The trend to IE-only coding threatens the chances of Linux becoming a player on the desktop. If the most significant application you use is a browser -- and it is for many people -- why use an operating system that can't support the de facto standard browser?
Most of these posts are rubbish. Judging by them, Linux is supported by puerile adolescents who believe that making money is evil. Repeat after me: It is only software. It is not religion.
Microsoft has every right to exhibit at that expo. As to what they'll do there, they'll obviously try to convince some of the attendees that they have useful products and services for sale. Since Linux seems more a threat to proprietary Unix vendors than to Microsoft, I'd guess they'll hype Unix-Windows interoperability gizmos.
Maricopa County stretches for miles and miles, but a lot of people live in the Phoenx metro. I recently decided not to move there, after a week's worth of R&R and recon in the area. Too many people, too many cars, too much smog, too much haze. Last there in the mid-nineties, I left disappointed this time.
Rather than bemoan the Microsoft monolith, why not play to the strength of open source, i.e., don't play by the house rules established by the open source priesthood. Draw in real consumers (stop calling them "lusers");give up the notion that open source has to be bounded and shaped by Linux, the BSD's, etc., and expand the notion to all kinds of platforms; get a clue about non-geek users and build some imaginative tools for them to use; don't be afraid to start selling shrink-wrapped products, get sales people on the street pushing the stuff.
Truth is, the open source/free software/pick your-label-movement is rooted in a Unix developers ethos. It champions worthy and useful high-minded notions that are relevant only to someone who shares that mind set. Consumers are people who buy things. Give them something they wqnt to buy.
Although it has become a cliche to point to the trans-border aspect of the Internet, a lot of stuff moves "transparently" across borders: electricity, oil. food, mail, radio, TV, etc. Roads have been "ignoring" political boundaries for centuries.
Laws come from legislatures. Legislatures are tied to the nation-state. Until an entity emerges with a political scope to match the Internet's scope, it doesn't make much sense to talk about so-called cyberlaw. Individual legislatures will continue to act as they see fit.
If we accept the common wisdom that banner ads can't support a commercial site, then real news sites (your site isn't) might see you as doing them a favor by channeling a little but of traffic their way. Or, they might decide you you're a mooch and a nuisance.
"News" that you and I can consume is content that someone has created. Aggregation sites that simply point to content someone else was paid to create are not news sites. They're the online equivalent of "Hey, look at this story...."
And, btw, that bit about "they just have to adapt it to the web" doesn't come free, and you aren't the one doing it. It costs money to support a news site. A few years ago, for example, the Washington Post, I believe, employed several dozen staffers to support their site, exclusive of the print paper.
Do you pay a worldwide staff of journalists, photogrpahers, plant personnel, techies, lawyers, etc., etc., to produce, publish and distribute orignal content? Or do you just link to someone else's work?
News aggregation sites are neat, but someone has to actually write the stuff they aggregate. And those folks usually expect to be paid.
Businesses, even the news business, need to make a profit to stay alive. So, no, it isn't wrong. In addition, companies in which I hold stock have an obligation to me make money.
I wonder if any online newspapers are actually profitable. A lot of print newspapers lost money when they opened their online shops. The search for a consistent way to make money by providing original online content is over, either. (See Salon's current woes.) Print newspapers and magazines make their money from the sale of advertsing. My guess is that pushing the online ad-to-news ratio to the same point would drive most customers away. (Less activity is involved in ignoring print ads than in ignoring online ads.)
I'm not sure if professional news sites -- unlike overblown amateur yack-fests like Slashdot who simply point to the fruits of others' labors -- have a viable way to make enough money to stay in buesiness. If I could subscribe to the full content of my local newspaper for the same price as a print subscription, I'd do that and drop the print subscription. Could the publisher money selling at that price? I don't know.
My first reaction: My hardware belongs to me, and I don't want anyone putting code on my hard drive except me.
My second reaction: Oh, well. I don't run Windows, so no problem.
My third reaction: What if this kind of EULA migrates to hardware? What if the next box, or drive, you buy is only "licensed" to you, and the act of purchasing that license gives MS, or the government, to add or delete code from your machine at as they see fit?
This silly post manages to combine two ill-conceived notions. One, that free-as-in-beer is the driving point behind Linux. Two, that a "community" of Limux users exists that empowers a hypothetical "we" to make decisions. Both notions are wrong and damage the long-term prospects for Linux, open source, free software, or whatver.
It is the intellectual freedom -- sharing of code and ideas -- that distinguishes Linux, etc., from closed source software. Derisive comments, aired in public, claiming that for-profit companies have an obigation to "give it away" serve only to strengthen the image that Linux is a niche player that only merits attention from adolescent geeks who are too cheap/too poor to be of any interest as a market.
And, what is it with all this "we" stuff? What community? Just because I run Linux doesn't make me a memeber of a "Linux community" any more than owning a Volkswagen makes me a member of a "Volkswagen community". This "community" business smacks of people who paint their faces anf go to football games. Get a life and make your own decisions.
Re:The King is Dead! Long live the King!
on
Is Linux Dead?
·
· Score: 1
>>"Isnt that we wanted anyway ?"
What does this mean? That Linux supporters are working hard to keep Linux off the desktop? That it really is all about a little band of geeks playing with their favorite toy, deliberately locking others out?
I dunno know about anyone else, but I'm tired of this "we" stuff. There is no "we".
The threat merits a bit more concern. First, take a look at the cratered surface of the Moon. If it wasn't for atmospheric and water erosion, Earth would look the same. Both have been walloped by many, many bodies. Second, a hit of sufficient size in an ocean would create tsunamis that would wipe out human habitation on the surrounding coasts. Third, any hit -- land or water -- of sufficient size would dump dust, smoke and residue into the atmosphere, drastically reducing the level of solar radiation reaching the surface. I.e., no sunlight, no photosynthesis, no food,.....
Two aspects of this give me pause: One, Earth's governments and institutions don't know how to think beyond their own backyards; Two, humans have demonstrated the capability of sending a spacecraft to a small asteroid. What more would it take to extend that capability by powering an asteroid back into your favorite Earthbound enemy nation?
I really have little incentive to report a problem to a vendor. Perhaps they'll send me a patch if I report a known bug, but more than likely the best I can expect is wait for the next release. It is as if I bought a new car, drove it home, discovered a problem, took it back to the dealer, and was told to wait for next year's model.
In reality, I stop using software that doesn't work. That means I don't buy the next release of a commercial product, or I don't download the next release of a non-commercial product.(Why should I trust them to get it right the second time around?) Procuring either kind of software represents an exchange of my resources for the vendor's resources; if the exchange is not equitable, I'll shop elsewhere.
Why? Is there a universal obligation fo everyone to learn software engineering and pitch in, giving away substantial, marketable skills? Should we all stom Redmond, grab the source, and retire to the MS campus for gargantuan code review sessions?
As a simple consumer of software, I am under no obligation to help make it safe, better, or bug-free. I exchange something of value for software -- money and time. (Let's note that this applies to open source, as well. Just because I can download some code doesn't mean it is not cost-bearing.) In return, I expect something that works. If it doesn't, I don't expect to have a EULA waved in my face, or to have an open source advocate assert that my use of open source code makes me a member of some imagined communal undertaking encumbered with an obligation fix the bloody thing.
Software producers have the obligation to "make it better", not software consumers.
Re:I like Slackware -- Who Decides Dependency?
on
Is RPM Doomed?
·
· Score: 1
Who decides what depends on what in the first place?
I know from my experience that programs will compile from source and run just fine on Slackware without tracking down and compiling every bizarre dependency that RedHat hangs on that package.
Maybe what's lacking is a standard way to determine dependencies?
Once they buy a computer, they're locked into the OS that was installed on it, because they literally are unable to reinstall a OS on their own.
Probably true. But, is that important? I suspect most people don't want to know how to swap their OS, assuming they know the OS is there to begin with. Most people who buy cars are literally unable to swap out the transmission, and they don't care. They just want the thing to work.
Which means this: Because the OS doesn't matter. It's what you can run on it that does. is very, very true.
Right. Ever notice the frequent use of "we" around here in reference to Linux users? A substantial number of people seem to pin a great deal of their personal self-image on their use of a particular piece of software, and the ensuing belief that they belong to an elite group that has secret knowledge unattainable by the Ignorant Masses. The same thing happened in the OS/2 and Amiga worlds.
Want the best piece of software possible? Want your favorite software to dominate the commercial world? Well, pick one, 'cause you probably can't have both.
...user experience of someone who has probably been brought up using Windows.
Just like almost everyone else on the planet who uses a PC. Your efforts to expose to people to Linux are admirable, but I doubt there is enough time left before the Sun goes nova to spread the word that way.
Linux will follow the path carved by Unix 20 years ago -- the path to popular oblivion -- unless and until developers start producing innovative applications that run only on Linux and are not available on Windows or the Mac. If enough people walk into Walmart -- or anyplace else -- and buy (yes, buy!) an app that runs on Linux, someone will be quite happy to sell them a PC running Linux.
You're right to lament the immature and sophomoric bias that seems to lurk behind this, and many other, posts. Too many people self-identify with something they call the "open source movement" simply because it provides cover for their ill-placed elitism and snobbery. For anyone who genuinely wants to see competition for Microsoft, the availability of another OS -- any other OS -- in the largest retailer on the planet ought to be brilliant news. It's only bad news if you own sense of self-worth has some dependency on maintaining Linux and open source as a cult.
A bit of a jumbled post, with all respect. But I have to say that the notion of a Linux community just doesn't make sense. Nor does the notion that anyone who wants to use Linux owes something to this supposed community. Linux is just software, folks. To be specific, just one piece of software: the kernel. I use it because it is an affordable Unix, not because it is "free", "open", or whatever. Lots of other people are using, too, but that doesn't make us some kind of community. It just makes a bunch of people with one shared interest.
Why should I trust unfiltered and unverified statements that propagate from the bottom up? Unfiltered statements and opinions do not represent journalism.
Engaging in journalism -- reporting the news -- implies a committment to a process that emphasizes accuracy and completeness.This process typically includes editorial oversight and review, multiple sources, etc. Blogs and sites like Slashdot do provide new publishing tools, but, by themselves, they are just a means to a possible end, just as blank newsprint has the potential to become a newspaper.
It isn't a blog, but Slashdot appears to be a direct descendant of BBS systems, with a mix of readers and staff posting material from other sources to a web site that facilitates reader comments. I see little evidence of anything approaching journalism here. Most real blogs that I read are more akin to newspaper columns, rather than straight journalism. Again, there's little evidence of real editorial review, but it is interesting that the blogging community has the potential to enforce some degree of fact-checking
By and large, Linux distributions are all about the same. They attempt to cut out a market segment by playing with the install routine, twiggling the admin scripts, and adding more or less of the same software that is available to everyone anyway. The weirdness of trying to sell something that is otherwise available for free is a well-commented story.
I'd like to see some of the distributions start including legitimately innovative software. Why shouldn't RedHat or SuSE or whatever put some money into developing their own software?
What's with this "Man must know his limitations" nonsense? What limitations? If you want to stay in your own little village, go ahead, but some of us are curious about what's beyond the next hill.
BTW, funding of the Apollo project was not a "crushing expense". It wasn't cheap, but it was, in fact, easily afforable by the U.S.
Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft has every right to exhibit at that expo. As to what they'll do there, they'll obviously try to convince some of the attendees that they have useful products and services for sale. Since Linux seems more a threat to proprietary Unix vendors than to Microsoft, I'd guess they'll hype Unix-Windows interoperability gizmos.
Maricopa County stretches for miles and miles, but a lot of people live in the Phoenx metro. I recently decided not to move there, after a week's worth of R&R and recon in the area. Too many people, too many cars, too much smog, too much haze. Last there in the mid-nineties, I left disappointed this time.
Truth is, the open source/free software/pick your-label-movement is rooted in a Unix developers ethos. It champions worthy and useful high-minded notions that are relevant only to someone who shares that mind set. Consumers are people who buy things. Give them something they wqnt to buy.
Laws come from legislatures. Legislatures are tied to the nation-state. Until an entity emerges with a political scope to match the Internet's scope, it doesn't make much sense to talk about so-called cyberlaw. Individual legislatures will continue to act as they see fit.
"News" that you and I can consume is content that someone has created. Aggregation sites that simply point to content someone else was paid to create are not news sites. They're the online equivalent of "Hey, look at this story...."
And, btw, that bit about "they just have to adapt it to the web" doesn't come free, and you aren't the one doing it. It costs money to support a news site. A few years ago, for example, the Washington Post, I believe, employed several dozen staffers to support their site, exclusive of the print paper.
News aggregation sites are neat, but someone has to actually write the stuff they aggregate. And those folks usually expect to be paid.
Businesses, even the news business, need to make a profit to stay alive. So, no, it isn't wrong. In addition, companies in which I hold stock have an obligation to me make money.
I wonder if any online newspapers are actually profitable. A lot of print newspapers lost money when they opened their online shops. The search for a consistent way to make money by providing original online content is over, either. (See Salon's current woes.) Print newspapers and magazines make their money from the sale of advertsing. My guess is that pushing the online ad-to-news ratio to the same point would drive most customers away. (Less activity is involved in ignoring print ads than in ignoring online ads.)
I'm not sure if professional news sites -- unlike overblown amateur yack-fests like Slashdot who simply point to the fruits of others' labors -- have a viable way to make enough money to stay in buesiness. If I could subscribe to the full content of my local newspaper for the same price as a print subscription, I'd do that and drop the print subscription. Could the publisher money selling at that price? I don't know.
My second reaction: Oh, well. I don't run Windows, so no problem.
My third reaction: What if this kind of EULA migrates to hardware? What if the next box, or drive, you buy is only "licensed" to you, and the act of purchasing that license gives MS, or the government, to add or delete code from your machine at as they see fit?
It is the intellectual freedom -- sharing of code and ideas -- that distinguishes Linux, etc., from closed source software. Derisive comments, aired in public, claiming that for-profit companies have an obigation to "give it away" serve only to strengthen the image that Linux is a niche player that only merits attention from adolescent geeks who are too cheap/too poor to be of any interest as a market.
And, what is it with all this "we" stuff? What community? Just because I run Linux doesn't make me a memeber of a "Linux community" any more than owning a Volkswagen makes me a member of a "Volkswagen community". This "community" business smacks of people who paint their faces anf go to football games. Get a life and make your own decisions.
What does this mean? That Linux supporters are working hard to keep Linux off the desktop? That it really is all about a little band of geeks playing with their favorite toy, deliberately locking others out?
I dunno know about anyone else, but I'm tired of this "we" stuff. There is no "we".
Two aspects of this give me pause: One, Earth's governments and institutions don't know how to think beyond their own backyards; Two, humans have demonstrated the capability of sending a spacecraft to a small asteroid. What more would it take to extend that capability by powering an asteroid back into your favorite Earthbound enemy nation?
In reality, I stop using software that doesn't work. That means I don't buy the next release of a commercial product, or I don't download the next release of a non-commercial product.(Why should I trust them to get it right the second time around?) Procuring either kind of software represents an exchange of my resources for the vendor's resources; if the exchange is not equitable, I'll shop elsewhere.
As a simple consumer of software, I am under no obligation to help make it safe, better, or bug-free. I exchange something of value for software -- money and time. (Let's note that this applies to open source, as well. Just because I can download some code doesn't mean it is not cost-bearing.) In return, I expect something that works. If it doesn't, I don't expect to have a EULA waved in my face, or to have an open source advocate assert that my use of open source code makes me a member of some imagined communal undertaking encumbered with an obligation fix the bloody thing.
Software producers have the obligation to "make it better", not software consumers.
I know from my experience that programs will compile from source and run just fine on Slackware without tracking down and compiling every bizarre dependency that RedHat hangs on that package.
Maybe what's lacking is a standard way to determine dependencies?
Probably true. But, is that important? I suspect most people don't want to know how to swap their OS, assuming they know the OS is there to begin with. Most people who buy cars are literally unable to swap out the transmission, and they don't care. They just want the thing to work.
Which means this: Because the OS doesn't matter. It's what you can run on it that does.
is very, very true.
Want the best piece of software possible? Want your favorite software to dominate the commercial world? Well, pick one, 'cause you probably can't have both.
Just like almost everyone else on the planet who uses a PC. Your efforts to expose to people to Linux are admirable, but I doubt there is enough time left before the Sun goes nova to spread the word that way.
Linux will follow the path carved by Unix 20 years ago -- the path to popular oblivion -- unless and until developers start producing innovative applications that run only on Linux and are not available on Windows or the Mac. If enough people walk into Walmart -- or anyplace else -- and buy (yes, buy!) an app that runs on Linux, someone will be quite happy to sell them a PC running Linux.
You're right to lament the immature and sophomoric bias that seems to lurk behind this, and many other, posts. Too many people self-identify with something they call the "open source movement" simply because it provides cover for their ill-placed elitism and snobbery. For anyone who genuinely wants to see competition for Microsoft, the availability of another OS -- any other OS -- in the largest retailer on the planet ought to be brilliant news. It's only bad news if you own sense of self-worth has some dependency on maintaining Linux and open source as a cult.
Why map to country names in the first place? The packets will find their way.
A bit of a jumbled post, with all respect. But I have to say that the notion of a Linux community just doesn't make sense. Nor does the notion that anyone who wants to use Linux owes something to this supposed community. Linux is just software, folks. To be specific, just one piece of software: the kernel. I use it because it is an affordable Unix, not because it is "free", "open", or whatever. Lots of other people are using, too, but that doesn't make us some kind of community. It just makes a bunch of people with one shared interest.
Why should I trust unfiltered and unverified statements that propagate from the bottom up? Unfiltered statements and opinions do not represent journalism.
It isn't a blog, but Slashdot appears to be a direct descendant of BBS systems, with a mix of readers and staff posting material from other sources to a web site that facilitates reader comments. I see little evidence of anything approaching journalism here. Most real blogs that I read are more akin to newspaper columns, rather than straight journalism. Again, there's little evidence of real editorial review, but it is interesting that the blogging community has the potential to enforce some degree of fact-checking
I'd like to see some of the distributions start including legitimately innovative software. Why shouldn't RedHat or SuSE or whatever put some money into developing their own software?
BTW, funding of the Apollo project was not a "crushing expense". It wasn't cheap, but it was, in fact, easily afforable by the U.S.