Well, but I had an interesting accident. I accidentally double clicked my middle mouse button, and searched for: Why is Windows so eWhy is Windows so expensive?xpensive?
I got the "Why are Macs so expensive" as the second result. Probably that just means that Google is smarter than Bing. When you ask it right, with an English sentence, they know that result is irrelevant. When you ask the same with a bunch of keywords mixed with garbage, they don't filter, and give you that result.
I wouldn't attribute _that_ to malice.
Don't get me wrong, I know MS does all the awful things they can in order to market their stuff, and that their astroturfing might kill sites like this. Just in this case, I think it's just an example of Google being better than Bing, and not result doctoring. It's too easy to spot to be intentional.
Nice insight. Anyhow, I don't think greed is in our genes. Where I live, people don't aspire to being rich. The summum of wealth is a small house with a brick and mortar barbecue and a car. Those who have more that that, hide it and say they are "middle class". It's not cool to show you are rich. And our country is inserted in the global economy. Of course, greed is a part of our society, because without it, you won't be able to give your children a good education, or retire. But that is imposed from outside factors. I think most people are greedy, because in most of our forms of organisation you need it to lead a decent life. Change that need, and the next generation would not be greedy.
RMS didn't invent the collaborative software culture. He's just the leader of a sect of it.
He invented the tool that helped that culture survive today. He invented it, because the collaborative software culture existence was threatened. And he's the leader of the relevant sect of that culture.
Sorry to be the first to tell you this, but you are not a social lefty. Please leave your Communist Party card on your way out.
People who think that the stock market _works_ are not lefties. Lefties _might_ think the stock market is inevitable, but not that it works. At least if you follow the traditional definition of "working".
You can use something you don't like, in order to fight it.
Copyleft (http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/) is about using copyrights in the opposite direction than proprietary software distributors. If there were no copyright in the first place, there would be no need for copyleft, and all software would be free software. The only issue left would be patents on software, but I wouldn't care that much, because here, outside of the US, there are not a lot of places where they are valid.
I think, myself, that copyrights are no longer serving the general public, and so have no reason to exist. I work on software, so I'm supposed to benefit by them, but I think that the eventual benefit that the author gets is too small compared to the cost in enforcing, and the cost for society as a whole of not being able to improve on other people's work.
But that is not my reason for using piratebay. Piratebay is just the easiest way to find what I want to see, when I want to see it. I prefer to go to the movies, and I go a lot, but when I want to see.something in particular torrents are the best. I wouldn't mind paying for a service like netflix, if they sold something like that where I live.
Endocrinology is not the same as plain logic. Nobody said you can't eat little enough for it to start burning fat. There _is_ a threshold under which the body won't be able to compensate the decrease in calories. The thing is that in many cases it's just too slow, or too unhealthy to be the reasonable thing to do. Other than complying with some wacky ascetic ideals, I can't think of a reason why you should have a 800 calorie diet, if you can lose more, in a healthier manner, and faster, with a tasty 2000-2500 calorie diet. As an added incentive, you will feel better through the day with the latter.
Calories are not a scientific way to estimate the impact of food on body weight.
It's not the same to eat 2000 calories of fat than 2000 calories of high fructose corn syrup. And it's not the same to eat those 2000 calories at breakfast than to eat them in the afternoon.
The problem with reducing calorie intake is that most low calorie diets are poor on fats and high on carbohydrates. Plus, lots of the "light" alternatives replace real food with processed stuff, than can help you gain weight, regardless of the calories.
In my case, if I need 2000 calories a day, I could easily put some weight eating less than that. The human body is smart enough to keep its reserves. Of course, performance does suffer, but the weight can be kept easily, with a reduced calorie intake. Only as an added bonus, it's easy to stay hungry all day with a diet like that. On the other hand, you can go to the doctor, who can find the source of the problem, and tell you how to deal with it. In my case, _when_ I diet, I eat a lot more food than when I'm not, specially beef, and it's very easy to go beyond the 2500 calories. So, I don't agree with you, calorie intake and body weight are not related scientifically. There are no actual studies that correlate them. Real doctors nowadays don't say that reducing calorie intake is going to make you thinner. Anecdotal evidence doesn't show examples of people losing weight and staying that way through reduced calorie intake. Listening to your doctor and eating according to your needs seem a lot more sensible than just puting your faith in plain arithmetic for a medical issue. And exercise can't hurt, of course.
Well, my doctor said: You have hyperinsulinemia. It's keeping you from losing more weight. But if you don't lose weight, you will develop Type II diabetes. And here's this magic pill, take it, and you will lose weight, regardless of dieting. He was true, only that now, when I diet, I actually lose weight. When I don't diet, and eat all I want, I just lose less weight.
Of course the best action is to not drink sugary drinks at all - but if you absolutely have to have that Coke, then have one with real sugar in it - and be aware of the additional calories you are eating. At least it wont make you hungrier, as the artificially sweetened drinks do, according to that study I linked.
You have no idea. Lots of fat people suffer from insulin issues, so actually they (us) shouldn't eat sugar at all. In my case, I had dieted a lot, and tried exercising, but just reducing intake wasn't doing the trick. I started an Atkins-style diet, with a lot more calories than I was used to, and now I am 50 pounds under my original weight, and 40 pounds above my ideal weight. I also drank LOTS of diet coke. The thing is that fat people bodies work differently. You need to understand _why_ you are fat, and then fight it. In my case, it is high insulin production, and after losing 40 pounds I started medical treatment with metformine, which helps me a lot against rebounds.
That idea of reducing calorie intake seems like a good idea in paper, but I don't think it works in practice. The human body is too complex. It doesn't respond well to uninformed direct manipulation. The best thing is to get an endocrinologist, and do as they say.
Well, you are late to this discussion. The whole idea is that most "Linux" distros were not much more than the GNU package slapped with the Linux kernel. But people kept calling the package "Linux" even if "Linux" had nothing to do with the packaging, or with programming of the most part of the system.
GNU does have its own "Linux" distribution. It's called Debian, and a subset of it + QA is called Ubuntu. gNewSense also. And I don't think your Hurd reference fits in your argument.
That's the problem with anti-competitive behavior. The market can't work if it never gets a chance to. If we want the best products at the best prices, we need fair competition.
Get over it. There is no such thing as a functioning free market. The only way "the market" can work is when it's heavily regulated against "bad" competitors. At that point, it's no longer a free market.
Copyright law decides how you license and distribute _your_ software. I agree with you that it _is_ unethical, but that would be too hard to fix.
If your software is a derived work of other software, of course you are bound to their license, proprietary or otherwise. Anyhow, there is no ethical issue, because you are free of using any other software as the basis for yours, or even starting from scratch. The ultimate decision is up to you.
About forcing our ethics on you, well, I can't force my ethics on others, but I really try to show others _why_ I think their way of thinking is unethical.
Proprietary software takes freedom away from users. The freedom to change the software according to their needs, the freedom to share with others, and the freedom to distribute their improvements, helping those who can benefit. (http://www.fsf.org/about/what-is-free-software)
Some of us think it's unethical to restrict users in that manner, and try to convince other people to stop supporting proprietary software, because it can be used against users. That is not forcing our ethics on you.
What do _you_ think about that? do you think all forms of licensing are ethical?
Copyright law decides how you license and distribute _your_ software. I agree with you that it _is_ unethical, but that would be too hard to fix.
If your software is a derived work of other software, of course you are bound to their license, proprietary or otherwise. Anyhow, there is no ethical issue, because you are free of using any other software as the basis for yours, or even starting from scratch. The ultimate decision is up to you.
About forcing our ethics on you, well, I can't force my ethics on others, but I really try to show others _why_ I think their way of thinking is unethical.
Proprietary software takes freedom away from users. The freedom to change the software according to their needs, the freedom to share with others, and the freedom to distribute their improvements, helping those who can benefit. (http://www.fsf.org/about/what-is-free-software)
Some of us think it's unethical to restrict users in that manner, and try to convince other people to stop supporting proprietary software, because it can be used against users. That is not forcing our ethics on you.
What do _you_ think about that? do you think all forms of licensing are ethical?
If you think about the developer, or the distributor, yes, the GPL takes some freedom away from them. On the other hand, GPL compatible licenses are the _only_ licenses that _ensure_ the most freedom for all users. Non copyleft licenses leave the door open to distributors taking freedom away from users. It's _totally_ free for users.
That is a common misconception, thinking that the GPL is written for developers. The only freedom important in the free software philosophy is the one of the user. If developers and distributors have to give up their privileges, it's ok. Giving any more power to distributors would also give them the possibility to restrict users, and those are the ones we care about.
Is that a Godwin offense, accusing me of a practice usual in WWII-losing countries? I don't see where I refer to social parasites.
I do have a bias. I have a strong opinion about the subject. You say it like it's a bad thing. I don't like people using the term "intellectual property", because its usage hinders the real understanding of copyright, trademarks and patents. Relating intellectual stuff with property is misleading, to say the least,
Of course, someone who calls themselves a "free software specialist" is going to have a bias for free software, and an MSCE is going to have a bias for MS software. That is what I think about "intellectual property" lawyers. A "copyright" lawyer, a "patent" lawyer would be another thing, but I was responding to a post about an "intellectual property" specialist.
On the other hand, DannyB is an intellectual property lawyer, and you aren't.
Furthermore, "the ffmpeg folks" would include "any contributor to ffmpeg", so your point is moot.
Just using the term "intellectual property" already says something about how one thinks about copyright. _If_ he actually describes himself as an "intellectual property" lawyer doesn't mean he understands the GPLv3 better than anyone else, only that he supports a view against copyleft. It doesn't make him an auth ority, only an interested party.
From my reading, this is very clearly the thing the GPLv3 was written for. If you want to support patents that harm users, just don't use our software.
Of course you do need an IDE. The thing is that it's very ignorant to say that Emacs is not an IDE. GNU + vi could be an IDE, also, although I wouldn't know, because I don't like modal interfaces, and I don't have enough experience with vi.
I am a mostly Java programmer, and I use primarily Eclipse, because I am lazy. I worked with Emacs a lot, when Eclipse and the JVM were too slow to be workable on some machines. Emacs takes some getting used to, but provides code completion, and very good source code navigation. I wouldn't miss any of Eclipse's features I I went back to Emacs. Of course, I work with other people, and I just cant expect them to take the time to learn Emacs (I'm not _that_ good at convincing people), but it's a good alternative for me.
If you know your tools, like autoconf - style tools, or maven in the case of Java, the features an IDE provides besides source code editing (packaging, building, tests, providing dependencies, SCM) do not surpass their command line alternatives.
I understand that learning how to be productive using command line svn and make or maven might be a bit hard, but it's a big fat lie to say it's less _productive_ than pointing and clicking. Specially because it's so difficult to put together a point and clicking script.
It might be _harder_ than a point and click IDE, but it's not less productive.
Maybe George Lucas was too subtle in the prequels. A country at/war/ (or at a/crisis/) will follow their/leader/ anywhere he wants to/lead/. Congress critters who disagree would be unpatriotic and stuff.
_My_ attitude or the one that Ubuntu takes? Ubuntu fixes NVidia's mess.
If you are talking about me, well, there is a reason why I don't have a big software distribution, I hold myself to higher standards than Microsoft and Apple in areas _I_ consider relevant, but I don't hope for millions of people to follow me, or give me their money, either.
I even use nvidia, but I blame _them_ for _their_ driver issues, like randomly losing tv norm support from version to version.
(You _might_ make a case comparing with MS, but you can't use Apple as an example. They don't support different hardware. OSX works only on preinstalled, pretested hardware combinations. Ubuntu also works flawlessly when preinstalled, of course. The original rant I was responding was about hardware support and fonts when self-installing on a custom hardware setup. OSX does not install on a custom hardware setup.)
About your imaginary mom: 1 - 99% of imaginary moms don't buy Nvidia. They buy Intel integrated chipset laptops. 2 - 99% of imaginary moms coudn't care less about a font. 3 - 99% of imaginary moms don't use a dual monitor, and wouldn't know what a "hotkey" is. Of the remaining 1%, 99% would just get their dual monitor set up by their imaginary kids.
About your whining, let me respond in the same tone.
1 - Come on! proprietary driver issues are the fault of the hardware maker. Nvidia is the 5uXX0r when it comes to Linux support. Anyhow, since last year, Ubuntu auto installs proprietary drivers. 2 - Come on! All websites look beautiful right now, with the default Ubuntu install. You just need to get a better taste for fonts. Add to that that subpixel antialising works great, and is much more easily tweaked, if needed, than in any other alternative OS. there was this OS, where I had to install an ActiveX to tweak it (WTF?!!?!!) 3 - Come on! GOTO 1. Free drivers don't have any issues with dual monitor in Ubuntu 9.04
The start menu/in//theory/ provides/one/ path. In fact, it's not just a menu, but a somewhat modal dialog populated with different controls to interact with. The menus at the top of a Gnome desktop are just a regular pull-down menu, with a more strict organization, like the menus we are supposed to be used to since the first days of the Macintosh.
Gnome is designed by developers thinking about users, asking design professionals for guidance, too. Windows does hire design professionals, but also listens to marketroids for its UI decisions. That can go either way, for each of those decisions. Macintosh used to have the best interface design professionals (e.g.:Raskin!!) , but right now they don't need them anymore, they already won at marketing, and their interfaces are already good enough.
Either way, you can't own music. When you release your music to the public, you no longer own it. In fact, copyright formally assigns ownership to the public domain, and was originally supposed to give you a limited monopoly on distribution in exchange for your contribution. Back when it was created, it might have been a good idea. Right now, with distribution channels available to everyone, I don't think it makes sense anymore to grant monopolies. Authors will publish anyhow, so it doesn't make sense anymore to give them something for something they would do regardless.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, but I had an interesting accident.
I accidentally double clicked my middle mouse button, and searched for: Why is Windows so eWhy is Windows so expensive?xpensive?
I got the "Why are Macs so expensive" as the second result.
Probably that just means that Google is smarter than Bing. When you ask it right, with an English sentence, they know that result is irrelevant. When you ask the same with a bunch of keywords mixed with garbage, they don't filter, and give you that result.
I wouldn't attribute _that_ to malice.
Don't get me wrong, I know MS does all the awful things they can in order to market their stuff, and that their astroturfing might kill sites like this. Just in this case, I think it's just an example of Google being better than Bing, and not result doctoring. It's too easy to spot to be intentional.
1 - GPL restricts _that_ freedom from developers (the freedom to redistribute with no strings attached), for the sake of the freedom of _users_
2 - Because the power to improve that situation is yours. In the case of the Apple store, it's not.
Nice insight.
Anyhow, I don't think greed is in our genes.
Where I live, people don't aspire to being rich. The summum of wealth is a small house with a brick and mortar barbecue and a car.
Those who have more that that, hide it and say they are "middle class". It's not cool to show you are rich.
And our country is inserted in the global economy.
Of course, greed is a part of our society, because without it, you won't be able to give your children a good education, or retire. But that is imposed from outside factors. I think most people are greedy, because in most of our forms of organisation you need it to lead a decent life.
Change that need, and the next generation would not be greedy.
RMS didn't invent the collaborative software culture. He's just the leader of a sect of it.
He invented the tool that helped that culture survive today. He invented it, because the collaborative software culture existence was threatened.
And he's the leader of the relevant sect of that culture.
Sorry to be the first to tell you this, but you are not a social lefty. Please leave your Communist Party card on your way out.
People who think that the stock market _works_ are not lefties. Lefties _might_ think the stock market is inevitable, but not that it works. At least if you follow the traditional definition of "working".
You can use something you don't like, in order to fight it.
Copyleft (http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/) is about using copyrights in the opposite direction than proprietary software distributors.
If there were no copyright in the first place, there would be no need for copyleft, and all software would be free software.
The only issue left would be patents on software, but I wouldn't care that much, because here, outside of the US, there are not a lot of places where they are valid.
I think, myself, that copyrights are no longer serving the general public, and so have no reason to exist.
I work on software, so I'm supposed to benefit by them, but I think that the eventual benefit that the author gets is too small compared to the cost in enforcing, and the cost for society as a whole of not being able to improve on other people's work.
But that is not my reason for using piratebay. .something in particular torrents are the best. I wouldn't mind paying for a service like netflix, if they sold something like that where I live.
Piratebay is just the easiest way to find what I want to see, when I want to see it. I prefer to go to the movies, and I go a lot, but when I want to see
Endocrinology is not the same as plain logic.
Nobody said you can't eat little enough for it to start burning fat.
There _is_ a threshold under which the body won't be able to compensate the decrease in calories.
The thing is that in many cases it's just too slow, or too unhealthy to be the reasonable thing to do.
Other than complying with some wacky ascetic ideals, I can't think of a reason why you should have a 800 calorie diet, if you can lose more, in a healthier manner, and faster, with a tasty 2000-2500 calorie diet. As an added incentive, you will feel better through the day with the latter.
I don't care about your diabetes.
Calories are not a scientific way to estimate the impact of food on body weight.
It's not the same to eat 2000 calories of fat than 2000 calories of high fructose corn syrup. And it's not the same to eat those 2000 calories at breakfast than to eat them in the afternoon.
The problem with reducing calorie intake is that most low calorie diets are poor on fats and high on carbohydrates. Plus, lots of the "light" alternatives replace real food with processed stuff, than can help you gain weight, regardless of the calories.
In my case, if I need 2000 calories a day, I could easily put some weight eating less than that. The human body is smart enough to keep its reserves. Of course, performance does suffer, but the weight can be kept easily, with a reduced calorie intake. Only as an added bonus, it's easy to stay hungry all day with a diet like that.
On the other hand, you can go to the doctor, who can find the source of the problem, and tell you how to deal with it.
In my case, _when_ I diet, I eat a lot more food than when I'm not, specially beef, and it's very easy to go beyond the 2500 calories.
So, I don't agree with you, calorie intake and body weight are not related scientifically. There are no actual studies that correlate them. Real doctors nowadays don't say that reducing calorie intake is going to make you thinner. Anecdotal evidence doesn't show examples of people losing weight and staying that way through reduced calorie intake.
Listening to your doctor and eating according to your needs seem a lot more sensible than just puting your faith in plain arithmetic for a medical issue. And exercise can't hurt, of course.
Well, my doctor said: You have hyperinsulinemia. It's keeping you from losing more weight. But if you don't lose weight, you will develop Type II diabetes.
And here's this magic pill, take it, and you will lose weight, regardless of dieting. He was true, only that now, when I diet, I actually lose weight. When I don't diet, and eat all I want, I just lose less weight.
Of course the best action is to not drink sugary drinks at all - but if you absolutely have to have that Coke, then have one with real sugar in it - and be aware of the additional calories you are eating. At least it wont make you hungrier, as the artificially sweetened drinks do, according to that study I linked.
You have no idea.
Lots of fat people suffer from insulin issues, so actually they (us) shouldn't eat sugar at all.
In my case, I had dieted a lot, and tried exercising, but just reducing intake wasn't doing the trick.
I started an Atkins-style diet, with a lot more calories than I was used to, and now I am 50 pounds under my original weight, and 40 pounds above my ideal weight.
I also drank LOTS of diet coke.
The thing is that fat people bodies work differently. You need to understand _why_ you are fat, and then fight it.
In my case, it is high insulin production, and after losing 40 pounds I started medical treatment with metformine, which helps me a lot against rebounds.
That idea of reducing calorie intake seems like a good idea in paper, but I don't think it works in practice.
The human body is too complex. It doesn't respond well to uninformed direct manipulation. The best thing is to get an endocrinologist, and do as they say.
Well, you are late to this discussion.
The whole idea is that most "Linux" distros were not much more than the GNU package slapped with the Linux kernel. But people kept calling the package "Linux" even if "Linux" had nothing to do with the packaging, or with programming of the most part of the system.
GNU does have its own "Linux" distribution. It's called Debian, and a subset of it + QA is called Ubuntu. gNewSense also.
And I don't think your Hurd reference fits in your argument.
Right, but If we call this new OS, the "Google" OS, then we have to go back and call every other Linux distribution, "GNU" OSs. I'm OK with that.
That's the problem with anti-competitive behavior. The market can't work if it never gets a chance to. If we want the best products at the best prices, we need fair competition.
Get over it. There is no such thing as a functioning free market. The only way "the market" can work is when it's heavily regulated against "bad" competitors. At that point, it's no longer a free market.
Copyright law decides how you license and distribute _your_ software. I agree with you that it _is_ unethical, but that would be too hard to fix.
If your software is a derived work of other software, of course you are bound to their license, proprietary or otherwise. Anyhow, there is no ethical issue, because you are free of using any other software as the basis for yours, or even starting from scratch. The ultimate decision is up to you.
About forcing our ethics on you, well, I can't force my ethics on others, but I really try to show others _why_ I think their way of thinking is unethical.
Proprietary software takes freedom away from users. The freedom to change the software according to their needs, the freedom to share with others, and the freedom to distribute their improvements, helping those who can benefit. (http://www.fsf.org/about/what-is-free-software)
Some of us think it's unethical to restrict users in that manner, and try to convince other people to stop supporting proprietary software, because it can be used against users. That is not forcing our ethics on you.
What do _you_ think about that? do you think all forms of licensing are ethical?
Copyright law decides how you license and distribute _your_ software. I agree with you that it _is_ unethical, but that would be too hard to fix.
If your software is a derived work of other software, of course you are bound to their license, proprietary or otherwise. Anyhow, there is no ethical issue, because you are free of using any other software as the basis for yours, or even starting from scratch. The ultimate decision is up to you.
About forcing our ethics on you, well, I can't force my ethics on others, but I really try to show others _why_ I think their way of thinking is unethical.
Proprietary software takes freedom away from users. The freedom to change the software according to their needs, the freedom to share with others, and the freedom to distribute their improvements, helping those who can benefit. (http://www.fsf.org/about/what-is-free-software)
Some of us think it's unethical to restrict users in that manner, and try to convince other people to stop supporting proprietary software, because it can be used against users. That is not forcing our ethics on you.
What do _you_ think about that? do you think all forms of licensing are ethical?
The think is who is the object of the "freedom".
If you think about the developer, or the distributor, yes, the GPL takes some freedom away from them.
On the other hand, GPL compatible licenses are the _only_ licenses that _ensure_ the most freedom for all users. Non copyleft licenses leave the door open to distributors taking freedom away from users. It's _totally_ free for users.
That is a common misconception, thinking that the GPL is written for developers. The only freedom important in the free software philosophy is the one of the user. If developers and distributors have to give up their privileges, it's ok. Giving any more power to distributors would also give them the possibility to restrict users, and those are the ones we care about.
Is that a Godwin offense, accusing me of a practice usual in WWII-losing countries? I don't see where I refer to social parasites.
I do have a bias. I have a strong opinion about the subject. You say it like it's a bad thing. I don't like people using the term "intellectual property", because its usage hinders the real understanding of copyright, trademarks and patents. Relating intellectual stuff with property is misleading, to say the least,
Of course, someone who calls themselves a "free software specialist" is going to have a bias for free software, and an MSCE is going to have a bias for MS software. That is what I think about "intellectual property" lawyers. A "copyright" lawyer, a "patent" lawyer would be another thing, but I was responding to a post about an "intellectual property" specialist.
On the other hand, DannyB is an intellectual property lawyer, and you aren't.
Furthermore, "the ffmpeg folks" would include "any contributor to ffmpeg", so your point is moot.
Just using the term "intellectual property" already says something about how one thinks about copyright. _If_ he actually describes himself as an "intellectual property" lawyer doesn't mean he understands the GPLv3 better than anyone else, only that he supports a view against copyleft. It doesn't make him an auth
ority, only an interested party.
From my reading, this is very clearly the thing the GPLv3 was written for. If you want to support patents that harm users, just don't use our software.
Of course you do need an IDE.
The thing is that it's very ignorant to say that Emacs is not an IDE.
GNU + vi could be an IDE, also, although I wouldn't know, because I don't like modal interfaces, and I don't have enough experience with vi.
I am a mostly Java programmer, and I use primarily Eclipse, because I am lazy. I worked with Emacs a lot, when Eclipse and the JVM were too slow to be workable on some machines. Emacs takes some getting used to, but provides code completion, and very good source code navigation. I wouldn't miss any of Eclipse's features I I went back to Emacs. Of course, I work with other people, and I just cant expect them to take the time to learn Emacs (I'm not _that_ good at convincing people), but it's a good alternative for me.
If you know your tools, like autoconf - style tools, or maven in the case of Java, the features an IDE provides besides source code editing (packaging, building, tests, providing dependencies, SCM) do not surpass their command line alternatives.
I understand that learning how to be productive using command line svn and make or maven might be a bit hard, but it's a big fat lie to say it's less _productive_ than pointing and clicking. Specially because it's so difficult to put together a point and clicking script.
It might be _harder_ than a point and click IDE, but it's not less productive.
Maybe George Lucas was too subtle in the prequels. /war/ (or at a /crisis/) will follow their /leader/ anywhere he wants to /lead/.
A country at
Congress critters who disagree would be unpatriotic and stuff.
Which attitude?
_My_ attitude or the one that Ubuntu takes?
Ubuntu fixes NVidia's mess.
If you are talking about me, well, there is a reason why I don't have a big software distribution, I hold myself to higher standards than Microsoft and Apple in areas _I_ consider relevant, but I don't hope for millions of people to follow me, or give me their money, either.
I even use nvidia, but I blame _them_ for _their_ driver issues, like randomly losing tv norm support from version to version.
(You _might_ make a case comparing with MS, but you can't use Apple as an example. They don't support different hardware. OSX works only on preinstalled, pretested hardware combinations. Ubuntu also works flawlessly when preinstalled, of course.
The original rant I was responding was about hardware support and fonts when self-installing on a custom hardware setup. OSX does not install on a custom hardware setup.)
About your imaginary mom:
1 - 99% of imaginary moms don't buy Nvidia. They buy Intel integrated chipset laptops.
2 - 99% of imaginary moms coudn't care less about a font.
3 - 99% of imaginary moms don't use a dual monitor, and wouldn't know what a "hotkey" is.
Of the remaining 1%, 99% would just get their dual monitor set up by their imaginary kids.
About your whining, let me respond in the same tone.
1 - Come on! proprietary driver issues are the fault of the hardware maker. Nvidia is the 5uXX0r when it comes to Linux support. Anyhow, since last year, Ubuntu auto installs proprietary drivers.
2 - Come on! All websites look beautiful right now, with the default Ubuntu install. You just need to get a better taste for fonts.
Add to that that subpixel antialising works great, and is much more easily tweaked, if needed, than in any other alternative OS. there was this OS, where I had to install an ActiveX to tweak it (WTF?!!?!!)
3 - Come on! GOTO 1. Free drivers don't have any issues with dual monitor in Ubuntu 9.04
The start menu /in/ /theory/ provides /one/ path.
In fact, it's not just a menu, but a somewhat modal dialog populated with different controls to interact with.
The menus at the top of a Gnome desktop are just a regular pull-down menu, with a more strict organization, like the menus we are supposed to be used to since the first days of the Macintosh.
Gnome is designed by developers thinking about users, asking design professionals for guidance, too.
Windows does hire design professionals, but also listens to marketroids for its UI decisions. That can go either way, for each of those decisions.
Macintosh used to have the best interface design professionals (e.g.:Raskin!!) , but right now they don't need them anymore, they already won at marketing, and their interfaces are already good enough.
Either way, you can't own music. When you release your music to the public, you no longer own it.
In fact, copyright formally assigns ownership to the public domain, and was originally supposed to give you a limited monopoly on distribution in exchange for your contribution.
Back when it was created, it might have been a good idea. Right now, with distribution channels available to everyone, I don't think it makes sense anymore to grant monopolies. Authors will publish anyhow, so it doesn't make sense anymore to give them something for something they would do regardless.
Wrong order.
SwineEtAl Flu