1) It's development method is too formalised, it discourages people from just throwing a patch at things and becoming involved
How to get just throw a patch at the Linux kernel and get Linus to accept it: You don't. You must first prove your qualifications, earn your stripes, keep current on the kernel devel lists, start submitting worthwhile patches, and even then Linus still might reject them.
2) BSD users are to the Unix world like how Mac users are towards Window users "Use my superior OS you inferior idiot"
Throw a NetBSD, OpenBSD and FreeBSD user into a locked closet. Three hours later they may have a few bruises, but they will still be alive. Now throw a Mandrake, Gentoo and Debian user into the same closet. Three hours later two of them will be dead with a severly injured survivor.
3) They're obsessed with the opposition, they mention Linux, constantly
Linux users are also obsessed with the opposition, they mention Windows constantly. It wouldn't surprise me if they spontaneously decided to rename their OS to GNOTWindows. Oh, and all those "*BSD is Dying" posts are evidence of an unhealthy obsession by certain Linux users with reference to competing systems.
4) The logo is aweful and unsuitable. "Oh boss, I'm just going to install this software with a devil on it.."
Oh puh-leaze! Ooh ooh can't install KDE since it has a dragon mascot, and everyone knows the dragon is a metaphor for Satan! Ooh ooh can't install GNOME because it has a gnome's foot as a mascot and everyone knows that gnomes are fairies and fairies are associated with pagan religions!
5) Linux isn't as bad as they try to say it is. If you want quality, get a quality distribution like Slackware and not a hashed together commercial distro.
Certainly Linux is not as bad as "they" say it is. (whoever "they" is referring to). In general, Linux distributions are high quality systems. And Slackware is one of the highest qualities. But there is no law that says only one unix-like system can have quality.
It is for me. Remember though, this is an upgrade to installed ports, not to the whole system. Ports includes everything above the kernel and userland. In Linux terms, it would be everything that isn't installed during a minimal bare-bones install.
Approx once a week I cvsup the ports tree, check for updates to my installed packages, and generally upgrade everything. For this week, it turns out that I can update cups-base, gettext, kdebase, mozilla, netpbm and qt.
You do not need to prove anything of the sort. Can you prove that the knives and forks in your kitchen are yours? Can you prove that the gasoline in your automobile is yours? Can you prove that the shirt on your back is yours?
It may be a cliche, but the old saw that "possession is 9/10ths of the law" is largely true. If the software is available to the general public, then it is up to the copyright holder to demonstrate that you stole it, not to you to prove that you bought it or downloaded it from a public server.
The BSA is a bunch of thugs, as we all agree. They get their way through intimidation and barratry, and not through the proper application of the law.
But you have to be a "legitimate owner" of the copy under Title 17. The only good way to prove that to the law's (and the BSA's) satisfaction is to produce a license.
No, all you have to do is produce a sales receipt.
Then I guess I'll have to stop writing Free Software. I'll also have to stop donating to the Salvation Army. You never know when I could get sued over an old shirt. Thank you lawyers. You've made the world a much better place. Sigh.
What changes in ocean levels? Did this just happen yesterday or something?
Considering that I live at an altitude of 20 feet and one mile from the ocean, I would think I would be one of the first people to know if the ocean level was changing. From what I can tell, the level of the Pacific Ocean is still the same as it was when I was a kid.
Your arguments are why copyright is a Good Thing(tm). It acts as a sort of defacto contract that defines a reasonable baseline for author and user rights.
Copyright law already lists all reasonable prohibitions that a proprietary developer would want. And an open source developer can easily grant additional rights to the user by distributing a permission statement.
If a proprietary developer wants to remove additional rights, then they should be required to get the user's signature on a contract.
p.s. Warranty disclaimers are a different matter, but a contract, explicit or implied, is not necessary in order to display a disclaimer.
Not necessarily. You have the legal right to install and use the software. It says so in copyright law. The only way you can lose that right is to agree to the EULA. So you avoid the EULA.
Here's an example: You have a driver's license, have auto insurance, and go buy a car with cash. You have the right to drive that car so long as you follow the laws of your locale. Now imagine the auto dealer sends some goons out with a "license" that says by driving your car you agree to pay a monthly fee to the dealership. The goons are standing outside the driver's side door of the car. You avoid the goons by entering the car from the passenger side. You have just used a complicated avoidance procedure, and have demonstrated that you knew the license was there and made a conscious effor to get around it. You are safe!
The problem is what is the default in the law regarding warranties.
I have always assumed that commercial products (including software) had warranties by default, but that non-commercial non-products (including software) did not. Since I am not selling my software, it is not commercial, I am not claiming any sort of merchantibility, and thus there is no warranty.
If this is not the case, then the implications are terrible. Not only would you not be able to share your homebrew stout with your friends, you wouldn't even be able to let them see the recipe! God forbid they should try to make some themselves and have a freak accident involving hops! (don't brew? don't worry, same situation applies with oatmeal raisin cookies)
Commercial software SHOULD have implied warranties. But non-commercial software should not. If the law is different, please let us know so we can work to change it.
The problem with your response is that coercion is used by nearly everyone. Sad but true. So why not condemn welfare recipients as well, since they are using the guns of the government to aquire funds. Or why not condemn the average college student for using the guns of the government to get student aid? Or the average motorist who uses the guns of the government to build the roads they drive on? In fact, why don't we condemn all the hackers who use the GPL, since it is only the power of the guns of the government that require distributors to provide the source code when the user demands it?
The sorry state of affairs is that we most people in our current civilization utilize coercion in some form or another. But that doesn't make them as evil as Mugabe. Some crimes are worse than others. And Mugabe's crimes are worse than Monsanto's.
They are/were not cable companies. I'm not sure of the details of these companies, but I can guarantee you that they did not lay their own cable lines. If they intended to deliver their service through cable lines, they would have had to rent that right from a cable monopoly, just as DSL companies have to pay tribute to local telephone monopolies.
Zimbabwe's government is a bunch of thugs. But in America, the corps are the thugs
Let's see, be sued or be shot? Manipulate the patent laws or starve your own people to death? What a difficult choice. Monsanto doesn't even begin to approach Mugabe in the thug department.
Competition? Hah! Forget Microsoft, local cable companies are the real monopolies. Compete with AT&T and GO TO JAIL! Only slightly less evil are the local phone companies, who actually tax their competitors. Microsoft is a saint compared to these guys.
Until wireless gets worked out or we find something else, there will never be a free market in broadband.
consumers don't want something that is no supply for
producers don't want to produce something that is no demand for
I fail to see the problem. If there truly is zero (as in 0.00000) demand and zero (as in 0.00000) supply, then what is the problem?
Let's take an example: Audio CD Players one year before they were invented. Zero supply since they don't exist, and zero demand since they don't exist. Should it have been the government's job to coerce the invention of Audio CD Players? An extremist example to be sure, so let's look at another one: Audio CD Players one year after they hit the market. Very few people had them. They were very expensive. The total number of CDs playable was miniscule. Should the government have stepped in them and mandated the sunsetting of vinyl media? Of course not, because hindsight has showed us that it wasn't necessary. The reason it wasn't necessary was because the supply was not truly zero and the demand was not truly zero. Supply and demand may be been very small, but they were not zero.
So you have two situations. One where the supply and demand are truly zero, and where government intervention would be ludicrous. And one where the supply and demand are not zero so that the network effect does not really apply.
This kind of government intervention in the free market is never called for. I don't care how much you want digital television, you do not have the right to coerce the market into meeting your desires.
It's going to cost me about $1 for the CD, and I will never be able to use it again (though I would certainly have a few more sessions available). On the other hand, I have dozens of floppies that I can use over and over and over. In fact, I have one a mere six inches from my left hand. The nearest blank CD is on the other side of the building.
For long term data storage, the CD is best. For good old classic sneaker net, nothing beats a floppy.
The difference is between new tecnology and old technology. Serial, parallel and PS/2 ports have been supported in Linux and BSD since day one. That technology is rock solid stable. I have never once had a PS/2 mouse fail to work in any distro. On the other hand, USB is brand new in the scheme of things. I made the mistake of buying a new USB mouse because everyone said it was fully supported in Linux. Hah! It was a disaster! It was not automatically detected and configured. And about every fifth boot it wouldn't get recognized and I had to unplug it then plug it back in for it to be recognized.
I am not saying that there is anything wrong with USB mice (or other devices), only that USB is brand new in Linux and it still has some rough edges to be worked out. I imagine a USB modem would be even worse, because all the software out there expects modems to be a tty.
Given time, support for simple USB devices will become very stable under Linux. But right now they are not. That's the difference between old technology and new.
Re:Words, words, just words (and what else?)
on
GUIs for Everyone
·
· Score: 2
I was thinking of mentioning the Newton (and other truly original ideas) in my post, but refrained for the sake of brevity.
If the personal computer had the physical interface of the Newton, then I am positive that the current WIMP GUI would be dead. But the physical interface of the computer still consists of a keyboard/mouse underneath the user's fingers and a non-tactile monitor in front of their face. This style of layout has been in existance for forty years or more. Expecting new, original (and useful) GUIs for this kind of setup are not going to happen in my opinion.
Where we should be looking for new interface paradigms are in new physical interfaces, like the PDA. I'll lay good money on a wager that the current WIMP GUI will be obsolete seconds after the invention and public release of digital paper.
But as long as the my computer has a monitor and a keyboard, I won't be holding my breath. Expecting that would be like expecting the elimination of steering wheels, accelerators and brakes in automobiles. Sure, some genius may come up with something radically orginal and useful for the automobile tomorrow, but would you waste any time hoping for it?
The problem in the US is that justice is bought and paid for.
Don't single the US out for special treatment. Every other civilized nation has the same problem. They just don't televise their dirty laundry the way the US does.
I'd like to see the serial port, parallel port, PS/2 mouse & keyboard port all go away.
That sure would screw a lot of people. You've just increased the complexity of a Linux or BSD installer by several orders of magnitude. You've eliminated the possibility of a serial console on the server. You've thrown most existing printers into the trash.
And most annoying of all, you're preventing me from using my emergency backup modem, a necessity for any Earthlink DSL subscriber!
CLIs are a throwback to the beginnings of computing when processing power, not usability, was the focus of computer use.
He wasn't advocating replacing everything with the CLI. Go put your prejudices back in the jar and reread his post.
I don't want 100% CLI or 100% GUI. I want them both available at the moment I want them. When I want to play some_song.mp3, I will click on it with my mouse. When I want to play all MP3s downloaded since February, I will use the command line.
"Document-centric" computing existed under OS/2 Warp. You could indeed tell the computer "I want to write a letter". (with voice recognition, you could literally do that, but I digress).
It had the concept of "templates". If you wanted to write a new document, you tore off a new document from the document template stack and dragged it to the desktop. When you opened that document it would lauch the application needed to edit it.
Funny thing is, you can do exactly the same thing with KDE right now with a little bit of setup. You won't get the OS/2 Warp "everything is an object" goodness, but you can get a 100% document centric desktop.
Gee, let's just rant on a bit without saying a damn thing! There is absolutely no substance in this article. He bitches that we need an Open Source GUI (even though we have several already) but offers absolutely no suggestions on how to get there.
He even said that Mac OSX is a Windows clone. Duh! If neither KDE, GNOME, GNUstep, XFCE, Blackbox or even OSX are improvements over the Windows GUI, then I guess the situation is hopeless. What does he want us to do? Throw away the monitor?
As near as I can tell, he wants something that is stunningly new and amazingly original. He wants the GUI to be a "killer app". Well that's just not going to happen anytime soon.
Examples: you want to launch an application. Your choices include typing a command at a prompt, clicking on an icon, or selecting it from a menu, or annoying your coworkers by using a voice command. Or maybe the computer should be document-centric. Fine. You want to write a memo. You either select "new document" from a menu, type it at a prompt, speak it into a mike, or drag a template off of an icon. Given the currently available hardware, I can't think of any other interface that will do the job. Does he want the GUI to read our minds or something?
A general purpose computer with multiple applications available for any given task will NEVER be as easy to use as a single-purpose appliance like a toaster or refrigerator. It simply will not happen. His only hope for a "pleasurable" GUI is for specific purpose computers to make a comeback. Like PDAs that only do address books, or game consoles that will only play one game.
Slashdot Mirror
1) It's development method is too formalised, it discourages people from just throwing a patch at things and becoming involved
How to get just throw a patch at the Linux kernel and get Linus to accept it: You don't. You must first prove your qualifications, earn your stripes, keep current on the kernel devel lists, start submitting worthwhile patches, and even then Linus still might reject them.
2) BSD users are to the Unix world like how Mac users are towards Window users "Use my superior OS you inferior idiot"
Throw a NetBSD, OpenBSD and FreeBSD user into a locked closet. Three hours later they may have a few bruises, but they will still be alive. Now throw a Mandrake, Gentoo and Debian user into the same closet. Three hours later two of them will be dead with a severly injured survivor.
3) They're obsessed with the opposition, they mention Linux, constantly
Linux users are also obsessed with the opposition, they mention Windows constantly. It wouldn't surprise me if they spontaneously decided to rename their OS to GNOTWindows. Oh, and all those "*BSD is Dying" posts are evidence of an unhealthy obsession by certain Linux users with reference to competing systems.
4) The logo is aweful and unsuitable. "Oh boss, I'm just going to install this software with a devil on it.."
Oh puh-leaze! Ooh ooh can't install KDE since it has a dragon mascot, and everyone knows the dragon is a metaphor for Satan! Ooh ooh can't install GNOME because it has a gnome's foot as a mascot and everyone knows that gnomes are fairies and fairies are associated with pagan religions!
5) Linux isn't as bad as they try to say it is. If you want quality, get a quality distribution like Slackware and not a hashed together commercial distro.
Certainly Linux is not as bad as "they" say it is. (whoever "they" is referring to). In general, Linux distributions are high quality systems. And Slackware is one of the highest qualities. But there is no law that says only one unix-like system can have quality.
Is this normal pratice?
It is for me. Remember though, this is an upgrade to installed ports, not to the whole system. Ports includes everything above the kernel and userland. In Linux terms, it would be everything that isn't installed during a minimal bare-bones install.
Approx once a week I cvsup the ports tree, check for updates to my installed packages, and generally upgrade everything. For this week, it turns out that I can update cups-base, gettext, kdebase, mozilla, netpbm and qt.
You do not need to prove anything of the sort. Can you prove that the knives and forks in your kitchen are yours? Can you prove that the gasoline in your automobile is yours? Can you prove that the shirt on your back is yours?
It may be a cliche, but the old saw that "possession is 9/10ths of the law" is largely true. If the software is available to the general public, then it is up to the copyright holder to demonstrate that you stole it, not to you to prove that you bought it or downloaded it from a public server.
The BSA is a bunch of thugs, as we all agree. They get their way through intimidation and barratry, and not through the proper application of the law.
But you have to be a "legitimate owner" of the copy under Title 17. The only good way to prove that to the law's (and the BSA's) satisfaction is to produce a license.
No, all you have to do is produce a sales receipt.
It's not the case, and they are indeed terrible.
Then I guess I'll have to stop writing Free Software. I'll also have to stop donating to the Salvation Army. You never know when I could get sued over an old shirt. Thank you lawyers. You've made the world a much better place. Sigh.
What changes in ocean levels? Did this just happen yesterday or something?
Considering that I live at an altitude of 20 feet and one mile from the ocean, I would think I would be one of the first people to know if the ocean level was changing. From what I can tell, the level of the Pacific Ocean is still the same as it was when I was a kid.
Your arguments are why copyright is a Good Thing(tm). It acts as a sort of defacto contract that defines a reasonable baseline for author and user rights.
Copyright law already lists all reasonable prohibitions that a proprietary developer would want. And an open source developer can easily grant additional rights to the user by distributing a permission statement.
If a proprietary developer wants to remove additional rights, then they should be required to get the user's signature on a contract.
p.s. Warranty disclaimers are a different matter, but a contract, explicit or implied, is not necessary in order to display a disclaimer.
Not necessarily. You have the legal right to install and use the software. It says so in copyright law. The only way you can lose that right is to agree to the EULA. So you avoid the EULA.
Here's an example: You have a driver's license, have auto insurance, and go buy a car with cash. You have the right to drive that car so long as you follow the laws of your locale. Now imagine the auto dealer sends some goons out with a "license" that says by driving your car you agree to pay a monthly fee to the dealership. The goons are standing outside the driver's side door of the car. You avoid the goons by entering the car from the passenger side. You have just used a complicated avoidance procedure, and have demonstrated that you knew the license was there and made a conscious effor to get around it. You are safe!
The problem is what is the default in the law regarding warranties.
I have always assumed that commercial products (including software) had warranties by default, but that non-commercial non-products (including software) did not. Since I am not selling my software, it is not commercial, I am not claiming any sort of merchantibility, and thus there is no warranty.
If this is not the case, then the implications are terrible. Not only would you not be able to share your homebrew stout with your friends, you wouldn't even be able to let them see the recipe! God forbid they should try to make some themselves and have a freak accident involving hops! (don't brew? don't worry, same situation applies with oatmeal raisin cookies)
Commercial software SHOULD have implied warranties. But non-commercial software should not. If the law is different, please let us know so we can work to change it.
Have you looked at their code? Odds are it's not rational either.
The problem with your response is that coercion is used by nearly everyone. Sad but true. So why not condemn welfare recipients as well, since they are using the guns of the government to aquire funds. Or why not condemn the average college student for using the guns of the government to get student aid? Or the average motorist who uses the guns of the government to build the roads they drive on? In fact, why don't we condemn all the hackers who use the GPL, since it is only the power of the guns of the government that require distributors to provide the source code when the user demands it?
The sorry state of affairs is that we most people in our current civilization utilize coercion in some form or another. But that doesn't make them as evil as Mugabe. Some crimes are worse than others. And Mugabe's crimes are worse than Monsanto's.
They are/were not cable companies. I'm not sure of the details of these companies, but I can guarantee you that they did not lay their own cable lines. If they intended to deliver their service through cable lines, they would have had to rent that right from a cable monopoly, just as DSL companies have to pay tribute to local telephone monopolies.
Zimbabwe's government is a bunch of thugs. But in America, the corps are the thugs
Let's see, be sued or be shot? Manipulate the patent laws or starve your own people to death? What a difficult choice. Monsanto doesn't even begin to approach Mugabe in the thug department.
Competition? Hah! Forget Microsoft, local cable companies are the real monopolies. Compete with AT&T and GO TO JAIL! Only slightly less evil are the local phone companies, who actually tax their competitors. Microsoft is a saint compared to these guys.
Until wireless gets worked out or we find something else, there will never be a free market in broadband.
consumers don't want something that is no supply for
producers don't want to produce something that is no demand for
I fail to see the problem. If there truly is zero (as in 0.00000) demand and zero (as in 0.00000) supply, then what is the problem?
Let's take an example: Audio CD Players one year before they were invented. Zero supply since they don't exist, and zero demand since they don't exist. Should it have been the government's job to coerce the invention of Audio CD Players? An extremist example to be sure, so let's look at another one: Audio CD Players one year after they hit the market. Very few people had them. They were very expensive. The total number of CDs playable was miniscule. Should the government have stepped in them and mandated the sunsetting of vinyl media? Of course not, because hindsight has showed us that it wasn't necessary. The reason it wasn't necessary was because the supply was not truly zero and the demand was not truly zero. Supply and demand may be been very small, but they were not zero.
So you have two situations. One where the supply and demand are truly zero, and where government intervention would be ludicrous. And one where the supply and demand are not zero so that the network effect does not really apply.
This kind of government intervention in the free market is never called for. I don't care how much you want digital television, you do not have the right to coerce the market into meeting your desires.
It's going to cost me about $1 for the CD, and I will never be able to use it again (though I would certainly have a few more sessions available). On the other hand, I have dozens of floppies that I can use over and over and over. In fact, I have one a mere six inches from my left hand. The nearest blank CD is on the other side of the building.
For long term data storage, the CD is best. For good old classic sneaker net, nothing beats a floppy.
The difference is between new tecnology and old technology. Serial, parallel and PS/2 ports have been supported in Linux and BSD since day one. That technology is rock solid stable. I have never once had a PS/2 mouse fail to work in any distro. On the other hand, USB is brand new in the scheme of things. I made the mistake of buying a new USB mouse because everyone said it was fully supported in Linux. Hah! It was a disaster! It was not automatically detected and configured. And about every fifth boot it wouldn't get recognized and I had to unplug it then plug it back in for it to be recognized.
I am not saying that there is anything wrong with USB mice (or other devices), only that USB is brand new in Linux and it still has some rough edges to be worked out. I imagine a USB modem would be even worse, because all the software out there expects modems to be a tty.
Given time, support for simple USB devices will become very stable under Linux. But right now they are not. That's the difference between old technology and new.
I was thinking of mentioning the Newton (and other truly original ideas) in my post, but refrained for the sake of brevity.
If the personal computer had the physical interface of the Newton, then I am positive that the current WIMP GUI would be dead. But the physical interface of the computer still consists of a keyboard/mouse underneath the user's fingers and a non-tactile monitor in front of their face. This style of layout has been in existance for forty years or more. Expecting new, original (and useful) GUIs for this kind of setup are not going to happen in my opinion.
Where we should be looking for new interface paradigms are in new physical interfaces, like the PDA. I'll lay good money on a wager that the current WIMP GUI will be obsolete seconds after the invention and public release of digital paper.
But as long as the my computer has a monitor and a keyboard, I won't be holding my breath. Expecting that would be like expecting the elimination of steering wheels, accelerators and brakes in automobiles. Sure, some genius may come up with something radically orginal and useful for the automobile tomorrow, but would you waste any time hoping for it?
The problem in the US is that justice is bought and paid for.
Don't single the US out for special treatment. Every other civilized nation has the same problem. They just don't televise their dirty laundry the way the US does.
I absolutely agree. I want you to have the system you want. I just get frustrated when I don't get the same consideration in reverse.
I have a 200K file I wish to store on a physical media. Which is cheaper for me? The floppy or the CD?
I'd like to see the serial port, parallel port, PS/2 mouse & keyboard port all go away.
That sure would screw a lot of people. You've just increased the complexity of a Linux or BSD installer by several orders of magnitude. You've eliminated the possibility of a serial console on the server. You've thrown most existing printers into the trash.
And most annoying of all, you're preventing me from using my emergency backup modem, a necessity for any Earthlink DSL subscriber!
CLIs are a throwback to the beginnings of computing when processing power, not usability, was the focus of computer use.
He wasn't advocating replacing everything with the CLI. Go put your prejudices back in the jar and reread his post.
I don't want 100% CLI or 100% GUI. I want them both available at the moment I want them. When I want to play some_song.mp3, I will click on it with my mouse. When I want to play all MP3s downloaded since February, I will use the command line.
"Document-centric" computing existed under OS/2 Warp. You could indeed tell the computer "I want to write a letter". (with voice recognition, you could literally do that, but I digress).
It had the concept of "templates". If you wanted to write a new document, you tore off a new document from the document template stack and dragged it to the desktop. When you opened that document it would lauch the application needed to edit it.
Funny thing is, you can do exactly the same thing with KDE right now with a little bit of setup. You won't get the OS/2 Warp "everything is an object" goodness, but you can get a 100% document centric desktop.
Gee, let's just rant on a bit without saying a damn thing! There is absolutely no substance in this article. He bitches that we need an Open Source GUI (even though we have several already) but offers absolutely no suggestions on how to get there.
He even said that Mac OSX is a Windows clone. Duh! If neither KDE, GNOME, GNUstep, XFCE, Blackbox or even OSX are improvements over the Windows GUI, then I guess the situation is hopeless. What does he want us to do? Throw away the monitor?
As near as I can tell, he wants something that is stunningly new and amazingly original. He wants the GUI to be a "killer app". Well that's just not going to happen anytime soon.
Examples: you want to launch an application. Your choices include typing a command at a prompt, clicking on an icon, or selecting it from a menu, or annoying your coworkers by using a voice command. Or maybe the computer should be document-centric. Fine. You want to write a memo. You either select "new document" from a menu, type it at a prompt, speak it into a mike, or drag a template off of an icon. Given the currently available hardware, I can't think of any other interface that will do the job. Does he want the GUI to read our minds or something?
A general purpose computer with multiple applications available for any given task will NEVER be as easy to use as a single-purpose appliance like a toaster or refrigerator. It simply will not happen. His only hope for a "pleasurable" GUI is for specific purpose computers to make a comeback. Like PDAs that only do address books, or game consoles that will only play one game.