Giving airtime to insane/wicked opposing viewpoints does no one any good.
But who decides if it is wicked or insane? A religion would be quick to dismiss any talk about evolution because it contradicts the doctrine they believe in, the government would be quick to call someone wicked for having a viewpoint that is different than the majority, a corporation is quick to call someone wicked because they don't like the corporation.
I think that it basically boils down to, the Republicans don't care about you because you don't have enough money and the Democrats don't care about you because you don't have enough money. The Libertarians care about you, but they have such a minority you will probably not see a Libetarian president in your lifetime.
How would a "balanced internet" work in the first place? Can you not find a blog aready to cater to any political belief no matter how bizzare? Now I'm the one confused
Exactly, what we need if anything is a balanced congress one that isn't made up of republicans and democrats.
Exactly, we need to stop thinking that there are only 2 of everything, 2 political ideologies, 2 OSes, 2 news stations, etc. There are more than 2 sides to everything, think of the RIAA debates, the RIAA has one side, the general public has another and the musicians have another side too.
Yes, but if MrBlackHat474 wants to access your bank account, he can't pop onto your Myspace/Blog/Company Website/state's public records and get what he needs to compromise your account.
Yes, if that was the main page, a lot of my complaints would disappear, but the fact remains that it isn't the main page and most people think that that button goes back to the main page.
Well, basically it was made to run on the gPC that Wal-Mart sold for $200, so a lot of the stuff was chosen to make up for low RAM and a slow CPU, and a web app sure loads a lot faster than OOo. Plus the WM is light to help combat slowdowns.
It might actually be in linux's favor if users don't even know that.
Ok, but search for gOS tutorials online and you won't find very many. Search for Ubuntu and you will find a ton (and most work for gOS), search for Linux tutorials and you will find more than you ever could need. If someone can't get something working in gOS, chances are someone on the super-active Ubuntu forums has had the same issue and fixed it, but the typical user finding nothing on the home page that said it was even Linux would not even think of searching Ubuntu's site.
Walk into any book store and you will find a few books and magazines about Linux, Debian and Ubuntu, but no gOS books, so the gOS user who doesn't know that it is Linux, Debian and Ubuntu has no print documentation (and an awesome Wiki doesn't help you if you can't connect to your network).
Buy a different computer that has Linux installed and the typical user will think they have to learn everything again, rather than just (if it is Ubuntu) installing a gOS metapackage (they used to have it at least...) and getting the familiar look of gOS back.
Try to get tech support and the guy will look at you blankly if your OS is gOS, but if you say it is Linux they will be more likely to do something for you.
It may help adoption, but it isn't good in the long run for the user.
As much as I agree with you (after installing and playing around with gOS before) there are a few things wrong
Oh yeah, and the review didn't mention a word processor besides the Google Docs (which the reviewer could get to work off line in any case), I'll be sure not to load this distro up for the next twenty four hour plane ride I take (about one or two ever year recently).
But apt-get install is easy to install things that it doesn't have included. The same complaint would be relevant to MS because Windows doesn't have a word processor either.
Ok, think of it this way. The non-geek wants to know more about the OS they use. Now had it been branded as Linux, Ubuntu or even Debian they could find a multitude of books. But since it is gOS they find nothing and think of it more as a "toy" OS.
gOS has a place, much like Puppy Linux, DSL, etc. But gOS is heading to as much proprietary-ness as you can get with Free Software. Compare the gOS homepage with Ubuntu's, http://www.thinkgos.com/new/ and http://www.ubuntu.com/ . gOS has no obvious place for developer participation on the home page, while Ubuntu clearly advertises it. The main page for gOS nowhere mentions Ubuntu or even Debain, heck, Linux isn't even mentioned! The main page for Ubuntu clearly states that it is A) Linux and B) made from Debian, as of now it even has a banner celebrating Debian.
No, what is worrysome is they assume that everyone could be a terrorist. If we assumed everyone within a 20 block radius was a murderer, real murder cases would take forever to be solved. Same with this, if everyone is a terrorist, they look for all the people who are obviously not terrorists and try to make them be a terrorist rather then actually figuring out who really are terrorists (and no, 80 year old English grandmothers are not terrorists).
There is a difference between avoiding and refusing entirely claiming there is no problem. Apple tends to claim the latter.
Look at Windows, apparently the fact that Vista hardly runs on current-gen or last-gen hardware isn't a problem.
I don't consider the sourcecode to a web browser component making OS X "more flexible".
Except that you can actually write standard HTML for a default web browser and it would render correctly? Compare that to IE where about every single line of code has to be duplicated to work on it.
But does it actually make OS X more flexible? I don't believe so. What are you going to do with the source to a web browser component, seriously?
What are you going to do with Apple's customization of Samba? CUPS?
Number 1, easier to port applications to. Number 2, easier to write applications for if you don't own the OS. As for Samba and etc, if Apple finds a bug that the other developers haven't found yet, it gets fixed both places and vice versa.
If you sign some NDAs, you can get access to the entire Windows sourcecode.
Under the Open Source Definition, licenses must meet ten conditions in order to be considered open source licenses. Below is a copy of the definition, with unauthorized explanatory additions. There is a link to the original unmodified text below. It was taken under fair use.
1. Free Redistribution: the software can be freely given away or sold. (This was intended to expand sharing and use of the software on a legal basis.)
2. Source Code: the source code must either be included or freely obtainable. (Without source code, making changes or modifications can be impossible.)
3. Derived Works: redistribution of modifications must be allowed. (To allow legal sharing and to permit new features or repairs.)
4. Integrity of The Author's Source Code: licenses may require that modifications are redistributed only as patches.
5. No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups: no one can be locked out.
6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor: commercial users cannot be excluded.
7. Distribution of License: The rights attached to the program must apply to all to whom the program is redistributed without the need for execution of an additional license by those parties.
8. License Must Not Be Specific to a Product: the program cannot be licensed only as part of a larger distribution.
9. License Must Not Restrict Other Software: the license cannot insist that any other software it is distributed with must also be open source.
10. License Must Be Technology-Neutral: no click-wrap licenses or other medium-specific ways of accepting the license must be required.
An NDA kinda violates all of these points to make things OSS. Just because you can see the source doesn't mean that it is open source.
I used to be a fan of Nintendo, but they seemed to totally screw everything up this generation. First they don't release enough games onto the Wii's Virtual Console, then they tell various third party publishers release dates then release non of the games they told them. Wiiware is much of the same, various publishers have said that they had no control on when the games they made would be released. And now this. Nintendo has become even more of a control freak then even in the NES era, and for no good reason.
Apple never admits that there anything wrong with their products. Never.
News flash, all proprietary software vendors avoid admitting that there is anything wrong with the products they make.
Both companies tries to lock customers into their brand.
And how is that different than anything else? But at least OS X is more flexible, for example, the core anyone can get (based on BSD) the rendering engine for the browser anyone can get (based on KHTML, now forked to WebKit). Other bits of OS X are F/OSS too. Compare that with Windows where not a single line of code is OSS. If someone felt like it you could easily write a compatible Mac OS clone. Whereas with Windows about every line of code has to be reverse engineered.
You still have to test your shit if you want happy customers, just like every other company on earth.
But Apple is a tech company. It isn't like every other company. Apple is basically marketed to those who are Mac fanboys. Ok, the iPod has reached the level that just about everyone has at least used one, but for Macs and the iPhone/Touch it is mostly the fanboys that buy them. During Apple's lean years it wasn't the general population that supported them, it was the Apple fanatics, and in software with very little production costs and hardware that you can mark up $100+ easily Apple can at least survive purely on that.
Microsoft is the a absolute opposite, it can avoid testing because people are more or less forced to buy the products it sells.
...And why would they? Not only do you have a devoted Mac rumors bunch of people who will blog about a suspicious scratch on someone's iPhone, but you have the fanboys who if Apple markets iCrap they will buy 10 of them, and then 5 more when the price drops. Not to mention the fact that Apple is half-way open source and Unix based it keeps the tech guys buying it. Really, Apple can't even test an iPhone outside of a secret underground lab without it being leaked. Take that plus the fanboys and you have a company that can't and has little need to do testing.
A grey hat, in the hacking community, refers to a skilled hacker who sometimes acts legally, sometimes in good will, and sometimes not. They are a hybrid between white and black hat hackers. They usually do not hack for personal gain or have malicious intentions, but may or may not occasionally commit crimes during the course of their technological exploits.
A black hat hacker would hack the firewall in order to get credit card numbers.
First off not everything on TPB is illegal, and I never even said "Let them download movies and music off TPB". Secondly, bomb-making isn't a skill needed by most people, computer literacy is, and like it or not, knowing P2P helps you with computers. And lastly, even if they were downloading something off of TPB that isn't 100% legal, does it ever kill anyone like a bomb is made to do? Nope.
Don't blame just republicans, blame democrats too. Both violate the constitution on a daily basis. Republican: Sure, have as much rights as you like (so long as you don't even think about being un-American...) Democrats: Sure! Protest all you want (so long as you don't even think of criticizing any minorities). Republicans: Sure have all the guns you want (but don't think of being non-christian) Democrats: Sure be whatever religion you want (but don't exercise your rights of the second amendment).
Slashdot Mirror
Giving airtime to insane/wicked opposing viewpoints does no one any good.
But who decides if it is wicked or insane? A religion would be quick to dismiss any talk about evolution because it contradicts the doctrine they believe in, the government would be quick to call someone wicked for having a viewpoint that is different than the majority, a corporation is quick to call someone wicked because they don't like the corporation.
I think that it basically boils down to, the Republicans don't care about you because you don't have enough money and the Democrats don't care about you because you don't have enough money. The Libertarians care about you, but they have such a minority you will probably not see a Libetarian president in your lifetime.
How would a "balanced internet" work in the first place? Can you not find a blog aready to cater to any political belief no matter how bizzare? Now I'm the one confused
Exactly, what we need if anything is a balanced congress one that isn't made up of republicans and democrats.
Exactly, we need to stop thinking that there are only 2 of everything, 2 political ideologies, 2 OSes, 2 news stations, etc. There are more than 2 sides to everything, think of the RIAA debates, the RIAA has one side, the general public has another and the musicians have another side too.
31? Last time I did any type of computer help it was more like 95%
Researchers believe that it may be possible to increase the speed of the Internet by slowing down certain parts of it
Didn't Comcast already try that?
It depends, if you plan on using Vista or Windows 7 the short answer is yes.
Yes, but if MrBlackHat474 wants to access your bank account, he can't pop onto your Myspace/Blog/Company Website/state's public records and get what he needs to compromise your account.
Yes, if that was the main page, a lot of my complaints would disappear, but the fact remains that it isn't the main page and most people think that that button goes back to the main page.
Well, basically it was made to run on the gPC that Wal-Mart sold for $200, so a lot of the stuff was chosen to make up for low RAM and a slow CPU, and a web app sure loads a lot faster than OOo. Plus the WM is light to help combat slowdowns.
It might actually be in linux's favor if users don't even know that.
Ok, but search for gOS tutorials online and you won't find very many. Search for Ubuntu and you will find a ton (and most work for gOS), search for Linux tutorials and you will find more than you ever could need. If someone can't get something working in gOS, chances are someone on the super-active Ubuntu forums has had the same issue and fixed it, but the typical user finding nothing on the home page that said it was even Linux would not even think of searching Ubuntu's site.
Walk into any book store and you will find a few books and magazines about Linux, Debian and Ubuntu, but no gOS books, so the gOS user who doesn't know that it is Linux, Debian and Ubuntu has no print documentation (and an awesome Wiki doesn't help you if you can't connect to your network).
Buy a different computer that has Linux installed and the typical user will think they have to learn everything again, rather than just (if it is Ubuntu) installing a gOS metapackage (they used to have it at least...) and getting the familiar look of gOS back.
Try to get tech support and the guy will look at you blankly if your OS is gOS, but if you say it is Linux they will be more likely to do something for you.
It may help adoption, but it isn't good in the long run for the user.
Oh yeah, and the review didn't mention a word processor besides the Google Docs (which the reviewer could get to work off line in any case), I'll be sure not to load this distro up for the next twenty four hour plane ride I take (about one or two ever year recently).
But apt-get install is easy to install things that it doesn't have included. The same complaint would be relevant to MS because Windows doesn't have a word processor either.
Ok, think of it this way. The non-geek wants to know more about the OS they use. Now had it been branded as Linux, Ubuntu or even Debian they could find a multitude of books. But since it is gOS they find nothing and think of it more as a "toy" OS.
gOS has a place, much like Puppy Linux, DSL, etc. But gOS is heading to as much proprietary-ness as you can get with Free Software. Compare the gOS homepage with Ubuntu's, http://www.thinkgos.com/new/ and http://www.ubuntu.com/ . gOS has no obvious place for developer participation on the home page, while Ubuntu clearly advertises it. The main page for gOS nowhere mentions Ubuntu or even Debain, heck, Linux isn't even mentioned! The main page for Ubuntu clearly states that it is A) Linux and B) made from Debian, as of now it even has a banner celebrating Debian.
No, what is worrysome is they assume that everyone could be a terrorist. If we assumed everyone within a 20 block radius was a murderer, real murder cases would take forever to be solved. Same with this, if everyone is a terrorist, they look for all the people who are obviously not terrorists and try to make them be a terrorist rather then actually figuring out who really are terrorists (and no, 80 year old English grandmothers are not terrorists).
There is a difference between avoiding and refusing entirely claiming there is no problem. Apple tends to claim the latter.
Look at Windows, apparently the fact that Vista hardly runs on current-gen or last-gen hardware isn't a problem.
I don't consider the sourcecode to a web browser component making OS X "more flexible".
Except that you can actually write standard HTML for a default web browser and it would render correctly? Compare that to IE where about every single line of code has to be duplicated to work on it.
But does it actually make OS X more flexible? I don't believe so. What are you going to do with the source to a web browser component, seriously? What are you going to do with Apple's customization of Samba? CUPS?
Number 1, easier to port applications to. Number 2, easier to write applications for if you don't own the OS. As for Samba and etc, if Apple finds a bug that the other developers haven't found yet, it gets fixed both places and vice versa.
If you sign some NDAs, you can get access to the entire Windows sourcecode.
Under the Open Source Definition, licenses must meet ten conditions in order to be considered open source licenses. Below is a copy of the definition, with unauthorized explanatory additions. There is a link to the original unmodified text below. It was taken under fair use. 1. Free Redistribution: the software can be freely given away or sold. (This was intended to expand sharing and use of the software on a legal basis.) 2. Source Code: the source code must either be included or freely obtainable. (Without source code, making changes or modifications can be impossible.) 3. Derived Works: redistribution of modifications must be allowed. (To allow legal sharing and to permit new features or repairs.) 4. Integrity of The Author's Source Code: licenses may require that modifications are redistributed only as patches. 5. No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups: no one can be locked out. 6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor: commercial users cannot be excluded. 7. Distribution of License: The rights attached to the program must apply to all to whom the program is redistributed without the need for execution of an additional license by those parties. 8. License Must Not Be Specific to a Product: the program cannot be licensed only as part of a larger distribution. 9. License Must Not Restrict Other Software: the license cannot insist that any other software it is distributed with must also be open source. 10. License Must Be Technology-Neutral: no click-wrap licenses or other medium-specific ways of accepting the license must be required.
An NDA kinda violates all of these points to make things OSS. Just because you can see the source doesn't mean that it is open source.
I used to be a fan of Nintendo, but they seemed to totally screw everything up this generation. First they don't release enough games onto the Wii's Virtual Console, then they tell various third party publishers release dates then release non of the games they told them. Wiiware is much of the same, various publishers have said that they had no control on when the games they made would be released. And now this. Nintendo has become even more of a control freak then even in the NES era, and for no good reason.
Apple never admits that there anything wrong with their products. Never.
News flash, all proprietary software vendors avoid admitting that there is anything wrong with the products they make.
Both companies tries to lock customers into their brand.
And how is that different than anything else? But at least OS X is more flexible, for example, the core anyone can get (based on BSD) the rendering engine for the browser anyone can get (based on KHTML, now forked to WebKit). Other bits of OS X are F/OSS too. Compare that with Windows where not a single line of code is OSS. If someone felt like it you could easily write a compatible Mac OS clone. Whereas with Windows about every line of code has to be reverse engineered.
You still have to test your shit if you want happy customers, just like every other company on earth.
But Apple is a tech company. It isn't like every other company. Apple is basically marketed to those who are Mac fanboys. Ok, the iPod has reached the level that just about everyone has at least used one, but for Macs and the iPhone/Touch it is mostly the fanboys that buy them. During Apple's lean years it wasn't the general population that supported them, it was the Apple fanatics, and in software with very little production costs and hardware that you can mark up $100+ easily Apple can at least survive purely on that.
Microsoft is the a absolute opposite, it can avoid testing because people are more or less forced to buy the products it sells.
...And why would they? Not only do you have a devoted Mac rumors bunch of people who will blog about a suspicious scratch on someone's iPhone, but you have the fanboys who if Apple markets iCrap they will buy 10 of them, and then 5 more when the price drops. Not to mention the fact that Apple is half-way open source and Unix based it keeps the tech guys buying it. Really, Apple can't even test an iPhone outside of a secret underground lab without it being leaked. Take that plus the fanboys and you have a company that can't and has little need to do testing.
Nope, just a paid for version of Fedora http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RHEL
A grey hat, in the hacking community, refers to a skilled hacker who sometimes acts legally, sometimes in good will, and sometimes not. They are a hybrid between white and black hat hackers. They usually do not hack for personal gain or have malicious intentions, but may or may not occasionally commit crimes during the course of their technological exploits.
A black hat hacker would hack the firewall in order to get credit card numbers.
So it is reasonable for the US to have blocked all Iraqi and Afghan sites during our invasion?
Ummm... You aren't from the RIAA are you?
First off not everything on TPB is illegal, and I never even said "Let them download movies and music off TPB". Secondly, bomb-making isn't a skill needed by most people, computer literacy is, and like it or not, knowing P2P helps you with computers. And lastly, even if they were downloading something off of TPB that isn't 100% legal, does it ever kill anyone like a bomb is made to do? Nope.
Don't blame just republicans, blame democrats too. Both violate the constitution on a daily basis. Republican: Sure, have as much rights as you like (so long as you don't even think about being un-American...) Democrats: Sure! Protest all you want (so long as you don't even think of criticizing any minorities). Republicans: Sure have all the guns you want (but don't think of being non-christian) Democrats: Sure be whatever religion you want (but don't exercise your rights of the second amendment).