Because the GNOME developers made a decision...but you're free to fork it at any time. And I know that this argument gets old, but it's true.
It would also be a stupid thing to do, since any distro can replace and put in its own stuff (as is the practice). But that's besides a point - I'm questioning the developer's decision. They make it seem it's as if the apps are essential for the desktop so that they require a whole new framework to support them. They don't. And Mono at that! Wonder what would happen if the proj leader was a Java dev.
I doubt he meant it's good to run proprietary.NET software. He probably meant, it's good to run existing free.NET software, but bad to dev more apps for it, or advance those already built for it. I don't know if it's a good platform, but I wouldn't use it - not in countries that have software patents. I DO NOT trust Microsoft.
He said out of gnome. The above things also remove for example Tomboy, which is a part of the "gnome" package, so it gets removed too (not gdm, but the dummy package for gnome). A workaround is to install Gnote which is the same thing accept done without.NET (which also meets "gnome's" dependencies). But why do we have to - why not have Gnote instead in the first place?
(another.NET app is F-Spot, but if it's required, I'm guessing it can be replaced by GIMP - but don't take my word for it)
I knew one of those two (other being Larry Page) was responsible for this un-capitalistic decision. Way to go Mr. Brin! Someone must take a right step instead of the more convenient one once in a while. I used to use AltaVista search to boycott Google because it censored stuff in China. Then I learned A. was now owned by Yahoo who did the same and worse things. I wasn't happy about not being able to find another alternative (Bing wasn't in existence yet) and I'm still not - but at least now when I use Google, I can put my mind at ease.
There's no reason for us to kill our offspring either. It's not birth control (not that IT is somehow dependent on "education" so that those two broad terms must be coupled together).
>We did have laws against abortion once, it just pushed abortion "underground"
All criminal acts tend to go "underground" once they are outlawed.
>We were killing the mothers, and the kid without any chance to tell of other options (like birth+adoption.)
Those were always options. Catholic church had nun run orphanages for ages. Having a legal murder has to do with adoption.
>I realize you may think it is OK to kill the woman having a abortion as retribution for her acts.
That's not retribution. If a policeman sees a killer aiming to shoot an innocent down, he shoots him down first, does he not?
>But the majority of people do not agree, and thus we have the more humane law (again in the eyes of most people) allowing them.
Making abortion legal is certainly not a "more humane approach". You are protecting the killer (see bp. Fulton Sheen's sermon on false compassion: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ip7pKqfhWeo), who is then able to kill as many as she wants.
>There are many starving and homeless people right now who would suggest that overpopulation isn't a myth.
Wrong, these are proof of evil, and heartlessness of the rich Western nations.
>Yeah, if third-worlders living in poverty were better educated and had more resources to things like condoms, birth control pills and abortion procedures, they probably wouldn't breed so much. However, the reality is that they aren't and they don't, and we've got to deal with it in the present.
Maybe you should join the eugenics club or something.
>the global economy as a whole is suffering from a scarcity of supply and an abundance of demand.
I disagree. Heck, they even make cars that run on biofuel which takes a heck of a lot of fertile land to grow.
>There's no need to contribute to the problem just because we aren't the ones "causing" it.
If there is a problem, solidarity is the way of solving it, not killing less developed nations.
>What's worse, killing an unborn fetus or allowing a child to grow up in poverty or with abusive parents, eventually leading them into alcoholism and a dead-end job mopping floors, or into a "gangster life" where they rob, kill and steal to survive?
Your line of reasoning is astonishing. You are not God, and you have no right to kill even if your (false) logic would imply it's "better". It's not your decision to make.
I was just mocking the proprietary software fork - not Wine. Specifically, that was my critique of their "receipt" model, but I'm sure they'll subject the entries to revision (first?) - if nothing else, in an "open" manner. In so doing I might've shared some of my own FUD about non-free software. However, if people run Windows progs on GNU/Linux, it's logical to assume they'd want them to be safe. After all.wine is where their "My Documents" are.
What is MIX anyway? Also I'll be very angry at myself if I get excited that MS finally decided to support SVG or any other W3C standard. Their browser should just die.
Network PC anyone? Well I guess someone has to spend money to prove it's not what we need. But seriously: what if MS wasn't around? That's the real question.
There are many people who think overpopulation is a myth (see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZVOU5bfHrM). Western countries are compromised by demographic death (I know mine is), and becoming overtaken by immigrants from eastern countries who have a lot of children (not mine, but see perhaps http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a60A3mw2XgQ). So, not that I condone your thinking (I severely oppose it), but people already succeed in it by other means. Only third world countries and some others are resisting the trend (as well as many other trends of the "West").
Slashdot Mirror
enemy of your freedom.
Next time I buy some graphics card, I'll do my homework first. Even Radon needs blobs in the kernel to work.
Because the GNOME developers made a decision...but you're free to fork it at any time. And I know that this argument gets old, but it's true.
It would also be a stupid thing to do, since any distro can replace and put in its own stuff (as is the practice). But that's besides a point - I'm questioning the developer's decision. They make it seem it's as if the apps are essential for the desktop so that they require a whole new framework to support them. They don't. And Mono at that! Wonder what would happen if the proj leader was a Java dev.
That's like replacing a Smart with a Truck.
Some people would point you to a recent Ubuntu poll which by your interpretation means they needed a truck: http://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2009/11/poll-do-you-use-f-spot.html
i hope you're not really a professor - even if you were kidding.
I doubt he meant it's good to run proprietary .NET software. He probably meant, it's good to run existing free .NET software, but bad to dev more apps for it, or advance those already built for it.
I don't know if it's a good platform, but I wouldn't use it - not in countries that have software patents. I DO NOT trust Microsoft.
He said out of gnome. The above things also remove for example Tomboy, which is a part of the "gnome" package, so it gets removed too (not gdm, but the dummy package for gnome). A workaround is to install Gnote which is the same thing accept done without .NET (which also meets "gnome's" dependencies). But why do we have to - why not have Gnote instead in the first place?
(another .NET app is F-Spot, but if it's required, I'm guessing it can be replaced by GIMP - but don't take my word for it)
Hehe, that'd be nice. Here in Europe, that is (still) the case.
Look at him Go!
I knew one of those two (other being Larry Page) was responsible for this un-capitalistic decision. Way to go Mr. Brin! Someone must take a right step instead of the more convenient one once in a while.
I used to use AltaVista search to boycott Google because it censored stuff in China. Then I learned A. was now owned by Yahoo who did the same and worse things. I wasn't happy about not being able to find another alternative (Bing wasn't in existence yet) and I'm still not - but at least now when I use Google, I can put my mind at ease.
but you can fade out the unimportant parts for me. I hope it doesn't dumben me.
web crawlers help you not find content.
Our single greatest asset is the innovation and the ingenuity and creativity
...and surprise.
Because noone expects American invasion!
(jk - we do)
that HTML5 won't be a substitute for Silverlight.
Torrent is a sort of a link, but that doesn't mean you should get votes over someone with real political plans.
It may not be eugenics per se, but it's still wrong. You look at children at developing countries as mere resource wasters.
See now? That's why I said eugenics.
It's still faulty logic. Stage of human development has nothing to do with it.
There's no reason for us to kill our offspring either. It's not birth control (not that IT is somehow dependent on "education" so that those two broad terms must be coupled together).
>We did have laws against abortion once, it just pushed abortion "underground"
All criminal acts tend to go "underground" once they are outlawed.
>We were killing the mothers, and the kid without any chance to tell of other options (like birth+adoption.)
Those were always options. Catholic church had nun run orphanages for ages. Having a legal murder has to do with adoption.
>I realize you may think it is OK to kill the woman having a abortion as retribution for her acts.
That's not retribution. If a policeman sees a killer aiming to shoot an innocent down, he shoots him down first, does he not?
>But the majority of people do not agree, and thus we have the more humane law (again in the eyes of most people) allowing them.
Making abortion legal is certainly not a "more humane approach". You are protecting the killer (see bp. Fulton Sheen's sermon on false compassion: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ip7pKqfhWeo), who is then able to kill as many as she wants.
>There are many starving and homeless people right now who would suggest that overpopulation isn't a myth.
Wrong, these are proof of evil, and heartlessness of the rich Western nations.
>Yeah, if third-worlders living in poverty were better educated and had more resources to things like condoms, birth control pills and abortion procedures, they probably wouldn't breed so much. However, the reality is that they aren't and they don't, and we've got to deal with it in the present.
Maybe you should join the eugenics club or something.
>the global economy as a whole is suffering from a scarcity of supply and an abundance of demand.
I disagree. Heck, they even make cars that run on biofuel which takes a heck of a lot of fertile land to grow.
>There's no need to contribute to the problem just because we aren't the ones "causing" it.
If there is a problem, solidarity is the way of solving it, not killing less developed nations.
>What's worse, killing an unborn fetus or allowing a child to grow up in poverty or with abusive parents, eventually leading them into alcoholism and a dead-end job mopping floors, or into a "gangster life" where they rob, kill and steal to survive?
Your line of reasoning is astonishing. You are not God, and you have no right to kill even if your (false) logic would imply it's "better". It's not your decision to make.
I was just mocking the proprietary software fork - not Wine. Specifically, that was my critique of their "receipt" model, but I'm sure they'll subject the entries to revision (first?) - if nothing else, in an "open" manner. In so doing I might've shared some of my own FUD about non-free software. .wine is where their "My Documents" are.
However, if people run Windows progs on GNU/Linux, it's logical to assume they'd want them to be safe. After all
What is MIX anyway?
Also I'll be very angry at myself if I get excited that MS finally decided to support SVG or any other W3C standard. Their browser should just die.
Network PC anyone?
Well I guess someone has to spend money to prove it's not what we need. But seriously: what if MS wasn't around? That's the real question.
"Users of a certain proprietary software can now make eachother get Windows viruses on GNU/Linux and Mac OS X"
There are many people who think overpopulation is a myth (see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZVOU5bfHrM). Western countries are compromised by demographic death (I know mine is), and becoming overtaken by immigrants from eastern countries who have a lot of children (not mine, but see perhaps http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a60A3mw2XgQ).
So, not that I condone your thinking (I severely oppose it), but people already succeed in it by other means. Only third world countries and some others are resisting the trend (as well as many other trends of the "West").
Ok, *I*'ll search for it for you:
"A formally stated and authoritatively settled doctrine; a definite, established, and authoritative tenet."
In case you still don't understand: "Ferrari" is not a synonym for "car".