The question is what the vast majority of open source software is.
On OSX / Macports most of the stuff is ported from Linux. Darwin itself is heavily BSD. Android is heavily GPL as is the software ecosystem. IOS doesn't have much open source.
And yes GPL is lousy if you want to sell software with some minor exceptions, like dual licensing.
And lets point out that the GPL came out of exactly this situation. The way commercial vendors took X and made proprietary Xs so that the MIT version was essentially worthless as anything but a spec.
Apple is fine with GPL code providing you have copyright. What Apple has refused to do is allow GPL code to be distributed by license holders with just a generic GPL license. Which isn't too much different than their stand on most commercial apps they distribute. Further the Apple Store is not banning from the platform.
I don't know about Microsoft, but my guess is you got that one wrong as well.
-- This is why the "year of the linux desktop" never comes.
The year of the linux desktop arrived over a decade ago. The second most popular Unix desktop is a free variant, Linux, which was the original goal to offer an alternative to Unix desktops. The most common server OS, a huge player in the embedded space and the dominant OS for supercomputing ain't nothing to sneeze at either.
I don't know of any UNIX which has been as successful on this many fronts. Desktop is hard because the first and 2nd place commercial offerings are excellent.
There are people who are doing life for scaring people to the extent they killed themselves. For example Bryant Jerome Clark was robbing Hilda Blackburn her fiance intervened with a gun and was a lousy shot and hit Hilda. Clark got charged with felony murder.
It gets proved all the time. People often discuss their motivations for crimes with others. Even when they don't hate crimes in particular generally require lots of actions to make the motive clear.
The purpose of hate crime legislation is because as a society we have seen that systematic terrorism against groups is more damaging than (from a macro perspective) random violence. We lose more people on any given month in highway accidents than we lost on 9/11. 9/11 did far more damage to the country. By the 20th century most years the klan lynched under 100 people, which as a matter of population had little impact on the African American population.
Perfectly legal acts combined with illegal acts can be consider actions in furtherance of a crime. For example driving the car with the money away from the bank is still a crime even though taking that exact same route for another purpose isn't.
The prosecution is going to have to prove a lot here. I'd rather they stop playing games and charge people engaged in bullying that leads to a death with involuntary manslaughter.
That's a defense. If he can prove that his actions were specific to his roommate and not a generalized attack on gays then it isn't a hate crime. I assume the prosecution is alleging that this was a generalized hatred for gays and the roommate was just the essentially random target of it.
I agree that generic drivers are capable of that. I used to use Adobe's wonderful generic driver for windows and get precisely that result.
And you are right about standard fonts, once a font has standardized everything is fine. But what about non standard fonts, while they are standardizing?
As far as computations curves are computed on the printer and often inside of data structures. But the real issue is the non generic driver, the application specific postscript. Lots of postscript emitters use postscript to resolve document complexity. So that application pushes its own data structures through. Look at any 15 year old discussion of rip-times.
That's the reason I buy laser printers with industry standard print languages.
As for drivers for printers and scanners and performance. At this point relative to computers printers and scanners are achingly slow. There is no reason to worry about efficiency.
Postscript is proprietary. But there are languages like it which are open standards.
The big issue with postscript as a printer file format is that the printer makes runtime choices. So for example printer fonts are used and fonts don't need to be included. Which effects both the look of the page and the spacing. Because computations can be done on the printer print times with postscript are inconsistent. That is why in commercial environments postscript is ripped to something like IPDS before being sent to an actual physical printer.
So the very flexibility that makes postscript "driverless" is also what makes it a poor choice for document consistency. Adobe itself saw the problem in that when it switched the page definition standard to pdf which was from a printer language perspective a downgrade.
I suspect you didn't do much printing in the 1980s. Even a dozen years ago printing required manually mixing drivers and manipulating LPD settings. I had to do all sorts of preprocessing from the command line, and if I could get it to work reliable intermix it with LPD.
In the early 1990s, I had to be careful about rip times and queue jobs coordinating between the ripping and the printer.
In the 1980s you basically didn't have graphics and had to use continuous feed paper tearing it after you used it. Because font sizes were large, greenbar was common.
No printers are not stuck in the 1980s. And below have responded about how what you are asking for already is the norm.
I'm reading this it doesn't sound like Linux vs. OSX so much as Apple having declared a new standard deprecating the old standard. Apple is typically aggressive about that sort of thing moreso than Microsoft. I think a fair description is that Apple is aggressively pushing the new standard, while the Linux community would prefer a slightly less aggressive push.
For example avahi (the Linux equivalent of Bonjour) will now be essentially mandatory for CUPS discovery, unlike before where CUPS systems would discover each other independently. Making Bonjour / avahi mandatory is not breaking Linux, Linux has avahi every bit as much as OSX has Bonjour, it is simply moving CUPS aggressively towards a situation where discovery uses the new standard not the ad-hoc CUPS standard. (as an aside new versions of avahi using DNS-SD are required).
The Linux community has a long tradition of complex dependency chains for full functionality. This is more unusual for BSD than for Linux and IMHO not really harmful to either. I think there is an interesting argument to be had about how aggressive to be about deprecating standards in the Unix software ecosystem and how much software should be independent. But this post confuses far to many issues to be helpful.
I agree. But China is a dictatorship. Unions haven't tended to do well in dictatorships, except for those dictatorships that built themselves on union support. Uncontrolled they are too much of a threat to the regime.
The reason that Gnome 3 was created was there were certain features they wanted to add which they completely lacked the hooks for in Gnome 2, for example an integrated notification system. So if you grant those features are worth a restructuring of the entire desktop and all the major applications that's what drove the creation of Gnome 3.
Once you are have decided you are going to redo everything that creates an opportunity to rethink. Gnome had always been focused on naive computer users, so it was keeping with their mission, though not their customer base to aim for a simpler desktop aimed at end users who are having trouble with Windows, Mac... and like interfaces like on the iPad which are more directed and more limited.
The ribbon is a good analogy, but this goes even further in that a few versions from now your workflow must eventually change. "Save as" creates a connection between one or more OS level file (i.e. a stream of sequential extents identified by a name / position in a hierarchical index) and an collection of application data. As the underlying system for application data gets more complex there won't be a stream of sequential extents. I don't know how far / fast Apple is going to move towards a database filesystem.
I'd suggest you get rid of the notion of "save" in the old sense entirely. Apple wants you out of the business of thinking about application data in terms of files. Rather just think in terms of the data. Which versions of the data do you want retained in the stream and marked? Just don't think in terms of the old paradigm. Think about this the way you would something like files inside of mail.app where you don't care where on the disk various files are and how they are grouped, it isn't your problem.
Eventually it is going to be too confusing for novices as the system gets more complex. "Save as" creates a connection between one or more OS level file (i.e. a stream of sequential extents identified by a name / position in a hierarchical index) and an collection of application data. As the underlying system for application data gets more complex there won't be a stream of sequential extents.
Slashdot Mirror
The question is what the vast majority of open source software is.
On OSX / Macports most of the stuff is ported from Linux. Darwin itself is heavily BSD.
Android is heavily GPL as is the software ecosystem.
IOS doesn't have much open source.
And yes GPL is lousy if you want to sell software with some minor exceptions, like dual licensing.
And to me.
Freedom means freedom all up and down the chain. Not for the people one step removed from the original source.
And lets point out that the GPL came out of exactly this situation. The way commercial vendors took X and made proprietary Xs so that the MIT version was essentially worthless as anything but a spec.
Oh really OSX is open source. Great where can I find the source code for Aqua?
Yep. You got it. GPL is not free to do what you want with it. It is free for you to help build a community of GPL software.
In other words it is designed to prevent people like you from creating software which is not free for your end users.
Apple is fine with GPL code providing you have copyright. What Apple has refused to do is allow GPL code to be distributed by license holders with just a generic GPL license. Which isn't too much different than their stand on most commercial apps they distribute. Further the Apple Store is not banning from the platform.
I don't know about Microsoft, but my guess is you got that one wrong as well.
Every license that exists has that freedom. Anything beyond that isn't supported by copyright law.
-- This is why the "year of the linux desktop" never comes.
The year of the linux desktop arrived over a decade ago. The second most popular Unix desktop is a free variant, Linux, which was the original goal to offer an alternative to Unix desktops. The most common server OS, a huge player in the embedded space and the dominant OS for supercomputing ain't nothing to sneeze at either.
I don't know of any UNIX which has been as successful on this many fronts. Desktop is hard because the first and 2nd place commercial offerings are excellent.
Debian is not "cherry picking". It is perhaps picking based on a criteria, like non-trivial number of users.
There are people who are doing life for scaring people to the extent they killed themselves. For example Bryant Jerome Clark was robbing Hilda Blackburn her fiance intervened with a gun and was a lousy shot and hit Hilda. Clark got charged with felony murder.
It gets proved all the time. People often discuss their motivations for crimes with others. Even when they don't hate crimes in particular generally require lots of actions to make the motive clear.
The purpose of hate crime legislation is because as a society we have seen that systematic terrorism against groups is more damaging than (from a macro perspective) random violence. We lose more people on any given month in highway accidents than we lost on 9/11. 9/11 did far more damage to the country. By the 20th century most years the klan lynched under 100 people, which as a matter of population had little impact on the African American population.
Perfectly legal acts combined with illegal acts can be consider actions in furtherance of a crime. For example driving the car with the money away from the bank is still a crime even though taking that exact same route for another purpose isn't.
The prosecution is going to have to prove a lot here. I'd rather they stop playing games and charge people engaged in bullying that leads to a death with involuntary manslaughter.
That's a defense. If he can prove that his actions were specific to his roommate and not a generalized attack on gays then it isn't a hate crime. I assume the prosecution is alleging that this was a generalized hatred for gays and the roommate was just the essentially random target of it.
A hate crime is a crime designed to be against the group rather than the individual.
So taping a woman for some reason specific to her is not a hate crime.
Taping a woman because of a generalized hatred of women is a hate crime.
Then it doesn't matter. In both cases you would not run the auto configuration application. Nothing changes.
I agree that generic drivers are capable of that. I used to use Adobe's wonderful generic driver for windows and get precisely that result.
And you are right about standard fonts, once a font has standardized everything is fine. But what about non standard fonts, while they are standardizing?
As far as computations curves are computed on the printer and often inside of data structures. But the real issue is the non generic driver, the application specific postscript. Lots of postscript emitters use postscript to resolve document complexity. So that application pushes its own data structures through. Look at any 15 year old discussion of rip-times.
That's the reason I buy laser printers with industry standard print languages.
As for drivers for printers and scanners and performance. At this point relative to computers printers and scanners are achingly slow. There is no reason to worry about efficiency.
Postscript is proprietary. But there are languages like it which are open standards.
The big issue with postscript as a printer file format is that the printer makes runtime choices. So for example printer fonts are used and fonts don't need to be included. Which effects both the look of the page and the spacing. Because computations can be done on the printer print times with postscript are inconsistent. That is why in commercial environments postscript is ripped to something like IPDS before being sent to an actual physical printer.
So the very flexibility that makes postscript "driverless" is also what makes it a poor choice for document consistency. Adobe itself saw the problem in that when it switched the page definition standard to pdf which was from a printer language perspective a downgrade.
I suspect you didn't do much printing in the 1980s. Even a dozen years ago printing required manually mixing drivers and manipulating LPD settings. I had to do all sorts of preprocessing from the command line, and if I could get it to work reliable intermix it with LPD.
In the early 1990s, I had to be careful about rip times and queue jobs coordinating between the ripping and the printer.
In the 1980s you basically didn't have graphics and had to use continuous feed paper tearing it after you used it. Because font sizes were large, greenbar was common.
No printers are not stuck in the 1980s. And below have responded about how what you are asking for already is the norm.
I'm reading this it doesn't sound like Linux vs. OSX so much as Apple having declared a new standard deprecating the old standard. Apple is typically aggressive about that sort of thing moreso than Microsoft. I think a fair description is that Apple is aggressively pushing the new standard, while the Linux community would prefer a slightly less aggressive push.
For example avahi (the Linux equivalent of Bonjour) will now be essentially mandatory for CUPS discovery, unlike before where CUPS systems would discover each other independently. Making Bonjour / avahi mandatory is not breaking Linux, Linux has avahi every bit as much as OSX has Bonjour, it is simply moving CUPS aggressively towards a situation where discovery uses the new standard not the ad-hoc CUPS standard. (as an aside new versions of avahi using DNS-SD are required).
The Linux community has a long tradition of complex dependency chains for full functionality. This is more unusual for BSD than for Linux and IMHO not really harmful to either. I think there is an interesting argument to be had about how aggressive to be about deprecating standards in the Unix software ecosystem and how much software should be independent. But this post confuses far to many issues to be helpful.
I agree. But China is a dictatorship. Unions haven't tended to do well in dictatorships, except for those dictatorships that built themselves on union support. Uncontrolled they are too much of a threat to the regime.
Mangu
Since you never got a real answer....
The reason that Gnome 3 was created was there were certain features they wanted to add which they completely lacked the hooks for in Gnome 2, for example an integrated notification system. So if you grant those features are worth a restructuring of the entire desktop and all the major applications that's what drove the creation of Gnome 3.
Once you are have decided you are going to redo everything that creates an opportunity to rethink. Gnome had always been focused on naive computer users, so it was keeping with their mission, though not their customer base to aim for a simpler desktop aimed at end users who are having trouble with Windows, Mac... and like interfaces like on the iPad which are more directed and more limited.
The ribbon is a good analogy, but this goes even further in that a few versions from now your workflow must eventually change. "Save as" creates a connection between one or more OS level file (i.e. a stream of sequential extents identified by a name / position in a hierarchical index) and an collection of application data. As the underlying system for application data gets more complex there won't be a stream of sequential extents. I don't know how far / fast Apple is going to move towards a database filesystem.
I'd suggest you get rid of the notion of "save" in the old sense entirely. Apple wants you out of the business of thinking about application data in terms of files. Rather just think in terms of the data. Which versions of the data do you want retained in the stream and marked? Just don't think in terms of the old paradigm. Think about this the way you would something like files inside of mail.app where you don't care where on the disk various files are and how they are grouped, it isn't your problem.
Eventually it is going to be too confusing for novices as the system gets more complex. "Save as" creates a connection between one or more OS level file (i.e. a stream of sequential extents identified by a name / position in a hierarchical index) and an collection of application data. As the underlying system for application data gets more complex there won't be a stream of sequential extents.