If Sun could figure out how to make Java user friendly, you might have a point. I use FreeBSD and as a *user* Java is a royal pain in the butt. Sun hasn't approved Java binaries for FreeBSD, so I have to build it myself, after agreeing to all sorts of cheesy licenses to get the sources downloaded. Then I have to execute them in a non-standard way, and wait for several seconds for the runtime to load before they start.
Don't get me wrong, I like the language. I just hate the environment.
It's not a perfect solution (nothing is), but you might give Qt a try. I criticized the guy suggesting you try GNUstep, and my criticisms also apply to Qt. But both have one advantage: they're portable. A native Mac OSX app doesn't do Windows or Unix users any good.
apps that aren't able to take advantave of the underlying platform's unique features aren't sellable.
Rubbish! Integration is great, but it's hardly the end-all and be-all of software. There are more worthwhile features out there than mere nativeness.
Except that GNUstep/NeXT apps feel alien anywhere outside of NeXT. They're not so bad under OSX, but they're jarring under traditional Unix or Windows. They may look correct, but they just don't *feel* correct.
Not at all. When I was in Germany no one understood "flipping the bird". It was a totally innocuous gesture. Instead they had their own rude signal, which meant nothing to me. I suspect the "bird" is limited to England and it's former colonies.
perhaps something about the ability to question your surroundings and the prevailing norms of the society...
Of course! My (unspoken) point was that most modern "leftists" are so beyond the norms of society that they have ceased to be able to question it beyond instinctive and reactionary oppositionalism.
When I think of leftists I think of those Berkeley radicals handing out pamphlets by Marx and sincerely believing in a socialist utopia where the state will indeed wither away and everyone will drink pink lemonade in the union halls. While they definitely have a surplus of imagination, I don't generally regard them as "creative". Once you've gone far enough past liberals and progressives to actually be labelled "leftist", you've long since lost the ability to be creative.
Proof of purchase helps when no title exists to the land before it. In anarchocapitalist-speak, though, you don't own land until you've mixed your labor with it and no one before you has.
A "stake" in lunar property literally means you have to be able to stick a stake in it. You can't just say it's yours before anyone else, you have to be there in a position to utilize it. Think of the California goldrush, where the term came from. You couldn't claim the land from Boston and sue anyone who mined it, you had to go to California and actually stick some stakes in the ground.
Why can't you use "courier"? Why can't people use font tags correctly? Stop specifying exact fonts!
Don't use {font-family: "Courier New"}, instead use {font-family: "Courier New", "Courier", "monospace"}. No matter how common the font, never NEVER assume that the user has it.
There are two reasons why lazy initialization is almost always the better solution
Of course. No one is questioning this. But the blurb says it is doing this for real-time and game applications. These are the exceptions and not the norm, but are no less valid because they are not the norm.
Most dynamically typed languages suck like a Hoover when it comes to realtime, so this is a solution that may help.
DRM is a solution in search of a problem. It differs from other similar solutions in that the encryption isn't based on what you know, but who you are. A lot of people are excited and aroused by DRM because they see a solution, but they don't realize that the problem is illusory. Even if they do realize it, they're hoping that the very presence of the solution will create the problem for it to solve.
As long as government keeps to the role of producer or consumer, I have no problems with it in the marketplace. But once they start collecting and spending taxes and enacting regulations upon others, the marketplace they are in ceases to be free.
It's like the mafia. When the mob boss goes to the store to buy a fifth of scotch, he is a part of the marketplace. Heck, his numbers racket and prostitution ring are part of the marketplace. But when he begins to extort shopowners and break the kneecaps of his competitors, he has ceased acting within the market. He may be a variable in the economy but he is not a member of the market.
In this case it seems the U.S. government could save ~$80,000,000,000 - $180,000,000,000 to tax payers in the United States and finance it though the savings it self will receive by not having to pay for inflated price software.
Clue time: The government can save that much money TODAY without having to spend any of my taxes to get it. All it needs to do is *use* the Open Source software that is already here. Just stop buying proprietary!
How do you propose people agree to software licenses before they use programs?
First, why do you think people need to agree to software licenses in the first place? You don't have to when you read a book. You don't have to when you listen to music. You don't have to when you buy a toaster. What makes software so different that you feel the need to bind the user up in legal entanglements?
Second, if you absolutely have to get an agreement, get it BEFORE you buy the damned software! When I hand over my cash to get your software, I am aquiring the legal right to use it, and damn you for saying otherwise. Forcing me to accept a contract after I've paid my money for product is fraudulent and immoral.
There is no need for an agreement to use Open Source software. The purpose of Open Source and Free Software is to give the user permissions that copyright ordinarily does not. There's no need for a legal contract unless you want to take something AWAY from the user.
You do realize, don't you, that you are under no obligation to use Kubuntu. DON'T USE IT IF YOU WANT WANT TO! Is that so flipping hard you can't manage it? Are you so stupid you need someone else to tell you what to do?
This is called Free Software. That means the rest of us are free and not beholden to your whims and wishes. You've got a GNOME distro, but that isn't good enough for you because you just can't stand the fact that someone else is using KDE. Screw you! Get your ass out of this community and take your petty tyranny with you!
I don't pay for health insurance either... and I live in US of A! Not once in my life have I had to write a check or swipe a credit card or pay cash to get health insurance. My employer pays it for me.
Of course, it's still coming out of my pocket. I'm not stupid. But I wonder the same about you are when you think you aren't paying for yours as well.
Troll. The "big boys" are Redhat, Sun and Novell. Since GNOME is essentially a Redhat project, there's no mystery there. Redhat has been anti-KDE since before GNOME got recast as a destkop. Sun isn't a Linux distribution, so let's stop talking like they are. Finally we have Novell. Er, I mean Ximian. Since Novell doesn't care about the desktop, it's really Ximian deciding this stuff.
When it comes to corporate politics, yes KDE is losing some ground. But if corporate circle jerks are your measure of success, then you might as wells stick with corporate approved Windows.
So you're saying Open Source cannot make it on its own? That we need to coercive jackboot of government to support it? That sounds like the very opposite of "truely free." I don't want any part of it.
Open Source is a failure. No, that's not me saying it, that's what the report says. Once you get past the rhetoric, it's essentially saying that Open Source cannot survive in the marketplace, and needs government protection.
Bullshit. Linux came about during the very decade that everyone said no one could compete against the Microsoft monopoly. It succeeded where BeOS, OS/2 and DR-DOS could not. I'm also seeing Firefix usage zooming. OpenOffice is getting noticed. And of course, the web belongs to Apache. Open Source *IS* succeeding! If you think otherwise it's because you're trying to judge its success by the failures of others. That's not how the game works.
If government wants to help, then it can help by getting out of the way! Government can stop standardizing on proprietary formats. Government can stop handing out software patents. Government can stop recognizing mouse click licensing. Government could liberalize copyright and abolish the DMCA.
Whenever you hear someone say "I'm from the government and I'm here to help," run the other way!
Your post presupposes that corporations are intelligent. They are not. The larger a corporation (or any organization) becomes, the less its decisions are based on reason and logic and the more they are based on politics and compromise.
It isn't that hard, the reputation is worse than the reality. Two hints though: leave your Linux preconceptions at the door; don't expect anyone to hold your hand.
Why do people do that? We've known for while that FreeBSD 6.0 was coming out sometime real soon. Did the RC1 give you no clue? Heck, if you were paying attention would would have even seen the announcement that it was coming out this weekend!
Slashdot Mirror
If Sun could figure out how to make Java user friendly, you might have a point. I use FreeBSD and as a *user* Java is a royal pain in the butt. Sun hasn't approved Java binaries for FreeBSD, so I have to build it myself, after agreeing to all sorts of cheesy licenses to get the sources downloaded. Then I have to execute them in a non-standard way, and wait for several seconds for the runtime to load before they start.
Don't get me wrong, I like the language. I just hate the environment.
It's not a perfect solution (nothing is), but you might give Qt a try. I criticized the guy suggesting you try GNUstep, and my criticisms also apply to Qt. But both have one advantage: they're portable. A native Mac OSX app doesn't do Windows or Unix users any good.
apps that aren't able to take advantave of the underlying platform's unique features aren't sellable.
Rubbish! Integration is great, but it's hardly the end-all and be-all of software. There are more worthwhile features out there than mere nativeness.
Except that GNUstep/NeXT apps feel alien anywhere outside of NeXT. They're not so bad under OSX, but they're jarring under traditional Unix or Windows. They may look correct, but they just don't *feel* correct.
Not at all. When I was in Germany no one understood "flipping the bird". It was a totally innocuous gesture. Instead they had their own rude signal, which meant nothing to me. I suspect the "bird" is limited to England and it's former colonies.
perhaps something about the ability to question your surroundings and the prevailing norms of the society...
Of course! My (unspoken) point was that most modern "leftists" are so beyond the norms of society that they have ceased to be able to question it beyond instinctive and reactionary oppositionalism.
When I think of leftists I think of those Berkeley radicals handing out pamphlets by Marx and sincerely believing in a socialist utopia where the state will indeed wither away and everyone will drink pink lemonade in the union halls. While they definitely have a surplus of imagination, I don't generally regard them as "creative". Once you've gone far enough past liberals and progressives to actually be labelled "leftist", you've long since lost the ability to be creative.
Proof of purchase helps when no title exists to the land before it. In anarchocapitalist-speak, though, you don't own land until you've mixed your labor with it and no one before you has.
A "stake" in lunar property literally means you have to be able to stick a stake in it. You can't just say it's yours before anyone else, you have to be there in a position to utilize it. Think of the California goldrush, where the term came from. You couldn't claim the land from Boston and sue anyone who mined it, you had to go to California and actually stick some stakes in the ground.
Artists, fashion mavens, leftists, and other creative personalities
Leftists are "creative personalities"? I'm getting a headache just thinking about it...
Why can't you use "courier"? Why can't people use font tags correctly? Stop specifying exact fonts!
Don't use {font-family: "Courier New"}, instead use {font-family: "Courier New", "Courier", "monospace"}. No matter how common the font, never NEVER assume that the user has it.
Please see http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS1#font-family
There are two reasons why lazy initialization is almost always the better solution
Of course. No one is questioning this. But the blurb says it is doing this for real-time and game applications. These are the exceptions and not the norm, but are no less valid because they are not the norm.
Most dynamically typed languages suck like a Hoover when it comes to realtime, so this is a solution that may help.
DRM is a solution in search of a problem. It differs from other similar solutions in that the encryption isn't based on what you know, but who you are. A lot of people are excited and aroused by DRM because they see a solution, but they don't realize that the problem is illusory. Even if they do realize it, they're hoping that the very presence of the solution will create the problem for it to solve.
As long as government keeps to the role of producer or consumer, I have no problems with it in the marketplace. But once they start collecting and spending taxes and enacting regulations upon others, the marketplace they are in ceases to be free.
It's like the mafia. When the mob boss goes to the store to buy a fifth of scotch, he is a part of the marketplace. Heck, his numbers racket and prostitution ring are part of the marketplace. But when he begins to extort shopowners and break the kneecaps of his competitors, he has ceased acting within the market. He may be a variable in the economy but he is not a member of the market.
In this case it seems the U.S. government could save ~$80,000,000,000 - $180,000,000,000 to tax payers in the United States and finance it though the savings it self will receive by not having to pay for inflated price software.
Clue time: The government can save that much money TODAY without having to spend any of my taxes to get it. All it needs to do is *use* the Open Source software that is already here. Just stop buying proprietary!
How do you propose people agree to software licenses before they use programs?
First, why do you think people need to agree to software licenses in the first place? You don't have to when you read a book. You don't have to when you listen to music. You don't have to when you buy a toaster. What makes software so different that you feel the need to bind the user up in legal entanglements?
Second, if you absolutely have to get an agreement, get it BEFORE you buy the damned software! When I hand over my cash to get your software, I am aquiring the legal right to use it, and damn you for saying otherwise. Forcing me to accept a contract after I've paid my money for product is fraudulent and immoral.
There is no need for an agreement to use Open Source software. The purpose of Open Source and Free Software is to give the user permissions that copyright ordinarily does not. There's no need for a legal contract unless you want to take something AWAY from the user.
But in order for those systems to mature and be viable consumer options, they need funding, management, and professional development.?
And why is government welfare the only way to provide this?
You do realize, don't you, that you are under no obligation to use Kubuntu. DON'T USE IT IF YOU WANT WANT TO! Is that so flipping hard you can't manage it? Are you so stupid you need someone else to tell you what to do?
This is called Free Software. That means the rest of us are free and not beholden to your whims and wishes. You've got a GNOME distro, but that isn't good enough for you because you just can't stand the fact that someone else is using KDE. Screw you! Get your ass out of this community and take your petty tyranny with you!
I don't pay for health insurance either... and I live in US of A! Not once in my life have I had to write a check or swipe a credit card or pay cash to get health insurance. My employer pays it for me.
Of course, it's still coming out of my pocket. I'm not stupid. But I wonder the same about you are when you think you aren't paying for yours as well.
Troll. The "big boys" are Redhat, Sun and Novell. Since GNOME is essentially a Redhat project, there's no mystery there. Redhat has been anti-KDE since before GNOME got recast as a destkop. Sun isn't a Linux distribution, so let's stop talking like they are. Finally we have Novell. Er, I mean Ximian. Since Novell doesn't care about the desktop, it's really Ximian deciding this stuff.
When it comes to corporate politics, yes KDE is losing some ground. But if corporate circle jerks are your measure of success, then you might as wells stick with corporate approved Windows.
So you're saying Open Source cannot make it on its own? That we need to coercive jackboot of government to support it? That sounds like the very opposite of "truely free." I don't want any part of it.
Open Source is a failure. No, that's not me saying it, that's what the report says. Once you get past the rhetoric, it's essentially saying that Open Source cannot survive in the marketplace, and needs government protection.
Bullshit. Linux came about during the very decade that everyone said no one could compete against the Microsoft monopoly. It succeeded where BeOS, OS/2 and DR-DOS could not. I'm also seeing Firefix usage zooming. OpenOffice is getting noticed. And of course, the web belongs to Apache. Open Source *IS* succeeding! If you think otherwise it's because you're trying to judge its success by the failures of others. That's not how the game works.
If government wants to help, then it can help by getting out of the way! Government can stop standardizing on proprietary formats. Government can stop handing out software patents. Government can stop recognizing mouse click licensing. Government could liberalize copyright and abolish the DMCA.
Whenever you hear someone say "I'm from the government and I'm here to help," run the other way!
In a nutshell, he's saying Open Source cannot survive in a marketplace, therefore it must suckle at the government teat. Personally I'm offended.
Your post presupposes that corporations are intelligent. They are not. The larger a corporation (or any organization) becomes, the less its decisions are based on reason and logic and the more they are based on politics and compromise.
It isn't that hard, the reputation is worse than the reality. Two hints though: leave your Linux preconceptions at the door; don't expect anyone to hold your hand.
Why do people do that? We've known for while that FreeBSD 6.0 was coming out sometime real soon. Did the RC1 give you no clue? Heck, if you were paying attention would would have even seen the announcement that it was coming out this weekend!