That's not really the issue. This MS vs Open Source mentality is probably due mostly to the fact that the open source software that is most mature is operating systems, so that pretty much leaves us with "open source vs. microsoft".
1. Rich people who file for bankruptcy 2. Able people who file for unemployment 3. Healthy people who abuse insurance claims 4. Smart people who don't apply themselves
Don't forget: 5. People who sit on their ass all their lives and collect rent checks from tenants
I know, I bought one for the house, and it was a mess. Crashing constantly and a total pain in the ass. After the 294,768,345 th support call to IBM, and 46.8 million dollars later, i finally switch back to Win2K. Now everything's great!
Well, this is all true, but the worst thing is that windows developers seem TOTALLY ignorant of UNIX design & development principles. All will be violated. Windows developers conform to application "standards" and data formats, UNIX developers conform to protocols, that is the big difference.
MS Office for UNIX would violate the FHS, probably introduce all manner of flakiness (registry anyone?) to make Linux crash often (run as root, who knows?), and probably go against all common sense as well. Hell, the same goes for the Windows version of Office, but then Windows itself goes against all intelligent design principles, so no one really notices.
Added to this one must consider Microsoft's behaviour, and almost certainly they will produce a buggy an incompatible UNIX version, which, when it doesn't work, the response will be, most CERTAINLY "switch to Windows XP."
Lastly, Office for the Mac never helped Apple's market share. So why would it help Linux's?
But IMO the essence of capitalism is that people as a collective, not just as individuals, can strive towards those goals of accruing wealth, and it is this that the robots are doing.
Capitalism has nothing to do with accruing wealth, or working hard, or working together, or making your own way in the world, or business - these things are ancient and all this crap is mainly out of business propaganda from the last 30 years. Capitalism is about 150 years old if that. Capitalism has to do with accruing property, and it requires a system, laws and bureaucracy that allows individuals to accrue property.
And since my boss owns everything I and my co-workers produce, I hardly consider working for the company to be a collective goal.
You say "the essence of capitalism" is people striving collectively to achieve wealth - this could not be less true. You are describing the opposite of capitalism.
well the above sounds nice but it also sounds like a mess. Part of what I like about linux, as opposed to windows, is the fact that different types of data are all neatly partitioned - compare to the mess in windows, which has no FHS, and everyone just puts anything wherever they want.
A lot of what mosfet is complaining about would be solved by separating things like KDE and GNOME (and alos certain very large applications such as mozilla and star office) away from the rest of the system. I dislike having $KDEDIR=/usr as well - it's a mess. I'm not saying it should go in/opt like SuSE does (this is fairly contentious issue) but at least in/usr/kde-version.
Slackware makes sure they don't have ANY security problems before they make a release. You don't need to update them because of a security problem
If you believe that you're a fuck up of the lowest order
Mentioning "superior package system" and "slackware" in the same sentence doesn't make any sense. The slackware package system is about as featureless as they come (it was meant to be). I'm not saying slackware sucks, just that it sucks for administering large numbers of machines. Which it does.
that a non-heirarchically managed project would tend to view "leaders" (in the traditional, managerial sense) as anathema. Meglomania is simply not needed, is a hindrance, and highly annoying.
This isn't nessecarily "open source" because some open source projects are very heirarchical (BSD for example) and some are not (debian). The "leaders" of the debian project are elected, and generally there isn't alot of resentment. Meglomaniacs should stick to proprietary software, where a non-democratic structure is assumed.
oops.. I meant that after driving all the way out there (20 miles or so) I found that the delivery guy "had not taken it off the truck" and I had to wait until tomorrow. By the third time I was literally screaming and cursing at the top of my lungs at the UPS clerk and then the manager came out and I really let him have it (I felt bad about yelling at the clerk, it probably wasn't her fault), obscenities and all.
A while back I ordered a keybaord through the mail, about a $500 piece of equipment (this was all US).
Of course UPS does not quite understand the concept of "not being at home while I'm at work", and after four times of me calling the 1-800 number and asking them to hold the package then driving every time out to the UPS depot (they're always in the middle of nowhere, aren't they?), after five days they sent it back.
The shipper sent it back to me, and they finally held it for me, but when I finally got it, it looked, literally, like the delivery truck had run over it repeatedly. It was smashed beyond recognition.
The short story is that it took me about 2 months to get this straight with UPS and I did not pay shipping, but it took fucking two months.
I sent it back,
everyone thinks they're different, but they're really the same, due to "product churning" every 2 years (elections = new releases)
they all have the personalities of screaming 2 year old children - always screaming "My this, my that, mine mine MINE!!!!"
everyone seems to like them for the same reasons (there "isn't anything else"). Suggesting windows users use linux is very much like asking a democrat to become a syndicalist.
No your analogy is ridiculous, since you're not comparing kinds. Not to mention there is no real difference between the republicans and democrats.
Republicans and Democrats is more like comparing Windows 98 and Windows ME. Neither works worth a shit.
Linux is a kernel, FreeBSD is a distribution. You can compare the BSD kernel with linux, or FreeBSD with Debian or Mandrake, but you can't compare OpenBSD with linux, any more than you can compare W2K with linux (unless you're just comparing kernels).
This Byte article is comparing the bsd kernel with linux.
Unless you're the type who installs all the server apps to/usr/local from source, in which case you should be using BSD, because with slack you will be downloading and recompiling the source everytime there's a security problem or it otherwise needs updating.
I can't imagine running 50 slackware web servers and trying to update all of them because of a security problem. Debian and BSD do this all automagically.
He's right, rpm based distros do not come close the the ease of administration you need; like one gets with Debian or BSD. The whole point of computers is for THEM to do the work, not you. Let them do it.
For linux servers Debian is the only choice. RPM is crap (tho still better than windows).
because linux / bsd users have robbed them of their martyr-like counterculture image, which was a corporate created sham to begin with.
Get a life.
Re:i'm going to suffer for this but...
on
KDE Wins 3 awards
·
· Score: 1
No, KDE is far less annoying to use than Windows in any of its incarnations. I personally am very annoyed by many things about windows - apps stealing the focus from what you are doing, splash screens, focus policy, excessive popup confirmation dialogs, general inconfigurability, the list goes on. All these things add up to an unpleasant experience.
Well that's not entirely true, NT 4.0 seemed to have spread overnight back in '95; and that was when MS had only Win3.11 to establish their reputation! I guess if you count NT 3 it took about five years... but think, back then everyone was switching to the "OS made by the folks who brought you Windows 3.1". Ludicrous. And these are the same people complaining about Linux not being good enough now!
OK I found the article - here.
There are countless others like this.
Note that the UCITA and DCMA make it even more difficult - actually almost impossible - to sue your software vendor.
So WHY does everyone keep repeating this mantra that you can "at least sue your vendor" with proprietary software? YOU CAN'T. And how is a contract with a closed source vendor any more legitimate than a contract with an open source one?
There's a certain comfort factor in knowing that you can go to one vendor and say "fix this" which you don't get with linux on Intel. IBM, HP and Sun all make the hardware and OS; you don't get that with linux (with the potential exception of some IBM kit like the S/390).
Well, that's not true, it is just different. Why not go to the core developers and offer them some money to fix something or add a feature you would like? I think this system would be far better than complaining through 20 levels of incompetent tech support to finally get the message that it "will be fixed in the next release". I've never heard of anyone getting some software bug fixed by going to Oracle or Microsoft or whoever else and saying "fix this". Hell, I remember a recent article (sorry I can't find it now) where a CIO was relating all the massive problems he was having with Oracle (the company) fixing his software - and they were a multi-million dollar client.
It would be nice if sites like source forge were set up so that the development group could accept donations or payments for bug fixes or add ons. This was a great oversight.
Slashdot Mirror
That's not really the issue. This MS vs Open Source mentality is probably due mostly to the fact that the open source software that is most mature is operating systems, so that pretty much leaves us with "open source vs. microsoft".
You are woefully ignorant, and I suggest you read a little history. Christians have shed more blood in God's name than ANY other religeon, ever.
2. Able people who file for unemployment
3. Healthy people who abuse insurance claims
4. Smart people who don't apply themselves
Don't forget:
5. People who sit on their ass all their lives and collect rent checks from tenants
I know, I bought one for the house, and it was a mess. Crashing constantly and a total pain in the ass. After the 294,768,345 th support call to IBM, and 46.8 million dollars later, i finally switch back to Win2K. Now everything's great!
Well, this is all true, but the worst thing is that windows developers seem TOTALLY ignorant of UNIX design & development principles. All will be violated. Windows developers conform to application "standards" and data formats, UNIX developers conform to protocols, that is the big difference.
MS Office for UNIX would violate the FHS, probably introduce all manner of flakiness (registry anyone?) to make Linux crash often (run as root, who knows?), and probably go against all common sense as well. Hell, the same goes for the Windows version of Office, but then Windows itself goes against all intelligent design principles, so no one really notices.
Added to this one must consider Microsoft's behaviour, and almost certainly they will produce a buggy an incompatible UNIX version, which, when it doesn't work, the response will be, most CERTAINLY "switch to Windows XP."
Lastly, Office for the Mac never helped Apple's market share. So why would it help Linux's?
Capitalism has nothing to do with accruing wealth, or working hard, or working together, or making your own way in the world, or business - these things are ancient and all this crap is mainly out of business propaganda from the last 30 years. Capitalism is about 150 years old if that. Capitalism has to do with accruing property, and it requires a system, laws and bureaucracy that allows individuals to accrue property.
And since my boss owns everything I and my co-workers produce, I hardly consider working for the company to be a collective goal.
You say "the essence of capitalism" is people striving collectively to achieve wealth - this could not be less true. You are describing the opposite of capitalism.
Dr Who was a nice in-between, I believe each of the episodes was in 4 parts.
A single one hour episode is just too short for much of any kind of story.
The worst thing about Trek is all the characters are such 2 dimensional pussies fresh out of the Federation's PC boot camp in search of a personality.
A lot of what mosfet is complaining about would be solved by separating things like KDE and GNOME (and alos certain very large applications such as mozilla and star office) away from the rest of the system. I dislike having $KDEDIR=/usr as well - it's a mess. I'm not saying it should go in /opt like SuSE does (this is fairly contentious issue) but at least in /usr/kde-version.
If you believe that you're a fuck up of the lowest order
Mentioning "superior package system" and "slackware" in the same sentence doesn't make any sense. The slackware package system is about as featureless as they come (it was meant to be). I'm not saying slackware sucks, just that it sucks for administering large numbers of machines. Which it does.
that a non-heirarchically managed project would tend to view "leaders" (in the traditional, managerial sense) as anathema. Meglomania is simply not needed, is a hindrance, and highly annoying.
This isn't nessecarily "open source" because some open source projects are very heirarchical (BSD for example) and some are not (debian). The "leaders" of the debian project are elected, and generally there isn't alot of resentment. Meglomaniacs should stick to proprietary software, where a non-democratic structure is assumed.
oops .. I meant that after driving all the way out there (20 miles or so) I found that the delivery guy "had not taken it off the truck" and I had to wait until tomorrow. By the third time I was literally screaming and cursing at the top of my lungs at the UPS clerk and then the manager came out and I really let him have it (I felt bad about yelling at the clerk, it probably wasn't her fault), obscenities and all.
A while back I ordered a keybaord through the mail, about a $500 piece of equipment (this was all US).
Of course UPS does not quite understand the concept of "not being at home while I'm at work", and after four times of me calling the 1-800 number and asking them to hold the package then driving every time out to the UPS depot (they're always in the middle of nowhere, aren't they?), after five days they sent it back.
The shipper sent it back to me, and they finally held it for me, but when I finally got it, it looked, literally, like the delivery truck had run over it repeatedly. It was smashed beyond recognition.
The short story is that it took me about 2 months to get this straight with UPS and I did not pay shipping, but it took fucking two months.
I sent it back,
Since KDE's icon sizes are adjustable up to 64x64, yeah, 1600x1200 can be quite useable on a 15" screen.
With windows, yeah it is pointless.
No your analogy is ridiculous, since you're not comparing kinds. Not to mention there is no real difference between the republicans and democrats.
Republicans and Democrats is more like comparing Windows 98 and Windows ME. Neither works worth a shit.
Linux is a kernel, FreeBSD is a distribution. You can compare the BSD kernel with linux, or FreeBSD with Debian or Mandrake, but you can't compare OpenBSD with linux, any more than you can compare W2K with linux (unless you're just comparing kernels).
This Byte article is comparing the bsd kernel with linux.
BSD stands only to gain from linux' popularity.
Linux increases unix mindshare. More ppl familiar with unix = more bsd users.
Linux also helps commercial unices in this way as well, though it hurts them by stealing some big accounts (ouch).
Unless you're the type who installs all the server apps to /usr/local from source, in which case you should be using BSD, because with slack you will be downloading and recompiling the source everytime there's a security problem or it otherwise needs updating.
I can't imagine running 50 slackware web servers and trying to update all of them because of a security problem. Debian and BSD do this all automagically.
He's right, rpm based distros do not come close the the ease of administration you need; like one gets with Debian or BSD. The whole point of computers is for THEM to do the work, not you. Let them do it.
For linux servers Debian is the only choice. RPM is crap (tho still better than windows).
because linux / bsd users have robbed them of their martyr-like counterculture image, which was a corporate created sham to begin with.
Get a life.
No, KDE is far less annoying to use than Windows in any of its incarnations. I personally am very annoyed by many things about windows - apps stealing the focus from what you are doing, splash screens, focus policy, excessive popup confirmation dialogs, general inconfigurability, the list goes on. All these things add up to an unpleasant experience.
KDE2 does not suck.
Well that's not entirely true, NT 4.0 seemed to have spread overnight back in '95; and that was when MS had only Win3.11 to establish their reputation! I guess if you count NT 3 it took about five years ... but think, back then everyone was switching to the "OS made by the folks who brought you Windows 3.1". Ludicrous. And these are the same people complaining about Linux not being good enough now!
I remember one of my coworkers had gotten a service where you could email his account, which would forward to a voice mail text -> speech system.
...
It was hilarious sending him obscene and or ridiculous emails and listening to the recorded voice play them back
Note that the UCITA and DCMA make it even more difficult - actually almost impossible - to sue your software vendor.
So WHY does everyone keep repeating this mantra that you can "at least sue your vendor" with proprietary software? YOU CAN'T. And how is a contract with a closed source vendor any more legitimate than a contract with an open source one?
Well, that's not true, it is just different. Why not go to the core developers and offer them some money to fix something or add a feature you would like? I think this system would be far better than complaining through 20 levels of incompetent tech support to finally get the message that it "will be fixed in the next release". I've never heard of anyone getting some software bug fixed by going to Oracle or Microsoft or whoever else and saying "fix this". Hell, I remember a recent article (sorry I can't find it now) where a CIO was relating all the massive problems he was having with Oracle (the company) fixing his software - and they were a multi-million dollar client.
It would be nice if sites like source forge were set up so that the development group could accept donations or payments for bug fixes or add ons. This was a great oversight.
If you don't want to run a "beta distribution" then stick with Red Hat's X.2 releases, the .0 and .1 releases are worse than Debian unstable.