The comment wasn't just that one sentence. Try reading the rest.
Yes I did, if you want to make a reservation at a restaurant then why would the caller be making more calls than necessary? If the caller wants to purchase goods then why does it matter how that purchase is made wrt human vs robot caller? Of course time taken to answer a call costs money, but if you're making a sale then it's necessary to make money too. If you don't want the business then by all means hang up but I don't see why you would not want the business just because it was Duplex calling rather than the person it was calling on behalf of. What is it specifically you're objecting to here?
That's an interesting theory except the reality is that you can still run MS Office 95 on Windows 10 and this is from Microsoft!
Free software lets you run, inspect, share, and modify the software so you can be sure of what you're running.
Again, nice but not what anybody is really interested in doing.
It's always dangerous to make claims on behalf of how proprietary software works no matter how many time you've run that software and you therefore believe you're familiar with how that software operates.
Define "dangerous", you've made a lot of claims about what "could" happen but you could just as likely be compromised at the hardware level. If I were concerned about your theories then I wouldn't even bother with free software until I had verifiable hardware and firmware to run it on.
Yes that is one single niche example of a kickstarter project, I wouldn't think it's necessary to point out that that is far from the norm. More to the point it is for a fixed platform that doesn't need to be updated because it is so limited, confined and is not internet connected so there is no security issues for users to worry about.
Because you have the source, you can update it yourself
But it would never be worth my time to do, it is far cheaper to just upgrade to a supported machine than it is to spend my time (or money employing somebody) to keep the operating system up to date for old hardware.
Yes. Because I can run Linux on any throwaway desktop for a few dollars. Or a powerful desktop if I need power. A Mac laptop will be vastly more expensive for the amount of power in either case. It's inferior for both workloads. Can you think of any workload where it wouldn't be inferior? I can't.
You're not thinking very hard then, any time you take your laptop with you. You don't travel away from your home/office? That's what I mean when I say you're out of touch.
If I’m too poor to buy a cheap desktop, then why am I buying a very high priced Mac laptop?
Why would anybody want a cheap desktop when they can just run it natively on one system? It's not that it's expensive, it's that it's clunky and not at all portable. Dual booting is easy, boot times are just a couple of seconds nowadays and there's no need to waste resources by running one operating system on top of another.
Booting into Linux doean't seem to meet any practical need better than the alternatives.
I have gpu accelerated code encapsulated in a docker container (production running on cloud worker systems) that I want to run locally, I also need macOS. The hardware is perfectly capable of doing this so I just dual boot Linux. I also work with Vulkan quite a lot and while MoltenVK works quite well I found a bug that didn't make a lot of sense, turned out to be a bug in Metal that was easy to find because I could run the Vulkan code natively on the same system in Linux. In addition to those 2 cases I can also benchmark code across all 3 major OSs on consistent hardware.
Yes you might say these are niche cases but the world of computing is made up of niche cases and I can't list all of them nor should I be limited just because you aren't able to think of any.
Running desktop Linux on a laptop seems like a strange thing to do. If I want to use Linux software on my laptop, I will run the software remotely and display it on my laptop screen.
You're really saying that running multiple machines and remotely accessing them to run software sounds less strange to you? I think you might be a bit out of touch there, surely you don't actually believe that.
It's a problem because it sets a precedent for vendors dictating what operating system gets used on the hardware.
This same argument was used back when Microsoft introduced support for UEFI SecureBoot. Apparently this was a nefarious plan to prevent competition from other operating systems and we were on the cusp of a dystopian future where the only choice for non-Apple computers would be Microsoft. Yet here we are, many years later when even on the 6th generation of Microsoft's own hardware you can still flick off that SecureBoot UEFI switch and install Linux. Because if people buy their hardware and install something else on it they don't care.
If I buy a machine, I expect to be able to put whatever operating system I want on there -- after all, I own it.
Seems like the most expensive way to get a Linux system.
What you need to realize is that most actual users are not religious about their operating systems, there is no one OS that does everything better than every other one so very often people dual boot - BootCamp is very popular on Mac not because people want a Windows machine but because they want a machine that can run Windows and macOS. This is the same case, only for Linux rather than (or in addition to) Windows.
Nope, this is the beginning of the end of Windows.
Yeah yeah, Year of the Linux Desktop is coming. Been hearing that for the better part of 3 decades now.
Now Windows has Linux running in it.
No it doesn't. All of these "Linux distributions" running on WSL in Windows are precisely not Linux at all, they are the distributions with Linux stripped out. Linux is an operating system kernel, WSL enables applications built to run on the Linux kernel to instead run on the Windows kernel.
Not really a revelation there. How does any of that relate to the topic at all? Windows doesn't ship with any of this, it's an application that runs atop it just like any other application. Just because you run a GPLv3 program on Windows doesn't suddenly make Microsoft beholden to the terms of the license of the program you chose to run.
... DOS which had horribly buggy implementation of the add-ons!
Nothing ever stopped you from using the alternatives.
some might wonder if the horrible quality of Internet Explorer wasn't actually an attempt to kill the whole internet in the same way.
The alternative to that was Navigator, which was horrendous and by the time we got to Navigator 4 it was almost completely unusable and just like IE it included its own non-standard extensions that led to the same sort of "Best Viewed with Netscape" banners that we saw with IE. IE was never a good browser but it was still the least worse.
If Netscape had won the browser wars we would never have had a Firefox and instead browsers would be a paid add-on with the internet being driven by Netscape's "standard". In the end both have died out and we have browsers competing to deliver standards compliance.
I wonder what kind of sleazy tricks Intel will come up with this time now that AMD seems to be getting ahead.
Make a better processor, just like they did last time this happened. They made a decision on their process shrink that didn't work out so that's put them behind while AMD made a better decision which has put them ahead. This happened with Intel's deep pipeline Netburst architecture while AMD had their really successful Athlon line, then Intel came out with their Core architecture and AMD flopped with their response to that.
These companies have to make reasonably long term bets on a particular strategy, sometimes it pays off and sometimes it doesn't but you can't get it right all the time.
This movement has always been an explicit "end around" the restrictions of copyright law.
It's the complete opposite of that, in fact "copyleft" explicitly requires and relies upon copyright law to enforce perpetual control over the distribution of a copyrighted work just like Hollywood and music industry do.
That's too bad. I only like to do nice things for people who do nice things, because those are the people making a better world, and I want to live in a better world.
Given that the users and contributors to the Linux kernel include the likes of Microsoft, Facebook and Google I take it you don't make a habit of contributing (or advocating for contributing) to it.
I don't know if that's really true. Android started open from the ground up, anyway
No, some bits of the Android operating system were open but no device that you ran it on was open and by the time you had customized the OS (with relevant drivers and such) in order to actually run it on hardware it was not open.
Yes, RMS wants the world to be perfect and perfect is the enemy of good. If the world is using 100% "immoral" software and I had an idea to use 95% open source and 5% closed source he'd tell me that my idea was still immoral and that it should be 100% or I should walk away. It doesn't matter if it's better than what was before. It doesn't matter if 95% puts food on the table and going 100% would make me homeless.
That's why the decision to adopt Linux is so strange. Instead of pursuing a kernel with copyright assignment to the FSF (to allow for re-licensing) that required derivative works (linking programs) to be "free" they chose and continue to advocate for one based on a "tit-for-tat" contribution strategy including an explicit licensing clause overriding the GPL that allows non-free software to interoperate.
People typically criticize Stallman based on style, because they can't touch him based on substance.
Well he's certainly right that mobile devices have been designed from the ground up to be non-free but really the proliferation of such devices is because nobody designed one from the ground up to be free. Apple and Google got there first, innovated and took the market, there's no reason FOSS couldn't have innovated with a free solution. Of course the precursors to the modern smartphone came from RIM and Microsoft, again no FOSS innovation there.
It's not particularly dissimilar to the desktop market either, how many desktop systems are there that are free from the ground up?
If you don't innovate and think ahead with market-disrupting ideas then you'll be relegated to an also-ran complaining about how other people are creating things in ways you don't like.
In a world where people can and will travel less because of advances in telecomunications I don't see media editing on the go as a expanding market..
That's ok, but now that people are less tied to their desks Adobe certainly does see that as a market worth tapping.
it's hard to imagine people changing their current workflow to acomodate editing on a tablet just because of the weight/size of a notebook with a decent screensize.
That's why they're putting the full Photoshop experience there rather than the parred down one they had. People have been requesting it so now they're delivering it to that market.
Slashdot Mirror
The comment wasn't just that one sentence. Try reading the rest.
Yes I did, if you want to make a reservation at a restaurant then why would the caller be making more calls than necessary? If the caller wants to purchase goods then why does it matter how that purchase is made wrt human vs robot caller? Of course time taken to answer a call costs money, but if you're making a sale then it's necessary to make money too. If you don't want the business then by all means hang up but I don't see why you would not want the business just because it was Duplex calling rather than the person it was calling on behalf of. What is it specifically you're objecting to here?
In a business setting, time taken to answer calls costs money.
But assuming it's a customer, why does it make a difference whether the custom comes from a human caller, automated caller, email, whatever...?
that is still is and always be a stupid comparison - 100 year old world wide companies to a young company.
So given Toyota was founded in 1934 and Ford more than 3 decades earlier in 1903 does that mean we can't compare them either?
ok for some reason that posted as AC :S
That's an interesting theory except the reality is that you can still run MS Office 95 on Windows 10 and this is from Microsoft!
Free software lets you run, inspect, share, and modify the software so you can be sure of what you're running.
Again, nice but not what anybody is really interested in doing.
It's always dangerous to make claims on behalf of how proprietary software works no matter how many time you've run that software and you therefore believe you're familiar with how that software operates.
Define "dangerous", you've made a lot of claims about what "could" happen but you could just as likely be compromised at the hardware level. If I were concerned about your theories then I wouldn't even bother with free software until I had verifiable hardware and firmware to run it on.
No I mean what's that got to do with what I said here?
So how is that related to what I said?
What do you think as a service means?
Everything that is outlined here about their update strategy.
Microsoft said THEMSELVES this is the route they are heading. 1 operating system receiving monthly paid updates. That's their goal THEY stated.
Where did "they" state this?
Yes that is one single niche example of a kickstarter project, I wouldn't think it's necessary to point out that that is far from the norm. More to the point it is for a fixed platform that doesn't need to be updated because it is so limited, confined and is not internet connected so there is no security issues for users to worry about.
Because you have the source, you can update it yourself
But it would never be worth my time to do, it is far cheaper to just upgrade to a supported machine than it is to spend my time (or money employing somebody) to keep the operating system up to date for old hardware.
Yes. Because I can run Linux on any throwaway desktop for a few dollars. Or a powerful desktop if I need power. A Mac laptop will be vastly more expensive for the amount of power in either case. It's inferior for both workloads. Can you think of any workload where it wouldn't be inferior? I can't.
You're not thinking very hard then, any time you take your laptop with you. You don't travel away from your home/office? That's what I mean when I say you're out of touch.
If I’m too poor to buy a cheap desktop, then why am I buying a very high priced Mac laptop?
Why would anybody want a cheap desktop when they can just run it natively on one system? It's not that it's expensive, it's that it's clunky and not at all portable. Dual booting is easy, boot times are just a couple of seconds nowadays and there's no need to waste resources by running one operating system on top of another.
Booting into Linux doean't seem to meet any practical need better than the alternatives.
I have gpu accelerated code encapsulated in a docker container (production running on cloud worker systems) that I want to run locally, I also need macOS. The hardware is perfectly capable of doing this so I just dual boot Linux. I also work with Vulkan quite a lot and while MoltenVK works quite well I found a bug that didn't make a lot of sense, turned out to be a bug in Metal that was easy to find because I could run the Vulkan code natively on the same system in Linux. In addition to those 2 cases I can also benchmark code across all 3 major OSs on consistent hardware.
Yes you might say these are niche cases but the world of computing is made up of niche cases and I can't list all of them nor should I be limited just because you aren't able to think of any.
Running desktop Linux on a laptop seems like a strange thing to do. If I want to use Linux software on my laptop, I will run the software remotely and display it on my laptop screen.
You're really saying that running multiple machines and remotely accessing them to run software sounds less strange to you? I think you might be a bit out of touch there, surely you don't actually believe that.
It's a problem because it sets a precedent for vendors dictating what operating system gets used on the hardware.
This same argument was used back when Microsoft introduced support for UEFI SecureBoot. Apparently this was a nefarious plan to prevent competition from other operating systems and we were on the cusp of a dystopian future where the only choice for non-Apple computers would be Microsoft. Yet here we are, many years later when even on the 6th generation of Microsoft's own hardware you can still flick off that SecureBoot UEFI switch and install Linux. Because if people buy their hardware and install something else on it they don't care.
If I buy a machine, I expect to be able to put whatever operating system I want on there -- after all, I own it.
You can, nothing is stopping you.
Seems like the most expensive way to get a Linux system.
What you need to realize is that most actual users are not religious about their operating systems, there is no one OS that does everything better than every other one so very often people dual boot - BootCamp is very popular on Mac not because people want a Windows machine but because they want a machine that can run Windows and macOS. This is the same case, only for Linux rather than (or in addition to) Windows.
Nope, this is the beginning of the end of Windows.
Yeah yeah, Year of the Linux Desktop is coming. Been hearing that for the better part of 3 decades now.
Now Windows has Linux running in it.
No it doesn't. All of these "Linux distributions" running on WSL in Windows are precisely not Linux at all, they are the distributions with Linux stripped out. Linux is an operating system kernel, WSL enables applications built to run on the Linux kernel to instead run on the Windows kernel.
IANAL
Not really a revelation there. How does any of that relate to the topic at all? Windows doesn't ship with any of this, it's an application that runs atop it just like any other application. Just because you run a GPLv3 program on Windows doesn't suddenly make Microsoft beholden to the terms of the license of the program you chose to run.
Year Of The LINUX Desktop!!!
Brought to you by your good friends at Microsoft!!
Just without the Linux bit.
... DOS which had horribly buggy implementation of the add-ons!
Nothing ever stopped you from using the alternatives.
some might wonder if the horrible quality of Internet Explorer wasn't actually an attempt to kill the whole internet in the same way.
The alternative to that was Navigator, which was horrendous and by the time we got to Navigator 4 it was almost completely unusable and just like IE it included its own non-standard extensions that led to the same sort of "Best Viewed with Netscape" banners that we saw with IE. IE was never a good browser but it was still the least worse.
If Netscape had won the browser wars we would never have had a Firefox and instead browsers would be a paid add-on with the internet being driven by Netscape's "standard". In the end both have died out and we have browsers competing to deliver standards compliance.
I wonder what kind of sleazy tricks Intel will come up with this time now that AMD seems to be getting ahead.
Make a better processor, just like they did last time this happened. They made a decision on their process shrink that didn't work out so that's put them behind while AMD made a better decision which has put them ahead. This happened with Intel's deep pipeline Netburst architecture while AMD had their really successful Athlon line, then Intel came out with their Core architecture and AMD flopped with their response to that.
These companies have to make reasonably long term bets on a particular strategy, sometimes it pays off and sometimes it doesn't but you can't get it right all the time.
This movement has always been an explicit "end around" the restrictions of copyright law.
It's the complete opposite of that, in fact "copyleft" explicitly requires and relies upon copyright law to enforce perpetual control over the distribution of a copyrighted work just like Hollywood and music industry do.
That's too bad. I only like to do nice things for people who do nice things, because those are the people making a better world, and I want to live in a better world.
Given that the users and contributors to the Linux kernel include the likes of Microsoft, Facebook and Google I take it you don't make a habit of contributing (or advocating for contributing) to it.
I don't know if that's really true. Android started open from the ground up, anyway
No, some bits of the Android operating system were open but no device that you ran it on was open and by the time you had customized the OS (with relevant drivers and such) in order to actually run it on hardware it was not open.
Yes, RMS wants the world to be perfect and perfect is the enemy of good. If the world is using 100% "immoral" software and I had an idea to use 95% open source and 5% closed source he'd tell me that my idea was still immoral and that it should be 100% or I should walk away. It doesn't matter if it's better than what was before. It doesn't matter if 95% puts food on the table and going 100% would make me homeless.
That's why the decision to adopt Linux is so strange. Instead of pursuing a kernel with copyright assignment to the FSF (to allow for re-licensing) that required derivative works (linking programs) to be "free" they chose and continue to advocate for one based on a "tit-for-tat" contribution strategy including an explicit licensing clause overriding the GPL that allows non-free software to interoperate.
People typically criticize Stallman based on style, because they can't touch him based on substance.
Well he's certainly right that mobile devices have been designed from the ground up to be non-free but really the proliferation of such devices is because nobody designed one from the ground up to be free. Apple and Google got there first, innovated and took the market, there's no reason FOSS couldn't have innovated with a free solution. Of course the precursors to the modern smartphone came from RIM and Microsoft, again no FOSS innovation there.
It's not particularly dissimilar to the desktop market either, how many desktop systems are there that are free from the ground up?
If you don't innovate and think ahead with market-disrupting ideas then you'll be relegated to an also-ran complaining about how other people are creating things in ways you don't like.
In a world where people can and will travel less because of advances in telecomunications I don't see media editing on the go as a expanding market..
That's ok, but now that people are less tied to their desks Adobe certainly does see that as a market worth tapping.
it's hard to imagine people changing their current workflow to acomodate editing on a tablet just because of the weight/size of a notebook with a decent screensize.
That's why they're putting the full Photoshop experience there rather than the parred down one they had. People have been requesting it so now they're delivering it to that market.