Then that means we never were free to begin with, and never will be, because there ARE undefined limits to our rights. We are all free, to do the king's bidding.
You've argued that kubuntu may have a few quirks (your first link, I think, if anything argues against you though) but not ubuntu... You haven't really backed up at all what you've said.
I can't vouch for KDE 4.x beyond 4.2, which is what I'm using now, and I'm loving it on kubuntu.
As for "normal users", I installed ubuntu hardy heron for some computer-clueless person and they've had no problem with it, it does everything they need it to.
Ubuntu also means kubuntu, which is the KDE version of Ubuntu, so it's not ubuntu vs. KDE.
As for KDE 4.2, it really is a nice looking desktop, and even though it looks a lot like Windows' particularly on default installation, it's easy to customize it and make it look different. With Windows you hardly have anything like the options KDE gives you.
I've been a GNOME guy for awhile but KDE 4.2 has me hooked.
I wonder if their problem lies with the agreement with AT&T since they are working to prevent VoIP on the platform.
Or maybe it's par for the course with Apple, who frequently introduces new versions and slight upgrades of their products because they know their biggest fans will continue to buy whatever they churn out regardless of whether or not it's a really significant upgrade. Why put all your features into one version when you can add them in over a period of time in new devices you can sell?
5.) Squeeze as much free money as we can out of the government. If the government is Pro-Business, say we're creating new jobs in a cutting-edge market. If the government is Green, say we're saving the bonobos. If it's a coalition, say whatever you have to say no matter how self-contradictory or idiotic.
This is the most important step. Through taxation, anything is possible. We can make a $700 dollar-quality laptop cost $10 in individual payment while expending $2500 dollars per laptop in taxes. And I think we can get this done easily, as most of the countries in the world are run by bonobos themselves.
I know very, very little about the technological details about codecs, but he's saying that finding someone competent enough to do proper work on/with Vorbis isn't easy... that it's not easy finding a proper developer for that kind of task.
The whole point is is that they wouldn't necessarily agree on their best ideas, or where to take things. It's not quite as easy as witnessing the perfect Form of a windowing system and building towards that.
Haha! Awaiting an influx of Slashdotters actually agreeing with you... I'm sure they will also demand that Microsoft give you a choice between the Linux kernel and Vista's kernel.
They wouldn't, because GNOME and KDE have two different design philosophies. Anyway, this argument is kind of similar to the "why waste time making so many distros?" one you see a lot.
How am I telling you what you should prefer? How am I telling you what you should use? I'm just telling you that Microsoft has no right to decide what OEMs bundle with computers they sell. If you aren't trolling, you're confused.
I think Microsoft does have that "right". Maybe not legally speaking, but the law does not always protect or cover rights, and sometimes works against them. To be metaphorical, I don't think the king's edicts are the will of God. The point here is that sometimes retailers have to play ball with manufacturers, sometimes to the benefit of consumers... sometimes more to the benefit of manufacturers, but, and you may be unfamiliar with the notion, nobody is entitled.
You said that MS should be forced to unbundle their calc and, as a reason, "there are other companies making better ones".
You say OEMs should be putting together the software packages but MS is the one who makes the product and may consider some parts "core" for obvious reasons--one, consumers may expect certain functionality be "just there" and may blame them for it; two, for customer service reasons MS may want certain things, and three, MS may simply want to include functionality as it's better for them in the end, and there's nothing wrong with that.
Customers have a choice between Windows, Linux, FreeBSD, and a few others. If they don't like their choices, well, nobody ever guaranteed them their perfect OS! For whatever reason customers keep CHOOSING Windows, they do, and MS's majority marketshare does not take away from the fact that competition does exist and that people simply aren't choosing it. Handicapping Windows to suit YOUR choice hoping people use software you want them to use, whether it be Firefox or Linux, is not a very good answer.
People here are actually advocating removing media player (which MS was forced to do by the EU! That version didn't sell too well...) and IE from Windows with the hopes that retailers will install Firefox instead.
You want a level playing field? Then tell retailers they can't integrate, say, Nautilus and its web browser elements and Linux distros cannot ship with a browser pre-installed:)
Funny, Microsoft dictates actually few standards nowadays on the web (where IE is losing marketshare partially because of how poorly it conforms to standards NOT set by Microsoft, i.e. CSS and so on, and the media player doesn't have much to do with standards.
You're always free to use the alternatives, no matter who defines the standards. If Microsoft's become the de facto standards then tough.
Windows is already crippled. We want to cripple Microsoft. Specifically, we want to cripple Microsoft's ability to foist Windows upon us in a way where it does not have to compete with alternatives based on merit. If there were truly a free market, there are plenty of Microsoft products that would disappear because they are really bad. If there are some that are actually competitive on merit, then everyone wins because the status quo of software in general is improved, but as it stands, Microsoft is now a boat anchor, dragging everyone down to their level because they have the power to prevent real competition.
This "free market forces are failing because X is not the best product on the market" is a red herring. Partially because nobody said the free market would choose necessarily the BEST product (look at the music people listen to) but also that "best" is subjective and it often comes down to preference, familiarity, and other factors. The simple fact is that anyone can switch to Linux right now if they were so inclined.
As it stands, they don't need to better than anyone else, and trust me, they haven't bothered for the better part of a decade. What part of Vista is geared towards making customers happier than they were with XP? Maybe improved security, but frankly I don't even think it wins there because of UAE, er, UAC, which is just Microsoft's way of passing the buck to the user.
The reason they don't "need to be better than anyone else" is partially because a diverse selection of operating systems creates problems with compatibility, forcing the market to rally around few big players. Another reason is simply lack of consumer education.
In the one place in the consumer world where a little true competition exists, the browser, we can already the Microsoft's product is losing market share rapidly.
Great. So why waste all the energy on Microsoft including a (mandatory, in this day and age) browser integrated in the OS that is already being used less and less by people.
I find it interesting how people play so fast and loose with words here, saying things like "true competition" when Linux, FreeBSD, and a few others ARE true competition to Windows. The reason more people are adopting Firefox and not Linux itself is one of, again, consumer education and the difficulty of switching. Hence, a lot of slashdotters, probably not being entirely honest with themselves in regards to their motivations, want to handicap Windows to benefit Linux.
I'm selling a calculator app I made, it's a bit better than the one in windows. Maybe if I complained, I could get the EU to force MS to release a version sans-calculator so people will buy my product!
You have to agree with the above sentiments if you think that competition is a right.
Slashdot Mirror
The last thing I want is a level 5 dwarf (haha) providing me my OS.
If Gimli tells you to install Linux you better DAMN well install Linux.
You guys can talk about rats all you want, but they merely feast upon garbage.
Then that means we never were free to begin with, and never will be, because there ARE undefined limits to our rights. We are all free, to do the king's bidding.
The manager that did that at a restaurant I used to work at got his privileges revoked, instead.
In Soviet Russia, Slashdot slashdots Slashdot!
No, the Christmas special was the only *real* Star Wars film.
The worst part about people spoiling a game for you is them telling you that Aeris dies.
You've argued that kubuntu may have a few quirks (your first link, I think, if anything argues against you though) but not ubuntu... You haven't really backed up at all what you've said.
I can't vouch for KDE 4.x beyond 4.2, which is what I'm using now, and I'm loving it on kubuntu.
As for "normal users", I installed ubuntu hardy heron for some computer-clueless person and they've had no problem with it, it does everything they need it to.
Wow, that comment was both powerful and funny at the same time.
Ubuntu also means kubuntu, which is the KDE version of Ubuntu, so it's not ubuntu vs. KDE.
As for KDE 4.2, it really is a nice looking desktop, and even though it looks a lot like Windows' particularly on default installation, it's easy to customize it and make it look different. With Windows you hardly have anything like the options KDE gives you.
I've been a GNOME guy for awhile but KDE 4.2 has me hooked.
Well, that certainly explains the success of the ipod in comparison to other personal media players.
I wonder if their problem lies with the agreement with AT&T since they are working to prevent VoIP on the platform.
Or maybe it's par for the course with Apple, who frequently introduces new versions and slight upgrades of their products because they know their biggest fans will continue to buy whatever they churn out regardless of whether or not it's a really significant upgrade. Why put all your features into one version when you can add them in over a period of time in new devices you can sell?
Those crafty Indians. They can't fool me. At $10 per laptop they're fucking selling abacuses.
5.) Squeeze as much free money as we can out of the government. If the government is Pro-Business, say we're creating new jobs in a cutting-edge market. If the government is Green, say we're saving the bonobos. If it's a coalition, say whatever you have to say no matter how self-contradictory or idiotic.
This is the most important step. Through taxation, anything is possible. We can make a $700 dollar-quality laptop cost $10 in individual payment while expending $2500 dollars per laptop in taxes. And I think we can get this done easily, as most of the countries in the world are run by bonobos themselves.
Since it looks like MP3 may expire in Dec 2012
If the prophecies hold true, my friend, we will all be expiring...
I know very, very little about the technological details about codecs, but he's saying that finding someone competent enough to do proper work on/with Vorbis isn't easy... that it's not easy finding a proper developer for that kind of task.
The whole point is is that they wouldn't necessarily agree on their best ideas, or where to take things. It's not quite as easy as witnessing the perfect Form of a windowing system and building towards that.
Haha! Awaiting an influx of Slashdotters actually agreeing with you... I'm sure they will also demand that Microsoft give you a choice between the Linux kernel and Vista's kernel.
They wouldn't, because GNOME and KDE have two different design philosophies. Anyway, this argument is kind of similar to the "why waste time making so many distros?" one you see a lot.
How am I telling you what you should prefer? How am I telling you what you should use? I'm just telling you that Microsoft has no right to decide what OEMs bundle with computers they sell. If you aren't trolling, you're confused.
I think Microsoft does have that "right". Maybe not legally speaking, but the law does not always protect or cover rights, and sometimes works against them. To be metaphorical, I don't think the king's edicts are the will of God. The point here is that sometimes retailers have to play ball with manufacturers, sometimes to the benefit of consumers... sometimes more to the benefit of manufacturers, but, and you may be unfamiliar with the notion, nobody is entitled.
You said that MS should be forced to unbundle their calc and, as a reason, "there are other companies making better ones".
You say OEMs should be putting together the software packages but MS is the one who makes the product and may consider some parts "core" for obvious reasons--one, consumers may expect certain functionality be "just there" and may blame them for it; two, for customer service reasons MS may want certain things, and three, MS may simply want to include functionality as it's better for them in the end, and there's nothing wrong with that.
Customers have a choice between Windows, Linux, FreeBSD, and a few others. If they don't like their choices, well, nobody ever guaranteed them their perfect OS! For whatever reason customers keep CHOOSING Windows, they do, and MS's majority marketshare does not take away from the fact that competition does exist and that people simply aren't choosing it. Handicapping Windows to suit YOUR choice hoping people use software you want them to use, whether it be Firefox or Linux, is not a very good answer.
Wait, I actually like MS's calculator program for its simplicity. Why do you get the right to tell me what I am supposed to prefer?
Oh, I forgot--you're left-leaning politically. Heh.
People here are actually advocating removing media player (which MS was forced to do by the EU! That version didn't sell too well...) and IE from Windows with the hopes that retailers will install Firefox instead.
You want a level playing field? Then tell retailers they can't integrate, say, Nautilus and its web browser elements and Linux distros cannot ship with a browser pre-installed :)
Funny, Microsoft dictates actually few standards nowadays on the web (where IE is losing marketshare partially because of how poorly it conforms to standards NOT set by Microsoft, i.e. CSS and so on, and the media player doesn't have much to do with standards.
You're always free to use the alternatives, no matter who defines the standards. If Microsoft's become the de facto standards then tough.
Windows is already crippled. We want to cripple Microsoft. Specifically, we want to cripple Microsoft's ability to foist Windows upon us in a way where it does not have to compete with alternatives based on merit. If there were truly a free market, there are plenty of Microsoft products that would disappear because they are really bad. If there are some that are actually competitive on merit, then everyone wins because the status quo of software in general is improved, but as it stands, Microsoft is now a boat anchor, dragging everyone down to their level because they have the power to prevent real competition.
This "free market forces are failing because X is not the best product on the market" is a red herring. Partially because nobody said the free market would choose necessarily the BEST product (look at the music people listen to) but also that "best" is subjective and it often comes down to preference, familiarity, and other factors. The simple fact is that anyone can switch to Linux right now if they were so inclined.
As it stands, they don't need to better than anyone else, and trust me, they haven't bothered for the better part of a decade. What part of Vista is geared towards making customers happier than they were with XP? Maybe improved security, but frankly I don't even think it wins there because of UAE, er, UAC, which is just Microsoft's way of passing the buck to the user.
The reason they don't "need to be better than anyone else" is partially because a diverse selection of operating systems creates problems with compatibility, forcing the market to rally around few big players. Another reason is simply lack of consumer education.
In the one place in the consumer world where a little true competition exists, the browser, we can already the Microsoft's product is losing market share rapidly.
Great. So why waste all the energy on Microsoft including a (mandatory, in this day and age) browser integrated in the OS that is already being used less and less by people.
I find it interesting how people play so fast and loose with words here, saying things like "true competition" when Linux, FreeBSD, and a few others ARE true competition to Windows. The reason more people are adopting Firefox and not Linux itself is one of, again, consumer education and the difficulty of switching. Hence, a lot of slashdotters, probably not being entirely honest with themselves in regards to their motivations, want to handicap Windows to benefit Linux.
I'm selling a calculator app I made, it's a bit better than the one in windows. Maybe if I complained, I could get the EU to force MS to release a version sans-calculator so people will buy my product!
You have to agree with the above sentiments if you think that competition is a right.