There are lots of cases where prosecutors claimed someone was guilty, and he turned out to be innocent. In fact, there are lots of cases in which prosecutors (illegally) withheld evidence that would have proved the defendant was guilty.
There are lots of such cases, and very, very few where the prosecutor faces any consequences for his crimes.
The CLI is, and will always be the best way to interact with computers. Why? Because people have evolved to interact with language. CLIs are fundamentally more expressive than any GUI could ever be.
Sure, all it takes is a recompile. And you still can't set your window decorations with your window manager, which is traditionally half the job a window manager does. That's a dramatic loss in flexability.
There's a lot more controversy around either Bill Gates (super villain or super philanthropist) or Steve Jobs (hippest person who ever lived, or megalomanical asshole) than anyone I can think of in the Linux community.
But Ubuntu is for home users, how many home users are running remote desktops?
How many home users are using the command line? Why don't we rip that out too?
You've got all this stuff that frankly isn't need for the ones the OS is being pushed for, and which makes them system more brittle
What evidence is there that network transparency causes X to be "brittle"?
see the classic rant from thom at OSNews about how X crashed when doing simple tasks for a loooong list of people having trouble with it in the home user space
Sounds like a driver problem, not an X problem. He has a point in that X should be able to handle driver problems more gracefully, but I don't see what this has to do with network transparency. Can't we have both network transparency, server side window decorations, and robustness against driver faults?
why not simply let X be for servers and Wayland be for home users? Choice is good, right?
Fragmentation is bad for choice. If I want to use a certain app, I have to use the display platform that app is written for. And there is no bright line between server software and home software, so anyone who isn't an average user(and on average, almost everyone is not average) is going to be locked out of using some software.
People are already unable to peaceably protest. Or did you miss the violent crackdown against OWS last year? 4 years after the largest property crime in history, our country has jailed more protesters than bankers.
From the FAQ: "The Wayland architecture integrates the display server, window manager and compositor into one process."
The Wayland window manager will be built in. If you want to change your window manager, you have to change the display system itself.
Particularly egregious is the choice to have Wayland clients provide window decorations. That means that no matter what window manager you have compiled into Wayland, you can't centrally control the appearance of your desktop.
What happens if I want to use a Wayland distribution that provides a tiling window manager, but my apps are coded with window decorations? What happens if I want to use Fluxbox's built in window tabbing, but none of the clients support that?
It won't work if SomeProgram is a Wayland program.
That's the problem. If Wayland becomes the default, we can't count on being able to forward arbitrary apps over the network. That's far too big a price to pay for anything Wayland could possibly offer.
And please, no pretending that X on Linux doesn't crash. It does, and this is the 4th time I've restarted this laptop today. Hanging hard with VirtualBox.
Although the more detailed answer is that GTK/Qt apps will need recompiling with an updated library. If you use X11 directly, then you have more work - except that you can also run an X server within Wayland to support native X11 clients.
So what's to happen to our decades worth of work in innovative and configurable window managers? Am I expected to run an X server on top of Wayland just so I can keep the Fluxbox config I've grown accustomed to?
Choice of window manager is one of the best reasons to use a UNIX desktop. As I understand it, Wayland eliminates this choice entirely.
Anarchy is the least stable form of government. As soon as one person says "Hey, let's...(x,y.z)" and some others say "OK", it's broken; there is now a leader and followers.
It's not a government until some others are forced to participate. People work together better when there is consensus instead of coercion. Anarchism is simply this observation writ large. Nothing about this prohibits organization or leadership.
And what exactly has government done about the richest.1% of the population taking the wealth of the rest of the country?
Re:hypothetically, what does everyone want?
on
Bye ACTA, Hello CETA
·
· Score: 1
Public research is NOT the bulk in creation of any drug. The basic research they provide is only a spark of an idea in some drugs.
I think you underestimate just how much work goes into creating that "spark". A lot more work went into discovering how synaptic transmission works than went into discovering prozac. Most research pharma does is little more than moving some functional groups around, and throwing them at a panel of cell cultures and then rats. You don't think academia could handle that?
The cost of getting it tested and approved and manufactured is so far out of their budgets, they never would be able to finish it. If they did, we would either pay much higher taxes to fund that public research or they would have to charge for their product.
What, do you think pharmaceutical companies produce money from thin air? They pay for the research they do with money that comes from patients and insurance companies. Make that research public and you reduce health care costs for everyone which you can offset with a tax to pay for the research.
Cut private pharmaceuticals out entirely, and you can put their marketing budgets(which are greater than their research budgets) and their profit margins towards research as well. Everyone wins except the scumbags running pharmaceuticals.
This law has no impact on you.
Copyright law affects me because copyright is incompatible with freedom of speech. Any method the MAFIAA proposes to enforce copyright can be (and will be) used to suppress speech.
Re:hypothetically, what does everyone want?
on
Bye ACTA, Hello CETA
·
· Score: 1
But where does everyone want this to go to?
Complete abolition of anything that implements artificial scarcity.
What biotech company is going to invest hundreds of millions of dollarsresearching a new drug if it can be copied by the next company cheaply
Public research institutions already do the bulk of the basic research in the creation of any drug. It wouldn't be too hard for them to take over the clinical testing either.
What musical artist its going to spend there own money to have it freely distributed around the world.
Any decent artist who plays because he loves it, and gets paid nightly by his live audience.
Slashdot Mirror
That is written based on the indictment. Why would you trust that anything in this indictment is factual?
There are lots of cases where prosecutors claimed someone was guilty, and he turned out to be innocent. In fact, there are lots of cases in which prosecutors (illegally) withheld evidence that would have proved the defendant was guilty.
There are lots of such cases, and very, very few where the prosecutor faces any consequences for his crimes.
"Hi, I'm Kim"
The CLI is, and will always be the best way to interact with computers. Why? Because people have evolved to interact with language. CLIs are fundamentally more expressive than any GUI could ever be.
You can have your toaster OS.
Sure, all it takes is a recompile. And you still can't set your window decorations with your window manager, which is traditionally half the job a window manager does. That's a dramatic loss in flexability.
There's a lot more controversy around either Bill Gates (super villain or super philanthropist) or Steve Jobs (hippest person who ever lived, or megalomanical asshole) than anyone I can think of in the Linux community.
But Ubuntu is for home users, how many home users are running remote desktops?
How many home users are using the command line? Why don't we rip that out too?
You've got all this stuff that frankly isn't need for the ones the OS is being pushed for, and which makes them system more brittle
What evidence is there that network transparency causes X to be "brittle"?
see the classic rant from thom at OSNews about how X crashed when doing simple tasks for a loooong list of people having trouble with it in the home user space
Sounds like a driver problem, not an X problem. He has a point in that X should be able to handle driver problems more gracefully, but I don't see what this has to do with network transparency. Can't we have both network transparency, server side window decorations, and robustness against driver faults?
why not simply let X be for servers and Wayland be for home users? Choice is good, right?
Fragmentation is bad for choice. If I want to use a certain app, I have to use the display platform that app is written for. And there is no bright line between server software and home software, so anyone who isn't an average user(and on average, almost everyone is not average) is going to be locked out of using some software.
While classical anarchists were considered close to socialism, that was in a time when everyone who didn't want monarchy was called leftwing.
Whereas today, anyone who doesn't want corporate oligarchy, and even many who do, are called left-wing.
People are already unable to peaceably protest. Or did you miss the violent crackdown against OWS last year? 4 years after the largest property crime in history, our country has jailed more protesters than bankers.
Hey you leftists; just because you may agree with the current administrations policies, wait until we get a conservative in office.
No leftist agrees with this administration's policies. Obama is a crony capitalist just like the rest.
From the FAQ: "The Wayland architecture integrates the display server, window manager and compositor into one process."
The Wayland window manager will be built in. If you want to change your window manager, you have to change the display system itself.
Particularly egregious is the choice to have Wayland clients provide window decorations. That means that no matter what window manager you have compiled into Wayland, you can't centrally control the appearance of your desktop.
What happens if I want to use a Wayland distribution that provides a tiling window manager, but my apps are coded with window decorations? What happens if I want to use Fluxbox's built in window tabbing, but none of the clients support that?
Yes, I was rephrasing the OPs post in a way that would hilight its flaws.
The government does attempt to stop theft, fraud, extortion, and other methods that are illegal
When can I expect indictments against Lloyd Blankfein, John Corzine, Jamie Dimon, Angelo Mozilo, etc?
How does such a deliberately obtuse post get modded insightful?
It won't work if SomeProgram is a Wayland program.
That's the problem. If Wayland becomes the default, we can't count on being able to forward arbitrary apps over the network. That's far too big a price to pay for anything Wayland could possibly offer.
And please, no pretending that X on Linux doesn't crash. It does, and this is the 4th time I've restarted this laptop today. Hanging hard with VirtualBox.
That's not X hanging, that's VirtualBox hanging.
Why not get rid of it and halve the size of the display server code base, making it much easier to program against in the process?
Can you do this without sacrificing functionality? If so, do it. If not, you're writing Wayland.
Although the more detailed answer is that GTK/Qt apps will need recompiling with an updated library. If you use X11 directly, then you have more work - except that you can also run an X server within Wayland to support native X11 clients.
So what's to happen to our decades worth of work in innovative and configurable window managers? Am I expected to run an X server on top of Wayland just so I can keep the Fluxbox config I've grown accustomed to?
Choice of window manager is one of the best reasons to use a UNIX desktop. As I understand it, Wayland eliminates this choice entirely.
X11 needs replacing
Citation needed.
Anarchy is the least stable form of government. As soon as one person says "Hey, let's...(x,y.z)" and some others say "OK", it's broken; there is now a leader and followers.
It's not a government until some others are forced to participate. People work together better when there is consensus instead of coercion. Anarchism is simply this observation writ large. Nothing about this prohibits organization or leadership.
Anarchists like order just as much as anyone. We only recognize that order enforced by violence is no order at all.
And what exactly has government done about the richest .1% of the population taking the wealth of the rest of the country?
Public research is NOT the bulk in creation of any drug. The basic research they provide is only a spark of an idea in some drugs.
I think you underestimate just how much work goes into creating that "spark". A lot more work went into discovering how synaptic transmission works than went into discovering prozac. Most research pharma does is little more than moving some functional groups around, and throwing them at a panel of cell cultures and then rats. You don't think academia could handle that?
The cost of getting it tested and approved and manufactured is so far out of their budgets, they never would be able to finish it. If they did, we would either pay much higher taxes to fund that public research or they would have to charge for their product.
What, do you think pharmaceutical companies produce money from thin air? They pay for the research they do with money that comes from patients and insurance companies. Make that research public and you reduce health care costs for everyone which you can offset with a tax to pay for the research.
Cut private pharmaceuticals out entirely, and you can put their marketing budgets(which are greater than their research budgets) and their profit margins towards research as well. Everyone wins except the scumbags running pharmaceuticals.
This law has no impact on you.
Copyright law affects me because copyright is incompatible with freedom of speech. Any method the MAFIAA proposes to enforce copyright can be (and will be) used to suppress speech.
But where does everyone want this to go to?
Complete abolition of anything that implements artificial scarcity.
What biotech company is going to invest hundreds of millions of dollarsresearching a new drug if it can be copied by the next company cheaply
Public research institutions already do the bulk of the basic research in the creation of any drug. It wouldn't be too hard for them to take over the clinical testing either.
What musical artist its going to spend there own money to have it freely distributed around the world.
Any decent artist who plays because he loves it, and gets paid nightly by his live audience.
If you don't want to be affected by the stock market, don't invest. Is that really what you mean to say?
What I can't figure out is why Microsoft wants an old version of Ubuntu.