You made statements about history of what Canonical was like when it started. Those statements were false. I didn't insult you for using Ubuntu I was condescending if anything regarding your age or how long you've been in the community.
When I said "listen to users" I meant that they addressed the issues that prevented most people from doing day to day tasks on a Linux distro with minimal hassle.
Which isn't listening to users it is designing for user friendliness. In general the existing users of Linux did not want the kinds of changes Canonical was proposing and engaged in. For example they would have wanted an easier install system for Debian not a complete fork of Debian.
I'm not saying that Microsoft is perfect on their treatment. What I'm saying is that they have a track record of supporting patent reform. While the law is what it is, Microsoft is making use of it. To win a political cause you often ally with people who have different interest. My point is that don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Microsoft mostly agrees with us on patent reform. Absolutely they care more about patent trolls, but those reforms, like non transferability, are huge.
OK well first there are 8 equally sported desktops under Debian, 4 GUI and 4 window manager + accessory setups. There is no default at all. Debian has not had a particularly close relationship with Gnome for a decade, they have tried be be neutral. Interestingly Windowmaker is not even one of the 8 desktops they support. Debian Desktop does install a full GNUStep environment but the GNUStep packages don't follow the Debian desktop guidelines. So to even start this, the GNUStep packages need to be better maintained.
But mainly you are missing the point. Debian has no position on whether Gnome 2 or Gnome 3's way of configuring desktops is better or worse. Their goal is to provide a good quality Gnome 2 package and a good quality Gnome 3 package. Their goal is to provide canonical bugs about compilation problems on different hardware. Their goal is to figure out a canonical set of dependencies. Their goal is get the compilation scripts really clean.
It is because Debian is completely and totally uninterested in whether Gnome 2's way of doing things is better than Debian has the sort of credibility it has on other issues. When Debian broke with KDE they did so on legal grounds and the second KDE was legally complaint Debian worked to fully support them. While Debian had a better relationship with Gnome because of the licensing issues they wanted to step back from that quickly once those issues were resolved.
Gnome and KDE both run window managers they just run other stuff on top of them. The window managers you are listing were mostly pre-Linux with the exception of fvwm which was popular on Linux. I started Linux in '95 and never used any that primitive. The only time I've ever used twm was cygwin and when it was hardcoded into some xterms (physical dumb terminals) I was using in the late 80s. I'm not sure what you were doing but I think you made live header on yourself.
Wow, someone on Slashdot admits to taking the sucker's bet that is extended warranties? Do you just have a habit of frequently dropping your phones in the water or something?
Yes I believe 2x. And I've had 2 lost phones (one mine, one my daughter). When I had by Blackberry Pearl I had about 4 brakeages because of the power port going. I've made a huge profit on the insurance over the years.
No Android application that you get through the Android Market can do anything to 'change the effect of your system' either unless you specifically give it permission, and every permission they require is listed right up front. I'll grant that some are overly broad, but at least you get to see them, whereas AFAIK they are completely invisible to iOS users.
Well it is invisible on iOS because it doesn't exist. And overly broad is a problem. That's what I face with my main machine. I have to give the app administrative privileges to do what it wants to install (and frequently to run). I love the fact that the rule is no changes. It means that app designers can't take short cuts or do anything against my will.
As far as having a bypass... I think in theory that might be OK but in practice it is likely for the best they don't. Except on Linux or things like Macports I just don't get enough detail to make a choice about what these apps want to do.
1) Linux is over 60% of the server market 2) Linux is around 92-97% of the super computing market 3) Linux is around 40% of the embedded OS space something like 3x the size of the next largest player, and the Linux kernel doesn't even support RTOS 4) Linux is the 2nd most popular virtual operating system on mainframes 5) LInux is doing fantastic in mobile phones and is around 40% of the smart phone market, expanding into every area and is likely to be the dominant OS
Linux is around 1% of desktops. Why would anyone focus on the desktop market given all that far easier lower hanging fruit? Yes there is potential there, to fight a really hard battle against Microsoft and OSX who both do a fantastic job. Or throw in the towel for a decade or two, go for piecemeal getting some open source on Windows and OSX and focus on the other markets which seem much more amenable.
Who are you kidding. The "arrogant Gnome assholes" are funded by RedHat who pays for Gnome and work for the Gnome foundation. Mint doesn't have the resources to do 1% of what they do.
Mint can switch from Gnome, but they cannot replace it.
I agree. Though I wonder how much the fall off is lack of general interest news about Linux. The applications getting lots of work now are very specialized. I'd love to see discussions on/. about things like groupware.
I agree with you. I use Knoppix quite a bit and have really enjoyed it there. But then again I rarely want much more than a window manager. I actually suspect Gnome 3 would be fine for me.
I don't have good predictions for tablets. I'm not sure where they go long term. As for kiosks, I think those get used for seconds to minutes unless we are talking about something else. As for web applications those aren't OSes but a style of delivering applications.
Canonical wasn't listening to the Linux users of the time when it started. It recruited a new group of users and created its own niches. My guess is you started with Canonical
Gnome isn't a lightweight UI. What you need is really not even a GUI but more like a window manager, I.e. below a GUI all together. Essentially you need far less than a GUI so the issues others are having wouldn't matter.
Maybe not. A computer is a device someone interacts with for complex tasks 8+ hrs a day. A phone is a device someone interacts with for ad-hoc tasks possibly as little as 10 minutes a day (excluding time actually talking on the phone).
I could see those two interfaces never converging.
Libertarianism is another dimension, that really has nothing to do with what makes sense in this context. In the real world these are major industries and the government does spend money on regulating and helping to advance major industries.
SCO lawsuit was much more questionably than Apple's and they were suing someone completely uninvolved. If Apple were suing General Motors for using engine technology that Apple really owned in Android that would be comparable to SCO.
I think they are right. Something like Wikipedia's solution might be the right one, where putting up images, songs, videos requires a statement of where you got them from. Essentially that's answering the big question in a DMCA takedown in advance: I got this from X and believe I have a license to use it because of Y (including I created it).
If we had semi-reasonable rules regarding degree of infringement and looked at things like "intent" then I could see a system like that working. Right now content producers can't enforce copyright effectively. The cost of policing is simply too high. At the same time, the penalties for minor violations or inadvertent violations are too high.
Lower the penalties, create a neutral 3rd party to regulate copyright content and I think everyone could be better off. Of course the obscene length of time for copyright content and the expansive view of derived works doesn't help either. It undermines the legitimacy of copyright.
I think everyone agrees we need a software specific patent system for software. Congress can just empower the patent office to hold hearings and create proposals or create a subcommittee or...
This isn't the first time the US has had to draft complex legislation.
I think you are mixing up patent trolling with general patent enforcement, i.e. getting the insult wrong.
But... getting to your point. Microsoft seems to want some limits on what can be patented. They agree the patents are ridiculous and they agree that methods not ideas should be patentable and that there were major failures. As far as Linux/Android, yes they are competing under the existing laws.
Well obviously Microsoft is mainly concerned with patent trolls since those are the entities that got them. That being said, patent trolls are a major problem for most people supporting patent reform.
As far as ending all patents he does seem to want to make the limitations explicit, "It's not the idea or the final outcome that is patentable; it's the particular way in which the outcome is brought about. So two different means of getting to the same end would be independently patentable."
Slashdot Mirror
Demon.
You made statements about history of what Canonical was like when it started. Those statements were false. I didn't insult you for using Ubuntu I was condescending if anything regarding your age or how long you've been in the community.
Which isn't listening to users it is designing for user friendliness. In general the existing users of Linux did not want the kinds of changes Canonical was proposing and engaged in. For example they would have wanted an easier install system for Debian not a complete fork of Debian.
I'm not saying that Microsoft is perfect on their treatment. What I'm saying is that they have a track record of supporting patent reform. While the law is what it is, Microsoft is making use of it. To win a political cause you often ally with people who have different interest. My point is that don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Microsoft mostly agrees with us on patent reform. Absolutely they care more about patent trolls, but those reforms, like non transferability, are huge.
OK well first there are 8 equally sported desktops under Debian, 4 GUI and 4 window manager + accessory setups. There is no default at all. Debian has not had a particularly close relationship with Gnome for a decade, they have tried be be neutral. Interestingly Windowmaker is not even one of the 8 desktops they support. Debian Desktop does install a full GNUStep environment but the GNUStep packages don't follow the Debian desktop guidelines. So to even start this, the GNUStep packages need to be better maintained.
But mainly you are missing the point. Debian has no position on whether Gnome 2 or Gnome 3's way of configuring desktops is better or worse. Their goal is to provide a good quality Gnome 2 package and a good quality Gnome 3 package. Their goal is to provide canonical bugs about compilation problems on different hardware. Their goal is to figure out a canonical set of dependencies. Their goal is get the compilation scripts really clean.
It is because Debian is completely and totally uninterested in whether Gnome 2's way of doing things is better than Debian has the sort of credibility it has on other issues. When Debian broke with KDE they did so on legal grounds and the second KDE was legally complaint Debian worked to fully support them. While Debian had a better relationship with Gnome because of the licensing issues they wanted to step back from that quickly once those issues were resolved.
Gnome and KDE both run window managers they just run other stuff on top of them. The window managers you are listing were mostly pre-Linux with the exception of fvwm which was popular on Linux. I started Linux in '95 and never used any that primitive. The only time I've ever used twm was cygwin and when it was hardcoded into some xterms (physical dumb terminals) I was using in the late 80s. I'm not sure what you were doing but I think you made live header on yourself.
Yes I believe 2x. And I've had 2 lost phones (one mine, one my daughter). When I had by Blackberry Pearl I had about 4 brakeages because of the power port going. I've made a huge profit on the insurance over the years.
Well it is invisible on iOS because it doesn't exist. And overly broad is a problem. That's what I face with my main machine. I have to give the app administrative privileges to do what it wants to install (and frequently to run). I love the fact that the rule is no changes. It means that app designers can't take short cuts or do anything against my will.
As far as having a bypass... I think in theory that might be OK but in practice it is likely for the best they don't. Except on Linux or things like Macports I just don't get enough detail to make a choice about what these apps want to do.
You know you've ranted this stuff before but...
1) Linux is over 60% of the server market
2) Linux is around 92-97% of the super computing market
3) Linux is around 40% of the embedded OS space something like 3x the size of the next largest player, and the Linux kernel doesn't even support RTOS
4) Linux is the 2nd most popular virtual operating system on mainframes
5) LInux is doing fantastic in mobile phones and is around 40% of the smart phone market, expanding into every area and is likely to be the dominant OS
Linux is around 1% of desktops. Why would anyone focus on the desktop market given all that far easier lower hanging fruit? Yes there is potential there, to fight a really hard battle against Microsoft and OSX who both do a fantastic job. Or throw in the towel for a decade or two, go for piecemeal getting some open source on Windows and OSX and focus on the other markets which seem much more amenable.
Who are you kidding. The "arrogant Gnome assholes" are funded by RedHat who pays for Gnome and work for the Gnome foundation. Mint doesn't have the resources to do 1% of what they do.
Mint can switch from Gnome, but they cannot replace it.
I agree. Though I wonder how much the fall off is lack of general interest news about Linux. The applications getting lots of work now are very specialized. I'd love to see discussions on /. about things like groupware.
I agree with you. I use Knoppix quite a bit and have really enjoyed it there. But then again I rarely want much more than a window manager. I actually suspect Gnome 3 would be fine for me.
I don't have good predictions for tablets. I'm not sure where they go long term. As for kiosks, I think those get used for seconds to minutes unless we are talking about something else. As for web applications those aren't OSes but a style of delivering applications.
Canonical wasn't listening to the Linux users of the time when it started. It recruited a new group of users and created its own niches. My guess is you started with Canonical
Debian doesn't send that kind of message. Debian has not lobbied projects regarding their direction in their existence and is not going to do so.
Debian is respected because they stay out of exactly this kind of squabble.
Gnome isn't a lightweight UI. What you need is really not even a GUI but more like a window manager, I.e. below a GUI all together. Essentially you need far less than a GUI so the issues others are having wouldn't matter.
Long term these hybrid OSes are tough to maintain. We used to have KDE / Gnome hybrids on Linux, but Redhat, Mandrake... got tired of it.
Maybe not. A computer is a device someone interacts with for complex tasks 8+ hrs a day. A phone is a device someone interacts with for ad-hoc tasks possibly as little as 10 minutes a day (excluding time actually talking on the phone).
I could see those two interfaces never converging.
Libertarianism is another dimension, that really has nothing to do with what makes sense in this context. In the real world these are major industries and the government does spend money on regulating and helping to advance major industries.
I have the 4S no network problems at all, no service issues.... I'm not sure what you talking about regarding dropping Net connections
SCO lawsuit was much more questionably than Apple's and they were suing someone completely uninvolved. If Apple were suing General Motors for using engine technology that Apple really owned in Android that would be comparable to SCO.
I think they are right. Something like Wikipedia's solution might be the right one, where putting up images, songs, videos requires a statement of where you got them from. Essentially that's answering the big question in a DMCA takedown in advance: I got this from X and believe I have a license to use it because of Y (including I created it).
If we had semi-reasonable rules regarding degree of infringement and looked at things like "intent" then I could see a system like that working. Right now content producers can't enforce copyright effectively. The cost of policing is simply too high. At the same time, the penalties for minor violations or inadvertent violations are too high.
Lower the penalties, create a neutral 3rd party to regulate copyright content and I think everyone could be better off. Of course the obscene length of time for copyright content and the expansive view of derived works doesn't help either. It undermines the legitimacy of copyright.
Reread the above. This happened in September, they did in fact pass the first round and Obama signed it into law.
No $5-15 per phone doesn't come close to covering what Microsoft has lost to patent trolls.
Well that's hard to prove, since you end up playing "what if" and alternative history.
I think everyone agrees we need a software specific patent system for software. Congress can just empower the patent office to hold hearings and create proposals or create a subcommittee or ...
This isn't the first time the US has had to draft complex legislation.
I think you are mixing up patent trolling with general patent enforcement, i.e. getting the insult wrong.
But... getting to your point. Microsoft seems to want some limits on what can be patented. They agree the patents are ridiculous and they agree that methods not ideas should be patentable and that there were major failures. As far as Linux/Android, yes they are competing under the existing laws.
Well obviously Microsoft is mainly concerned with patent trolls since those are the entities that got them. That being said, patent trolls are a major problem for most people supporting patent reform.
As far as ending all patents he does seem to want to make the limitations explicit, "It's not the idea or the final outcome that is patentable; it's the particular way in which the outcome is brought about. So two different means of getting to the same end would be independently patentable."