This is a specious argument, because it isn't "the government" that owns the airwaves, it's "the American people". The government licenses our airwaves to television stations like PBS on our behalf. There are regulations to be followed in order to obtain and keep these licenses, and these regulations exist for the public benefit.
This is all well-known and undisputed. The problem described in the article is that the current FCC administration is applying their vague standards of "decency" inconsistently and in apparently politically-motivated ways. This does not serve the public good. It therefore should be stopped.
It seems that Linux has been playing catch up for some years now in terms of user interface, and with the advent of OSX - it now has a whole new mountain to climb.
I don't think this is true anymore. I can think of several KDE components that are *much* more usable than their OS X counterparts (KonqFM vs. Finder; Kate vs TextEdit; Konsole vs. Terminal; etc.). Also, i18n is an important part of usability for non-English speakers. KDE has been translated to over 40 languages, OS X only has 15.
Also, your claim that the Linux desktops never innovate is demonstrably false. I can think of a number of indispensible desktop innovations that originated on Free *nix desktops, and only later came to the Big Two commercial desktops (some are still not present!): virtual desktops, tabbed web-browsing, popup-blocking, focus-follows-mouse, tab-completion (in the console), karamba/gDesklets, etc. So who's copying whom? The answer, of course, is that everybody's copying everybody; and there's nothing wrong with that. Let's just not pretend it only goes one way.
No, JWST won't be "a lot better" than Hubble. It will be a lot better at the one kind of observing that it was designed for. However, HST was really good for many many different kinds of observing. This mission diversity is a large part of what makes HST so great. Not to mention the upgradability of HST (JWST will be unserviceable).
HST is in too low an orbit to stay aloft indefinitely. Without regular servicing missions (and the all important boost up the shuttle gives it at the end), it will crash into the atmosphere on a timescale of several years.
I don't know about you, but I'm not one to trust people who install software on my computer without asking. Something isn't right there.
Well, actually you *do* know about me, because in my post I said I agreed that it was malware because it installed without the user's knowledge and consent.
If the software behaves differently when the CD is played for the first time then indeed it is altering the user's computer, to track how many times the CD has been played (zero, or more than zero for example). That's tracking the user's habits, thus spyware.
I can't agree with this. Lots of programs behave differently the first time they are run (by launching a startup wizard for example). Logging usage of the program doesn't constitute "spyware" unless the usage is communicated to the software maker (or a third party), IMHO.
And, by the fact that it is not made clear to the user that software is being installed on their PC, that's malware in my book.
I searched for my program, "kstars". It found several copies of our handbook, some Wiki entries, and our page on downloading from CVS (on the third page of results). But our homepage was not returned.
They aren't kidding when they say it's slow either. Maybe they should use a beowulf cluster of IIS servers! Imagine that...
It's my understanding that it isn't possible to patent ideas, only specific implementations. This is because of the unfair anticompetitive behavior that would result, as in your example. So did this one slip through USPTO somehow? Why were the competitors unable to have the patent invalidated?
Really? I guess Debian must do it much better than Fedora...
% apt-get install gaim The following packages have unmet dependencies:
gaim: Depends: libXss.so.1
Depends: libgtkspell.so.0 E: Broken packages
% apt-get install gtkspell The following packages have unmet dependencies:
gtkspell: Depends: libXcursor.so.1 E: Broken packages
% apt-get install libXcursor.so.1 Note, selecting xorg-x11-libs instead of libXcursor.so.1 The following packages have unmet dependencies:
xorg-x11-libs: Depends: xorg-x11-libs-data (= 6.7.0-0.5) but it is not going to be installed
So, great, I try to install gaim (an app I don't currently have installed, chosen at random for the purposes of this post), and not only does it not even attempt to install the dependencies automatically, but in chasing down the dependencies, I eventually come to the inevitable conclusion: I have to upgrade all of X to install gaim. That's unacceptable, and it happens to me all the time with apt-get.
Contrast with emerge: "emerge gaim", and it will download, compile and install any unmet dependecies (but only if I really do need them). Plus, there's no "versioning hell". I've often seen the problem in apt-get where I attempt to install appFoo, which depends on libBar-2.3.4. But if appOther is already installed, and depends on libBar-2.3.2 (also currently installed), then I'm out of luck! "Sorry, installing libBar-2.3.4 conflicts with existing package appOther!". At this point, I give up, and just download the appFoo and libBar-2.3.4 tarballs and compile them myself. Amazing, it works, and appOther works perfectly well with the newer libBar...
I'm not trolling. It would be nice if binary packages worked as advertised, but in my experience, emerge is easier to use, even though it compiles from source (or perhaps because it compiles from source!)
KDE and GNOME copy Windows because they want to steal market share from MS
I can't speak for GNOME, but I am a KDE developer, and I don't know of any KDE devs whose motivation is that they want to "steal market share from MS". KDE is not a company; therefore we are not "competing" with MS. We're just trying to build a very useable desktop on un*x. You can argue all you want about whether the fact that we use the WIMP desktop model represents a massive failure of imagination, or a simple recognition of a system that works. I just wanted to object to your wrong assumption about the motivation of KDE devs.
The SCO fiasco crap could have easily ended if Linus could produce some sort of audit trail, send it to SCO, and say "here's who contributed what, go take it up with the author".
Linus does not need to do this, because the authorship of every piece of Linux is trivially easy for anyone to look up for themselves.
Every file in the Linux kernel has a copyright notice. This provides both an identification of the author(s), and a legal claim that the author(s) own the code.
In addition, the version control system of Linux records who submitted each revision ever made to the kernel, does it not? What more could one possibly want?
Slashdot Mirror
This is a specious argument, because it isn't "the government" that owns the airwaves, it's "the American people". The government licenses our airwaves to television stations like PBS on our behalf. There are regulations to be followed in order to obtain and keep these licenses, and these regulations exist for the public benefit.
This is all well-known and undisputed. The problem described in the article is that the current FCC administration is applying their vague standards of "decency" inconsistently and in apparently politically-motivated ways. This does not serve the public good. It therefore should be stopped.
It seems that Linux has been playing catch up for some years now in terms of user interface, and with the advent of OSX - it now has a whole new mountain to climb.
I don't think this is true anymore. I can think of several KDE components that are *much* more usable than their OS X counterparts (KonqFM vs. Finder; Kate vs TextEdit; Konsole vs. Terminal; etc.). Also, i18n is an important part of usability for non-English speakers. KDE has been translated to over 40 languages, OS X only has 15.
Also, your claim that the Linux desktops never innovate is demonstrably false. I can think of a number of indispensible desktop innovations that originated on Free *nix desktops, and only later came to the Big Two commercial desktops (some are still not present!): virtual desktops, tabbed web-browsing, popup-blocking, focus-follows-mouse, tab-completion (in the console), karamba/gDesklets, etc. So who's copying whom? The answer, of course, is that everybody's copying everybody; and there's nothing wrong with that. Let's just not pretend it only goes one way.
No, JWST won't be "a lot better" than Hubble. It will be a lot better at the one kind of observing that it was designed for. However, HST was really good for many many different kinds of observing. This mission diversity is a large part of what makes HST so great. Not to mention the upgradability of HST (JWST will be unserviceable).
HST is in too low an orbit to stay aloft indefinitely. Without regular servicing missions (and the all important boost up the shuttle gives it at the end), it will crash into the atmosphere on a timescale of several years.
The success of indemnification means that the FUD terrorists have already won...
I don't know about you, but I'm not one to trust people who install software on my computer without asking. Something isn't right there.
Well, actually you *do* know about me, because in my post I said I agreed that it was malware because it installed without the user's knowledge and consent.
So, in summary: Spyware? Malware? No and Yes.
If the software behaves differently when the CD is played for the first time then indeed it is altering the user's computer, to track how many times the CD has been played (zero, or more than zero for example). That's tracking the user's habits, thus spyware.
I can't agree with this. Lots of programs behave differently the first time they are run (by launching a startup wizard for example). Logging usage of the program doesn't constitute "spyware" unless the usage is communicated to the software maker (or a third party), IMHO.
And, by the fact that it is not made clear to the user that software is being installed on their PC, that's malware in my book.
Definitely agree here.
I searched for my program, "kstars". It found several copies of our handbook, some Wiki entries, and our page on downloading from CVS (on the third page of results). But our homepage was not returned.
They aren't kidding when they say it's slow either. Maybe they should use a beowulf cluster of IIS servers! Imagine that...
I would see nothing wrong with a $.01/page fee for FOIA request. Pay up if it amounts to more than $10.
Your statement implies that FOIA requests are currently free (as in beer). They aren't.
It's my understanding that it isn't possible to patent ideas, only specific implementations. This is because of the unfair anticompetitive behavior that would result, as in your example. So did this one slip through USPTO somehow? Why were the competitors unable to have the patent invalidated?
I don't know. Apathetic bloody little planet, I've no sympathy at all.
(cue terrible ghastly silence)...
Defendent.
Really? I guess Debian must do it much better than Fedora...
% apt-get install gaim
The following packages have unmet dependencies:
gaim: Depends: libXss.so.1
Depends: libgtkspell.so.0
E: Broken packages
% apt-get install gtkspell
The following packages have unmet dependencies:
gtkspell: Depends: libXcursor.so.1
E: Broken packages
% apt-get install libXcursor.so.1
Note, selecting xorg-x11-libs instead of libXcursor.so.1
The following packages have unmet dependencies:
xorg-x11-libs: Depends: xorg-x11-libs-data (= 6.7.0-0.5) but it is not going to be installed
So, great, I try to install gaim (an app I don't currently have installed, chosen at random for the purposes of this post), and not only does it not even attempt to install the dependencies automatically, but in chasing down the dependencies, I eventually come to the inevitable conclusion: I have to upgrade all of X to install gaim. That's unacceptable, and it happens to me all the time with apt-get.
Contrast with emerge: "emerge gaim", and it will download, compile and install any unmet dependecies (but only if I really do need them). Plus, there's no "versioning hell". I've often seen the problem in apt-get where I attempt to install appFoo, which depends on libBar-2.3.4. But if appOther is already installed, and depends on libBar-2.3.2 (also currently installed), then I'm out of luck! "Sorry, installing libBar-2.3.4 conflicts with existing package appOther!". At this point, I give up, and just download the appFoo and libBar-2.3.4 tarballs and compile them myself. Amazing, it works, and appOther works perfectly well with the newer libBar...
I'm not trolling. It would be nice if binary packages worked as advertised, but in my experience, emerge is easier to use, even though it compiles from source (or perhaps because it compiles from source!)
Gentoo rules. Say goodbye to dependency hell.
Yeah, okay. You use meters, congratulations. But can you spell "lose"?
It's UV light that damages the retina, not IR.
KDE and GNOME copy Windows because they want to steal market share from MS
I can't speak for GNOME, but I am a KDE developer, and I don't know of any KDE devs whose motivation is that they want to "steal market share from MS". KDE is not a company; therefore we are not "competing" with MS. We're just trying to build a very useable desktop on un*x. You can argue all you want about whether the fact that we use the WIMP desktop model represents a massive failure of imagination, or a simple recognition of a system that works. I just wanted to object to your wrong assumption about the motivation of KDE devs.
Does lending music to a friend not constitute as fare use?
Congratulations! You've made the first "+5, Insightful" typo on Slashdot!
bah, what do you know, crayon eater?!
Just kidding, I hereby give you an official LMCBoy honorary '+1, Insightful'.
Quick quiz: do you have different expectations for the content at these pairs of websites, based on their different TLDs?
Shouldn't it be:
do() || do_not(); int *try = 0;
Isn't that exactly what Bluetooth was supposed to bring us?
The SCO fiasco crap could have easily ended if Linus could produce some sort of audit trail, send it to SCO, and say "here's who contributed what, go take it up with the author".
Linus does not need to do this, because the authorship of every piece of Linux is trivially easy for anyone to look up for themselves.
Every file in the Linux kernel has a copyright notice. This provides both an identification of the author(s), and a legal claim that the author(s) own the code.
In addition, the version control system of Linux records who submitted each revision ever made to the kernel, does it not? What more could one possibly want?
Your poor mother...she's got "Bad Dudes" right next to her china hutch!
On the other hand Linux is just a bloated terminal emulator. I.e. Linus started making a termnal emulator and ended up with an OS.
;)
No no no...Linux is just a kernel, not an OS. Emacs is an OS.