I fully agree. Taxpayer funded software should be placed into the public domain. It doens't matter if this tax money is for defense spending or corporate welfare. If the public paid for it then it belongs to the entire public, and not just a politically correct subgroup.
I don't need more buttons. Use the three button Trackman and you see why. It fits the human hand perfectly (no snickers from the peanut gallery!)
The thumb rests on the trackball, where you have fine control, and each button is squarely situation under the natural position of the first three fingers. If it had so many buttons that I had to move a finger then that's too many buttons.
Ditto. I have a Logitech Trackman with three, count them, three buttons. And no fscking scroll wheel! Nobody makes anything even close to this anymore.
I'm with you. I'm not going to throw away my mouse, my laserjet, my UPS or my keyboard. I finally got an AGP video card, so I'm guessing I still have three months of life in it before someone comes up with another standard...
p.s. If anyone has, or knows where I can get another of these trackballs new, let me know...
I have no problems with a PS/2-less motherboard, so long as the BIOS can detect and use my USB keyboard, and pass on the keystrokes transparently to the OS. You see, I don't use Windows. Nor do I use any of the fancy Linux distros that include every possible driver in the boot image. I need the keyboard when I install an OS, so I need the keyboard to work before the OS is installed. It's sort of a chicken-and-egg problem.
Support the option of open source and/or free software technology development business models as a viable alternative to the close source business model.
What the hell does that have to do with Congress? Are they now in the business of deciding what business models are viable or not? Does someone really think that some Senator from Podunk can wave a magic wand the laws of economics will change?
Do you know what Notepad is? It's essentially the multiline edit control of MFC with a frame around it. Do you know what KEdit is? It's essentially the multiline edit widget of Qt with a frame around it. The example Visual Studio editor and the sample Qt editor are virtually indistinguishable from Notepad and KEdit but for a bit of polish.
Why doesn't KEdit qualify as a super basic text editor? You can't get much simpler than that.
Lady Justice: Did you employ exclusive OEM contracts? Defendent: Yes. Lady Justice: Did you employ those contracts to further your own business at the expense of others? Defendent: Yes. Lady Justice: Then you're guilty. Defendent: But I'm not a monopoly! Lady Justice: Then who are you? Defendent: I can't tell you, because that would be cheating. Lady Justice: Give me a hint. Defendent: I can't. You're supposed to be impartial. Lady Justice: Let me take off my blinders and look at you then. Defendent: You'll make a mockery of everything you stand for if you do. Lady Justice: Well, how else can I determine who you are? Defendent: Why do you need to know who I am? Lady Justice: So I can apply the correct statutes. Defendent: You mean there's more than one? Lady Justice: Of course! Either you don't understand or are unwilling to udnerstand monopoply practices in America. Defendent: Okay, take off your blindfold. Lady Justice: But you're not Microsoft! You're Joes's Tire Warehouse!
Because Apple isn't a monopoly. What Apple is doing is legal, ethical and moral. What Microsoft is doing is illegal, unethical and immoral. Even though they're both doing the same thing. Lady Justice has removed her blindfold and is saying "tell me who you are and then I will tell you can or cannot do."
Yes, it is in the ports tree, and it's what I use. But it's not part of the *default* install. This is frustrating to new users because they say "yes, install X" to the installer, then try to upgrade to 4.2.0 to get Xft, DRI, etc., and run into a load of problems. But at the same time, you have a ports tree that is very current. The best solution is to only use the installer to get the base system, then use ports for everything else.
I can do a make buildworld and make installworld in about two and half hours. Not bad really. Of course, I have a much faster machine than the reviewer's.
Some may chime in about how Open Source is supposedly a constant large scale code review but I've previously written on the fallacy of this kind of thinking
You are correct in asserting that openness by itself does not spontaneously generate code review. But you miss the obvious attribute that open source facilitates code review. While some open source projects, including many well known ones, ignore code reviews completely, others make them first priority. I can actually look at the OpenBSD source and audit the code. I can't do that with Windows. Frankly, if there were as many people working on OpenBSD as there were on Windows, there would be no contest.
Yeah, he really dissed KDE over the install, when it was all his distro's doing. I did an install of KDE3 for Slackware and it took me all of five minutes to finish, with no problems other than a missing libfam because I was a silly luser who didn't read message on the FTP site that said in big bold letters that I needed libfam.
It took me five hours to get the base Gentoo installed on my PIII with 128 megs of ram.
Hmmm, much quicker than Windows. I did a WinME install last month. It took me most of a Saturday. Reboot. Click "yes". Reboot. Click "yes". Reboot. Install driver. Reboot. Reinstall driver. Reboot. ad infinitum.
I haven't used Gentoo yet, but I can install FreeBSD, including sources, in about seven minutes. Add another five minutes in if I also install XFree86, KDE, Xmms, Mozilla, Linux support, etc.
I don't know if Gentoo has an ISO image of all its source code, but FreeBSD does. All the sources for everything, including the ports, are included in the CDs.
I see you've already hit upon the correct solution. XFree86-4 will be standard on FreeBSD-5.0 (November sometime). Until then, the FreeBSD-4.x branch is a stable branch. You're as likely to see XFree86-4 in FreeBSD-4.x as you would in Debian-potato.
The way applications function under Windows is for the most part consistent. There really is no competing widget sets on Windows, which helps coherency.
You're point might be valid except for one thing: the internet. All those millions of web pages out there with different looks and feels. Yet the general surfing public manages to handle it. The differences between the default GTK+ and Qt looks is far far less than the differences between any two random web pages. A common DND protocol is needed. A common set of keys is needed. But the differences between the way the look and feel is irrelevant.
The original poster's attitude against Windows users is absurd when his OS of choice, Unix, is by no means a superior OS in this day and age.
I was not saying that Unix is better than Windows. Rather my point was that since I am not familiar with Windows it is confusing to me. I was attacking the asurd notion that Windows is intuitive. It is not. But that doesn't mean that I think Unix is intuitive.
The first real computer system I ever used was 4BSD. I started on Unix. So Unix feels natural to me. For someone starting with Win9x, Unix will feel unnatural.
There is no reason to call Windows users "sheep."
I didn't call all Windows users sheep. I called *some* of them sheep. And I will be the first to admit that many Unix users are also sheep. But I will not retract my implication that Microsoft prefers its users to be sheep.
While he is studying Unix learning all the archaic commands, a Windows user may be studying biology, or something.
I don't expect automobile drivers to know how to tune an engine or change the oil. But I do expect them to know how to drive, have basic knowledge on traffic laws, the ability to read and understand their owner's manual, and that they need to change their oil every 3 months or 3000 miles.
No one expects the average computer user to know anything at all about their computer. This is stupid. I'm not talking about my Mother who is completely inept when it comes to technology. I'm talking about the people who work in IT.
And Windows is worse than either. Gnome and KDE definitely need some usability work. Microsoft has enough money that they can afford it, so it always amazes me that it seems almost an afterthought to them.
Right, that's what I meant. Like the guy whose trying to set up networking for the first time. His ISP told him to use DHCP, but he can't find it anywhere in the configuration. He doesn't know enough yet to understand that "configure IP address automatically" is the button he wants.
I expect greater returns in terms of usable software than the money I put in.
There are two big flaws in your argument. First, what happens when Redhat finally puts out usable software? Do you stop "investing" because your goal has been reached? Eventually any business is going to have to leave childhood (the investment stage) and enter adulthood (the making money all on your own stage). Investment as a long term business plan is known in most circles as a "ponzi scheme".
The second problem is what distinguishes charities from investments: The Free Rider Problem. The classic example is the lighthouse. All the ship captains want a lighthouse. But if one individual captain finances the lighthouse, all the other captains get the use of it for free. This leads to much resentment. Some captains will reason that even though they can afford to build the lighthouse, it is financially worthwhile to wait a little bit to see if someone else steps up to the plate first. The common solution to the problem, unfortunately, is some form of coercion, usually taxation.
In terms of Redhat, you can "invest" all you want, but you end up subsidizing all those who don't invest. This may be okay for you and many others. But for most people it is not. So they download it for free or buy the $2 Cheapbytes version and let you finance the improvements.
There are two solutions to this problem. One is coercion, and it is the method that RMS advocates. He wants a software tax to finance free software development. But there is a much friendly solution. Realize that free software is indeed free beer along with being free "speech", and stop trying to sell it. Find something else to sell instead. It might be services, support, proprietary addons, or even plush Tux dolls, but you'll go broke selling free software.
Have a look at the Free Software Services Directory [gnu.org] for more people/companies who appear to be cashing in on Free Software.
They appear to be making money off of services. And the vast majority of the listing are individual consultants and contractors. This is a very different thing from making money by selling a product. I have absolutely no qualms about companies selling services, support, hardware or other addons as a means of supporting their free software end. But they (whoever they are) should at least stop calling themselves a free software company and start calling themselves a service, support, hardware or addon company.
I don't see much in the way of service and support for Mandrake. They seem to be going to classical "sell a prepackaged distribution of free software" route. This worked quite well for some companies a few years ago. If Mandrake expects to go this route in now, when high speed internet access and CD burners are cheap and common, they'll soon go the way of Walnut Creek CDROM. They can't subsist on donations alone.
If Mandrake wishes to sell a product, then it needs to be a product that one can't get elsewhere for free, as either open source or freeware. If the product is software, then that means the software has to be proprietary. An Aladdin type model might work here, where the current Mandrake is proprietary, but older versions are free. Otherwise, they need to think about selling service, support, etc.
Slashdot Mirror
I fully agree. Taxpayer funded software should be placed into the public domain. It doens't matter if this tax money is for defense spending or corporate welfare. If the public paid for it then it belongs to the entire public, and not just a politically correct subgroup.
I hate the editor in my web browser. No spell check, not good editing ability, and other problems.
Hmmm, my HTML editor is Emacs, and I don't have these problems at all.
I don't need more buttons. Use the three button Trackman and you see why. It fits the human hand perfectly (no snickers from the peanut gallery!)
The thumb rests on the trackball, where you have fine control, and each button is squarely situation under the natural position of the first three fingers. If it had so many buttons that I had to move a finger then that's too many buttons.
So I can use the keyboard without configuring USB in the OS?
Ditto. I have a Logitech Trackman with three, count them, three buttons. And no fscking scroll wheel! Nobody makes anything even close to this anymore.
I'm with you. I'm not going to throw away my mouse, my laserjet, my UPS or my keyboard. I finally got an AGP video card, so I'm guessing I still have three months of life in it before someone comes up with another standard...
p.s. If anyone has, or knows where I can get another of these trackballs new, let me know...
I have no problems with a PS/2-less motherboard, so long as the BIOS can detect and use my USB keyboard, and pass on the keystrokes transparently to the OS. You see, I don't use Windows. Nor do I use any of the fancy Linux distros that include every possible driver in the boot image. I need the keyboard when I install an OS, so I need the keyboard to work before the OS is installed. It's sort of a chicken-and-egg problem.
Support the option of open source and/or free software technology development business models as a viable alternative to the close source business model.
What the hell does that have to do with Congress? Are they now in the business of deciding what business models are viable or not? Does someone really think that some Senator from Podunk can wave a magic wand the laws of economics will change?
You're right. My bad.
Do you know what Notepad is? It's essentially the multiline edit control of MFC with a frame around it. Do you know what KEdit is? It's essentially the multiline edit widget of Qt with a frame around it. The example Visual Studio editor and the sample Qt editor are virtually indistinguishable from Notepad and KEdit but for a bit of polish.
Why doesn't KEdit qualify as a super basic text editor? You can't get much simpler than that.
Lady Justice: Did you employ exclusive OEM contracts?
Defendent: Yes.
Lady Justice: Did you employ those contracts to further your own business at the expense of others?
Defendent: Yes.
Lady Justice: Then you're guilty.
Defendent: But I'm not a monopoly!
Lady Justice: Then who are you?
Defendent: I can't tell you, because that would be cheating.
Lady Justice: Give me a hint.
Defendent: I can't. You're supposed to be impartial.
Lady Justice: Let me take off my blinders and look at you then.
Defendent: You'll make a mockery of everything you stand for if you do.
Lady Justice: Well, how else can I determine who you are?
Defendent: Why do you need to know who I am?
Lady Justice: So I can apply the correct statutes.
Defendent: You mean there's more than one?
Lady Justice: Of course! Either you don't understand or are unwilling to udnerstand monopoply practices in America.
Defendent: Okay, take off your blindfold.
Lady Justice: But you're not Microsoft! You're Joes's Tire Warehouse!
It makes sense to abbreviate internationalization. But it doesn't explain why we have silly abbreviations like "m4".
Because Apple isn't a monopoly. What Apple is doing is legal, ethical and moral. What Microsoft is doing is illegal, unethical and immoral. Even though they're both doing the same thing. Lady Justice has removed her blindfold and is saying "tell me who you are and then I will tell you can or cannot do."
Yes, it is in the ports tree, and it's what I use. But it's not part of the *default* install. This is frustrating to new users because they say "yes, install X" to the installer, then try to upgrade to 4.2.0 to get Xft, DRI, etc., and run into a load of problems. But at the same time, you have a ports tree that is very current. The best solution is to only use the installer to get the base system, then use ports for everything else.
I can do a make buildworld and make installworld in about two and half hours. Not bad really. Of course, I have a much faster machine than the reviewer's.
Some may chime in about how Open Source is supposedly a constant large scale code review but I've previously written on the fallacy of this kind of thinking
You are correct in asserting that openness by itself does not spontaneously generate code review. But you miss the obvious attribute that open source facilitates code review. While some open source projects, including many well known ones, ignore code reviews completely, others make them first priority. I can actually look at the OpenBSD source and audit the code. I can't do that with Windows. Frankly, if there were as many people working on OpenBSD as there were on Windows, there would be no contest.
Yeah, he really dissed KDE over the install, when it was all his distro's doing. I did an install of KDE3 for Slackware and it took me all of five minutes to finish, with no problems other than a missing libfam because I was a silly luser who didn't read message on the FTP site that said in big bold letters that I needed libfam.
It took me five hours to get the base Gentoo installed on my PIII with 128 megs of ram.
Hmmm, much quicker than Windows. I did a WinME install last month. It took me most of a Saturday. Reboot. Click "yes". Reboot. Click "yes". Reboot. Install driver. Reboot. Reinstall driver. Reboot. ad infinitum.
I haven't used Gentoo yet, but I can install FreeBSD, including sources, in about seven minutes. Add another five minutes in if I also install XFree86, KDE, Xmms, Mozilla, Linux support, etc.
I don't know if Gentoo has an ISO image of all its source code, but FreeBSD does. All the sources for everything, including the ports, are included in the CDs.
I see you've already hit upon the correct solution. XFree86-4 will be standard on FreeBSD-5.0 (November sometime). Until then, the FreeBSD-4.x branch is a stable branch. You're as likely to see XFree86-4 in FreeBSD-4.x as you would in Debian-potato.
Well, then why don't you download all the sources from college, burn them on a CD, and take them home?
Besides which, if you take a look around, I'm sure you can find a prebuilt Gentoo ISO image all ready to use...
The way applications function under Windows is for the most part consistent. There really is no competing widget sets on Windows, which helps coherency.
You're point might be valid except for one thing: the internet. All those millions of web pages out there with different looks and feels. Yet the general surfing public manages to handle it. The differences between the default GTK+ and Qt looks is far far less than the differences between any two random web pages. A common DND protocol is needed. A common set of keys is needed. But the differences between the way the look and feel is irrelevant.
The original poster's attitude against Windows users is absurd when his OS of choice, Unix, is by no means a superior OS in this day and age.
I was not saying that Unix is better than Windows. Rather my point was that since I am not familiar with Windows it is confusing to me. I was attacking the asurd notion that Windows is intuitive. It is not. But that doesn't mean that I think Unix is intuitive.
The first real computer system I ever used was 4BSD. I started on Unix. So Unix feels natural to me. For someone starting with Win9x, Unix will feel unnatural.
There is no reason to call Windows users "sheep."
I didn't call all Windows users sheep. I called *some* of them sheep. And I will be the first to admit that many Unix users are also sheep. But I will not retract my implication that Microsoft prefers its users to be sheep.
While he is studying Unix learning all the archaic commands, a Windows user may be studying biology, or something.
I don't expect automobile drivers to know how to tune an engine or change the oil. But I do expect them to know how to drive, have basic knowledge on traffic laws, the ability to read and understand their owner's manual, and that they need to change their oil every 3 months or 3000 miles.
No one expects the average computer user to know anything at all about their computer. This is stupid. I'm not talking about my Mother who is completely inept when it comes to technology. I'm talking about the people who work in IT.
GNOME is worse than KDE but both are pretty bad.
And Windows is worse than either. Gnome and KDE definitely need some usability work. Microsoft has enough money that they can afford it, so it always amazes me that it seems almost an afterthought to them.
Right, that's what I meant. Like the guy whose trying to set up networking for the first time. His ISP told him to use DHCP, but he can't find it anywhere in the configuration. He doesn't know enough yet to understand that "configure IP address automatically" is the button he wants.
I expect greater returns in terms of usable software than the money I put in.
There are two big flaws in your argument. First, what happens when Redhat finally puts out usable software? Do you stop "investing" because your goal has been reached? Eventually any business is going to have to leave childhood (the investment stage) and enter adulthood (the making money all on your own stage). Investment as a long term business plan is known in most circles as a "ponzi scheme".
The second problem is what distinguishes charities from investments: The Free Rider Problem. The classic example is the lighthouse. All the ship captains want a lighthouse. But if one individual captain finances the lighthouse, all the other captains get the use of it for free. This leads to much resentment. Some captains will reason that even though they can afford to build the lighthouse, it is financially worthwhile to wait a little bit to see if someone else steps up to the plate first. The common solution to the problem, unfortunately, is some form of coercion, usually taxation.
In terms of Redhat, you can "invest" all you want, but you end up subsidizing all those who don't invest. This may be okay for you and many others. But for most people it is not. So they download it for free or buy the $2 Cheapbytes version and let you finance the improvements.
There are two solutions to this problem. One is coercion, and it is the method that RMS advocates. He wants a software tax to finance free software development. But there is a much friendly solution. Realize that free software is indeed free beer along with being free "speech", and stop trying to sell it. Find something else to sell instead. It might be services, support, proprietary addons, or even plush Tux dolls, but you'll go broke selling free software.
Have a look at the Free Software Services Directory [gnu.org] for more people/companies who appear to be cashing in on Free Software.
They appear to be making money off of services. And the vast majority of the listing are individual consultants and contractors. This is a very different thing from making money by selling a product. I have absolutely no qualms about companies selling services, support, hardware or other addons as a means of supporting their free software end. But they (whoever they are) should at least stop calling themselves a free software company and start calling themselves a service, support, hardware or addon company.
I don't see much in the way of service and support for Mandrake. They seem to be going to classical "sell a prepackaged distribution of free software" route. This worked quite well for some companies a few years ago. If Mandrake expects to go this route in now, when high speed internet access and CD burners are cheap and common, they'll soon go the way of Walnut Creek CDROM. They can't subsist on donations alone.
If Mandrake wishes to sell a product, then it needs to be a product that one can't get elsewhere for free, as either open source or freeware. If the product is software, then that means the software has to be proprietary. An Aladdin type model might work here, where the current Mandrake is proprietary, but older versions are free. Otherwise, they need to think about selling service, support, etc.