why would someone do this?? this whole 'picture of your food before it was food' thing is utterly pointless. diseases can be effectively tracked if you can tell the source farm of the meat, but there is simply no need to go all the way to individual animals.
yeah that would have helped open source, but i thought freedom was the point? not just the benefit of gpl and its promoters?
It's a virtuous cycle. It's clear that the GPL allows more freedom than a closed source license: There are some restrictions on distribution, blah blah...
Explain, in as few words necessary, how KDE is crippled.
The article came down on the side of KDE, the most configurable desktop with the most tools. KDE has the opposite philosophy that Gnome and Unity have - expose all options to the user.
And if you're going to rage about dumbing down of interfaces, I suggest that you aim your rage at Metro.
-- BMO
hey! don't be hating metro! there is a rumor that they will probably allow users to change the wallpaper!
guys just to be clear, we are talking about these kind of people:
One user, who had a nightmarish experience installing Skype on Windows 7...
yeah, this guy couldn't install skype on his windows 7 pc. that's about as dumb as forgetting how to pee. let me go over the steps required to install skype: 1. click blue e. 2. type 'skype' press return. 3. click top result 4. click 'get skype' that's it. people who can't do this are the ones who are using computers nowadays. if you are going to do user-testing you HAVE to do it on such a person.
yeah, everything you see on a kde desktop, you can right click and choose to change its functionality. also i love the way that most widgets work on your desktop, and also on the taskbar. this is how it should be. unity has locked its ui down tighter than windows itself! you can't even pull that dock away from the left.
no no this is not s/w dev's fault in any way. just watch an average user browse the internet someday. they do all sorts of stupid things. they ignore ANY dialog that does not force them to click it. the ones that do force them to click they just click 'ok'. and god forbid if they see a 404 or timed out error. even if you ask them what error it was they won't be able to tell you. they'll say 'it didn't work' or some other vague shit like that. if there is even a slight change from the things they are used to, like google activating the 2 factor auth, most people are just stunned, unable to continue. the rest just click 'skip'. seriously its frustrating. people do not want to "try and workout how change something", and this is what apple (or rather steve jobs) has understood.
because then they have to support it. a feature is not just putting an option in the control panel. it will generate bugs over time and will require maintainence. this is why firefox is so bloated right now.they simply can't maintain it with so many configurable options. long term devs should aim for one true way style of ui. if you don't like their way, you simply use something else.
I restarted my chrome after about two weeks and side tabs is gone! Guess they removed it. Sucks:( But Firefox on my laptop is almost completely unusable. With tree style it becomes even slower. I'll just try to change my lots of tabs habit.
no seriously, i don't understand how you can tout ""just works"[1] and coming back from sleep to live connection in about 5 seconds" as reasonable plus points of chromeos when literally every os in existence has been doing it for years!
but ms has made special provisions for open source apps. so you can put up gpl'd apps on the in phone app store. apple could have done something similar, but chose not to.
I don't know of any Apple subsystems that have made their way back into BSD.
so? why do you want apple's code? if they don't want to give it to you. why is forcing gpl on everyone who wants to use your freely available code better than bsd or mit? this is like small kids saying "i'll show you mine if you show me yours". if you want to share your code, share it. don't make me do the same in return. if you don't want to share your code, don't. and most of all don't pretend to encourage freedom when all you want is tit-for-tat behavior.
I think a lot of developers see GPL as a "taking my toys and going home" license which discourages free use. If you weren't going to make a million dollar idea with your software, why stop someone else?
Because you want all improvements to your software to be available in the same way that your software is available, regardless of whether that makes it difficult or impossible for somebody else to make money from it? I.e., because you released the software to make it widely available, in source form, and you want improvements to be equally widely available?
so you just simply want code that some other guy worked hard on, even if he doesn't want to give it to you.
Slashdot Mirror
my nokia dumbphone was doing this ~10 years ago.
Look at Android, iOS, and Windows Mobile. Can you spot who is copying and who is innovating?
android an ios, at this point, both have features they copied from the other. whereas win phone is something completely different. and lame, imo.
why would someone do this?? this whole 'picture of your food before it was food' thing is utterly pointless. diseases can be effectively tracked if you can tell the source farm of the meat, but there is simply no need to go all the way to individual animals.
these animals have a distinct personality and if they weren't going to be food I could be friends with it
animals are people too!! http://thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=bsitu_speciesism
ie9 and opera both working.
Ok. I agree. But you could have done this without resorting to name calling too.
yeah that would have helped open source, but i thought freedom was the point? not just the benefit of gpl and its promoters?
It's a virtuous cycle. It's clear that the GPL allows more freedom than a closed source license: There are some restrictions on distribution, blah blah...
then gpl is not about freedom, it is about gpl.
Explain, in as few words necessary, how KDE is crippled.
The article came down on the side of KDE, the most configurable desktop with the most tools. KDE has the opposite philosophy that Gnome and Unity have - expose all options to the user.
And if you're going to rage about dumbing down of interfaces, I suggest that you aim your rage at Metro.
--
BMO
hey! don't be hating metro! there is a rumor that they will probably allow users to change the wallpaper!
guys just to be clear, we are talking about these kind of people:
One user, who had a nightmarish experience installing Skype on Windows 7...
yeah, this guy couldn't install skype on his windows 7 pc. that's about as dumb as forgetting how to pee. let me go over the steps required to install skype:
1. click blue e.
2. type 'skype' press return.
3. click top result
4. click 'get skype'
that's it. people who can't do this are the ones who are using computers nowadays. if you are going to do user-testing you HAVE to do it on such a person.
yeah, everything you see on a kde desktop, you can right click and choose to change its functionality. also i love the way that most widgets work on your desktop, and also on the taskbar. this is how it should be.
unity has locked its ui down tighter than windows itself! you can't even pull that dock away from the left.
no no this is not s/w dev's fault in any way. just watch an average user browse the internet someday. they do all sorts of stupid things. they ignore ANY dialog that does not force them to click it. the ones that do force them to click they just click 'ok'. and god forbid if they see a 404 or timed out error. even if you ask them what error it was they won't be able to tell you. they'll say 'it didn't work' or some other vague shit like that.
if there is even a slight change from the things they are used to, like google activating the 2 factor auth, most people are just stunned, unable to continue. the rest just click 'skip'. seriously its frustrating. people do not want to "try and workout how change something", and this is what apple (or rather steve jobs) has understood.
because then they have to support it. a feature is not just putting an option in the control panel. it will generate bugs over time and will require maintainence. this is why firefox is so bloated right now.they simply can't maintain it with so many configurable options. long term devs should aim for one true way style of ui. if you don't like their way, you simply use something else.
so they have patents for "white X with a black background with a white circle around it" nowadays? this has to come to an end sooner or later.
I restarted my chrome after about two weeks and side tabs is gone! Guess they removed it. Sucks :(
But Firefox on my laptop is almost completely unusable. With tree style it becomes even slower. I'll just try to change my lots of tabs habit.
and why is everyone calling me 'kid' today?? i'm not a fucking kid. its you guys who are too old.
yeah, firefox runs only on REAL computers. anything which has 8gb ram and core i7 extreme asskick edition is just not real enuf for firefox.
no seriously, i don't understand how you can tout ""just works"[1] and coming back from sleep to live connection in about 5 seconds" as reasonable plus points of chromeos when literally every os in existence has been doing it for years!
but ms has made special provisions for open source apps. so you can put up gpl'd apps on the in phone app store. apple could have done something similar, but chose not to.
slashdotted!
I don't know of any Apple subsystems that have made their way back into BSD.
so? why do you want apple's code? if they don't want to give it to you. why is forcing gpl on everyone who wants to use your freely available code better than bsd or mit?
this is like small kids saying "i'll show you mine if you show me yours". if you want to share your code, share it. don't make me do the same in return. if you don't want to share your code, don't. and most of all don't pretend to encourage freedom when all you want is tit-for-tat behavior.
yeah that would have helped open source, but i thought freedom was the point? not just the benefit of gpl and its promoters?
I think a lot of developers see GPL as a "taking my toys and going home" license which discourages free use. If you weren't going to make a million dollar idea with your software, why stop someone else?
Because you want all improvements to your software to be available in the same way that your software is available, regardless of whether that makes it difficult or impossible for somebody else to make money from it? I.e., because you released the software to make it widely available, in source form, and you want improvements to be equally widely available?
so you just simply want code that some other guy worked hard on, even if he doesn't want to give it to you.
oh! so now its about the "community". i thought gpl was about freedom, silly me.
gpl furthers only its own prevalance, like a virus.
they famously do not allow any open source software in their app store.