Like all Linux desktops, Ubuntu has limitations. It lacks applications such as Photoshop, Framemaker, Pagemaker, Visio, Access, Quickbooks, a PDF converter, legal DVD players and most importantly income tax preparation software. Without those applications ported directly to Linux, Ubuntu remains a mid-level desktop.
I won't even go deep into the Linux is a kernel so shouldn't have any of those apps reasoning, and assume he's speaking of the user land, tipically a variant of GNU/Linux or even some *BSD with a GNOME or KDE.
No... I'll simply say...
The GIMP satisfy virtually all "photoshop" needs (maybe not some small part in some graphics shops, but otherwise you're bitching without real knowledge).
I don't do much in the area of Framemaker or Pagemaker, but most desktops will do fine with the functionality present in OpenOffice.org Draw
Visio has some nice features, but I've lived for years with Dia managing a network of almost 200 equipments in a variety of multi-level networks
Access is b0rked by design. PostgreSQL and MySQL are on Enterprise level, and they're at your feet on most GNU/Linux distributions
PDF Converters? Have you tried printing? Go there. Notice the Create a PDF Document option...
Legal DVD players? Write your congressmang, senator, whatever favorite politic of choice and influence and tell them how wrong DMCA is.
You confuse the purpose of Free Software with being Free just for being Free.
The purpose of Free Software is to provide _ALL_USERS_ 4 basic freedoms. Not just some... as such certain restrictions would have to apply.
Enter the GNU GPL
The GNU GPL is a Free Software license that fills the ring making it an unbreakable circuit of Freedom by stopping people from removing Freedom to anyone. This is a basic point of the GPL: Freedom for all, and that means that uses that mean removing Freedom are against the spirit of the GPL even if they are legally valid under GPLv2.
Enter the GNU GPL version 3
The new installment of the GNU GPL aims to close some loopholes against user Freedom, like better anti-patent and anti-DRM oppression regimes. The purpose is not about source code and it's uses but about user's Freedoms.
Finally
V3 is saying you can use the software in any way you want, but you can't add DRM into it for your own program that you want to distribute
Your assessment that this breaks Freedom 0 is false on all accounts.
Freedom 0 is about running for any purpose. The abstract term use that you used is not about running the program but about publication of modified versions (Freedom 3).
Although at first sight V3 _seems_ to break Freedom 3, it breaks it in the very same way V2 already _seems_ to break. It imposes restrictions on the act of redistribution that forbid removing Freedoms to others.
Who cares about a standard Digital Restrictions Management system? DRM sucks big time. If it isn't a standard but instead it's a lot of small incompatible systems all the better for us consumers.
This looks more like Apple leveraging on their near monopoly on digital audio players in order to bring their competitors down on their knees.
You know... like Microsoft leveraging on their near monopoly to force down your throat Internet Explorer, MSN, Media Player, Anti-vírus, personal accounting, etc...
Even though it's a sweet irony, it's just as bad. By the way, I know very few in Portugal who have an iPod versus other brands, is this monopoly only in the USA?
IBM or SUN is A LOT HARDER to setup in an extreme minimum install than a GNU/Linux or *BSD machine.
I have to disagree. I'm an AIX & Linux system administrator in a large, anal-retentive US corporation, who's been responsible for building and automating standard installation configurations for both AIX and Red Hat Enterprise operating systems.
And here you repeat their exact same mistake (I hope it's not intentional) of thinking that GNU/Linux is only RHEL or SuSE Enterprise, or whatever big and popular distribution you can find.
Where's Do Your Own zOS? Where's AIX on a floppy? Where's AIX in a a WiFi Router?
Your claims are laughable, you're just another victim of corporation standardizing. You DON'T HAVE TO USE RHEL unless you want to play the blame game or have your hand hold like a blabbering fool.
Yes, but you should always make a child aware of the existence of Microsoft Windows as an operating system used by many people every day. That way, he or she will not be shocked when they encounter people who lead this alternative lifestyle.
Yes, but you should always make a child aware of the existence of the Devil's Hell as a place many people go to every day. That way, he or she will not be shocked when they encounter people who tell them to lead that particularly colourful lifestyle.
BUG: In short, they believe in DRM, and that Free Content and Free Software is sub-standard and should NOT be allowed to expand to the point of becoming the dominant model.
They DO BELIEVE IN DRM and they explecitly say so:
To ensure ongoing innovation, Digital Rights*cof*Restrictions*cof* Management (DRM) development and
deployment must remain voluntary and market-driven.
Of course they are voluntary, did Sony install a rootkit in your computer against their will? Of course not, they even thought you didn't need to bother about it because you didn't know what it was...
Is it other than market driven? The editors practically control the market. I find it harder and harder to buy Music in an unencumbered format...
The rights of creators
and the protection of their intellectual property require permission and compensations.
These shall not be played off against the rights of citizens and society to have access to
a common heritage of knowledge and a vast sea of new information.
Quality contents should pay back their creators; and not just the intermediaries. They
ought not to be nor should they be seen as being available for free. Such appearances
are demeaning to creators and producers, authors and developers, and they deny them
the fruits of their efforts and work.
Anyone who wishes so should be free to share the outcomes of his or her creative
efforts for no pay, but no one should be forced to do so or accept this as the dominant
model. At the same time, success and market power should not be used to dominate
and restrict the free exchange of ideas.
In short, they believe in DRM, and that Free Content and Free Software is sub-standard and should be allowed to expand to the point of becoming the dominant model.
Don't be fooled by those "market power should not be used to dominate and restrict the free exchange of ideas", this phrase can mean of anyone but established content providers.
Immediately followed by...
ICT x Monopolies = Digital Divide
Monopolies undercut creativity. State monopolies and censorship strangle creativity in
expression and in the production and exchange of ideas and opinions. Market monopo-
lies and domination stifle creativity in innovation and in the production and exchange
of goods and services. Securing the opening up of societies and markets means also to
prevent the growth of new monopolies.
This document is moronic and it's authors are nothing but paying lip service to their sponsors, Corporate America.
No, you're dumb. Yes they could have made money out of it even if it was GPL'ed. Selling the boxed copies of GPL'ed software + all those nifty proprietary game packs (the levels, the scenery, etc...) is what's really great.
the lock on your front door isn't to keep determined criminals out. It is there to keep the average Joe from just walking in on a whim and stealing your stuff. This is the same philosophy as a lot of security mechanisms, and I don't think DRM is much different.
Wrong. This is about your house refusing to let you enter your own home if you bring inside a copied CD.
It's called obnoxious greed, and Microsoft is simply making sure the RIAA's and MPAA's out there will help them make sure Windows is the only legal OS in time:
All you need is DMCA (or EUCD+IPRED1[+IPRED2])+ some hardware
Ok, maybe to you I am a fanatic, but to me you're simply waiving rights that you do have for the sake of a minor and utterly unnecessary convenience.
I could understand if you were giving up your rights for something important, like someone else's life, but like this? For such a shallow motive? yeesh...
Please don't you even dare to compary the importance of fancy conviniency with loss of freedom.
I don't accept Java's license, so it's illegal for me to have a copy.
Besides, google maps don't use "just html", they prove there'se no need for java or flash or whatever for such matters. Simple use html, javascript, Portable Network Graphics and cascading stylesheets in interesting and innovative ways, and you get everything with maximum compatibility.
google maps work almost on any browser, java does not. So I guess sites depending on Java and flash prefr to blindly set aside with a reasonable percentage of web-users. Too bad... for those sites.
Slashdot Mirror
No... I'll simply say...
Like people who care about such important things have a terribly contagious lethal disease.
That sucks big time and sounds like a-moral freaks who would sell their moms (not that I buy that point of view, but it sure as hell sounds like it).
If you want to make sure you have 24 vlans in an wide-lan to have 1 gbps each then it's likely cheaper to have multi-gbps cards and cables.
It's called DRM - Digital Restrictions Management. What you read today may be (if at all) read differently tomorrow.
The purpose of Free Software is to provide _ALL_USERS_ 4 basic freedoms. Not just some... as such certain restrictions would have to apply.
Enter the GNU GPL
The GNU GPL is a Free Software license that fills the ring making it an unbreakable circuit of Freedom by stopping people from removing Freedom to anyone. This is a basic point of the GPL: Freedom for all, and that means that uses that mean removing Freedom are against the spirit of the GPL even if they are legally valid under GPLv2.
Enter the GNU GPL version 3
The new installment of the GNU GPL aims to close some loopholes against user Freedom, like better anti-patent and anti-DRM oppression regimes. The purpose is not about source code and it's uses but about user's Freedoms.
Finally
Your assessment that this breaks Freedom 0 is false on all accounts.
Freedom 0 is about running for any purpose. The abstract term use that you used is not about running the program but about publication of modified versions (Freedom 3).
Although at first sight V3 _seems_ to break Freedom 3, it breaks it in the very same way V2 already _seems_ to break. It imposes restrictions on the act of redistribution that forbid removing Freedoms to others.
Who cares about a standard Digital Restrictions Management system? DRM sucks big time. If it isn't a standard but instead it's a lot of small incompatible systems all the better for us consumers.
This looks more like Apple leveraging on their near monopoly on digital audio players in order to bring their competitors down on their knees.
You know... like Microsoft leveraging on their near monopoly to force down your throat Internet Explorer, MSN, Media Player, Anti-vírus, personal accounting, etc...
Even though it's a sweet irony, it's just as bad. By the way, I know very few in Portugal who have an iPod versus other brands, is this monopoly only in the USA?
Where's Do Your Own zOS? Where's AIX on a floppy? Where's AIX in a a WiFi Router?
Your claims are laughable, you're just another victim of corporation standardizing. You DON'T HAVE TO USE RHEL unless you want to play the blame game or have your hand hold like a blabbering fool.
IBM or SUN is A LOT HARDER to setup in an extreme minimum install than a GNU/Linux or *BSD machine.
Any saying otherwise completely disregard both facts and how easy/hard it can in be done on such and such system.
From what little I understood...
.WMV file, if it doesn't, it would be illegal to use it.
Imagine you use Firefox to download a DRM'ed Windows Media Video file.
Firefox would have to respect the copy prohibition embedded in that
Now imagine Firefox DOES respect the copy prohibition. Since Firefox is Free Software, it can be modified so it WON'T respect the prohibition.
As such, it would be illegal to use it.
These two situations are an example of what that law would turn illegal.
If you dig to a lower level, maybe the network card driver should analise the content, I think.
BUG: In short, they believe in DRM, and that Free Content and Free Software is sub-standard and should NOT be allowed to expand to the point of becoming the dominant model.
Of course they are voluntary, did Sony install a rootkit in your computer against their will? Of course not, they even thought you didn't need to bother about it because you didn't know what it was...
Is it other than market driven? The editors practically control the market. I find it harder and harder to buy Music in an unencumbered format...
Don't be fooled by those "market power should not be used to dominate and restrict the free exchange of ideas", this phrase can mean of anyone but established content providers.
Immediately followed by...
ICT x Monopolies = Digital Divide This document is moronic and it's authors are nothing but paying lip service to their sponsors, Corporate America.
Sorry, you're an idiot.
How can you have solid support when only one company can maintain the driver for all GNU/Linux versions you may be running in the future?
Go away, ye false pragmatist.
How can it be acceptable that someone else dictates what your computer can or can't do?
I'd glady prefer to see them gladiating themselves to (hopefully mutual) fatality on some standard of DRM.
The only acceptable DRM is no DRM at all.
Sun calling a nightmare a "dream" only adds to the hypocrisy.
General rule of network programming: if you trust the client, then you're toast.
No, you're dumb. Yes they could have made money out of it even if it was GPL'ed. Selling the boxed copies of GPL'ed software + all those nifty proprietary game packs (the levels, the scenery, etc...) is what's really great.
Actually, I'd believe more the other way around...
It's called obnoxious greed, and Microsoft is simply making sure the RIAA's and MPAA's out there will help them make sure Windows is the only legal OS in time:
All you need is DMCA (or EUCD+IPRED1[+IPRED2])+ some hardware
The software patent directive was also (according to the Commission) proposed to harmonise [software] patent law.
The truth was it proposed to harmonise the effective existence of software patents in the EU.
So while the stated goal might be interesting, you have to read the content and check if you're not being fooled by smart lawyers
If downloading is criminalized, than to exercise your right you have to first commit a crime. Interesting...
Ok, maybe to you I am a fanatic, but to me you're simply waiving rights that you do have for the sake of a minor and utterly unnecessary convenience.
I could understand if you were giving up your rights for something important, like someone else's life, but like this? For such a shallow motive? yeesh...
Please don't you even dare to compary the importance of fancy conviniency with loss of freedom.
I don't accept Java's license, so it's illegal for me to have a copy.
Besides, google maps don't use "just html", they prove there'se no need for java or flash or whatever for such matters. Simple use html, javascript, Portable Network Graphics and cascading stylesheets in interesting and innovative ways, and you get everything with maximum compatibility.
google maps work almost on any browser, java does not. So I guess sites depending on Java and flash prefr to blindly set aside with a reasonable percentage of web-users. Too bad... for those sites.
It demands a proprietary java virtual machine.
Please explain how that is better than google maps which don't require anything but the browser...