You can't know if you enjoyed a movie unless you have watched lots of movies.
Or you can't know if you've enjoyed a meal unless you've eaten in thousands of resturants.
Or you can't know if you've enjoyed a walk unless you've walked in hundreds of countries.
Or you can't know if you've enjoyed a sunset unless you've seen thousands.
Only he didn't say that. He said you shouldn't be allowed to rate a movie until you've seen a broad range of movies.
And I'd 100% agree with that sentiment. I wouldn't trust a food critic who had spent their entire life eating McDonalds but rated their first Spanish Omelette a "9 out of 10". The same goes for a travel guide who has never set foot outside their home town, or a landscape painter who has only ever seen the city towers.
You need a broad range of experience and understanding to put something into context. I want to see a movie rated by an experienced movie devotee. I don't want to hear a 14 year old's opinion on "how much this movie kicked arse!". How can you be good at something unless you practise practise practise?
Contrary to popular belief - and it's really, really prevalent on Slashdot nowadays, of all places...
To be "popular belief" it would need to be a prevailing opinion. The post you responded to is proof of just one person who knows less about SMTP than they thought they did. Hardly prevailing.
What is really popular right now is the "hate Slashdot" meme. It seems to be trendy to bash Slashdot, people who read Slashdot, people who post to Slashdot, and so on.
Perhapse you could also explain why Linux kernels are still being released with glaring security and system bugs in them? (Every single 2.4.x release)? Hm? Maybe it's the SAME reason?
I daresay you're right. Now please explain to me why a free kernel which was written for motives other than profit and with no obligations to the user base, manages to produce code that is NO WORSE than an expensive piece of software from Microsoft that has gone through a proper software engineering process.
This is even more damning when you consider that Jim Allchin said
"Windows XP is dramatically more secure than Windows 2000 or any of the prior systems. Buffer overflow has been one of the attacks frequently used on the Internet. We have gone through all code and, in an automated way, found places where there could be buffer overflow, and those have been removed in Windows XP."
So Microsoft is even admitting that they went to extra effort this time to improve the quality of their code and they STILL can't beat the free software. Microsoft has all the funding to do security audits and all the facilities for code review yet they STILL produce software that is only just on-par with freeware!
Yes, Linux has problems. My incredulity stems from the fact that Microsoft has them too. If Microsoft wants to distinguish themselves from the freeware then they're going to have to offer something MORE than the freeware. Their history with security proves that they have nothing more to offer than something I can download for free.
A number of posters seem to be moaning because the figures range from 0.25% (HitBox) to 1% (Google). I see wild theories attempting to discredit the figures and additional arguments trying to justify why the figures should be higher.
Wake up to yourselves. Almost 1% is great! The current estimate for the number of Internet users is 513 million people (according to NUA http://www.nua.ie/surveys/how_many_online/). So even taking the lowest figure from HitBox that's 1.3 million people using Linux as a desktop. It could be as high as 5.2 million people if Google provides a better sample.
But that's only desktop users! I will claim (and I think many people would agree) that the percentage of Linux *servers* is much higher than the percentage of Linux desktops. I can't guess how many machines this equates to (I don't know the relative number of desktops to servers, or the percentage of servers that are Linux) but it's going to be more than zero.
It's brilliant news that Linux usage is this high. Every single person that uses Linux is a success story for Linux. There's no need to have huge marketshare, or be the dominant player. You just need a critical mass of users and several million users is definitely a critical mass. The early years of Linux had just a few 100 users and it was enough to propel the snowball forward. Millions of users equates to an avalanche!
Keep reminding yourself, just by using Linux you are helping to make Linux better. You are another person who can help a newbie. You are another person who might buy a book or CD and thus indirectly fund a developer. You are another person who might find a bug, suggest a feature, write some documentation, or perhaps even write some code.
You are part of the Linux community, and even the most pessimistic figures suggest that this is a community with MILLIONS of members.
Deja Vu. The parent post has been seen on/. before: it's word for word the same. I suspect a canned troll.
Re:Reminds me of my ? to RMS about a free BIOS
on
LinuxBIOS Gains Steam
·
· Score: 2
Don't get me wrong, unlike most people, I have a lot of respect for the guy and I don't believe for a second Linux or Open Source would be where it is today without the efforts of him and his team. It's just that there are always little contradictions that trip up even the best of zealots. Like, I wonder if his life is in danger, will he approve of being hooked up to a computer that provides life support but is running non-free software!:-)
There is no contradiction. The GNU developers have faced this problem before when they needed to run a proprietary UNIX (eg, Solaris/Sparc) in order to develop free software (eg, GCC). After much debate they decided that it's perfectly OK to use proprietary tools in order to create their free replacements. This is all documented on http://www.gnu.org/.
I have a PSX hooked up to the composite input of a BT848 card (actually, a PixelView BT878). I use xawtv to display the composite input inside XFree86. This setup works rather well. I can play fullscreen or switch into windowed mode and IRC/browse at the same time.
There is some pixel aliasing caused by the capture/scaling process. It's not a big deal. I thought there would be frame jitter due to differences between the capture rate and my monitor refresh rate, but if there is any jitter then I can't see it.
Combined with some Loki games, wine, mame, scummvm, dosemu, and vice, I have a formidable number of games at my disposal.
Seeing as your argument is simply "your definitions are wrong, here are my definitions" I'll simply attack your definitions. I only really need to attack this one
"Agnostic" is not a word derived purely from the roots "a" and "gnostic"... agnostic certainly doesn't imply disbelief in or the anthesis of gnosticism
And I counter with.
"So I took thought, and invented what I conceived to be the appropriate title of "agnostic". It came into my head as suggestively antithetic to the "gnostic" of Church history"
[Huxley, creator of the word 'agnostic']
There was a press release from Nintendo the other day and it spend some time talking about the 1.9 Games to Console ratio they obtained. A few days later MS announced that they had the best ratio ever recorded for an initial concole launch of 2.4.
Many stores were not selling the X-Box standalone. You had to buy the X-Box plus 2 or 3 games as part of a bundle. There is rumor that this bundling was an edict by Microsoft before a store was allowed to sell the X-Box. WIRED ran an article discussing how EB, ToysRUs and Gamestop were doing nothing but bundles, much to the annoyance of their customers who didn't necessarily want all the games in a particular bundle.
This number is important and the game developers are not fools. They have been in this arean much longer than MS and knows the deal.
It strongly looks like MS knew the deal and has been loading the deck to give themselves a better hand. Golden Rule #1: Never Let Microsoft Deal The Cards.
Anyway, I am agnostic. I do not know if god exists, but I've never seen proof either way, thus, I am agnostic when it comes to god.
That's fine. But are you an atheist as well? An atheist "lacks belief in the existence of gods". You can be intellectually cautious and be agnostic - a good position if you don't have evidence either way - but your belief isn't an intellectual choice. You either do believe or you don't believe. There is no gray area.
Once you've decided on "do believe" or "don't believe" you can get into the semantics of whether you actively believe in the non-existence, passively lack belief in the existence, actively believe in the existence, and so on.
First hit on google explains this all more neatly than I've quickly done here, but I can't vouch for the quality of the rest of the site as I've never read it. http://www.dojang.com/aa/aa_agnostic.html
I was looking for first hand experience of any license or any organization like the above existed.
And I gave you one: the Aladdin License.
I was expecting this sort of reply along the lines of 'LInux is GPL, I like it that way, so don't use it for your evil corporate profit...blah...blah'.
If you expected this sort of reply then perhaps the problem is with what you wrote, rather than with the people who responded in the expected way.
Lets say our company invents a device and plans to sell the device with Linux loaded terminal with Linux device driver. The hardware+software is our IP...
No! Linux is NOT your companies IP. Combining Linux with hardware doesn't make Linux your IP either. Linux is owned by the developers that wrote it. They're giving you an unlimited royalty free license to use it but you have to agree to their terms, and one of those terms is that you share with others just as they shared with you.
please don't lecture me of how everything should be free...etc. I know that, and I also like a roof above my head.
Then perhaps you can go earn a living to pay for that roof over your head? What you're proposing is to take the hard work of others and reap the rewards. The GPL was designed exactly to stop this sort of parasitic behaviour. Linux was licensed under the GPL because the authors have at least some empathy with the ideals expressed by the GPL. If you don't like those ideals then DON'T BASE YOUR PRODUCT ON LINUX.
After a year, I have 2 options
(1) release the source to kernel main tree and make it open. Now it doesn't matter as competitors can't abuse my work to overtake me.
(2) continue with closed source for another year and keep paying (may be revised) licese fee / royality.
This is similar to the Alladin License. But although this license might suit you better, it isn't what the Linux developers wanted. The Linux developers wrote Linux to further their own goals, not yours.
If you don't like the rules then don't play the game. Complaining that you can't get your free lunch and sell it too won't garner you any sympathy.
But the question I draw from this is: why not relax the GPL restrictions a bit for embedded applications? It seems like this area of the market will never be dominated by Linux until companies can stop fretting about licensing problems and start concentrating on coding instead.
Because if your company is the sort that takes the hard work of others, uses it for free, makes a profit they would otherwise not have, and does not contribute back the changes made, then your company is NOT the sort of company that the Linux developers want to be using Linux.
Linux does not exist to make your company richer. Linux does not exist to give your company a head start on other companies. Linux exists to help make free software pervasive and available for everyone. Your company is counter productive to the goals of Linux.
"If the price of your friendship is the loss of my freedom, then I don't want your friendship."
You have missed a point that has been stated here many times.
I have missed no such point. I was careful to make sure I referred to loss of heat from the system. Thermodynamics is a required unit for an Engineering degree and I got an above average mark when I did my course.
Hey, anyone know of any other projects based on the evolution code-base? I kinda like evolution from what I have seen of the pre-release versions. It looks like a real progression. However, I am sure there are alot of people like myself who like the advanced email features that arent really present in other linux-based mail programs. However, I really do not want a calender, schedules, task lists etc.
Then take those components out. Evolution is one of the first large-scale demonstrations of the Bonobo model. There are 15+ components that join together to form Evolution. There's only a tiny amount of glue code to make them all work together. The e-mail, calendar, todo, components are all completely separate and standalone.
It's the same principle as Mozilla with the Gecko engine. Other browsers are free to use the Gecko engine and implement their own "glue" at the front. Evolution just takes it the next step (and one step closer to how Windows has worked for many years now).
You dont make any sense, the license for a client outlook is more expensive than the connector and evolution is free of license cost.... This makes them even in cost which is good, considering its far much better and less insecure than outlook.
You need the Client Access License (CAL) even if you use Evolution instead of Outlook. Microsoft charges you once for the server software and a second time for every client that connects to that server. You still need to pay both times even if your e-mail client is "free".
So for 5 users using Outlook and Exchange you pay $1000s for Exchange then $350 for CALs. If you change this over to Evolution then you STILL need to pay $1000s for Exchange then $350 for CALs, but now you ALSO need to pay $350 to Ximian for the Lucy Connector.
Microsoft effectively gives Outlook away for no-cost because you MUST pay for the CALs whether you use Outlook or not.
Example: You put a heat-based gizzmo on your car's exhaust pipe. The temerature (and thus pressure) in the exhaust system goes up, making the engine less efficient and making you use more fuel to go the same distance.
Example: You put one on your CPU. Same deal, except your cooling system now has to work harder to keep it at a reasonable temperature, and thus uses more power.
Your thinking here is slightly askew. Consider your CPU example. The device is converting heat energy into electrical potential. That means there is LESS heat energy in the CPU. That means the cooling system needs to work LESS to keep the CPU at a reasonable temperature. Your first example is similarly broken: removing energy from the system cannot possibly increase the temperature. Placement of the device might influence exhaust flow, but only if you place the device in a stupid place.
The cost or mass of the device might be important, but your arguments about the device creating more heat in the system seem to be missing the entire point of what the device does. I suspect you're thinking along the lines of "the gizmo must contact the hot surface, therefore the cooling systems have less contact, therefore it's like a constricted pipe holding back the flow of heat, therefore the cooling system has to work harder". This isn't how it works. You can make the surface area as large as you like (think of radiators).
My goal is to see as much good software created as possible, and for that to happen, we need a range of licensing models.
But that's not the same goal as RMS. RMS has repeatedly stated that he'd accept an inferior piece of software, if the superior product was non-free. RMS expects the right to copy the software, read the software, learn how it works, and make modifications to it. RMS wants the software to be unencumbered at to how you use it, where you use it, why you use it, who uses it, when you use it, EXCEPT for the tiny encumberment that you don't deny anybody else the same freedoms.
We have to keep our eyes on our goals, not on the means we use to achieve them.
Until O'Reilly argues on the same wavelength as RMS - which means either attacking the stated goals of RMS, or attacking the means RMS uses to achieve those goals - then O'Reilly won't have an essay worth reading. When you watch a debate you expect PRO and CON for the SAME argument, not PRO and PRO for DIFFERENT arguments.
If you're really picky the results may be noticable but I can listen to Zappa albums again without wanting to throw my machine through a window.
Well I tried your suggestion, but I still can't listen to Zappa albums without wanting to throw things (computers, speakers, cookies) through a window.
Re:By your silly definition, Mr. Editor,
on
Freedom or Power?
·
· Score: 2
true freedom would mean I can't be thrown in jail for murdering a bus full of kids.
Perhaps you missed the bit in the essay where they say...
Freedom is being able to make decisions that affect mainly you. Power is being able to make decisions that affect others more than you. If we confuse power with freedom, we will fail to uphold real freedom.
Distributions are already doing the right thing. For example, with Debian the ghostscript package has:
Arch independent data in/usr/share/gs/
Documentation in/usr/share/doc/gs/
XMMS has:
Arch specific plugins in/usr/lib/xmms/
Arch independent data in/usr/share/xmms/
Application specific directories would be a nightmare for managing partitions. You would have
/opt/kde/share/
/opt/kde/lib/
/opt/xmms/share/
/opt/xmms/lib/
/opt/gs/share/
/opt/gs/lib/
This might be OK for a single home user with a single large "/" partition. But it's the wrong thing for system management. It's mixing the system management in with the package management. Imagine trying to mount all the "share" areas as read-only and share one copy amongst a heterogenous network of x86, PPC, Alpha, Sparc. Perfectly possible with FHS due to the definition of what the "share" areas are. This wouldn't be possible if MOSFET's/opt/package scheme was being used.
Package management is a complex problem. There are many ways to address this problem. Either by using package management systems (Debian, RedHat) or by putting applications in/opt and using symlinks (depot-based systems) or whatever. The package management technique has the huge benefit of being able to solve packaging problems without influencing the filesystem layout.
Now, MOSFET does raise one very interesting point. Distributions are already going down the path of/usr/lib/package/ and/usr/share/package/. Why aren't they going further down the path of/usr/bin/package/? Maybe because most packages only have a single binary in/usr/bin. Maybe because PATH handling is real difficult. Either way I think this is the only valid argument he raises.
Keep in mind that MOSFET's arguments aren't new. They were debated when the FSSTND was first written and when the FHS replaced it. The/opt/package argument is weak and it lost out to the cleaner FSSTND/FHS layout both times.
[Re: Open Source nature of Mozilla] Zealots aside, why is this better? Have you modified any of the source code? Have you contributed? Have you searched through it to make sure there are no back doors that mail out your keystrokes? Or are you karma whoring?
No single entity (person or company) can control the distribution or ownership of the browser. This neatly avoids the problem of a single vendor trying to control standards.
No product lock-in: "must have" features can always be lifted and used in another piece of software, if the mozilla monster turns out to be an unwanted burden.
The software is not rushed to completion
(2 years of delays proves this!) so I have faith that the quality is better than most other browsers.
Development is driven by demand not money. This means the engine implements features that people wanted, not just feature "checklists".
The GECKO engine is portable and has been ported widely. This means I'm not locked into a single operating system or hardware platform.
There is no limits on how the engine is used. This means I see the same engine rendering my help files, my email, my webpages, etc.
Though I might never read the code, I know somebody else can, will, and has.
People think of programing languages as if it is something special to know a lot. Really you know zero (most people), one (a lot of people, normally basic), or all of them, including ones that have not been invented yet, though you will need a refresher before you would use one.
Except the people who honestly believe this (and you are one) write C++ like they were writing C, and Perl like they were writing C, and Java like they were writing C, and Postscript like they were writing C.
So in the end we have a bunch of languages with individual strengths, and some smart-arse who believes they know them all, and a bunch of crappy code that all looks like semantically broken C.
Stick to one language. Learn it well. Stop pretending that you know them all. I'm sick to death of people who "know C++" but really just write C code with a different extension.
As the article says, the other option would be to give all the claimants ~$10 each. Personally giving $1.1B worth of computer software/hardware/support to kids who'd otherwise never even SEE a computer is FAR better, regardless of OS.
If this was a charitable donation to the schools from Microsoft, made without pressure or ulterior motive, then you would be right.
But this is supposed to be a punishment. They are supposed to make good for their illegal behaviour as was established as fact in a court of law.
Giving away $900 million or more of Microsoft software is not punishment. It's product dumping. Where's the punishment? Where's the justice?
Slashdot Mirror
Only he didn't say that. He said you shouldn't be allowed to rate a movie until you've seen a broad range of movies.
And I'd 100% agree with that sentiment. I wouldn't trust a food critic who had spent their entire life eating McDonalds but rated their first Spanish Omelette a "9 out of 10". The same goes for a travel guide who has never set foot outside their home town, or a landscape painter who has only ever seen the city towers.
You need a broad range of experience and understanding to put something into context. I want to see a movie rated by an experienced movie devotee. I don't want to hear a 14 year old's opinion on "how much this movie kicked arse!". How can you be good at something unless you practise practise practise?
To be "popular belief" it would need to be a prevailing opinion. The post you responded to is proof of just one person who knows less about SMTP than they thought they did. Hardly prevailing.
What is really popular right now is the "hate Slashdot" meme. It seems to be trendy to bash Slashdot, people who read Slashdot, people who post to Slashdot, and so on.
I daresay you're right. Now please explain to me why a free kernel which was written for motives other than profit and with no obligations to the user base, manages to produce code that is NO WORSE than an expensive piece of software from Microsoft that has gone through a proper software engineering process.
This is even more damning when you consider that Jim Allchin said
So Microsoft is even admitting that they went to extra effort this time to improve the quality of their code and they STILL can't beat the free software. Microsoft has all the funding to do security audits and all the facilities for code review yet they STILL produce software that is only just on-par with freeware!
Yes, Linux has problems. My incredulity stems from the fact that Microsoft has them too. If Microsoft wants to distinguish themselves from the freeware then they're going to have to offer something MORE than the freeware. Their history with security proves that they have nothing more to offer than something I can download for free.
A number of posters seem to be moaning because the figures range from 0.25% (HitBox) to 1% (Google). I see wild theories attempting to discredit the figures and additional arguments trying to justify why the figures should be higher.
Wake up to yourselves. Almost 1% is great! The current estimate for the number of Internet users is 513 million people (according to NUA http://www.nua.ie/surveys/how_many_online/). So even taking the lowest figure from HitBox that's 1.3 million people using Linux as a desktop. It could be as high as 5.2 million people if Google provides a better sample.
But that's only desktop users! I will claim (and I think many people would agree) that the percentage of Linux *servers* is much higher than the percentage of Linux desktops. I can't guess how many machines this equates to (I don't know the relative number of desktops to servers, or the percentage of servers that are Linux) but it's going to be more than zero.
It's brilliant news that Linux usage is this high. Every single person that uses Linux is a success story for Linux. There's no need to have huge marketshare, or be the dominant player. You just need a critical mass of users and several million users is definitely a critical mass. The early years of Linux had just a few 100 users and it was enough to propel the snowball forward. Millions of users equates to an avalanche!
Keep reminding yourself, just by using Linux you are helping to make Linux better. You are another person who can help a newbie. You are another person who might buy a book or CD and thus indirectly fund a developer. You are another person who might find a bug, suggest a feature, write some documentation, or perhaps even write some code.
You are part of the Linux community, and even the most pessimistic figures suggest that this is a community with MILLIONS of members.
Deja Vu. The parent post has been seen on /. before: it's word for word the same. I suspect a canned troll.
There is no contradiction. The GNU developers have faced this problem before when they needed to run a proprietary UNIX (eg, Solaris/Sparc) in order to develop free software (eg, GCC). After much debate they decided that it's perfectly OK to use proprietary tools in order to create their free replacements. This is all documented on http://www.gnu.org/.
I have a PSX hooked up to the composite input of a BT848 card (actually, a PixelView BT878). I use xawtv to display the composite input inside XFree86. This setup works rather well. I can play fullscreen or switch into windowed mode and IRC/browse at the same time.
There is some pixel aliasing caused by the capture/scaling process. It's not a big deal. I thought there would be frame jitter due to differences between the capture rate and my monitor refresh rate, but if there is any jitter then I can't see it.
Combined with some Loki games, wine, mame, scummvm, dosemu, and vice, I have a formidable number of games at my disposal.
Seeing as your argument is simply "your definitions are wrong, here are my definitions" I'll simply attack your definitions. I only really need to attack this one
And I counter with.
Information taken from this site
Many stores were not selling the X-Box standalone. You had to buy the X-Box plus 2 or 3 games as part of a bundle. There is rumor that this bundling was an edict by Microsoft before a store was allowed to sell the X-Box. WIRED ran an article discussing how EB, ToysRUs and Gamestop were doing nothing but bundles, much to the annoyance of their customers who didn't necessarily want all the games in a particular bundle.
It strongly looks like MS knew the deal and has been loading the deck to give themselves a better hand. Golden Rule #1: Never Let Microsoft Deal The Cards.
That's fine. But are you an atheist as well? An atheist "lacks belief in the existence of gods". You can be intellectually cautious and be agnostic - a good position if you don't have evidence either way - but your belief isn't an intellectual choice. You either do believe or you don't believe. There is no gray area.
Once you've decided on "do believe" or "don't believe" you can get into the semantics of whether you actively believe in the non-existence, passively lack belief in the existence, actively believe in the existence, and so on.
First hit on google explains this all more neatly than I've quickly done here, but I can't vouch for the quality of the rest of the site as I've never read it. http://www.dojang.com/aa/aa_agnostic.html
And I gave you one: the Aladdin License.
If you expected this sort of reply then perhaps the problem is with what you wrote, rather than with the people who responded in the expected way.
No! Linux is NOT your companies IP. Combining Linux with hardware doesn't make Linux your IP either. Linux is owned by the developers that wrote it. They're giving you an unlimited royalty free license to use it but you have to agree to their terms, and one of those terms is that you share with others just as they shared with you.
Then perhaps you can go earn a living to pay for that roof over your head? What you're proposing is to take the hard work of others and reap the rewards. The GPL was designed exactly to stop this sort of parasitic behaviour. Linux was licensed under the GPL because the authors have at least some empathy with the ideals expressed by the GPL. If you don't like those ideals then DON'T BASE YOUR PRODUCT ON LINUX.
This is similar to the Alladin License. But although this license might suit you better, it isn't what the Linux developers wanted. The Linux developers wrote Linux to further their own goals, not yours.
If you don't like the rules then don't play the game. Complaining that you can't get your free lunch and sell it too won't garner you any sympathy.
Because if your company is the sort that takes the hard work of others, uses it for free, makes a profit they would otherwise not have, and does not contribute back the changes made, then your company is NOT the sort of company that the Linux developers want to be using Linux.
Linux does not exist to make your company richer. Linux does not exist to give your company a head start on other companies. Linux exists to help make free software pervasive and available for everyone. Your company is counter productive to the goals of Linux.
"If the price of your friendship is the loss of my freedom, then I don't want your friendship."
I have missed no such point. I was careful to make sure I referred to loss of heat from the system. Thermodynamics is a required unit for an Engineering degree and I got an above average mark when I did my course.
Then take those components out. Evolution is one of the first large-scale demonstrations of the Bonobo model. There are 15+ components that join together to form Evolution. There's only a tiny amount of glue code to make them all work together. The e-mail, calendar, todo, components are all completely separate and standalone.
It's the same principle as Mozilla with the Gecko engine. Other browsers are free to use the Gecko engine and implement their own "glue" at the front. Evolution just takes it the next step (and one step closer to how Windows has worked for many years now).
Pay someone to do it.
You need the Client Access License (CAL) even if you use Evolution instead of Outlook. Microsoft charges you once for the server software and a second time for every client that connects to that server. You still need to pay both times even if your e-mail client is "free".
So for 5 users using Outlook and Exchange you pay $1000s for Exchange then $350 for CALs. If you change this over to Evolution then you STILL need to pay $1000s for Exchange then $350 for CALs, but now you ALSO need to pay $350 to Ximian for the Lucy Connector.
Microsoft effectively gives Outlook away for no-cost because you MUST pay for the CALs whether you use Outlook or not.
With grammar like you have, English certification best get now.
Your thinking here is slightly askew. Consider your CPU example. The device is converting heat energy into electrical potential. That means there is LESS heat energy in the CPU. That means the cooling system needs to work LESS to keep the CPU at a reasonable temperature. Your first example is similarly broken: removing energy from the system cannot possibly increase the temperature. Placement of the device might influence exhaust flow, but only if you place the device in a stupid place.
The cost or mass of the device might be important, but your arguments about the device creating more heat in the system seem to be missing the entire point of what the device does. I suspect you're thinking along the lines of "the gizmo must contact the hot surface, therefore the cooling systems have less contact, therefore it's like a constricted pipe holding back the flow of heat, therefore the cooling system has to work harder". This isn't how it works. You can make the surface area as large as you like (think of radiators).
O'Reilly says
But that's not the same goal as RMS. RMS has repeatedly stated that he'd accept an inferior piece of software, if the superior product was non-free. RMS expects the right to copy the software, read the software, learn how it works, and make modifications to it. RMS wants the software to be unencumbered at to how you use it, where you use it, why you use it, who uses it, when you use it, EXCEPT for the tiny encumberment that you don't deny anybody else the same freedoms.
Until O'Reilly argues on the same wavelength as RMS - which means either attacking the stated goals of RMS, or attacking the means RMS uses to achieve those goals - then O'Reilly won't have an essay worth reading. When you watch a debate you expect PRO and CON for the SAME argument, not PRO and PRO for DIFFERENT arguments.
Well I tried your suggestion, but I still can't listen to Zappa albums without wanting to throw things (computers, speakers, cookies) through a window.
Perhaps you missed the bit in the essay where they say...
It seems you have confused power with freedom.
Distributions are already doing the right thing. For example, with Debian the ghostscript package has:
XMMS has:
Application specific directories would be a nightmare for managing partitions. You would have
This might be OK for a single home user with a single large "/" partition. But it's the wrong thing for system management. It's mixing the system management in with the package management. Imagine trying to mount all the "share" areas as read-only and share one copy amongst a heterogenous network of x86, PPC, Alpha, Sparc. Perfectly possible with FHS due to the definition of what the "share" areas are. This wouldn't be possible if MOSFET's /opt/package scheme was being used.
Package management is a complex problem. There are many ways to address this problem. Either by using package management systems (Debian, RedHat) or by putting applications in /opt and using symlinks (depot-based systems) or whatever. The package management technique has the huge benefit of being able to solve packaging problems without influencing the filesystem layout.
Now, MOSFET does raise one very interesting point. Distributions are already going down the path of /usr/lib/package/ and /usr/share/package/. Why aren't they going further down the path of /usr/bin/package/? Maybe because most packages only have a single binary in /usr/bin. Maybe because PATH handling is real difficult. Either way I think this is the only valid argument he raises.
Keep in mind that MOSFET's arguments aren't new. They were debated when the FSSTND was first written and when the FHS replaced it. The /opt/package argument is weak and it lost out to the cleaner FSSTND/FHS layout both times.
Except the people who honestly believe this (and you are one) write C++ like they were writing C, and Perl like they were writing C, and Java like they were writing C, and Postscript like they were writing C.
So in the end we have a bunch of languages with individual strengths, and some smart-arse who believes they know them all, and a bunch of crappy code that all looks like semantically broken C.
Stick to one language. Learn it well. Stop pretending that you know them all. I'm sick to death of people who "know C++" but really just write C code with a different extension.
If this was a charitable donation to the schools from Microsoft, made without pressure or ulterior motive, then you would be right.
But this is supposed to be a punishment. They are supposed to make good for their illegal behaviour as was established as fact in a court of law.
Giving away $900 million or more of Microsoft software is not punishment. It's product dumping. Where's the punishment? Where's the justice?