to be disappointed regardless.
...that's fine so long as I am running a tablet.
Unfortunately, I haven't quite yet bought into all of this "death of the PC" rhetoric and I still need something that's useful on the kit that I still have.
Of course you will get resistance when you try to force an inappropriate interface on someone. A lot of people aren't actually sheep. This is especially true of Unix users.
Gnome3 with some tweaks really isn't a replacement for Gnome2. Until that changes (assuming that it ever does), there will always be a point to a separate fork of Gnome2.
Although the fork never should have been necessary to begin with.
I should have been able to happily use Gnome2 and Gnome3 side by side. Upgrading my distribution to the current version should never have required that my old desktop be completely trashed.
YOU don't get to dictate what the rest of us can use.
> I never understood why sound on Linux was kept separate from X
X is older than gaming PCs.
There are still a lot of remote desktop use cases where lack of sound support is pretty much irrelevant. Actually, I would go further and say that sound on a remote desktop is more likely than not COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT.
Most use cases that call for sound support stretch the abilities of ANY remote desktop implementation.
The problem you are describing doesn't exist.
We already have some brain-addled dev someplace trying to come up with the display equivalent of Pulse Audio.
We're all talking about it right now: It's called Wayland.
+...or did I miss your sarc tag?
Sounds like a conventional Windows application installer, doesn't it?
Never wanted to install software from some 3rd party proprietary vendor? It's not like Free Software where you can just integrated it into some yum or apt repository.
Plus you're basically stuck dealing with whatever the vendor wants to give you.
X with compression and caching can work very well actually.
Across the Internet, it runs circles around what VNC can do locally on a gigabit network.
VNC is nothing to hold up as a solution for not having the networking features of X anymore.
You must be joking.
I've seen what VNC is capable of going from any combination of Unix, Windows, or MacOS.
VNC is just sad when compared to X.
Don't try to confuse RDP with VNC.
Your bad rhetoric is unconvincing. Your appeal to authority is the mark of a simpleton. Meanwhile, many of us continue to effectively use X remotely both on local networks and across the Internet.
So, that feature needs to be in any attempt to mindlessly flee from X.
It also needs to not suck (like VNC on MacOS does).
You can try and dress it up and engage in flimflam all you like, we will still recognize it (Chrome) for what it is.
Your argument only works so long as you completely ignore any thing that isn't a DOS clone. Once you allow consideration of things that weren't DOS clones, the price situation doesn't seem nearly a grim.
It was the PC that dragged it's feet with a GUI, a real OS, and even reasonable pricing.
My first non-PC cost me 1/3rd what a cut rate and inferior clone of the time would have cost.
Once you stop fixating on secretary terminals, the history isn't quite so grim.
You can even get a [gasp] Apple laptop.
The recurring problem here seems to be Microsoft.
Unless you are really willing to spend $1000 on a software tool, most of what you posted is nonsense.
Games are an interesting problem but that's being addressed by Valve.
Obscure vertical market apps are interesting of course but only for small subsets of the total market of Windows users. For people that don't need to run some sort of office of some particular type, those vertical apps might as well not exist.
That's why you can't name drop any of them, in stark contrast to perhaps to a single video,audio, or CAD tool that costs more than you are willing to spend.
Small business may remain Microsoft's saving grace as end users defect to tablets and larger corporations migrate to platform independent solutions.
Your post is total fanboy rubbish.
Tablets are awkward at best for work and the level of control Apple exerts over the platform is artistically stifling as well as being an unnecessary financial burden.
We understand all too well.
Meth and Crack only exist because of prohibition. They are cheaper alternatives to other similar substances that are less harsh because they are more herbal.
Prohibition just makes cheap agricultural commodities absurdly valuable.
Not only that but being a snitch would still leave him open to prosecution because he would be essentially incriminating himself. Instead of just being prosecuted, he will be subject to reprisals before going to jail and after going to jail.
Apple might try to sue Samsung over trying to sell a Galaxy Mini or Google over selling a Nexus Mini or Dell over selling a Dell Mini.
Hollywood is outsourcing all of it's IT geeks and artists in the special effects industry. All of those millions they make off of pretty much every movie they release and they are giving shops like Digital Domain the shaft.
It may only be "entertainment" but the are also subverting the law in general. The same laws that apply to useful stuff also apply to "mere entertainment".
That's the problem with letting Micky Mouse run amok in Congress.