I'm not criticising American ideals or the American people, but this kind of behaviour is made possible by unregulated free-market capitalism. America is not at that extreme, but it is surely closer to it than any other country. Since Stalinist Russia was all about centralisation, the very fact that Apple is a private company means it has little in common with it.
Pre-empting moderators: Off-topic: I was responding to this post, which is itself a response to the story. Troll/Flamebait: I don't think anyone here should be defending Apple in this case. This is a very real and transparent attempt to limit the freedoms of their users which conflict with their own financial interests.
It used to be right, and then they added in an extra g for some reason. I wrote a message on the Google Maps "support" forum and never got a response. I'd say Mehmanparast just had the same experience that I did, but overreacted a little.
I mean, you'd have to be crazy to actually want to sue, wouldn't you?
Don't get me wrong, I totally agree. I have Windows 7 on one computer just because it seems silly to wipe it for the sake of a few GB. I never even touch the thing. But keep in mind I'm responding to a hysterical troll. Disliking Windows for valid reasons is perfectly fine.
It's not quite as simple as that. The development of Clang is being funded by Apple. They need a BSD license so that they have the freedom to make further modifications down the line (without leaving them open). Yes, I'm a GPL advocate. No, I don't agree with Apple's ideology. But it's the case anyway.
In any case, it doesn't do us any harm to have an underdog in the world of open source C compilers. If you only have one option, then people start treating even the programme's eccentricities as standards. The need for compatibility encourages people to document. Not to mention that the different attitude taken in Clang from the offset means that it may be more suitable for certain applications. This page makes for some interesting reading.
Lack of functionality is not even close to being the same as deliberate blocking. Not to mention the fact that B2G is open source. If you want to use IE in B2G, (why ever you would want to,) you just have to work out the technicalities yourself.
I'm glad both LibreOffice and OpenOffice exist. # The two will mimic each other's positive changes # They will presumably stay compatible, but distinct # One is a community effort, the other is a corporate effort (or at least, that's the image each has)
The dream is that high-quality open formats become standard in all major office suites, so that people can choose to buy or download what they want. The choice should be in the interface used, and not the level of compatibility with the rest of the world.
I get it! If I get paid one penny at a time, keep no savings and donate some of my first pennies in each pay cheque, I'll be the most generous man in the world!
I'm no fan of MS or Gates, to be honest, but that is way too simplistic. Giving 39 of 40 billion is obviously more generous, because of the difficulty in regaining it and the enormous amount of power surrendered.
And I think it's roughly neutral in terms of good and bad. Here's my personal summary: I'm assuming that the things written in the article are true.
The good: - Microsoft will spend money on planting trees and all that jazz with the carbon offsets. - This loss of money will promote efficiency as a cheaper alternative to buying offsets. - More large companies publicly reacting to climate change might be some evidence to deniers that this is not some kind of hippy nonsense.
The bad: - The effectiveness of carbon offsets is disputed. (Look it up. I'm not discussing it.) - Purchasing "green energy" is not nearly as beneficial as cutting use. Geothermal, tidal, wind and hydroelectric power all have their environmental drawbacks. In fact, realistically, solar power is the only kind of energy which is effectively unlimited from our point of view. But even then there is power consumption in the production and maintenance of solar cells/farms. It's not a simple matter of "chuck on more green energy". - Microsoft sits on a shitload of cash. They have money to play around with this stuff. If this is effective as a marketing strategy (because that's what it is), it might force smaller companies to sink cash into this just to keep up. Is this a good thing?
My answer is, it's a good thing if and only if the measures taken are genuinely helpful for the environment. I've never been impressed by carbon offsets. If Microsoft sinks a lot of money in to efficiency R&D, I'd applaud that. If this sets a trend of increasing energy efficiency across the industry, they'll have done marvellous work. As it stands, this post reeks of press-grabbing buzzwords rather than real commitment to change. Only time will tell.
Mentioned in TFA. I think it depends on where it's bought, though. If 5% of computers were sold with Ubuntu in most European countries, for example, I doubt a huge portion of those buyers would have the balls to install pirated Windows on top. The price difference just wouldn't be enough to encourage it.
And I would argue that lack of ability or will to install an OS is one of the main reasons Linux isn't more widespread on the desktop.
I'm genuinely sorry. Reminds me of school days, where some idiot would take my joke, make it louder and worse, and everyone would laugh. Now that's me.
It's easy, high-level, quick to write practical programmes in, platform-neutral and has an active community. Generally speaking, a lot of people who are handy with computers and do a bit of programming for fun or personal reasons like it.
anything 'lower-level' than C
OK, so that rules out assembly... and, em... Fortran? Pascal? Not great as pretty much the only specifics you've given. I took it that you don't like low-level languages.
I don't see what supposed cowardice (by a very strange definition) has to do with business. People enjoy using their products and so they "deserve" to be successful inasmuch as any company does.
Is it any better that Microsoft offers beta operating systems [e.g. original 98 and vista], branded as the Next Big Thing and then effectively forces people to pay for them?
Slashdot Mirror
Haha, yeah I know!
I'm not criticising American ideals or the American people, but this kind of behaviour is made possible by unregulated free-market capitalism. America is not at that extreme, but it is surely closer to it than any other country.
Since Stalinist Russia was all about centralisation, the very fact that Apple is a private company means it has little in common with it.
Pre-empting moderators:
Off-topic: I was responding to this post, which is itself a response to the story.
Troll/Flamebait: I don't think anyone here should be defending Apple in this case. This is a very real and transparent attempt to limit the freedoms of their users which conflict with their own financial interests.
It's got a big banner that says, "Getting first post is more important than adding to the discussion".
But I'm sure you knew that already.
It used to be right, and then they added in an extra g for some reason. I wrote a message on the Google Maps "support" forum and never got a response. I'd say Mehmanparast just had the same experience that I did, but overreacted a little.
I mean, you'd have to be crazy to actually want to sue, wouldn't you?
They made the answer to a completely subjective question a joke. This is not a human rights issue.
Learn the right time to criticise.
Or maybe you just need to troll harder.
The funny thing about all this is that it means crazyjj has been searching for Chrome-related things enough for Google to give him those results!
For the record, I got a few independent, unbiased browser round-ups. That makes me feel pretty good about my searching habits.
Don't get me wrong, I totally agree. I have Windows 7 on one computer just because it seems silly to wipe it for the sake of a few GB. I never even touch the thing.
But keep in mind I'm responding to a hysterical troll. Disliking Windows for valid reasons is perfectly fine.
As a Linux user, let me say, this is not insightful, interesting or informative. It's flamebait.
#1 Feature: You *don't* have to run it!!!!! Stick with Win 7, or Linux, Mac OS X!
Gosh, how clever.
Remember, Windows 7 is really Vista ver. 2.0.
Remember that thing that's not true, you mean? Think of what made Vista a failure before opening your mouth.
Windows 8 will be another Windows ME, or Vista...
It might be a failure. You could check out the missing features, if you'd like to try R'ing a FA.
Don't pay to be a Beta tester for Microsoft operating systems!
You can do that for free. It's called a developer preview.
What?
The entire summary is quoted (error and all) from the only linked article. How is that not giving credit?
Another way to say it, which just occurred to me now, is:
"Every natural number is halfway between two primes."
It's not quite as simple as that. The development of Clang is being funded by Apple. They need a BSD license so that they have the freedom to make further modifications down the line (without leaving them open). Yes, I'm a GPL advocate. No, I don't agree with Apple's ideology. But it's the case anyway.
In any case, it doesn't do us any harm to have an underdog in the world of open source C compilers. If you only have one option, then people start treating even the programme's eccentricities as standards. The need for compatibility encourages people to document. Not to mention that the different attitude taken in Clang from the offset means that it may be more suitable for certain applications. This page makes for some interesting reading.
Another portion of society don't even all the words in their sentences.
No. No hypocrisy at all.
Lack of functionality is not even close to being the same as deliberate blocking. Not to mention the fact that B2G is open source. If you want to use IE in B2G, (why ever you would want to,) you just have to work out the technicalities yourself.
I'm glad both LibreOffice and OpenOffice exist.
# The two will mimic each other's positive changes
# They will presumably stay compatible, but distinct
# One is a community effort, the other is a corporate effort (or at least, that's the image each has)
The dream is that high-quality open formats become standard in all major office suites, so that people can choose to buy or download what they want. The choice should be in the interface used, and not the level of compatibility with the rest of the world.
I get it! If I get paid one penny at a time, keep no savings and donate some of my first pennies in each pay cheque, I'll be the most generous man in the world!
I'm no fan of MS or Gates, to be honest, but that is way too simplistic. Giving 39 of 40 billion is obviously more generous, because of the difficulty in regaining it and the enormous amount of power surrendered.
And I think it's roughly neutral in terms of good and bad. Here's my personal summary:
I'm assuming that the things written in the article are true.
The good:
- Microsoft will spend money on planting trees and all that jazz with the carbon offsets.
- This loss of money will promote efficiency as a cheaper alternative to buying offsets.
- More large companies publicly reacting to climate change might be some evidence to deniers that this is not some kind of hippy nonsense.
The bad:
- The effectiveness of carbon offsets is disputed. (Look it up. I'm not discussing it.)
- Purchasing "green energy" is not nearly as beneficial as cutting use. Geothermal, tidal, wind and hydroelectric power all have their environmental drawbacks. In fact, realistically, solar power is the only kind of energy which is effectively unlimited from our point of view. But even then there is power consumption in the production and maintenance of solar cells/farms. It's not a simple matter of "chuck on more green energy".
- Microsoft sits on a shitload of cash. They have money to play around with this stuff. If this is effective as a marketing strategy (because that's what it is), it might force smaller companies to sink cash into this just to keep up. Is this a good thing?
My answer is, it's a good thing if and only if the measures taken are genuinely helpful for the environment. I've never been impressed by carbon offsets. If Microsoft sinks a lot of money in to efficiency R&D, I'd applaud that. If this sets a trend of increasing energy efficiency across the industry, they'll have done marvellous work.
As it stands, this post reeks of press-grabbing buzzwords rather than real commitment to change. Only time will tell.
Do you buy your car based on the chassis rather than the internals?
Changing the DE/WM is extremely easy. Anyone could do it.
Mentioned in TFA. I think it depends on where it's bought, though. If 5% of computers were sold with Ubuntu in most European countries, for example, I doubt a huge portion of those buyers would have the balls to install pirated Windows on top. The price difference just wouldn't be enough to encourage it.
And I would argue that lack of ability or will to install an OS is one of the main reasons Linux isn't more widespread on the desktop.
I'm genuinely sorry. Reminds me of school days, where some idiot would take my joke, make it louder and worse, and everyone would laugh.
Now that's me.
in a completely different sector
OP said he [she?] has been in a completely different sector. Who knows what the technology is like there?
It's Princess Leia. OP thought to gain our most sincere recommendations by first forming a nerdish bond.
Instead, I just feel silly for knowing the reference :(
It's easy, high-level, quick to write practical programmes in, platform-neutral and has an active community. Generally speaking, a lot of people who are handy with computers and do a bit of programming for fun or personal reasons like it.
anything 'lower-level' than C
OK, so that rules out assembly... and, em... Fortran? Pascal?
Not great as pretty much the only specifics you've given. I took it that you don't like low-level languages.
I like the way you censored yourself in the subject and then were forced not to in the URL.
I don't see what supposed cowardice (by a very strange definition) has to do with business. People enjoy using their products and so they "deserve" to be successful inasmuch as any company does.
Is it any better that Microsoft offers beta operating systems [e.g. original 98 and vista], branded as the Next Big Thing and then effectively forces people to pay for them?
How is this insightful? Whether or not the UK is a nanny state, it has nothing to do with this. What, are they nannying their citizens with missiles?