Also, ban business ass-rape-fest on consumers - there's no reason to trash strong consumer protection, nor trade in for US corporation protection system.
Well, there's no demonstrated need for strong consumer protection. That's a reason right there. My view is that getting screwed a few times is a necessary step in becoming a smart consumer. And I'd rather have smart consumers than a herd of "protected" dumb consumers.
There's no perfect system and you're guaranteed to get screwed a few times no matter what the consumer protection laws are. I don't see our strong consumer protection as something slowing down becoming a smart consumer but rather smart consumers with strong views as the reason we have ended up with these consumer protection laws. From my point of view what US has, for example, is strong corporation protection laws - and actual support for them by consumers - enabling corporations to more easily get away with screwing consumers.
What cbope wrote had some actual results of how things differ here and there, and I really don't envy this at all: "The absence of regulation, as in the USA, lets companies get away with a lot more at the expense and detriment of the consumer". I'm constantly amazed on how some things work out there and how there is no stronger demands to change things (and actual support from consumers) - with everything that companies do get away with over there it really don't seem like "educate the consumers but don't regulate business (except the way business lobbies for)" is working - at all.
I know it's just not popular to defend businesses, but their interests are as relevant as the interests of their customers. Compliance with "strong consumer protection" costs money and jobs. And what's the benefit? So the consumer doesn't have to work or think so hard about what they do. I see that as counterproductive for everyone involved.
The benefit? The consumer, especially educated one, gets to consider more relevant things about their consumer choices than "am I going to be screwed over worse by this or that company", shifting some of the burden on corporations to actually put some effort to not actively try and screw consumers over in just any way they can come up with. You said it yourself: the customers interests are just as relevant as the interests of businesses.
Please tell me what projects are you working with, I don't want to "freeload" your shit. Seriously.
As noted higher in the thread, the Linux kernel, Apache and PowerDNS are a few examples.
Well, as I don't believe you have any authority to be a spokesperson for Linux nor Apache (nor likely PowerDNS, but I don't know/use that) projects and can't speak for them on what kind of users these projects want I'm going to discard this. You can be a developer who has contributed code, but that doesn't make you a spokesperson/project coordinator who can say what kind of users these projects want or not. Also, the rest of your message differs a lot from the one I replied to which implied strongly that you don't want me as user as I have not contributed anything for example to Linux kernel or Apache - but I have contributed to other projects, such as wordpress (which I happen to run on Apache) by creating somewhat useful plugin released under GPL.
See also Eric S. Raymond's body of work - he has said pretty much the same thing I'm saying - that's great if you find our work useful. We give it to you so it'll be useful to YOU, though. Having you use it isn't generally helpful to US, so being a user doesn't mean you have a leash on me and can demand that I help you with your problem, on your timetable.
Now this is much more friendly text than the one I replied to. I would not ever assume power over actual developers decisions - but if a product, such as specific distro, does something bad/badly (even if it's subjective) I do assume that I have the right to criticize those decisions. Also I'd hate if critical end-user reviews would cease to exist - they are of great usefulness when one wants to pick up a good solution for software need without having nothing else than bunch of projects to try out - although I focus on positive reviews when trying to find information I have certainly benefited also from negative ones on times like when I switched from Fedora to another distribution or when I originally switched to Linux (from windows) and had to choose a good distro.
While negative reviews (or comments on discussions) may feel like whining about gift they can be useful for end users or developers - even for both.
Indeed, and to be specific they bought themselves so called "open" document standards of their own, which have little to do with being open or standard.
Mostly agree, though I consider it a benefit to Linux if it simply makes it technically better*, even if it comes with price of possible decreasing number of linux installations (such as Linux host running more Windows VM's than Linux VM's) even though for the community and growth of linux it may actually have negative effects. It probably will be for the benefit of all in the longer scope - it's basically putting the technical superiority before the market share that in many cases (not all) is among the biggest benefits of FOSS development.
So, I'm okay with MS contributing code only because it benefits them (that does not make me automatically change my view on them) but also think that whatever the effects on linux adoption are the ability to better run Windows VM's on Linux is a good thing for Linux too. Of course I'm hoping for growth of Linux, just not by keeping some technical improvements out of it.
*and by technically better I mean anything that makes it better for any possible use(s) without making it worse for other uses.
As to their current behavior, what is it about them shaking down companies for patents on alleged MS IP in Linux that you don't understand. If they were honest, they'd wouldn't be refusing to show what the IP is so that the Linux devs could route around it. It is shameful and we can only assume the worse given their past behavior. Screw'em.
This in fact is one thing I have big issue with - it's clear for anyone with sense of ethics that under patent law (which I personally don't accept for software anyway) an extortion scheme where you threat with lawsuit but refuse to provide information of what patents (also equivalents of other IP laws that patents) are being violated should in fact render those patents unusable in future lawsuits against alleged infringes. Of course this would mean that if new infringement was found and a case was brought against that, it would also be rendered useless automatically as there is no way to know if it was/n't one of those in earlier threats - but that's ok, nobody would make these empty or secret threats with such laws.
In this case MS could not sue any Linux business for patent violations before they had released the list of allegedly violated patents they have made threats of - and given appropriate time to take action and fix these issues. IANAL, and not trying to make up exact legal writing of how such law should be worded exactly, just explaining general idea - and really as far as software patents go I hold the opinion that the faster we get rid of those the better.
There are more recent things, like buying themselves "open" document "standard" or the restricted boot hardware lock-in scam plan - and while I know that some people disagree about these issues they still are issues to others and proof that MS is still treacherous as it was in the DR-DOS times.
As far as I consider the old stuff can be summed up with recent stuff for total sum of unworthiness as long as there is new stuff to point out that they haven't turned the boat around.
Yes - *after* they were caught for GPL violation, which they have admitted since that. The code release was result of GPL violation, not their original plan. If you had the same results I saw then I can't see how you could misunderstand that.
It's a funny sentence (though not used in my country but I watch TV... ) as it's basically the cop urging you to not speak to them if you know what's good for you...
Oh, and that series is good (also has lot's of good stuff for people in other countries, even though all isn't straightly useful in all different jurisdictions around world...), but there are situations where it's better to talk to a cop than not to - still you better be damn certain about what you're doing if you choose to speak.
Now, someone will chime in about educating yourself as a consumer, but we all know that most companies do not want an educated consumer, because educated consumers won't fall for their marketing tricks. Companies have proven time and again that without some amount of regulation they will act only in their best interests, which is to make as much money for their stakeholders as possible. The absence of regulation, as in the USA, lets companies get away with a lot more at the expense and detriment of the consumer.
The answer is simple. Educate yourself. Don't let the company with a vested interested do that job instead.
Yes, that is very important and I totally agree.
Also, ban business ass-rape-fest on consumers - there's no reason to trash strong consumer protection, nor trade in for US corporation protection system.
I'm also happy to live in a country (Finland) that has granted its citizens internet access as a right.
I imagine that they don't actually legally treat it as a "right". It's just some word that you like to use in place of "entitlement". But then again, all sorts of crap is considered "rights" by some governments and who knows? Those governments might last.
Yes, they might. Also, finnish strong consumer protection laws are way older than EU.
Glancing at Wikipedia, I see that the current Finnish constitution has been kicking around for quite some time - since 2000, almost 13 years ago (with some parts coming from even earlier, in 1995)! So of course, you'd expect people with that kind of long, storied constitutional history to have a deep grasp of what should be or shouldn't be a "right".
Yeah, we probably think way differently about constitution than yanks, and it's kinda weird thing to me too, but in the end has nothing to do with out strong grasp on what is/isn't "right".
Pulseaudio solves the problem that only one process can use the sound card at once, by being that process and pretending to be the sound card for everything else ; even programs compiled against ALSA. This means you can hear your email ping, even when you listen to music.
So? What does Pulseaudio solve here that ALSA already does not solve? I realize that I'm repeating the question, but dude, the last time I had problems with only one process being able to use the sound card at once was with 2.4 kernel using OSS, not ALSA.
To day I still use ALSA, without Pulseaudio, and have no problems with multiple processes using the sound card at the same time.
And don't you go defaming the fedora developers, they might be smarter than you give credit for... I used to like Fedora - though it's idiocy like this that made me switch to debian.
Anyway, reviews have another purpose besides of waking up the developers - telling the end users what you thought of it. And thank god there are plenty of reviewers around the web.
But there are also users that don't want to learn, but just want to use.
And for such user to start installing a new OS he doesn't know and doesn't want to learn by himself is really, really stupid... You just want to use, no learning -> you hire someone to install it.
You have to acknowledge some of his points. Showing two identical disk names without any further distinction is retarded, there's just no way around it.
Not to mention that they were in reverse order, so good luck guessing it if you don't know this:p
Way much applause here, the "don't like it, then fix it or shut up" clan should be shot in the eye. And I have actually fixed (slash wrote my own) some stuff I didn't like.
This isn't about forcing anyone to anything - I've had gf's/bf's who I've succesfully turned into games (and they have turned me into some other things) and those who I didn't manage to turn into games. It didn't break the relationship, that would be just dumb.
Slashdot Mirror
Also, ban business ass-rape-fest on consumers - there's no reason to trash strong consumer protection, nor trade in for US corporation protection system.
Well, there's no demonstrated need for strong consumer protection. That's a reason right there. My view is that getting screwed a few times is a necessary step in becoming a smart consumer. And I'd rather have smart consumers than a herd of "protected" dumb consumers.
There's no perfect system and you're guaranteed to get screwed a few times no matter what the consumer protection laws are. I don't see our strong consumer protection as something slowing down becoming a smart consumer but rather smart consumers with strong views as the reason we have ended up with these consumer protection laws. From my point of view what US has, for example, is strong corporation protection laws - and actual support for them by consumers - enabling corporations to more easily get away with screwing consumers.
What cbope wrote had some actual results of how things differ here and there, and I really don't envy this at all: "The absence of regulation, as in the USA, lets companies get away with a lot more at the expense and detriment of the consumer".
I'm constantly amazed on how some things work out there and how there is no stronger demands to change things (and actual support from consumers) - with everything that companies do get away with over there it really don't seem like "educate the consumers but don't regulate business (except the way business lobbies for)" is working - at all.
I know it's just not popular to defend businesses, but their interests are as relevant as the interests of their customers. Compliance with "strong consumer protection" costs money and jobs. And what's the benefit? So the consumer doesn't have to work or think so hard about what they do. I see that as counterproductive for everyone involved.
The benefit? The consumer, especially educated one, gets to consider more relevant things about their consumer choices than "am I going to be screwed over worse by this or that company", shifting some of the burden on corporations to actually put some effort to not actively try and screw consumers over in just any way they can come up with.
You said it yourself: the customers interests are just as relevant as the interests of businesses.
Please tell me what projects are you working with, I don't want to "freeload" your shit. Seriously.
As noted higher in the thread, the Linux kernel, Apache and PowerDNS are a few examples.
Well, as I don't believe you have any authority to be a spokesperson for Linux nor Apache (nor likely PowerDNS, but I don't know/use that) projects and can't speak for them on what kind of users these projects want I'm going to discard this. You can be a developer who has contributed code, but that doesn't make you a spokesperson/project coordinator who can say what kind of users these projects want or not.
Also, the rest of your message differs a lot from the one I replied to which implied strongly that you don't want me as user as I have not contributed anything for example to Linux kernel or Apache - but I have contributed to other projects, such as wordpress (which I happen to run on Apache) by creating somewhat useful plugin released under GPL.
See also Eric S. Raymond's body of work - he has said pretty much the same thing I'm saying - that's great if you find our work useful.
We give it to you so it'll be useful to YOU, though. Having you use it isn't generally helpful to US, so being a user doesn't mean you have
a leash on me and can demand that I help you with your problem, on your timetable.
Now this is much more friendly text than the one I replied to.
I would not ever assume power over actual developers decisions - but if a product, such as specific distro, does something bad/badly (even if it's subjective) I do assume that I have the right to criticize those decisions. Also I'd hate if critical end-user reviews would cease to exist - they are of great usefulness when one wants to pick up a good solution for software need without having nothing else than bunch of projects to try out - although I focus on positive reviews when trying to find information I have certainly benefited also from negative ones on times like when I switched from Fedora to another distribution or when I originally switched to Linux (from windows) and had to choose a good distro.
While negative reviews (or comments on discussions) may feel like whining about gift they can be useful for end users or developers - even for both.
I use denyhosts - fail2ban is good too, the basic idea is the same.
Indeed, and to be specific they bought themselves so called "open" document standards of their own, which have little to do with being open or standard.
Mostly agree, though I consider it a benefit to Linux if it simply makes it technically better*, even if it comes with price of possible decreasing number of linux installations (such as Linux host running more Windows VM's than Linux VM's) even though for the community and growth of linux it may actually have negative effects.
It probably will be for the benefit of all in the longer scope - it's basically putting the technical superiority before the market share that in many cases (not all) is among the biggest benefits of FOSS development.
So, I'm okay with MS contributing code only because it benefits them (that does not make me automatically change my view on them) but also think that whatever the effects on linux adoption are the ability to better run Windows VM's on Linux is a good thing for Linux too. Of course I'm hoping for growth of Linux, just not by keeping some technical improvements out of it.
*and by technically better I mean anything that makes it better for any possible use(s) without making it worse for other uses.
As to their current behavior, what is it about them shaking down companies for patents on alleged MS IP in Linux that you don't understand. If they were honest, they'd wouldn't be refusing to show what the IP is so that the Linux devs could route around it. It is shameful and we can only assume the worse given their past behavior. Screw'em.
This in fact is one thing I have big issue with - it's clear for anyone with sense of ethics that under patent law (which I personally don't accept for software anyway) an extortion scheme where you threat with lawsuit but refuse to provide information of what patents (also equivalents of other IP laws that patents) are being violated should in fact render those patents unusable in future lawsuits against alleged infringes.
Of course this would mean that if new infringement was found and a case was brought against that, it would also be rendered useless automatically as there is no way to know if it was/n't one of those in earlier threats - but that's ok, nobody would make these empty or secret threats with such laws.
In this case MS could not sue any Linux business for patent violations before they had released the list of allegedly violated patents they have made threats of - and given appropriate time to take action and fix these issues. IANAL, and not trying to make up exact legal writing of how such law should be worded exactly, just explaining general idea - and really as far as software patents go I hold the opinion that the faster we get rid of those the better.
There are more recent things, like buying themselves "open" document "standard" or the restricted boot hardware lock-in scam plan - and while I know that some people disagree about these issues they still are issues to others and proof that MS is still treacherous as it was in the DR-DOS times.
As far as I consider the old stuff can be summed up with recent stuff for total sum of unworthiness as long as there is new stuff to point out that they haven't turned the boat around.
Yes - *after* they were caught for GPL violation, which they have admitted since that. The code release was result of GPL violation, not their original plan. If you had the same results I saw then I can't see how you could misunderstand that.
It's a funny sentence (though not used in my country but I watch TV... ) as it's basically the cop urging you to not speak to them if you know what's good for you...
Oh, and that series is good (also has lot's of good stuff for people in other countries, even though all isn't straightly useful in all different jurisdictions around world...), but there are situations where it's better to talk to a cop than not to - still you better be damn certain about what you're doing if you choose to speak.
This would be worthy of n+1 mod points... sadly I have none.
It's now illegal to whine about it?
Wow, you yanks are really something...
Now, someone will chime in about educating yourself as a consumer, but we all know that most companies do not want an educated consumer, because educated consumers won't fall for their marketing tricks. Companies have proven time and again that without some amount of regulation they will act only in their best interests, which is to make as much money for their stakeholders as possible. The absence of regulation, as in the USA, lets companies get away with a lot more at the expense and detriment of the consumer.
The answer is simple. Educate yourself. Don't let the company with a vested interested do that job instead.
Yes, that is very important and I totally agree.
Also, ban business ass-rape-fest on consumers - there's no reason to trash strong consumer protection, nor trade in for US corporation protection system.
I'm also happy to live in a country (Finland) that has granted its citizens internet access as a right.
I imagine that they don't actually legally treat it as a "right". It's just some word that you like to use in place of "entitlement". But then again, all sorts of crap is considered "rights" by some governments and who knows? Those governments might last.
Yes, they might. Also, finnish strong consumer protection laws are way older than EU.
Glancing at Wikipedia, I see that the current Finnish constitution has been kicking around for quite some time - since 2000, almost 13 years ago (with some parts coming from even earlier, in 1995)! So of course, you'd expect people with that kind of long, storied constitutional history to have a deep grasp of what should be or shouldn't be a "right".
Yeah, we probably think way differently about constitution than yanks, and it's kinda weird thing to me too, but in the end has nothing to do with out strong grasp on what is/isn't "right".
Pulseaudio solves the problem that only one process can use the sound card at once, by being that process and pretending to be the sound card for everything else ; even programs compiled against ALSA. This means you can hear your email ping, even when you listen to music.
So? What does Pulseaudio solve here that ALSA already does not solve? I realize that I'm repeating the question, but dude, the last time I had problems with only one process being able to use the sound card at once was with 2.4 kernel using OSS, not ALSA.
To day I still use ALSA, without Pulseaudio, and have no problems with multiple processes using the sound card at the same time.
EGA has 16-bit colors? Wow...
Replace ping with a version that works with both address families like all of the other operating systems and all of the other network utilities.
It doesn't? Must be a fedora thing...
Yeah, well maybe end users will?
And don't you go defaming the fedora developers, they might be smarter than you give credit for... I used to like Fedora - though it's idiocy like this that made me switch to debian.
Anyway, reviews have another purpose besides of waking up the developers - telling the end users what you thought of it. And thank god there are plenty of reviewers around the web.
Sure, if you can do it without making it blow goats.
But there are also users that don't want to learn, but just want to use.
And for such user to start installing a new OS he doesn't know and doesn't want to learn by himself is really, really stupid... You just want to use, no learning -> you hire someone to install it.
You have to acknowledge some of his points. Showing two identical disk names without any further distinction is retarded, there's just no way around it.
Not to mention that they were in reverse order, so good luck guessing it if you don't know this :p
Easy... most compilations happen when the system is used only for light stuff or it would just be sitting idle... no need to get that CPU time back.
That's just me though, but I doubt very many people compile when they need the resources for something else.
Also reviews, negative or positive, are of major value to end users looking for information about which distribution/tool/application/whatever to try.
Please tell me what projects are you working with, I don't want to "freeload" your shit. Seriously.
Way much applause here, the "don't like it, then fix it or shut up" clan should be shot in the eye. And I have actually fixed (slash wrote my own) some stuff I didn't like.
That's worthy of *applause*
This isn't about forcing anyone to anything - I've had gf's/bf's who I've succesfully turned into games (and they have turned me into some other things) and those who I didn't manage to turn into games. It didn't break the relationship, that would be just dumb.