Here in Israel most of the "geek shops" sell laptops with freedos. Sometimes I'm surprised to see brand name laptops being sold without windows (but with a real warranty), while people I know in the US and Europe complain that they don't have that option.
It's very popular these days, because if you bought a computer ~3-4 years ago, you probably have a copy of XP, and a relatively slow machine. It's common practice to get a laptop without windows and just move your copy from the old machine to the new one. At which point you either sell the old computer without an OS, or load a Linux distro on it and turn it into a NAS or a server.
Whenever I hear about Linux in Germany, I think about the Munich migration. There's an ongoing debate as to whether or not it "is succeeding" or "will succeed".
The migration project is called LiMux, and you'll find many places online that campaign against it (or strongly criticize it, sometimes it's hard to tell).
But overall I think it's very good news that consumers are making a conscious decision, with their own wallets.
It's kind of moot at the end, since the license required MS to add the code anyway. So they added the code because they had to, and the code was accepted because, I suppose, no one was harmed by doing so.
It basically comes back to the vending machine analogy (simile?), where the vending machine was free, and no one forced you to buy anything, it just takes up space.
I guess it boils down to whether it's right to add code whose only purpose is to facilitate non-free software, even though the submitted code was technically free. Maybe the resulting question is "how much space is there?"
(but yeah, apart from that it's splitting hairs...)
He did say exactly that. He said "We don't consider that free".
Specifically, he said "Actually, we don't consider non-free as a valid choice.". The problem I assume we have here is that when he says "non-free", the word 'free', to him, is different than it is to you. He's referring to "Free Software", and I'm sure you know what he means by that. At which point you replied with the "Freedom, but only on our terms" comment.
Unless you're saying that you consider free software to mean "freeware", then his definition of 'free' actually covers every free software license. I'm going to make the leap and say that he's on the GNU camp, but that doesn't change the fact that the definition of "Free Software", as linked above, applies to all OSS licenses, not just GNU. Therefor, in "Freedom, but only on our terms", 'our' refers to almost all definitions of OSS.
The phrase "absolute freedom" is usually used by supporters of permissive licenses, but in this case I assume you meant "the freedom to use closed-sourced software". So when you say "Free", do you mean that the software is free, or "freedom of choice"? Because I'm pretty sure we're talking specifically about the software here, in which case his definition would apply.
I don't have to *control* the platform if it's FOSS. I can get any version of it, past or present, and decide to either use or develop for any variant of it. If a change is made that I don't like, I don't have to upgrade (or I can suggest a different change that seems more apt to me, and see if the other users of the software/platform agree). If I don't like a change that's been made to the.Net platform, I can bitch about it all I want. Support for early features (naming schemes, conventions, syntax) on.Net are already not supported in newer versions. You're forced to "migrate your code" to the new "standards". You can NOT keep using your previous code if you want to develop using newer versions of.Net. Moreover, when new end-user.Net VMs are released to consumers, support for *using* older code is phased out (albeit not as fast).
I've had to develop for.Net, I've experienced this first-hand. I've also developed for free software projects, in which this is definitely not a problem. If enough people agree that a change needs to be made, either they make it themselves, or they lean on the maintainers of the project to make it. If the maintainers won't accept an addition that a lot of people want, the project can be forked. The same goes for older features -- the maintainers of an open-source project can't *force* a change if the users don't want it. The users simply will not upgrade until the problem is resolved. If the problem remains unresolved for a long enough time, either someone writes an add-on to the existing codebase that you can choose to add yourself, or, again, there's always a possibility for a fork to occur. This happened with Sodipodi/Inkscape.
You don't need to control anything, because no one can force you to make a change you don't want, at least when it comes to FOSS.
So why the mod up to +5 with no working link to support the assertion?
Hello, and welcome to Slashdot!
And what's your name young man? I can see by the glitter in your eye that you'll feel right at home here!
What hobos? Oh, you mean the bunch of cynical, neck-bearded, self-diagnosed Asperger group over there? Oh don't mind them, they just make up about 68% of the/. community. They're harmless.
So, everyone who fought against the Nazis in WW2 had a disease, then?
**Ding Ding Ding!**
We have Nazis! Finally this has become a real discussion!
Remember players, extra points if you get "Nazis" and "Hitler" in the same jab!
(I actually agree with your position, but adding nazis to an argument does nothing that make it seem like a parody, most of the time)
Oh, okay. I didn't realise it was "Freedom, but only on our terms". I thought it was just "Freedom". My mistake.
That's just trolling. He said no such thing. The point was that the newly added code has one purpose: to support proprietary, closed-sourced code. I think that's pretty easy to understand.
It's the same as placing a snack vending machine in your living room, "for free". You don't pay for the machine, just the snacks. Sure it takes up space, and requires maintenance, but it's "free", so what are you complaining about?
Microsoft is an easy target; at times they appear to actually strive to be one. Nevertheless, geeks are supposed to be about tech, not religion.:)
How about "freedom", "law", and "standards"? Does that count as "religion"? If I want to partake in the usage and development of new technology, should I give up a part of my freedom in order to do so, because I'm a geek?
Sure, MS can't cut off my air supply or electricity (yet), but they can cut off, or change, or add draconian conditions to the platform I'm working on, as long as I'm working on it.
Check out this Silverlight stuff -- it's great isn't it? It's cross-platform and everything. What happens if MS decides to charge for development tools for Silverlight one day? Or decides to change the "standard" so that you've forced to migrate to the new set of tools they've developed, which doesn't add much, but it does make you buy new software.
I'll be the type of geek that avoids having his chain yanked in order to satisfy a company's commercial needs.
I don't hate microsoft, but 20 years of watching their actions has led to great distrust. MS has fostered a industry-wide corporate culture that views OSS as broken, untrustable, risky, unsupportable, or otherwise inadequate. Microsoft contributions to OSS projects is rightfully viewed with distrust by many in the OSS community. Their modus operandi for 20 years has been embrace and extinguish, in all areas of their business.
Is it outlandish to think Microsoft makes contributions to OSS for subversion?
One of the biggest problems with OSS developers is short memory spans. Your description of Microsoft's history in regards to OSS was "diplomatic", moderate, and well-mannered. This is good when addressing people who aren't versed in the ongoing "struggle" between OS and proprietary software.
I, on the other hand, am willing to sound like the neck-bearded 'FLOSS' hippie:
MS has called Free Software "a cancer", "unamerican", "implicitly criminal", and "a threat to the economy". It's been practicing *extortion* when dealing with large corporation so that they include no open-source/free software in their stack. They've threatened to sue, and excommunicate companies advocating OSS, and have been slandering free software in an on-going, relentless campaign that any totalitarian regime would be proud of. They have fired *their own employees* who dabbled in OSS. Their FUD tactics have been to keep painting OSS as legally, and commercially unmaintainable.
The most important thing to remember is: Nothing has changed. They've not changed their stance on the issue, not by a micron. The only change is that they've become more subtle and press-friendly about it.
I reserve the word "hate" for extreme situations, but I will say that I do not trust Microsoft and will not develop anything that depends on any technology that they maintain, or have significant influence in.
So what you're saying is that there are markings on charts saying "NO ANCHORING - UNDERSEA CABLE", telling everyone where the cables are as well as how to harm them, and then wondering *how* the pirates would harm the undersea cables?...
According to TFA: "The cable was due to be launched in June but was delayed by pirate activity off the coast of Somalia."
I assume that by that they mean that the ships that lay the cable couldn't get to their destination for fear of being boarded. Can this become a new tactic for these pirates? Somehow damage the cable and then wait around for a ship to come and replace the cable segment?
Although that would attenuate the radiation, it would scatter it more than anything else. What you should to do is surround the microwave with water. Build an aquarium-withing-an-aquarium and place the microwave in there. For best results, build the contraption out of PVC rather than metal, since, again, metal will cause scattering.
If you want to do something until you've built the container, place water jugs around the microwave. It's not perfect, but it will greatly reduce the interference.
Google Wave is several abstractions farther down the chain:
Operating System -> Windowing System -> Browser -> Virtual Machine -> Google Wave -> Application
Each step along the chain takes a performance hit.
In their minds it's more like:
Chrome OS -> Google Wave -> Application
But then, that really translates into:
Linux -> Chrome OS (windowing + browser) -> V8(or whatever in the future) -> Google Wave -> Application ...and that's on a Netbook.
But if they get it responsive and functional enough, no one will care.
This entire conversation about linguistics and cultural evolution of "street phrases" just goes to show that no one really knows what to say about Wave. We can't test it ourselves yet, and have no idea how useful it'll be in the real world. Even the access they're giving reviewers right now is more of a tech demo.
If they could be made to use the least resources possible to get the job done, then it would probably end up saving a fair amount of money long term.
Finally found the term they used: "power gating". Here's an Ars article about it.
The relevant bit: Traditionally, Intel has been able shut down an unused core by cutting its active power, but even though it's in a sleep state, that core is still dissipating plenty of power because of leakage current. Intel's power gating technique involves a new transistor design, and it lets Intel cut the leakage current, as well, so that the sleeping core's power dissipation drops to near zero.
AMD also has some term they use for this, but I can't find it.
The question is what happens when you really *do* need the processing power? It seems to me that they should focus on lowering the power draw during peak usage, which I understand they may do by designing many-multi-core CPUs (16+) that run at relatively low frequencies.
Slashdot Mirror
Here in Israel most of the "geek shops" sell laptops with freedos. Sometimes I'm surprised to see brand name laptops being sold without windows (but with a real warranty), while people I know in the US and Europe complain that they don't have that option.
It's very popular these days, because if you bought a computer ~3-4 years ago, you probably have a copy of XP, and a relatively slow machine. It's common practice to get a laptop without windows and just move your copy from the old machine to the new one. At which point you either sell the old computer without an OS, or load a Linux distro on it and turn it into a NAS or a server.
Whenever I hear about Linux in Germany, I think about the Munich migration. There's an ongoing debate as to whether or not it "is succeeding" or "will succeed".
Last time this came up on /. was a month ago.
The migration project is called LiMux, and you'll find many places online that campaign against it (or strongly criticize it, sometimes it's hard to tell).
But overall I think it's very good news that consumers are making a conscious decision, with their own wallets.
1) ...and there was a breeze because all the windows crashed!
2) ...and I felt kinda blue, because of all the BSODs flashing!
3) ...and through the windows you could see a great Vista!
4) ...and at the bar you can order using the Start Menu!
5) ...and the place was entirely wet because of all the squirting!
6) ...and all of the employees were carrying Notepads!
7) ...and if you're tired you can take a nap, or sleep, or hibernate!
8) ...and the clerk didn't know what I meant, so he said "Bad command or file name"!
*sigh*
It's kind of moot at the end, since the license required MS to add the code anyway. So they added the code because they had to, and the code was accepted because, I suppose, no one was harmed by doing so.
It basically comes back to the vending machine analogy (simile?), where the vending machine was free, and no one forced you to buy anything, it just takes up space.
I guess it boils down to whether it's right to add code whose only purpose is to facilitate non-free software, even though the submitted code was technically free. Maybe the resulting question is "how much space is there?"
(but yeah, apart from that it's splitting hairs...)
He did say exactly that. He said "We don't consider that free".
Specifically, he said "Actually, we don't consider non-free as a valid choice.". The problem I assume we have here is that when he says "non-free", the word 'free', to him, is different than it is to you. He's referring to "Free Software", and I'm sure you know what he means by that. At which point you replied with the "Freedom, but only on our terms" comment.
Unless you're saying that you consider free software to mean "freeware", then his definition of 'free' actually covers every free software license. I'm going to make the leap and say that he's on the GNU camp, but that doesn't change the fact that the definition of "Free Software", as linked above, applies to all OSS licenses, not just GNU. Therefor, in "Freedom, but only on our terms", 'our' refers to almost all definitions of OSS.
The phrase "absolute freedom" is usually used by supporters of permissive licenses, but in this case I assume you meant "the freedom to use closed-sourced software". So when you say "Free", do you mean that the software is free, or "freedom of choice"? Because I'm pretty sure we're talking specifically about the software here, in which case his definition would apply.
I don't have to *control* the platform if it's FOSS. I can get any version of it, past or present, and decide to either use or develop for any variant of it. If a change is made that I don't like, I don't have to upgrade (or I can suggest a different change that seems more apt to me, and see if the other users of the software/platform agree). If I don't like a change that's been made to the .Net platform, I can bitch about it all I want. Support for early features (naming schemes, conventions, syntax) on .Net are already not supported in newer versions. You're forced to "migrate your code" to the new "standards". You can NOT keep using your previous code if you want to develop using newer versions of .Net. Moreover, when new end-user .Net VMs are released to consumers, support for *using* older code is phased out (albeit not as fast).
I've had to develop for .Net, I've experienced this first-hand. I've also developed for free software projects, in which this is definitely not a problem. If enough people agree that a change needs to be made, either they make it themselves, or they lean on the maintainers of the project to make it. If the maintainers won't accept an addition that a lot of people want, the project can be forked. The same goes for older features -- the maintainers of an open-source project can't *force* a change if the users don't want it. The users simply will not upgrade until the problem is resolved. If the problem remains unresolved for a long enough time, either someone writes an add-on to the existing codebase that you can choose to add yourself, or, again, there's always a possibility for a fork to occur. This happened with Sodipodi/Inkscape.
You don't need to control anything, because no one can force you to make a change you don't want, at least when it comes to FOSS.
So why the mod up to +5 with no working link to support the assertion?
Hello, and welcome to Slashdot!
/. community. They're harmless.
And what's your name young man? I can see by the glitter in your eye that you'll feel right at home here!
What hobos? Oh, you mean the bunch of cynical, neck-bearded, self-diagnosed Asperger group over there? Oh don't mind them, they just make up about 68% of the
Can I get you an "M$" t-shirt?
I'm not fat -- I'm big boned! You insensitive clod!
So, everyone who fought against the Nazis in WW2 had a disease, then?
**Ding Ding Ding!**
We have Nazis! Finally this has become a real discussion!
Remember players, extra points if you get "Nazis" and "Hitler" in the same jab!
(I actually agree with your position, but adding nazis to an argument does nothing that make it seem like a parody, most of the time)
Oh, okay. I didn't realise it was "Freedom, but only on our terms". I thought it was just "Freedom". My mistake.
That's just trolling. He said no such thing. The point was that the newly added code has one purpose: to support proprietary, closed-sourced code. I think that's pretty easy to understand.
It's the same as placing a snack vending machine in your living room, "for free". You don't pay for the machine, just the snacks. Sure it takes up space, and requires maintenance, but it's "free", so what are you complaining about?
I actually have it on good authority that Microsoft employees are a bunch of GITs...
Try the veal!
Microsoft is an easy target; at times they appear to actually strive to be one. Nevertheless, geeks are supposed to be about tech, not religion. :)
How about "freedom", "law", and "standards"? Does that count as "religion"? If I want to partake in the usage and development of new technology, should I give up a part of my freedom in order to do so, because I'm a geek?
Sure, MS can't cut off my air supply or electricity (yet), but they can cut off, or change, or add draconian conditions to the platform I'm working on, as long as I'm working on it.
Check out this Silverlight stuff -- it's great isn't it? It's cross-platform and everything. What happens if MS decides to charge for development tools for Silverlight one day? Or decides to change the "standard" so that you've forced to migrate to the new set of tools they've developed, which doesn't add much, but it does make you buy new software.
I'll be the type of geek that avoids having his chain yanked in order to satisfy a company's commercial needs.
I don't hate microsoft, but 20 years of watching their actions has led to great distrust. MS has fostered a industry-wide corporate culture that views OSS as broken, untrustable, risky, unsupportable, or otherwise inadequate. Microsoft contributions to OSS projects is rightfully viewed with distrust by many in the OSS community. Their modus operandi for 20 years has been embrace and extinguish, in all areas of their business.
Is it outlandish to think Microsoft makes contributions to OSS for subversion?
One of the biggest problems with OSS developers is short memory spans. Your description of Microsoft's history in regards to OSS was "diplomatic", moderate, and well-mannered. This is good when addressing people who aren't versed in the ongoing "struggle" between OS and proprietary software.
I, on the other hand, am willing to sound like the neck-bearded 'FLOSS' hippie:
MS has called Free Software "a cancer", "unamerican", "implicitly criminal", and "a threat to the economy". It's been practicing *extortion* when dealing with large corporation so that they include no open-source/free software in their stack. They've threatened to sue, and excommunicate companies advocating OSS, and have been slandering free software in an on-going, relentless campaign that any totalitarian regime would be proud of. They have fired *their own employees* who dabbled in OSS. Their FUD tactics have been to keep painting OSS as legally, and commercially unmaintainable.
The most important thing to remember is: Nothing has changed. They've not changed their stance on the issue, not by a micron. The only change is that they've become more subtle and press-friendly about it.
I reserve the word "hate" for extreme situations, but I will say that I do not trust Microsoft and will not develop anything that depends on any technology that they maintain, or have significant influence in.
Actually, the Monster Cable would be much more.
A less cynical person
There's no such thing as "less cynical" on slashdot. There's only "over-cynical", "super-cynical", and "Anonymous Coward".
So what you're saying is that there are markings on charts saying "NO ANCHORING - UNDERSEA CABLE", telling everyone where the cables are as well as how to harm them, and then wondering *how* the pirates would harm the undersea cables?...
Damn it, I just posted the same comment below. You may have beaten me by 7 minutes, but my comment has a citation!
According to TFA: "The cable was due to be launched in June but was delayed by pirate activity off the coast of Somalia."
I assume that by that they mean that the ships that lay the cable couldn't get to their destination for fear of being boarded. Can this become a new tactic for these pirates? Somehow damage the cable and then wait around for a ship to come and replace the cable segment?
last I recall mums are women
Man, that's disgusting!
Although that would attenuate the radiation, it would scatter it more than anything else. What you should to do is surround the microwave with water. Build an aquarium-withing-an-aquarium and place the microwave in there. For best results, build the contraption out of PVC rather than metal, since, again, metal will cause scattering. If you want to do something until you've built the container, place water jugs around the microwave. It's not perfect, but it will greatly reduce the interference.
You utilize *refrigeration*?? Lame. Military rations are the way to go.
wash the whites and colored laundry together. Saves a lot of money.
I've moved beyond that: I throw all my laundry into the dishwasher. Just throw some bleach in there and you're golden.
Now I have to get to that doctor's appointment -- he said on the phone that there was some problem with my liver.
Google Wave is several abstractions farther down the chain: Operating System -> Windowing System -> Browser -> Virtual Machine -> Google Wave -> Application
Each step along the chain takes a performance hit.
In their minds it's more like:
...and that's on a Netbook.
Chrome OS -> Google Wave -> Application
But then, that really translates into:
Linux -> Chrome OS (windowing + browser) -> V8(or whatever in the future) -> Google Wave -> Application
But if they get it responsive and functional enough, no one will care.
This entire conversation about linguistics and cultural evolution of "street phrases" just goes to show that no one really knows what to say about Wave. We can't test it ourselves yet, and have no idea how useful it'll be in the real world. Even the access they're giving reviewers right now is more of a tech demo.
For realz, yo!
If they could be made to use the least resources possible to get the job done, then it would probably end up saving a fair amount of money long term.
Finally found the term they used: "power gating". Here's an Ars article about it.
The relevant bit:
Traditionally, Intel has been able shut down an unused core by cutting its active power, but even though it's in a sleep state, that core is still dissipating plenty of power because of leakage current. Intel's power gating technique involves a new transistor design, and it lets Intel cut the leakage current, as well, so that the sleeping core's power dissipation drops to near zero.
AMD also has some term they use for this, but I can't find it.
The question is what happens when you really *do* need the processing power? It seems to me that they should focus on lowering the power draw during peak usage, which I understand they may do by designing many-multi-core CPUs (16+) that run at relatively low frequencies.