Android has a linux kernel and so can even run for example the Debian userland apps if configured to do so.
So why not just use the right tool for the job - a debian distribution - rather than putting increased burden on school IT systems by shoehorning debian-based userland apps onto a desktop adaptation of a tablet/phone OS?
Some cell phone companies manage Android devices, so it is not an impossible feat.
Seems a fairly pointless exercise though. It's not like there is consistency with Android or anything that you would get out of it.
So for kernel contributors how is it that "their copyright is being violated by distributing binaries in violation of the GPL"? Nobody has even established that there is any violation at all.
The requirement to provide the source code to all GPL binaries they are distributing.
They don't have to provide it, they just have to make sure it is accessible to you. If they pulled the source for the kernel from https://github.com/torvalds/li... to build the binaries then that's fine.
If someone contributed two lines of code to the kernel twenty years ago, and those two lines are still in use in Remix OS, then their copyright is being violated by distributing binaries in violation of the GPL.
What requirement of the GPL is being violated here? Is the RemixOS kernel a derivative project to which the source is unavailable?
The most popular GPL-based projects have exceptions rather than a proper GPL license. gcc has the gcc runtime library exception, Linux has the preamble in the COPYING file about linking proprietary binaries and Android's runtime with the classpath exception.
If Linux were GPL it would most definitely not be so popular, it's popularity stems from some of the clauses in the GPLv2 combined with the explicit exclusion of GPL provisions in the license preamble. The GPL is good in some respects and bad in others. Linux would also not have been anywhere near as popular had the GPLv3 provisions regarding Tivoization existed in the GPLv2.
As Linus has repeatedly said, Linux isn't about Free Software ideals, it is about "tit-for-tat" code contributions (hence the reason he sees Tivoization as a good thing) and the GPLv2 offers that.
when the alternative comes with several nice UIs to choose from for free?
Because the alternative can't run my programs...obviously. You realize that is the whole point of an operating system?
Normal people use an operating system not because they are a "fanboy" but because it does what they need. I run Linux but not exclusively because it can't run most of my programs, so I need Windows as well. Windows - like Linux and OSX - has its problems and limitations, I suppose I could complain about it but it's more productive to just find a solution to the issue.
So run an alternative shell/customization environment like Litestep, Cairo, RainMeter, etc... You already said you do it to solve the problem on Linux so why not do the same thing on Windows?
The company that is bitching about not enough coders contributed to the decline of coders by not including BASIC with Windows.
What are you talking about? It was on the Windows 95 CD, on the Windows 98 CD and on the Windows NT CD. By the time it stopped being included with Windows installations you had VBScript instead but you could also easily download qbasic from Microsoft.
As someone above pointed out, simply cloning the competitors UI isn't going to help here - see Mozilla.
Mozilla's problem wasn't that people found it hard to use, in fact before Chrome most users were using Firefox and then switched to Chrome - in spite of the fact that they had to go with a different UI - because it was better.
That's what we now call "the Mozilla fallacy". If you change your UX to mimic a competitor, you will lose your current userbase, instead of attracting the competitor's.
He didn't suggest they copy the competitor's, he suggested they improve their own if users find the experience of using that software to be poor.
The other falacy you're committing is "new is better".
No, he didn't say new. He quite clearly said that if people find the user experience worse on the free software than on the proprietary software then such a thing should be improved. This could mean going back to the old Firefox UI or from the GNOME3 UI back to GNOME2 style for example.
I'm not saying that all UX changes are bad, but people get tired of yet another "let's move everything around for no apparent reason".
His suggestion was to improve it if it is identified to be poor, not just "move everything around for no apparent reason".
Please face reality. It may have been a nice idea, but obviously, after all this time, will never become practical. Better to concentrate on the rest of their software, and the Linux kernel.
But as the computing environment evolves we see changes that require the FSF provisions needing to evolve in such a way as to satisfy their mission, for example the GPLv3 and the AGPL. The Linux kernel is not an FSF project, while it is licensed under the GPLv2 there is preamble that overrides some GPL provisions with regard to proprietary software. It is not a vehicle for the FSF's ideology, it isn't GPLv3 chiefly because Torvalds disagrees with the FSF's position on Tivoization (and also because it doesn't do copyright assignment to the FSF).
If the FSF wants to stay relevant in the current and future computing environments they need to build a system atop a core that reflects its ideals, not one that is - at least partially - opposed to them and not interested in being an FSF project.
The fact they threw in a (not optional) XBox controller into the package really hammered that point in hard.
A controller is generally better suited to VR than a keyboard and mouse, the XBox one just happens to work well with Windows. If it isn't targeting PC gamers then who is it targeting?
That doesn't help anything. If we're only discussing metadata ("Person X is communicating with person Y") then it really doesn't matter whether you're sending government secrets using the most secure encryption ever or sending "y0 babe wuts up" to a girl that has no interest in you -- the content of the message is being ignored in both cases anyway.
We have the tools to deal with that too, with TOR and anonymous email accounts.
Of course, but you're sending data over a public - or government-owned, in the case of the USPS - network. This has always been the case, whether it's snail mail, landline telephones, cellphones or the internet. I can't see how anybody can claim to be surprised by this, especially when the answer these days is so simple: use encryption, don't send unencrypted communications over a network you don't control.
Yes it may be slightly less convenient having to encrypt/decrypt your mail but that is the price of privacy, even if the government - and everybody else - promised that they wouldn't read the things you sent unencrypted over a public network, would you be naive enough to believe them?
I'm done arguing with you mate, I'm just sad for those around you who have to deal with such an unethical individual.
Trying to paint me as "unethical" just because I called you out on your solution proposal being utter rubbish is pathetic. Even if you did put some number on it - that bizarrely you can't even suggest what that might be or what would determine it - it would be trivially defeated by game makers splitting into episodic releases and multiple games. I understand you're upset but don't blame the messenger, I don't control any of this, I'm just pointing out the fact that your "solution" is completely unworkable.
The simulation games do not require constant gambling of money - they're just purchase and play therefore never come under section 198 (3) because there's no wagering of money going on. Microsoft Jackpot requires you to continually pay to keep gambling your money away.
Correct it doesn't come under gambling legislation because it does not meet the legal definition of gambling. Not that difficult to understand now is it?
Well, sure, but the best fix is to remove the VM. If you want to run code on a client machine, distribute a system binary. This way we don't have to recreate modern operating system security models all over again inside the browser.`
No the best fix is to properly sandbox the VM. Otherwise every interactive website needs to have a system binary for iOS, Android, Windows, OSX, Linux, etc.
Slashdot Mirror
kernel.org has an article on GPLv2 compliance that explains it. Have you actually looked at the information in RemixOS wrt licensing?
Android has a linux kernel and so can even run for example the Debian userland apps if configured to do so.
So why not just use the right tool for the job - a debian distribution - rather than putting increased burden on school IT systems by shoehorning debian-based userland apps onto a desktop adaptation of a tablet/phone OS?
Some cell phone companies manage Android devices, so it is not an impossible feat.
Seems a fairly pointless exercise though. It's not like there is consistency with Android or anything that you would get out of it.
So for kernel contributors how is it that "their copyright is being violated by distributing binaries in violation of the GPL"? Nobody has even established that there is any violation at all.
The requirement to provide the source code to all GPL binaries they are distributing.
They don't have to provide it, they just have to make sure it is accessible to you. If they pulled the source for the kernel from https://github.com/torvalds/li... to build the binaries then that's fine.
If someone contributed two lines of code to the kernel twenty years ago, and those two lines are still in use in Remix OS, then their copyright is being violated by distributing binaries in violation of the GPL.
What requirement of the GPL is being violated here? Is the RemixOS kernel a derivative project to which the source is unavailable?
Or is it still freedom disrespecting software?
Vulkan isn't software at all, it is a specification.
True, the Classpath exception is a huge exception
The most popular GPL-based projects have exceptions rather than a proper GPL license. gcc has the gcc runtime library exception, Linux has the preamble in the COPYING file about linking proprietary binaries and Android's runtime with the classpath exception.
Would Linux be so popular
If Linux were GPL it would most definitely not be so popular, it's popularity stems from some of the clauses in the GPLv2 combined with the explicit exclusion of GPL provisions in the license preamble. The GPL is good in some respects and bad in others. Linux would also not have been anywhere near as popular had the GPLv3 provisions regarding Tivoization existed in the GPLv2.
As Linus has repeatedly said, Linux isn't about Free Software ideals, it is about "tit-for-tat" code contributions (hence the reason he sees Tivoization as a good thing) and the GPLv2 offers that.
Does this include trying it on a laptop before buying the laptop?
Are there that many laptops for sale that Linux doesn't run properly on?
when the alternative comes with several nice UIs to choose from for free?
Because the alternative can't run my programs...obviously. You realize that is the whole point of an operating system?
Normal people use an operating system not because they are a "fanboy" but because it does what they need. I run Linux but not exclusively because it can't run most of my programs, so I need Windows as well. Windows - like Linux and OSX - has its problems and limitations, I suppose I could complain about it but it's more productive to just find a solution to the issue.
So run an alternative shell/customization environment like Litestep, Cairo, RainMeter, etc... You already said you do it to solve the problem on Linux so why not do the same thing on Windows?
perhaps unaware that the company reportedly struck a deal to kill BASIC on Macs in 1985 and stopped including BASIC on PCs after Windows 95.
Perhaps the author is unaware that those events were 30 and 20 years ago respectively.
But that isn't even true. QBasic wasn't removed until Windows Me and at that point they had replaced it with VBScript instead.
The company that is bitching about not enough coders contributed to the decline of coders by not including BASIC with Windows.
What are you talking about? It was on the Windows 95 CD, on the Windows 98 CD and on the Windows NT CD. By the time it stopped being included with Windows installations you had VBScript instead but you could also easily download qbasic from Microsoft.
As someone above pointed out, simply cloning the competitors UI isn't going to help here - see Mozilla.
Mozilla's problem wasn't that people found it hard to use, in fact before Chrome most users were using Firefox and then switched to Chrome - in spite of the fact that they had to go with a different UI - because it was better.
That's what we now call "the Mozilla fallacy". If you change your UX to mimic a competitor, you will lose your current userbase, instead of attracting the competitor's.
He didn't suggest they copy the competitor's, he suggested they improve their own if users find the experience of using that software to be poor.
The other falacy you're committing is "new is better".
No, he didn't say new. He quite clearly said that if people find the user experience worse on the free software than on the proprietary software then such a thing should be improved. This could mean going back to the old Firefox UI or from the GNOME3 UI back to GNOME2 style for example.
I'm not saying that all UX changes are bad, but people get tired of yet another "let's move everything around for no apparent reason".
His suggestion was to improve it if it is identified to be poor, not just "move everything around for no apparent reason".
Please face reality. It may have been a nice idea, but obviously, after all this time, will never become practical. Better to concentrate on the rest of their software, and the Linux kernel.
But as the computing environment evolves we see changes that require the FSF provisions needing to evolve in such a way as to satisfy their mission, for example the GPLv3 and the AGPL. The Linux kernel is not an FSF project, while it is licensed under the GPLv2 there is preamble that overrides some GPL provisions with regard to proprietary software. It is not a vehicle for the FSF's ideology, it isn't GPLv3 chiefly because Torvalds disagrees with the FSF's position on Tivoization (and also because it doesn't do copyright assignment to the FSF).
If the FSF wants to stay relevant in the current and future computing environments they need to build a system atop a core that reflects its ideals, not one that is - at least partially - opposed to them and not interested in being an FSF project.
The point is that any gamer who wants to use a controller already owns one.
No, I said it is generally better suited to VR, most PC gamers do not have VR setups and instead are using keyboard & mouse.
Having one in the package only increases the price.
So don't buy it then if it's too expensive for you or recoup some of the cost by selling the controller if you don't want it.
No, movie tickets are not a similar analogy.
It's paying for an entertainment product you may or may not be entertained by.
With many IAPs, you purchase credits, and those credits are redeemed for a random reward
No, very few in-app purchases are random. Most - like in TFA - are not random at all.
The fact they threw in a (not optional) XBox controller into the package really hammered that point in hard.
A controller is generally better suited to VR than a keyboard and mouse, the XBox one just happens to work well with Windows. If it isn't targeting PC gamers then who is it targeting?
It takes a couple of seconds and a signature by a politician to make it illegal and slap you with a prison sentence only for downloading it.
Really? When has such a thing ever happened?
That doesn't help anything. If we're only discussing metadata ("Person X is communicating with person Y") then it really doesn't matter whether you're sending government secrets using the most secure encryption ever or sending "y0 babe wuts up" to a girl that has no interest in you -- the content of the message is being ignored in both cases anyway.
We have the tools to deal with that too, with TOR and anonymous email accounts.
Of course, but you're sending data over a public - or government-owned, in the case of the USPS - network. This has always been the case, whether it's snail mail, landline telephones, cellphones or the internet. I can't see how anybody can claim to be surprised by this, especially when the answer these days is so simple: use encryption, don't send unencrypted communications over a network you don't control.
Yes it may be slightly less convenient having to encrypt/decrypt your mail but that is the price of privacy, even if the government - and everybody else - promised that they wouldn't read the things you sent unencrypted over a public network, would you be naive enough to believe them?
I'm done arguing with you mate, I'm just sad for those around you who have to deal with such an unethical individual.
Trying to paint me as "unethical" just because I called you out on your solution proposal being utter rubbish is pathetic. Even if you did put some number on it - that bizarrely you can't even suggest what that might be or what would determine it - it would be trivially defeated by game makers splitting into episodic releases and multiple games. I understand you're upset but don't blame the messenger, I don't control any of this, I'm just pointing out the fact that your "solution" is completely unworkable.
The simulation games do not require constant gambling of money - they're just purchase and play therefore never come under section 198 (3) because there's no wagering of money going on. Microsoft Jackpot requires you to continually pay to keep gambling your money away.
Correct it doesn't come under gambling legislation because it does not meet the legal definition of gambling. Not that difficult to understand now is it?
Well, sure, but the best fix is to remove the VM. If you want to run code on a client machine, distribute a system binary. This way we don't have to recreate modern operating system security models all over again inside the browser.`
No the best fix is to properly sandbox the VM. Otherwise every interactive website needs to have a system binary for iOS, Android, Windows, OSX, Linux, etc.