The bad part is, so much of the things fall under copyrighted code and so it would be like that Atari flash cart thing, it would be illegal to make your own backups. That, is scary. Game console makers constantly forcing you with useless firmware upgrades that can destroy your machine and not only do you have to buy a new one, you don't have your data.
Which is why firmware upgrades like how MS/Nintendo/Sony have them are a bad idea. Rather then just small patches, a lot of them overwrite a lot of the base code. It would be like rather then just patching Windows, you formatted your HD and started over from backups, now the firmware upgrades aren't exactly like that, but it is similar to the risks that it takes. And most firmware updates don't *need* to be done in the first place, and the makers certainly shouldn't prevent you from online play if you don't upgrade unless it would be a natural by-product of the upgrade (like the online play server was moved or something). But really, upgradable firmware in game consoles is just a bad idea to use.
A more holistic approach is required in order to get people to want the thing in the first place.
There already is enough want for a SSD. The downside is most people want more then the pathetic few GBs of storage they have to offer. So when they make an affordable, say 500 GB SSD, more people will buy them leading to more SSD makers leading to faster ones and lower powered ones along with more reliable and more space.
Actually, I moved to Linux a while ago. So that's no big deal for me, but of course being the geek I have to fix family and friends computers (and oddly enough they reject my idea that they should just format their HD and install a real OS)
I wonder, if they ever compared the speed of a clean install of Windows with an anti-virus to a malware messed up install of Windows and see how fast they were. In most cases I find that the anti-virus computer is slower then the one with a ton of viruses!!! And this being McAfee, I don't think that they would worry about slowdowns much (can't read TFA it doesn't want to load or is Slashdotted) because it seems that any computer with McAfee/Norton/any other commercial AV, is slow, really slow. Even on XP with newer hardware it still is slow.
Please explain how preferring user freedom to ease of code (re)use is not a political view.
Tell me how preferring proprietary software is a political view. Wanting user freedom is as much of a political view as preferring proprietary software over free software. Within the user freedom comes freedom to have a more unified fork. For example, if Apple wanted to fork GPL'd software that is fine, all of Apple's patches have to be open source too, so you can add them back to the codebase.
Can you see world's population assembling under that cliff, chanting "Jump! Jump!"?
No, but I can see Van Halen playing Jump under that cliff. With the rest of the world singing along.
Re:Anyone see much of a difference?
on
A Year of GPLv3
·
· Score: 1
But EULAs usually aren't enforceable to restrict the user meaning, if the EULA says I can make no backup copies but say copyright law allowed me 2 backup copies, the company couldn't use the EULA to sue me. Now, if the EULA said you got say 120 minutes of tech support each month for this company, that is a right, not a restriction, so the company couldn't back down from that as it was a contract. So something using the AGPL has to provide source or else it is considered fraud/lying/whatever the legal term is.
Re:I've seen an effect
on
A Year of GPLv3
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
I want to share the code, not enforce political views I disagree with.
No matter how good you think the intentions you have are. If *insert corporation here* wants your code they can take it and use it to create restrictions for the user. The GPLv3 allows the user to take away those and use it on the product. Hardly enforcing political views. Basically, the GPL is to allow the most freedom for end users and make sure that the end users can trust you. If say Linus was hired by MS and decided to close down all of Linux sites, you could still get the kernel. If MS wanted to make a backdoor in the kernel code and sell it as Windows 7, you had the right to take that out despite how much MS wants your computer to be zombified into submission to the *AA.
I don't want something that goes on the internet to access my local drive. Just like I don't prepare meat on the same counter I prepare vegetables.
But just about every browser does it by default. Though in some browsers it is uglier then others. Just type in/home/ in Firefox and see a directory listing of your files.
And... Red Hat doesn't pay developers to work on RHEL/Fedora and Fedora is a free as in speech and beer distro. And doesn't Canonical pay developers to improve Ubuntu even when it is a free as in speech and beer distro?
I don't want it to...
make coffee, I have a coffee maker for that.
wash dishes, I have a dishwasher for that.
drive me to work, I have a car for that.
But there are a few things that I do want my browser to do that would be nice for it to have other then just browsing the web.
1. Block ads that my/etc/hosts file has missed
2. Read some RSS feeds
3. Perhaps let me manage my files on my local drive
4. Access FTP, HTTP and just about any other protocol
5. Manage my downloads and perhaps integrate a BT client with it
Basically, it would be really nice to never leave your web browser because all the functionality is there.
Sure the browser can be, but Flash is a plugin, not a browser and a poorly-written plugin for any platform other then Windows. So think of Flash as a program running in the background that display's the contents in your browser window. Can a program crash? Yep. So can Flash crash and make your browser slow? Yep.
There are a few reasons why I don't use Opera except on my Wii and DS (yes, I have installed it on a few of my Linux boxes and have used it but not as my primary browser). Number 1, it isn't open source. Now besides my tinfoil hat reason that I can't be sure where and what it is sending, it also makes it impossible to optimize for lower-end systems. For example I can compile Firefox -O3 (or get a Swiftweasel binary) and it will run at a fast speed on lower-end hardware, Opera being binary-only doesn't allow this. Number 2, it used to be adware and how can I really trust a browser that used to be adware, something that my browser is the first line of defense in combating it? Also, even though it isn't adware, there could still be bits of the adware code in the source slowing it down, Opera being non-free doesn't let you look at the source to see if that is the case. Sure Opera has some nice features, but using Opera as a main browser just makes me uneasy.
Make it launch in 1 second and run for years without consuming much ram as well as render the page and all text FIRST before loading graphics and other crap.
There are a few reasons that this won't work. First, HD transfer speeds simply won't load the binary in one second for a modern browser. As we move to SSDs perhaps it will be a reality but for standard HDs that is only a dream, unless say you have a large RAID.
As for the RAM usage, yes that is a problem, but it is either use up RAM or cache the page to HD which would be slower. And not using a cache isn't a good idea because you can create an unintentional DoS attack and it will be very slow for slower connections.
How? Honestly, they seem to be roughly the same to me, just Seamonkey looks older so it is assumed to be faster. Firefox comes with no addons by default.
You don't need a license. You need a "EFF approved" stamp.
But how are we supposed to trust them without the source code? Sure the EFF is a great organization, but being an organization, it is prone to corruption. If we all could view the source code we would have the same thing without relying on an organization. Also, if we just had an EFF approved stamp, rather then a license, and assuming that meant that there would be no source code available, fragmentation wouldn't be an issue as in any one of those licenses you can view the source code, the only differences being how you can redistribute it, change it or link it with different code.
Please don't make me describe the experience I had getting *Intel* based wireless to work under Ubuntu on my Dell Latitude D530. Until manufacturer driver support equals that of Windows and the driver install process is fully automated (I'm not afraid of the command line, it's just that time=money) I'll bet you that I could download all the updated drivers (which isn't as many as you claim) needed for a Windows rebuild in the time it takes to get wireless/video drivers working properly under Linux.
That is odd. I had an Intel based wireless chipset that was detected with all features working in every Ubuntu I tried. The Intel graphics card let me use Compiz easily. And this is on an Alienware computer, a computer known for proprietary parts. Just about every Wireless chipset I have come across at least some version of Linux will detect it out-of-the-box. Even the evil broadcom chipsets that didn't work even under the latest Ubuntu worked just fine when I popped in a Mepis CD. And the obscure Chinese-made-generic wireless adapter worked with Puppy Linux. As for nVidia and ATI chipsets, it really isn't hard to get them configured though I have only done it once or twice as just about all my computers have Intel graphics cards.
And perhaps this is why Linux is not so prevalent on the desktop, and why it never will be.
No, Linux will be prevalent on the desktop when the "default" choice in buying a computer is Linux. That is quickly approaching. That is the reason Windows became popular, not because it was any good but it was what people were stuck with.
not trying to Troll, its a fair point - what do most people want. If most people want what Windows offers, and Linux doesn't, then Windows wins for them and Linux remains a niche product for the minority.
But most people don't even care. Most people have never heard of Linux only that you can buy a PC and you have Windows or buy a Mac and have OS X. That is it. Linux may perhaps be known as something to do with servers but that is about it. Think of the PC and Mac commercials (the ones on TV not Novell's) they make you believe that there are 2 options, get Vista and have terrible performance, or get OS X and buy a much more expensive computer and get OS X. No mention of Linux, UNIX, BSD, ReactOS, or any other OS out there.
MS has a monopoly most people can't or don't compare Windows and Linux to find out which one "wins". Most plug in the power cord, boot up the computer, and use it, bugs and all, even if it is a terrible OS.
Hmmm... there are a ton of ways. Number 1: develop in-house software, it can be free and you get $$$ for it. Number 2: Sell support like Red Hat does. Number 3: Put *gasp* ads for your web apps like Google does but release them under an open source license. There you go, 3 ways to make money without sacrificing freedom.
the only thing Apple has over other vendors is better customer service: not technology.
And OS X. Compare Vista to OS X and you see that OS X wins in everything over Vista. Now, it is debatable if OS X is worth it, or if it is better then Linux, but compare Vista to OS X and you see that Apple has better technology then the average box you buy at a large chain of brick-and-mortar stores.
I think, if nothing else, Microsoft has earned the right to determine the version numbers for its software. The previous numbers are actually correct according to Microsoft. Once you design and build your own OS from scratch, then you can change the version numbers however you like.
Clearly you mean, "Buy an OS from some hackers, sell it to IBM as MS DOS, steal the GUI from Apple, put that on DOS, take some ideas from UNIX though not enough to make it be secure and call it NT, then take NT, add in a shiny GUI and call it XP and then take more ideas from Mac and UNIX and call it Vista" and then you have the right to determine the version numbers.
Slashdot Mirror
The bad part is, so much of the things fall under copyrighted code and so it would be like that Atari flash cart thing, it would be illegal to make your own backups. That, is scary. Game console makers constantly forcing you with useless firmware upgrades that can destroy your machine and not only do you have to buy a new one, you don't have your data.
Which is why firmware upgrades like how MS/Nintendo/Sony have them are a bad idea. Rather then just small patches, a lot of them overwrite a lot of the base code. It would be like rather then just patching Windows, you formatted your HD and started over from backups, now the firmware upgrades aren't exactly like that, but it is similar to the risks that it takes. And most firmware updates don't *need* to be done in the first place, and the makers certainly shouldn't prevent you from online play if you don't upgrade unless it would be a natural by-product of the upgrade (like the online play server was moved or something). But really, upgradable firmware in game consoles is just a bad idea to use.
A more holistic approach is required in order to get people to want the thing in the first place.
There already is enough want for a SSD. The downside is most people want more then the pathetic few GBs of storage they have to offer. So when they make an affordable, say 500 GB SSD, more people will buy them leading to more SSD makers leading to faster ones and lower powered ones along with more reliable and more space.
Actually, I moved to Linux a while ago. So that's no big deal for me, but of course being the geek I have to fix family and friends computers (and oddly enough they reject my idea that they should just format their HD and install a real OS)
Yeah, Kefka got pretty mad.
Ummm.. Kefka is in Final Fantasy VI, which hasn't been called Final Fantasy III since 1994 for the US SNES release.
I wonder, if they ever compared the speed of a clean install of Windows with an anti-virus to a malware messed up install of Windows and see how fast they were. In most cases I find that the anti-virus computer is slower then the one with a ton of viruses!!! And this being McAfee, I don't think that they would worry about slowdowns much (can't read TFA it doesn't want to load or is Slashdotted) because it seems that any computer with McAfee/Norton/any other commercial AV, is slow, really slow. Even on XP with newer hardware it still is slow.
Ummm... Yah. So how do I install this "Linux virus"
/home/user> sudo apt-get install virus
Reading package lists... Done
Building dependency tree... Done
E: Couldn't find package virus
Hmmm... Too hard for most Linux users to install.
Please explain how preferring user freedom to ease of code (re)use is not a political view.
Tell me how preferring proprietary software is a political view. Wanting user freedom is as much of a political view as preferring proprietary software over free software. Within the user freedom comes freedom to have a more unified fork. For example, if Apple wanted to fork GPL'd software that is fine, all of Apple's patches have to be open source too, so you can add them back to the codebase.
Can you see world's population assembling under that cliff, chanting "Jump! Jump!"?
No, but I can see Van Halen playing Jump under that cliff. With the rest of the world singing along.
But EULAs usually aren't enforceable to restrict the user meaning, if the EULA says I can make no backup copies but say copyright law allowed me 2 backup copies, the company couldn't use the EULA to sue me. Now, if the EULA said you got say 120 minutes of tech support each month for this company, that is a right, not a restriction, so the company couldn't back down from that as it was a contract. So something using the AGPL has to provide source or else it is considered fraud/lying/whatever the legal term is.
I want to share the code, not enforce political views I disagree with.
No matter how good you think the intentions you have are. If *insert corporation here* wants your code they can take it and use it to create restrictions for the user. The GPLv3 allows the user to take away those and use it on the product. Hardly enforcing political views. Basically, the GPL is to allow the most freedom for end users and make sure that the end users can trust you. If say Linus was hired by MS and decided to close down all of Linux sites, you could still get the kernel. If MS wanted to make a backdoor in the kernel code and sell it as Windows 7, you had the right to take that out despite how much MS wants your computer to be zombified into submission to the *AA.
Well I guess this proves it. Government's ideas of what is a "security risk" and illegal wiretapping happened before Bush.
I don't want something that goes on the internet to access my local drive. Just like I don't prepare meat on the same counter I prepare vegetables.
But just about every browser does it by default. Though in some browsers it is uglier then others. Just type in
And... Red Hat doesn't pay developers to work on RHEL/Fedora and Fedora is a free as in speech and beer distro. And doesn't Canonical pay developers to improve Ubuntu even when it is a free as in speech and beer distro?
I don't want it to... make coffee, I have a coffee maker for that. wash dishes, I have a dishwasher for that. drive me to work, I have a car for that.
But there are a few things that I do want my browser to do that would be nice for it to have other then just browsing the web.
1. Block ads that my
2. Read some RSS feeds
3. Perhaps let me manage my files on my local drive
4. Access FTP, HTTP and just about any other protocol
5. Manage my downloads and perhaps integrate a BT client with it
Basically, it would be really nice to never leave your web browser because all the functionality is there.
This isn't 2002, browsers should be above that.
Sure the browser can be, but Flash is a plugin, not a browser and a poorly-written plugin for any platform other then Windows. So think of Flash as a program running in the background that display's the contents in your browser window. Can a program crash? Yep. So can Flash crash and make your browser slow? Yep.
There are a few reasons why I don't use Opera except on my Wii and DS (yes, I have installed it on a few of my Linux boxes and have used it but not as my primary browser). Number 1, it isn't open source. Now besides my tinfoil hat reason that I can't be sure where and what it is sending, it also makes it impossible to optimize for lower-end systems. For example I can compile Firefox -O3 (or get a Swiftweasel binary) and it will run at a fast speed on lower-end hardware, Opera being binary-only doesn't allow this. Number 2, it used to be adware and how can I really trust a browser that used to be adware, something that my browser is the first line of defense in combating it? Also, even though it isn't adware, there could still be bits of the adware code in the source slowing it down, Opera being non-free doesn't let you look at the source to see if that is the case. Sure Opera has some nice features, but using Opera as a main browser just makes me uneasy.
Make it launch in 1 second and run for years without consuming much ram as well as render the page and all text FIRST before loading graphics and other crap.
There are a few reasons that this won't work. First, HD transfer speeds simply won't load the binary in one second for a modern browser. As we move to SSDs perhaps it will be a reality but for standard HDs that is only a dream, unless say you have a large RAID.
As for the RAM usage, yes that is a problem, but it is either use up RAM or cache the page to HD which would be slower. And not using a cache isn't a good idea because you can create an unintentional DoS attack and it will be very slow for slower connections.
How? Honestly, they seem to be roughly the same to me, just Seamonkey looks older so it is assumed to be faster. Firefox comes with no addons by default.
You don't need a license. You need a "EFF approved" stamp.
But how are we supposed to trust them without the source code? Sure the EFF is a great organization, but being an organization, it is prone to corruption. If we all could view the source code we would have the same thing without relying on an organization. Also, if we just had an EFF approved stamp, rather then a license, and assuming that meant that there would be no source code available, fragmentation wouldn't be an issue as in any one of those licenses you can view the source code, the only differences being how you can redistribute it, change it or link it with different code.
Please don't make me describe the experience I had getting *Intel* based wireless to work under Ubuntu on my Dell Latitude D530. Until manufacturer driver support equals that of Windows and the driver install process is fully automated (I'm not afraid of the command line, it's just that time=money) I'll bet you that I could download all the updated drivers (which isn't as many as you claim) needed for a Windows rebuild in the time it takes to get wireless/video drivers working properly under Linux.
That is odd. I had an Intel based wireless chipset that was detected with all features working in every Ubuntu I tried. The Intel graphics card let me use Compiz easily. And this is on an Alienware computer, a computer known for proprietary parts. Just about every Wireless chipset I have come across at least some version of Linux will detect it out-of-the-box. Even the evil broadcom chipsets that didn't work even under the latest Ubuntu worked just fine when I popped in a Mepis CD. And the obscure Chinese-made-generic wireless adapter worked with Puppy Linux. As for nVidia and ATI chipsets, it really isn't hard to get them configured though I have only done it once or twice as just about all my computers have Intel graphics cards.
And perhaps this is why Linux is not so prevalent on the desktop, and why it never will be.
No, Linux will be prevalent on the desktop when the "default" choice in buying a computer is Linux. That is quickly approaching. That is the reason Windows became popular, not because it was any good but it was what people were stuck with.
not trying to Troll, its a fair point - what do most people want. If most people want what Windows offers, and Linux doesn't, then Windows wins for them and Linux remains a niche product for the minority.
But most people don't even care. Most people have never heard of Linux only that you can buy a PC and you have Windows or buy a Mac and have OS X. That is it. Linux may perhaps be known as something to do with servers but that is about it. Think of the PC and Mac commercials (the ones on TV not Novell's) they make you believe that there are 2 options, get Vista and have terrible performance, or get OS X and buy a much more expensive computer and get OS X. No mention of Linux, UNIX, BSD, ReactOS, or any other OS out there.
MS has a monopoly most people can't or don't compare Windows and Linux to find out which one "wins". Most plug in the power cord, boot up the computer, and use it, bugs and all, even if it is a terrible OS.
Hmmm... there are a ton of ways. Number 1: develop in-house software, it can be free and you get $$$ for it. Number 2: Sell support like Red Hat does. Number 3: Put *gasp* ads for your web apps like Google does but release them under an open source license. There you go, 3 ways to make money without sacrificing freedom.
the only thing Apple has over other vendors is better customer service: not technology.
And OS X. Compare Vista to OS X and you see that OS X wins in everything over Vista. Now, it is debatable if OS X is worth it, or if it is better then Linux, but compare Vista to OS X and you see that Apple has better technology then the average box you buy at a large chain of brick-and-mortar stores.
I think, if nothing else, Microsoft has earned the right to determine the version numbers for its software. The previous numbers are actually correct according to Microsoft. Once you design and build your own OS from scratch, then you can change the version numbers however you like.
Clearly you mean, "Buy an OS from some hackers, sell it to IBM as MS DOS, steal the GUI from Apple, put that on DOS, take some ideas from UNIX though not enough to make it be secure and call it NT, then take NT, add in a shiny GUI and call it XP and then take more ideas from Mac and UNIX and call it Vista" and then you have the right to determine the version numbers.