True, but the beauty of it is that the opposite is also true. This is great advantage of the Internet: On it exists place for all lines of thought, whereas in newspaper there is only place for the lines of thought that agree with the owner of the newspaper.
More or less. Google also can be bribed or threatened, but he is not the only way of find information, is just the most popular. The good thing on the internet is that when you discover that someone is trying to censor your searches, you can always find an alternative path.
And the interesting detail: On Google can be a little more difficult to find information about the less famous candidates, but you can get the information you want. If it was in the newspapers in my country (Brazil), you would not find any information or find only lies about them. Here the major newspapers, TVs and magazines have been sold long ago to the highest bidder and damned the truth.
Dammit, where is my mod points when I really need them. Exactly, this is the big point. The Internet has democratized information and oligarchs can not do anything against it. Before they simply bribed or threatened newspapers to hide unwanted news, but now is practically impossible to do that against every single person with access to the internet.
For you see how the actual "capitalism" is really, really broken. Enjoy, it's not every day you can see the true masters of the world acting in daylight.
Well, you can make a gun with just a metal pipe of the correct diameter, some reinforcement and something as firing pin, even simpler and cheaper than a 3D printed thing. But do not expect intelligence from the politicians.
Exact. Current laws against guns only serve to prevent the population from react against attempts of aggression coming from the government itself or from the 1% overlords (the true government in some sense). Because no law will prevent criminals from having guns, as always.
Well, so using a recent example. I like to use one application based on GTK/GNOME called Xara Xtreme, who until recently worked correctly. But it crashed when GNOME developers decided to change an somehow important API (god knows why). GNOME developers could have avoided this by simply making a new function and keeping the later (maybe "functionDoSomethingEx()" for the later "functionDoSomething()"), or modified the original function keeping the parameters compatible.
Yep, is a compromise. But it is way better than simply breaking all the compatibility and force users to change programs they may not have the means to change or upgrade.
P.S: Yes, yes, I can try to recompile the application because on this case I can get the source. But this can be very difficult or even impossible (dependency hell) to compile, and IF, and a big IF, if you know what and how to fix on the source.
Okay, so let's be polite. If you have developers willing to make the necessary changes in your driver indefinitely and without additional costs, good for you. But most companies can't do this, it costs time and money to stay forever correcting a driver because of constant changes in the kernel API, and you can not always just open the code of your driver (patents, trade secrets, etc.) and leave for a third party fix the code.
Well well well... Here is our favorite asshole again:-) Just think a bit: If you were the owner of a large and busy hardware company, you would be spending money on developers to be forever making corrections to your drivers, patches necessary only because some "hotshot" developer changes the kernel API all the time without worrying about maintaining compatibility with what was previously done? Developer time costs money, dude! Only "pet projects" can stay changing their APIs all the time without having to worry about the consequences, and Linux can not be developed like a pet project.
"The linux developers feel that having a stable API would have to make them compromise features in the kernel because they'd be unable to change the internals when needed."
Welcome to the real world. And I can guarantee you that I live with compatibility issues both in the kernel and in applications. The problem is not the kernel X function in Y hardware, the problem is you write software for the kernel X and on the next month you having to redo everything again because the kernel X.1 is not compatible with the previous one.
Exact. How you will do some serious (and complex) application on Linux if the system libraries you need keep changing and completely ignoring the compatibility with previous versions?
This. I have a very hard time developing for Linux because of things like that. On Linux I can not count on a stable API, practically every month something changes in such a way that makes my application crashing or behave erratically, and when I can make the necessary changes some bastard changes everything again. Is a no-win scenario, on Windows things just work (i have a stable API) and they hardly make any change that makes my application crashing.
Is not impossible, but is very hard. Programming for linux is a eternally moving target. When you think you finally finished developing your application, someone changes something fundamental to the system and you have to start all over again, and when you complete the necessary changes in the system, someone change it again. It is not feasible to stay indefinitely changing your application to run on a system that does not have a stable API.
Well, stocks have value, they say you now own a small part of the company in proportion to the value written on the paper. The only problem on this is if the written value (price you want to sell) actually matches the real value (price that others are willing to pay).
Because most of these designers do not have any idea on how to create a good interface (beautiful and functional), so they prefer the security of mimicking the "chieftains" of design (the famous designers). That usually works, except when the chieftains are also without any idea of what works or not.
The problem is not the UX professionals per se. The problem is the large number of professionals with no experience or competence in making a elegant and practical GUI.
See? Someone do not liked this hard truth and modded me down. But you still can read my commentary and my opinion. If Slashdot was a traditional newspaper from my country, you would not even know what my opinion is.
Currently the internet is the only chance to you have information without being censored by the (questionable) point of view of someone who has control of yours newspapers, magazines and TV. So is essential.
While I understand your point, have you ever tried to get a permit to operate a radio? Maybe the folks at Radio "Muda" simply do not bother to try to get one precisely because they would never receive (remember, permissions are given only to friends of the king), they following all the rules or not.
You are naive. One thing the government looking for evidence in the house of a drug lord. Another quite different thing is to shut up the "undesirables" using the laws as a pretext for what is simply censorship.
Exact. The only radio stations "authorized" to operate here are those whose owners are right wing politicians and entrepreneurs of the mainstream media who do not want voices disagreeing with what they say is the truth.
Slashdot Mirror
True, but the beauty of it is that the opposite is also true. This is great advantage of the Internet: On it exists place for all lines of thought, whereas in newspaper there is only place for the lines of thought that agree with the owner of the newspaper.
More or less. Google also can be bribed or threatened, but he is not the only way of find information, is just the most popular. The good thing on the internet is that when you discover that someone is trying to censor your searches, you can always find an alternative path.
And the interesting detail: On Google can be a little more difficult to find information about the less famous candidates, but you can get the information you want. If it was in the newspapers in my country (Brazil), you would not find any information or find only lies about them. Here the major newspapers, TVs and magazines have been sold long ago to the highest bidder and damned the truth.
Dammit, where is my mod points when I really need them. Exactly, this is the big point. The Internet has democratized information and oligarchs can not do anything against it. Before they simply bribed or threatened newspapers to hide unwanted news, but now is practically impossible to do that against every single person with access to the internet.
For you see how the actual "capitalism" is really, really broken. Enjoy, it's not every day you can see the true masters of the world acting in daylight.
Well, you can make a gun with just a metal pipe of the correct diameter, some reinforcement and something as firing pin, even simpler and cheaper than a 3D printed thing. But do not expect intelligence from the politicians.
Exact. Current laws against guns only serve to prevent the population from react against attempts of aggression coming from the government itself or from the 1% overlords (the true government in some sense). Because no law will prevent criminals from having guns, as always.
Well, so using a recent example. I like to use one application based on GTK/GNOME called Xara Xtreme, who until recently worked correctly. But it crashed when GNOME developers decided to change an somehow important API (god knows why). GNOME developers could have avoided this by simply making a new function and keeping the later (maybe "functionDoSomethingEx()" for the later "functionDoSomething()"), or modified the original function keeping the parameters compatible.
Yep, is a compromise. But it is way better than simply breaking all the compatibility and force users to change programs they may not have the means to change or upgrade.
P.S: Yes, yes, I can try to recompile the application because on this case I can get the source. But this can be very difficult or even impossible (dependency hell) to compile, and IF, and a big IF, if you know what and how to fix on the source.
Okay, so let's be polite. If you have developers willing to make the necessary changes in your driver indefinitely and without additional costs, good for you. But most companies can't do this, it costs time and money to stay forever correcting a driver because of constant changes in the kernel API, and you can not always just open the code of your driver (patents, trade secrets, etc.) and leave for a third party fix the code.
Well well well... Here is our favorite asshole again :-) Just think a bit: If you were the owner of a large and busy hardware company, you would be spending money on developers to be forever making corrections to your drivers, patches necessary only because some "hotshot" developer changes the kernel API all the time without worrying about maintaining compatibility with what was previously done? Developer time costs money, dude! Only "pet projects" can stay changing their APIs all the time without having to worry about the consequences, and Linux can not be developed like a pet project.
"The linux developers feel that having a stable API would have to make them compromise features in the kernel because they'd be unable to change the internals when needed."
Welcome to the real world. And I can guarantee you that I live with compatibility issues both in the kernel and in applications. The problem is not the kernel X function in Y hardware, the problem is you write software for the kernel X and on the next month you having to redo everything again because the kernel X.1 is not compatible with the previous one.
Exact. How you will do some serious (and complex) application on Linux if the system libraries you need keep changing and completely ignoring the compatibility with previous versions?
This. I have a very hard time developing for Linux because of things like that. On Linux I can not count on a stable API, practically every month something changes in such a way that makes my application crashing or behave erratically, and when I can make the necessary changes some bastard changes everything again. Is a no-win scenario, on Windows things just work (i have a stable API) and they hardly make any change that makes my application crashing.
Is not impossible, but is very hard. Programming for linux is a eternally moving target. When you think you finally finished developing your application, someone changes something fundamental to the system and you have to start all over again, and when you complete the necessary changes in the system, someone change it again. It is not feasible to stay indefinitely changing your application to run on a system that does not have a stable API.
Well, stocks have value, they say you now own a small part of the company in proportion to the value written on the paper. The only problem on this is if the written value (price you want to sell) actually matches the real value (price that others are willing to pay).
Yep. And what makes me even more surprised is these bought and paid people wanting us to believe in them.
The kids today do not understand the idea that the resources of a computer are not for the exclusive use of their application.
Because most of these designers do not have any idea on how to create a good interface (beautiful and functional), so they prefer the security of mimicking the "chieftains" of design (the famous designers). That usually works, except when the chieftains are also without any idea of what works or not.
The problem is not the UX professionals per se. The problem is the large number of professionals with no experience or competence in making a elegant and practical GUI.
See? Someone do not liked this hard truth and modded me down. But you still can read my commentary and my opinion. If Slashdot was a traditional newspaper from my country, you would not even know what my opinion is.
Currently the internet is the only chance to you have information without being censored by the (questionable) point of view of someone who has control of yours newspapers, magazines and TV. So is essential.
Sorry, competition is a word into disuse in the current capitalist model.
While I understand your point, have you ever tried to get a permit to operate a radio? Maybe the folks at Radio "Muda" simply do not bother to try to get one precisely because they would never receive (remember, permissions are given only to friends of the king), they following all the rules or not.
You are naive. One thing the government looking for evidence in the house of a drug lord. Another quite different thing is to shut up the "undesirables" using the laws as a pretext for what is simply censorship.
Exact. The only radio stations "authorized" to operate here are those whose owners are right wing politicians and entrepreneurs of the mainstream media who do not want voices disagreeing with what they say is the truth.