Some of it was good and realistic, the text logins and the war-dialling, like you say, but some of it was pushing things a little, like computers are alive and one them has been put in charge of the nuclear button.
With people who think that computers can decide who you voted for by themselves, of course there is a risk of someone giving nuclear command to a computer, that is realistic, even if it didn't happen yet.
About computers being alive, they don't need to be alive, they just need to act like they were. You just need a good AI, not a lot more advanced that what there is now. An easy example, Google seems to understand your needs, giving you content and ads tailored to you, something that didn't seem that easy before, that is some of the AI you need for a computer to _seem_ alive.
RMS is a Saint of the church of Emacs. Linus is not Saint of the church of Emacs, because he used to use BitKeeper, which was not free software, and he liked it. I don't know if that makes him eleigible to be a pope.
I choose to follow Saint IGNUcius, though. There is no Editor but Emacs, and GNU is its prophet.
The guy said that most of her problems would only take 10 minutes of remote administration. He also implied that supporting her windows computers takes a lot more time to support. Even if the gnu/linux support hour was more expensive, you have to multiply it by the time spent. Of course, he said that he did it for free.
What free sofware needs is advertising. Grip is a great ripping tool.
You insert the CD, press a button, and your CD gets ripped, with track names, of course.
In fact, free software need nothing, it works great right now. What people need is education, to know what is better for them, so they can choose whether they want to spend money on things they could do more easily for free (why would I have to deal with a music store when I only wanted to rip a CD? I went to a music store when I bought it, damn!).
Even getting itunes is much harder than using synaptic to install grip. There is just one procedure for installing whatever software you want. With proprietary software, there are different ways to aquire it, some of them even involve unfamiliar paying methods, and then installing is not standard. Compare it to getting all your software that is not preinstalled, with the same procedure, and you will understand that people do actually have it much more difficult with software that for example a guy with Ubuntu, who spends exactly the same amount of money in support as the windows guy (zero is a valid amount). It's just that they are constantly taught that it's easy, and they just buy it. That doesn't make it true.
When someone, friend or family asked me for free help with their Windows 98 computer, back in the day, I would happily help them. Then, I got a full time job, got completely converted to GNU/Linux (Slackware and SuSE) and could not help them anymore without giving up a big portion of my free time keeping up with that technology. Of course, they had lots of trouble, because I could only pay them a couple of visits a year, or they got help from someone with even less knowledge than I, who made things worse. That lead to long times without internet access, phone bills to foreign countries due to dialers, and that kind of stuff.
Right now, every time a someone close to me gets a computer, I spend an hour installing Firefox, Thunderbird, and OpenOffice (some people get someone to replace it for MSOffice, but some just don't), and killing that E icon. My parents, the last ones to receive that treatment, are happy after their first year of having a windows computer, without any other support. They already had preinstalled Microsoft Office, which I didn't touch.
I think that replacing ie and outlook express is the best thing you can do to someone to improve their windows experience, and most people don't even know the difference, aside from having a system that doesn't get compromised once in a while.
The GPL doesn't forbid you from selling copies, you don't sound like someone who actually read it. -- Actually I've read it several times, and quite frankly I'm not even sure it says what RMS thinks it says... (I know I don't fully understand it in a legal context) Of course, all that really matters is what the FSF decides to use it for in court. Judging by their track record so far, you have to be pretty far out of line before they get the big stick out. If you're at least trying to follow what you think it says, they'll probably just ask you nicely to behave at first.
The issue was not the enforceability of the GPL, it was that you said that the GPL forbids selling GPLed software , and it just does not, period. In the context you used it first, it seemed like you were thinking about the author making money from his software, and that was why I mentioned the Mysql model.
Of course, the GPL is not good for making money as a middle man in a completely free distribution market, because it is intended to improve distribution, not to artificially restrict it. Of course, you could even make money as a distributor, like the time when RMS sold tapes with Emacs in it, everybody else could do it, too. Now that software distribution costs approach zero, it's a bad market for middle men, if there are no artificial restrictions.
The idea of 1 user paying for what other millions use for free is not that bad to some people. -- Ya, it's probably great for everyone except that first user.
If you are talking about sharing development costs, the first user could be a group of users, like when the blender foundation raised 100000 euros to free its code. There are lots of times where paying for something that will be free afterwards is fair for you. Maybe you are just interested in the software, and you don't consider it a competitive advantage, but only a way to keep costs down. A good example is government organizations. It would be more sensible for them to pay to develop stuff that is available to everyone than to pay several times for licenses of the same stuff.
As far as having things shoved down my throat, it's really more that the entire community appears to consider things only "open source" if they're 100% free (as in beer). I just don't quite understand why that is... You would think there could be a middle ground where source is available to paying customers (and their agents) only.
About the "free" as in "beer", I don't think so, blender for example was bought with money, and it is free software, and open source, anybody will tell you that.
Free software, like the FSF definition, "free" as in "freedom", is very specific, of course. It is about protecting the freedom of the user, at the expense of everything else when needed.
The thing with the "open source" term is that it doesn't mean much. Everybody can use that term to fit what they want. The thing you talk about does exist. Lots of companies buy software with the sources, but just don't get a license to redistribute. Unix was sold that way, back in the day. Custom software is often sold that way, too. The problem is that usually the actual use of the source is restricted by the same arrangement that restricts distribution, so it couldn't be considered "open".
You shouldn't worry , though. You can call whatever model you want "open source", most people don't know what it means, and those who do, don't agree, so it's a safe bet.
The problem is that the guy in the past was talking about bad things that would happen if you didn't follow his lead. He sounded a little nutty, talking about an oppressive future, for example whn he discussed Palladium, or "Treacherous Computing". Right now, the problems he was talking about are more real, DRM, and trusted computing are real problems that affect you right now. He hasn't changed, but the reality did change into what he said it would. Software patents right now have a harmful effect, but they could be much worse if you let them advence further. It's not as hard right now to imagine a future time where every free software project is effectively killed by software patents, and the only practical software available is a restricted TV-like personal computer, completely controlled by content providers. Of course, there are countries without software patents, but for example my country will get them through an FTA with the US, and in most other places, this could happen too.
Could you please elaborate how the hell are you going to make a proprietary software provider fix the bug that is bugging you?
Problem: Exchange doesn't have a good IMP implementation. What is your solution? Who do you pay to do it?
I think that the proprietary developer is much less sensitive to your needs, because they have a monopoly on support, whereas a free software provider will have to comply to your needs, or you could just pay someone else to get your feature implemented.
I think that the problem in the free software - proprietary software debate is that most people who like proprietary don't understand that "free" doesn't mean "you don't pay for it", it means "you do whatever you want as a user with it". Free software doesn't mean you shouldn't pay for support, or fixes.
Because no one seems to want to write an OSS license that lets you *gasp* charge for copies of your software.
(Actually, the GPL forbids it...)
Why is it a necessary rule that 1 user pays for what millions use for free?
You are trolling, or just wrong, as others stated.
The GPL doesn't forbid you from selling copies, you don't sound like someone who actually read it.
For example, Mysql will happily sell you a proprietary copy of their software, because the GPL _lets_ them *gasp* charge for their software, and some people are willing to pay. What you can't usually do in practice (because of no value added) is sell more than a few copies of some other guys GPLed software.
Of course, the GPL doesn't help your copy-selling bussiness, because it is a copyleft license, its whole idea is to revert the effects of copyright, and disencourage the sale of copies by restricting users.
There are other licenses that let you include some source and keep distribution priviledges, like microsofts shared source and stuff. Of course, most people wouldn't call _that_ OSS (I don't have a clear definition of what exactly _you_ mean by "OSS"), and it wouldn't be free software.
The idea of 1 user paying for what other millions use for free is not that bad to some people. People who use the GPL, for example. Then, there are people like you. You just need to keep away from GPLed software, and you will be fine. Nobody is forcing it down your throat, there are some other alternatives, and you are free to use them.
I don't think that actually happens. A project owner with an itch to scratch, will scratch it, they _do_ maintain their own code. Maintaining their own code, but for other people, and for free, is something that they usually do, but some times they just don't want to. There is where you see some project owners complain, about users that want tailored free maintaining right now, without contributing. There's no implied contract that says that the original coder will fix _your_ problems for free. That's one of the best things of the GPL, you have the power to make stuff happen yourself. Even if you don't know how to program, there are a lot of programmers that will do it for you, given the right compensation. That is the actual meaning of "free" as in "freedom", and not as in "beer".
Of course you don't, but your eyes and brain are designed to recognize actual physical objects, not abstractions of them. Of course, the screen you are looking at is a physical object, and it's easier to understand at a lower level, and then being able to exploit things like spatial memory, and that kind stuff we have.
That might be a problem with default configuration, because of the constant development in that specific area. For example, wobbly is good, if it affects only regular and splash windows. With tooltips and menus it's just annoying, but if you uncheck "unknown" windows, it works great, and doesn't bother regular work. It feels very natural to have windows move as if they were actual physical objects.
With that exact change in config, it work perfectly, and is very nice to use, things like unfolding the cube are neat, and the rotating switcher is great at giving you the whole idea of your desktop. Its nice to have a fast spatially oriented multiple desktop configuration.
I had exactly one vinyl record, and the packaging did make for a big part of the experience. The thing is that vinyl records look good, and feel good to handle. And how cool is it to actually watch the music be played? CDs have the look of something you put into a computer, not something related to music. If they had the decency of having a black plastic sleeve, it would be tolerable, but they have zero coolness factor as it is.
>> I'm not sure what your definition of "first timer" is, but all the Linux distros I've used are *much* easier >>to install than Windows. Really, the hardest part for newbies is figuring out how to burn an iso.
>I agree in every area except partitioning; most linux distributions have traditionally made this at least as >difficult as it is in DOS; sure, to you and I it's a doddle, but to the masses it might as well be written in >sanskrit.
But he was saying _easier_ to install than Windows. Partitioning is a bitch, always, of course, but it has to be done in any system you use. It's an OS-agnostic task. You need to partition your disk when you need to install Windows in it. What I do with people who want to install Ubuntu is tell them to use something like partition magic to create free disk space, and then the time required to install a dual-boot dapper-xp system is reduced in more than half the user time.
I meant they _share_ some degree of authoritarism. Of course, all of them are authoritarian but to a different degree. Cuba does have authoritarism, but it can't be compared to China, where everything you do can get you jailed or executed. The URSS, through its history, went through different phases, all authoritarian off course, but different.
About forcing other countries to do things your way, is horrendous, not hilarious. Overthrowing a government and installing your own, and then say that you do it in the name of democracy, yes, it's something to laugh at, even if it's pathetic. ------------- Como se puede notar claramente, el inglés no es mi lengua materna.
Yo decía que _comparten_ algún grado de autoritarismo. Distinto grado en cada caso, por supuesto. Cuba tiene problemas de autoritarismo, por supuesto, pero no existe el nivel de opresión de China, donde no se puede hacer nada sin ser objeto de represión. La Unión Soviética ha pasado por distintos grados en distintas épocas, y es verdad, siempre fue bastante malo.
Forzar a otros países a seguir tu ideología es horroroso, no hilarante. Cambiar el gobierno de otro país por uno que te gusta, y luego decir que lo hacés en el nombre de la democracia, sí, tiene una ironía tal que es para cagarse de risa.
I live in Uruguay, but I might as well be living in the US,
Well, I correct myself, thinking it through, it's not the same to live in my country as in the US, we might be starting to have all the _problems_ of the US system, but not the money advantages.
I live in Uruguay, but I might as well be living in the US, we are about to sign a free trade agreement that basically imposes that everything that is law in the US regarding copyrights, and patents, should become law here.
That means, of course, that the FTA will be good for our beef exports to the USA, but kill any attempt to develop new industries, like biotechnology and biopharma (where we could have a bit of a head start in the region), through patent laws that do not adapt to our reality.
That is because the socialist government elected here is not _that_ socialist to start with, and is willing to play ball, otherwise we could even get a place in the list of countries to liberate (ok, the low priority list, we don't have any oil).
I say if we're going to bring down communism we should do it via undermining their contries authority and showing them now the non-commies have it...
China is not a communist country. They are an authoritarian fascist regime. The soviet union with Lenin was an example of something a bit more communist, and Cuba regime resembles communism even more. All of them share some degree of authoritarism, but that is not a needed or unique characteristic of a communist country.
Aside from the clarification... why would you want to bring down communism in another country? Do you think that the autodetermination principle is not a good thing to respect? It's one thing to choose to trade with countries with which you share ideology, but trying to force other independent countries into doing things the way you do, looks pretty authoritarian itself. And it would be hilarious to do that, in the name of democracy.
Right now, what you are talking about is actually happening. UI stuff is not a matter of implementation, but one of design. When the KDE project does something nice, and it happens to work in practice, it's much easier for the Gnome team to add it to Gnome.
But there is a difference between Gnome users, and KDE users.
I see KDE target as people who want the latest features, and the most configurability.
Gnome seems to be about having good features, even if they take a lot of time to be integrated in the desktop, and the best default configuration, even if things are not that easily configurable.
I like Gnome better, and I don't want it to be more like KDE. I believe KDE users wouldn't want KDE to be more like Gnome, and lose configurability and features.
Of course, this is only my interpretation, it was like this the last time I checked KDE in Suse 8.2, maybe they have converged now to a point where the difference is irrelevant.
I assume you have Adobe Reader, and a windows machine. You must have the wrong default configuration. Not every piece of software works ok without post install configuration, Adobe Reader is an example. You should configure your browser to not use the adobe plugin installed. Reader just doesn't integrate ok with browsing, and I haven't tried any alternative.
At the XP machine I use at work, I just disable the plugin, and download the file. That way, when I open it, it doesn't mess with firefox at all. On linux, I don't have Reader, and clicking on a PDF opens a standalone window of the gnome PDF reader (evince, I think) .
I learned LOGO on a Texas Instruments color computer the size of a spectrum computer (I don't know which model or processor but it was Z80s time, 1985 probably ), at age 8, and it had if, while/for loops, and a nice structured layout. Even the rudiment of objects was there, with "actors", AKA sprites, you could draw some single-color character, then told it to move, and ok, everything worked right away. We even built a little game with collision detection (the "you are a fish and you try not to bump into the other moving fish in the fishtank" game) . Then some interactive illustrated stories.
At age 9, I did the second module, and learned BASIC on a green screen PC. I couldn't believe how difficult it was to program with GOTO and GOSUB, and the lack of ability it had for simple tasks. And line numbering, I never understood that . Well, of course, I understood why BASIC was that way, when I learned assembly language 10 years later, of course.
This was all 20 years ago, but my point is that the good thing about BASIC is not that it was easy, it was much harder than other languages, much harder than Pascal, (from a human point of view only, of course, I know BASIC is much easier to implement).
The "BASIC" name refers to implementation, not programming in it. There's nothing basic about programming in BASIC. It's more complex for a human than structured programming, making sense of GOTO. Line numbers are unneeded complexity. What I think is that BASIC owes its popularity _only_ to availability, and not ease of use. Any structured language is much easier to grasp for people without any knowledge.
Slashdot Mirror
Some of it was good and realistic, the text logins and the war-dialling, like you say, but some of it was pushing things a little, like computers are alive and one them has been put in charge of the nuclear button.
With people who think that computers can decide who you voted for by themselves, of course there is a risk of someone giving nuclear command to a computer, that is realistic, even if it didn't happen yet.
About computers being alive, they don't need to be alive, they just need to act like they were. You just need a good AI, not a lot more advanced that what there is now. An easy example, Google seems to understand your needs, giving you content and ads tailored to you, something that didn't seem that easy before, that is some of the AI you need for a computer to _seem_ alive.
RMS is a Saint of the church of Emacs.
Linus is not Saint of the church of Emacs, because he used to use BitKeeper, which was not free software, and he liked it. I don't know if that makes him eleigible to be a pope.
I choose to follow Saint IGNUcius, though. There is no Editor but Emacs, and GNU is its prophet.
The guy said that most of her problems would only take 10 minutes of remote administration.
He also implied that supporting her windows computers takes a lot more time to support.
Even if the gnu/linux support hour was more expensive, you have to multiply it by the time spent.
Of course, he said that he did it for free.
What free sofware needs is advertising.
Grip is a great ripping tool.
You insert the CD, press a button, and your CD gets ripped, with track names, of course.
In fact, free software need nothing, it works great right now.
What people need is education, to know what is better for them, so they can choose whether they want to spend money on things they could do more easily for free (why would I have to deal with a music store when I only wanted to rip a CD? I went to a music store when I bought it, damn!).
Even getting itunes is much harder than using synaptic to install grip. There is just one procedure for installing whatever software you want. With proprietary software, there are different ways to aquire it, some of them even involve unfamiliar paying methods, and then installing is not standard. Compare it to getting all your software that is not preinstalled, with the same procedure, and you will understand that people do actually have it much more difficult with software that for example a guy with Ubuntu, who spends exactly the same amount of money in support as the windows guy (zero is a valid amount). It's just that they are constantly taught that it's easy, and they just buy it. That doesn't make it true.
When someone, friend or family asked me for free help with their Windows 98 computer, back in the day, I would happily help them.
Then, I got a full time job, got completely converted to GNU/Linux (Slackware and SuSE) and could not help them anymore without giving up a big portion of my free time keeping up with that technology. Of course, they had lots of trouble, because I could only pay them a couple of visits a year, or they got help from someone with even less knowledge than I, who made things worse. That lead to long times without internet access, phone bills to foreign countries due to dialers, and that kind of stuff.
Right now, every time a someone close to me gets a computer, I spend an hour installing Firefox, Thunderbird, and OpenOffice (some people get someone to replace it for MSOffice, but some just don't), and killing that E icon. My parents, the last ones to receive that treatment, are happy after their first year of having a windows computer, without any other support. They already had preinstalled Microsoft Office, which I didn't touch.
I think that replacing ie and outlook express is the best thing you can do to someone to improve their windows experience, and most people don't even know the difference, aside from having a system that doesn't get compromised once in a while.
The issue was not the enforceability of the GPL, it was that you said that the GPL forbids selling GPLed software , and it just does not, period.
In the context you used it first, it seemed like you were thinking about the author making money from his software, and that was why I mentioned the Mysql model.
Of course, the GPL is not good for making money as a middle man in a completely free distribution market, because it is intended to improve distribution, not to artificially restrict it. Of course, you could even make money as a distributor, like the time when RMS sold tapes with Emacs in it, everybody else could do it, too. Now that software distribution costs approach zero, it's a bad market for middle men, if there are no artificial restrictions.
If you are talking about sharing development costs, the first user could be a group of users, like when the blender foundation raised 100000 euros to free its code.
There are lots of times where paying for something that will be free afterwards is fair for you. Maybe you are just interested in the software, and you don't consider it a competitive advantage, but only a way to keep costs down. A good example is government organizations. It would be more sensible for them to pay to develop stuff that is available to everyone than to pay several times for licenses of the same stuff.
As far as having things shoved down my throat, it's really more that the entire community appears to consider things only "open source" if they're 100% free (as in beer). I just don't quite understand why that is... You would think there could be a middle ground where source is available to paying customers (and their agents) only.
About the "free" as in "beer", I don't think so, blender for example was bought with money, and it is free software, and open source, anybody will tell you that.
Free software, like the FSF definition, "free" as in "freedom", is very specific, of course. It is about protecting the freedom of the user, at the expense of everything else when needed.
The thing with the "open source" term is that it doesn't mean much. Everybody can use that term to fit what they want. The thing you talk about does exist. Lots of companies buy software with the sources, but just don't get a license to redistribute. Unix was sold that way, back in the day. Custom software is often sold that way, too. The problem is that usually the actual use of the source is restricted by the same arrangement that restricts distribution, so it couldn't be considered "open".
You shouldn't worry , though. You can call whatever model you want "open source", most people don't know what it means, and those who do, don't agree, so it's a safe bet.
The problem is that the guy in the past was talking about bad things that would happen if you didn't follow his lead. He sounded a little nutty, talking about an oppressive future, for example whn he discussed Palladium, or "Treacherous Computing".
Right now, the problems he was talking about are more real, DRM, and trusted computing are real problems that affect you right now.
He hasn't changed, but the reality did change into what he said it would.
Software patents right now have a harmful effect, but they could be much worse if you let them advence further.
It's not as hard right now to imagine a future time where every free software project is effectively killed by software patents, and the only practical software available is a restricted TV-like personal computer, completely controlled by content providers.
Of course, there are countries without software patents, but for example my country will get them through an FTA with the US, and in most other places, this could happen too.
Could you please elaborate how the hell are you going to make a proprietary software provider fix the bug that is bugging you?
Problem: Exchange doesn't have a good IMP implementation.
What is your solution? Who do you pay to do it?
I think that the proprietary developer is much less sensitive to your needs, because they have a monopoly on support, whereas a free software provider will have to comply to your needs, or you could just pay someone else to get your feature implemented.
I think that the problem in the free software - proprietary software debate is that most people who like proprietary don't understand that "free" doesn't mean "you don't pay for it", it means "you do whatever you want as a user with it". Free software doesn't mean you shouldn't pay for support, or fixes.
Because no one seems to want to write an OSS license that lets you *gasp* charge for copies of your software.
(Actually, the GPL forbids it...)
Why is it a necessary rule that 1 user pays for what millions use for free?
You are trolling, or just wrong, as others stated.
The GPL doesn't forbid you from selling copies, you don't sound like someone who actually read it.
For example, Mysql will happily sell you a proprietary copy of their software, because the GPL _lets_ them *gasp* charge for their software, and some people are willing to pay.
What you can't usually do in practice (because of no value added) is sell more than a few copies of some other guys GPLed software.
Of course, the GPL doesn't help your copy-selling bussiness, because it is a copyleft license, its whole idea is to revert the effects of copyright, and disencourage the sale of copies by restricting users.
There are other licenses that let you include some source and keep distribution priviledges, like microsofts shared source and stuff. Of course, most people wouldn't call _that_ OSS (I don't have a clear definition of what exactly _you_ mean by "OSS"), and it wouldn't be free software.
The idea of 1 user paying for what other millions use for free is not that bad to some people. People who use the GPL, for example. Then, there are people like you. You just need to keep away from GPLed software, and you will be fine. Nobody is forcing it down your throat, there are some other alternatives, and you are free to use them.
I don't think that actually happens.
A project owner with an itch to scratch, will scratch it, they _do_ maintain their own code.
Maintaining their own code, but for other people, and for free, is something that they usually do, but some times they just don't want to. There is where you see some project owners complain, about users that want tailored free maintaining right now, without contributing.
There's no implied contract that says that the original coder will fix _your_ problems for free. That's one of the best things of the GPL, you have the power to make stuff happen yourself. Even if you don't know how to program, there are a lot of programmers that will do it for you, given the right compensation. That is the actual meaning of "free" as in "freedom", and not as in "beer".
Of course you don't, but your eyes and brain are designed to recognize actual physical objects, not abstractions of them. Of course, the screen you are looking at is a physical object, and it's easier to understand at a lower level, and then being able to exploit things like spatial memory, and that kind stuff we have.
That might be a problem with default configuration, because of the constant development in that specific area.
For example, wobbly is good, if it affects only regular and splash windows. With tooltips and menus it's just annoying, but if you uncheck "unknown" windows, it works great, and doesn't bother regular work. It feels very natural to have windows move as if they were actual physical objects.
With that exact change in config, it work perfectly, and is very nice to use, things like unfolding the cube are neat, and the rotating switcher is great at giving you the whole idea of your desktop.
Its nice to have a fast spatially oriented multiple desktop configuration.
I had exactly one vinyl record, and the packaging did make for a big part of the experience.
The thing is that vinyl records look good, and feel good to handle.
And how cool is it to actually watch the music be played?
CDs have the look of something you put into a computer, not something related to music.
If they had the decency of having a black plastic sleeve, it would be tolerable, but they have zero coolness factor as it is.
>> I'm not sure what your definition of "first timer" is, but all the Linux distros I've used are *much* easier >>to install than Windows. Really, the hardest part for newbies is figuring out how to burn an iso.
>I agree in every area except partitioning; most linux distributions have traditionally made this at least as >difficult as it is in DOS; sure, to you and I it's a doddle, but to the masses it might as well be written in >sanskrit.
But he was saying _easier_ to install than Windows.
Partitioning is a bitch, always, of course, but it has to be done in any system you use. It's an OS-agnostic task. You need to partition your disk when you need to install Windows in it.
What I do with people who want to install Ubuntu is tell them to use something like partition magic to create free disk space, and then the time required to install a dual-boot dapper-xp system is reduced in more than half the user time.
I meant they _share_ some degree of authoritarism. Of course, all of them are authoritarian but to a different degree. Cuba does have authoritarism, but it can't be compared to China, where everything you do can get you jailed or executed. The URSS, through its history, went through different phases, all authoritarian off course, but different.
About forcing other countries to do things your way, is horrendous, not hilarious. Overthrowing a government and installing your own, and then say that you do it in the name of democracy, yes, it's something to laugh at, even if it's pathetic.
-------------
Como se puede notar claramente, el inglés no es mi lengua materna.
Yo decía que _comparten_ algún grado de autoritarismo. Distinto grado en cada caso, por supuesto. Cuba tiene problemas de autoritarismo, por supuesto, pero no existe el nivel de opresión de China, donde no se puede hacer nada sin ser objeto de represión. La Unión Soviética ha pasado por distintos grados en distintas épocas, y es verdad, siempre fue bastante malo.
Forzar a otros países a seguir tu ideología es horroroso, no hilarante. Cambiar el gobierno de otro país por uno que te gusta, y luego decir que lo hacés en el nombre de la democracia, sí, tiene una ironía tal que es para cagarse de risa.
You mean JKLÑ, obviously.
Chuck Norris just stares at the phosphor triads, and the inscription starts glowing from then on.
I live in Uruguay, but I might as well be living in the US,
Well, I correct myself, thinking it through, it's not the same to live in my country as in the US, we might be starting to have all the _problems_ of the US system, but not the money advantages.
I live in Uruguay, but I might as well be living in the US, we are about to sign a free trade agreement that basically imposes that everything that is law in the US regarding copyrights, and patents, should become law here.
That means, of course, that the FTA will be good for our beef exports to the USA, but kill any attempt to develop new industries, like biotechnology and biopharma (where we could have a bit of a head start in the region), through patent laws that do not adapt to our reality.
That is because the socialist government elected here is not _that_ socialist to start with, and is willing to play ball, otherwise we could even get a place in the list of countries to liberate (ok, the low priority list, we don't have any oil).
I say if we're going to bring down communism we should do it via undermining their contries authority and showing them now the non-commies have it...
China is not a communist country. They are an authoritarian fascist regime.
The soviet union with Lenin was an example of something a bit more communist, and Cuba regime resembles communism even more.
All of them share some degree of authoritarism, but that is not a needed or unique characteristic of a communist country.
Aside from the clarification... why would you want to bring down communism in another country?
Do you think that the autodetermination principle is not a good thing to respect?
It's one thing to choose to trade with countries with which you share ideology, but trying to force other independent countries into doing things the way you do, looks pretty authoritarian itself. And it would be hilarious to do that, in the name of democracy.
I don't think the same way you do.
Right now, what you are talking about is actually happening.
UI stuff is not a matter of implementation, but one of design. When the KDE project does something nice, and it happens to work in practice, it's much easier for the Gnome team to add it to Gnome.
But there is a difference between Gnome users, and KDE users.
I see KDE target as people who want the latest features, and the most configurability.
Gnome seems to be about having good features, even if they take a lot of time to be integrated in the desktop, and the best default configuration, even if things are not that easily configurable.
I like Gnome better, and I don't want it to be more like KDE. I believe KDE users wouldn't want KDE to be more like Gnome, and lose configurability and features.
Of course, this is only my interpretation, it was like this the last time I checked KDE in Suse 8.2, maybe they have converged now to a point where the difference is irrelevant.
I assume you have Adobe Reader, and a windows machine. You must have the wrong default configuration. Not every piece of software works ok without post install configuration, Adobe Reader is an example. You should configure your browser to not use the adobe plugin installed. Reader just doesn't integrate ok with browsing, and I haven't tried any alternative.
At the XP machine I use at work, I just disable the plugin, and download the file. That way, when I open it, it doesn't mess with firefox at all. On linux, I don't have Reader, and clicking on a PDF opens a standalone window of the gnome PDF reader (evince, I think) .
LOGO was interpreted too, back then.
Python,
javascript,
perl, all are interpreted.
Availability is key, marketing too.
You learned BASIC because you just wanted to.
I learned LOGO on a Texas Instruments color computer the size of a spectrum computer (I don't know which model or processor but it was Z80s time, 1985 probably ), at age 8, and it had if, while/for loops, and a nice structured layout.
Even the rudiment of objects was there, with "actors", AKA sprites, you could draw some single-color character, then told it to move, and ok, everything worked right away.
We even built a little game with collision detection (the "you are a fish and you try not to bump into the other moving fish in the fishtank" game) .
Then some interactive illustrated stories.
At age 9, I did the second module, and learned BASIC on a green screen PC.
I couldn't believe how difficult it was to program with GOTO and GOSUB, and the lack of ability it had for simple tasks. And line numbering, I never understood that . Well, of course, I understood why BASIC was that way, when I learned assembly language 10 years later, of course.
This was all 20 years ago, but my point is that the good thing about BASIC is not that it was easy, it was much harder than other languages, much harder than Pascal, (from a human point of view only, of course, I know BASIC is much easier to implement).
The "BASIC" name refers to implementation, not programming in it. There's nothing basic about programming in BASIC. It's more complex for a human than structured programming, making sense of GOTO. Line numbers are unneeded complexity. What I think is that BASIC owes its popularity _only_ to availability, and not ease of use. Any structured language is much easier to grasp for people without any knowledge.