While this may be nice for newer users, it just doesn't quite appeal to me...
Gee, it seems to work for Microsoft:-)
Seriously, the lack of ten thousand packages is a Good Thing(tm). The trouble with too many Linux distros is that they feel obligated to indundate the first time user with truckloads of cruft.
Plop a first time Linux user in front of your typical "EZLinux" and watch what happens. They'll either choose "default" somewhere along the line and end up with five gigabytes of stuff they will never use and a nightmare dependency graph, or they'll spend five hours wading through poorly described packages. This is not good for a new user.
Instead, the OS installation should install just the bare necessities for an OS and desktop. Put all the other packages on CDs number two through four, and put an "extra software" icon on the desktop. This will prevent the newbie from experiencing sensory overload, while allowing the experienced user to install whatever he wants.
Considering that Bernie Sanders is a Socialist by party and by name, and that his views seem moderate in comparison to certain committee chairman, I would say that you are in error.
The only thing stopping the US from being a bona fide socialist nation is the fact that we haven't nationalized all industries.
True, expect for one huge difference: radio shows from yesteryear were actually humorous, witty and intelligent, as opposed to today's television which is so stupid it insults lower simian life forms.
Yeah, three days of recruiting participants, four days of phone tags, two days of fighting with Outlook to fit everyone in. And then it's all over in six and half minutes.
Re:Compiling and installing windows software
on
RPM Dependency Graph
·
· Score: 2
Yup, I agree. I've got a couple of software projects that are crossplatform. I released one binary zip file for Windows users that miraculously happens to work on every Windows OS. But maintaining Linux and BSD packages would be a nightmare, so I don't do it.
The difference is that Windows "packages" include redundant software. Those zip files or installshield executables include their own redundant copies of msvcrt.dll, vbrunxxx.dll, etc. Though this makes Windows packages a hell of a lot larger (in my case, 2.7Meg versus 300Kb), and makes package creation exceedingly difficult, it makes the users' lives a hell of a lot easier.
Re:When will we get a proper packaging system?
on
RPM Dependency Graph
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Here's one tiny solution that will go a long way. I've never understood why all the distros don't use it:
No dependency should be a package! If kdelibs-3.0.3 requires qt-3 or greater, then the dependency should be "libqt.so.3", and not qt-3.0.3-17.i386.rpm. (of course, even that is oversimplifying, as many distros will break Qt up into five different packages).
The purpose of packages is to make the user's life easier, not to lock them into a particular lifestyle.
There's a lot of technical problems with RPMs, but there all minor. The major problem is pilot error, specifically the pilot error of the package builders. It wouldn't surprise me the least bit to encounter a roomful of monkeys cranking out packages.
apt-get is better than RPM simply because the people creating Debian packages are more clueful than those creating RPMs.
The public realized that all the campaign finance reform proposals were coming from entrenched politicians. Unlike the typical media pundit, the typical citizen realizes that putting politicians in charge of this kind of reform is like putting the mafia in charge of police internal affairs.
he Enron et. al. scandals are not the fault of one person or one party. They are the product of an increasing trend in this country to favour big business of small businesses and consumers.
Wrong! Enron, Worldcom, etc., are the result of a handful of executives breaking the law. The current media assertion that this is the fault of the one politicial party is silly. We don't need new laws passed, we need the current laws enforced.
So you want me to devote my misson critical servers to something people develop on in their free time?
Never seeing your servers, I couldn't answer that. But I do know that the people developing that software may be doing it on their spare time, but that doesn't meant that they aren't professional developers.
As a professional developer, I can tell you software quality has nothing whatsoever to do with the the pay of the developers.
It's too bad more people don't recognize this. I just can't understand these people crying in their beer because Linux is less than I year behind Microsoft. Geez!
99% of drivers for Windows are written by device manufacturers. 99% of drivers for Linux are written by people working in their own spare time.
For fun with economics, what is the value of money? Does $2 have twice the value of $1?
This is probably a trick question, so I'll probably get it wrong. But here goes...
Two one dollar bills will, of course, have twice the value of one one dollar bill, since there is twice the paper. And two one dollar gold coins will be worth twice one one dollar gold coin, since there is twice the gold.
But that's currency. In terms of money, $2 will have exactly the same value as $1. Why? Because money has no value. It is instead a measurement of value. One million dollars is worth nothing to me until I exchange it for something that has worth.
Two dollars worth of gumballs will have more value than one dollar worth of gumballs, because the gumballs have value. The dollars do not.
Without knowing what HP told him, we'll never know.
It could have been something as simple as "you know, our legal insurance doesn't cover willful, premeditated, and pre-announced violations of the law. If you get arrested you'll have to pay for your own defense. But don't worry, when you get out in ten years your old job will still be waiting for you..."
Maybe the word "corporate" is throwing everyone off. What if it wasn't a corporation hawking music? What if it were the unincorporated independent producers? What if it were a coop of musicians? The effect would be the same. Someone approaches a radio station and says "here is some music that fits your target audience." I still get the same benefit. I turn on the radio and I here music that is somewhat to my liking, as opposed to downloading a bunch of MP3s by unknown artists until I find one that I like.
I have a close friend in the alternative music scene (he is a well known reveiwer). From what I can see, the alternative music scene works exactly the same way as the "corporate" music scene, just at a much smaller scale and to a much smaller audience. Music still gets marketed to alternative radio stations. Ads still get placed in mags. Payola of a sort still occurs. And alternative music lovers still look to the mags and radio stations as filtering mechanisms.
Bzzzrt! The cost of distributing Free Software may be zero (it's not, but it's close enough for argument's sake), but the cost of *creating* it is very high. There is a very real scarcity in Free Software, which is easily demonstrated by the the fact there are not an infinite number of high quality applications.
So let's look at the Lighthouse Problem. 100 ship captain's desire a lighthouse. It costs $50,000 to build one. The value of the lighthouse to each captain is $1000. How does the lighthouse get built? Obviously, if every captain contributes $500, then the lighthouse gets built. If one captain decides not to join the Lighthouse Fund, it will still get built. If 51 captains decide not to join, it will not. It is in a captain's best interest not to join the Fund, and be a freeloader. But if every captain chose not to join, then it won't get built.(p.s. the typical solution to this dilemma is to create a government and tax all captains by force)
Now for the comparison. Once the lighthouse is built, the light from it is NOT SCARCE. Once a piece of Free Software gets written, it is not scarce. But both creating the lighthouse and writing the software are going to expend resources. In the case of the lighthouse it will be monetary resources. In the case of the software it will be time resources.
The situation with Free Software is as if one of those captains was a hobbyist lighthouse builder. He enjoys building lighthouses. So he goes and builds the lighthouse. He spends the rest of his days bitching about the other 99 freeloaders. The 99 "freeloaders" complain that the lighthouse is the wrong color. And masons' guild lobbies congress to outlaw freelance lighthouse building.
It doesn't make the world a better place, it only makes shareholders and CEOs richer.
Oh, but it DOES make the world a better place! My time has a value. I cannot possibly listen to sample music from every artist and every album. "Music as a business" acts as a filter. By marketing it to radio stations to play, I get to listen to music samples filtered towards the "average" listener of the particular radio station. I'll most likely miss out on some really awesome music, but at least I won't have to slog through a mountain of crap just to find an album worth purchasing.
In other words, "corporate" marketing allows me to make more informed choices.
That was an example of Game Theory, not Economics.
Much of economics is game theory. In some ways, economics is really applied game theory.
But in a sphere without scarcity (digital data), and with $0 prices, how can market theory improve the "efficiency' of free software?
There's a whole list of economic study topics just waiting to be explored in this area. First, there is a scarcity of programmers. Why does a programmer choose to contribute to one project but not another? Second, there is a scarcity of distribution channels. How can Cheapbytes and Linuxmall get away with charging $2 a CD when there is no scarcity? Why do I maintain subscriptions to FreeBSD and Slackware Linux when I can download them for free?
But you're not describing standard market economic models unless actions are motivated by profits and regulated by prices.
Economics is not about monetary profits and prices. One recent example that most geeks should relate to: The movie "A Beautiful Mind" showed John Nash receiving the nobel prize. In the movie he discovered the key to this theory while analyzing how guys pick up chicks. It was a funny scene, but it was pure economics. And no market prices or monetary profits anywhere to be seen.
People acting in their best self-interest may be a tautology, but it is the tautology that ecnomics is based upon. The reason why so much "popular" economics emphasizes money is that money is much easier to measure than than other things that human beings value.
The original post was titled "The progession is clear for any tracking tech" and stated the warning "Finally, it's mandatory". The conclusion was "This is the time to oppose this stuff."
My understanding of the post was that there is a history of voluntary tracking technologies progressing to mandatory technologies. All I wanted was one or two examples where this had happened. Apparently there have not been any.
Opposing a technology because maybe, just maybe, sometime in the future the government could mandate it, is stupid. That rationale can be used to oppose any technology.
Now is the time to oppose center mounted reciprocating framjets otherwise they may become mandatory, and we can't take that chance.
Slashdot Mirror
While this may be nice for newer users, it just doesn't quite appeal to me...
:-)
Gee, it seems to work for Microsoft
Seriously, the lack of ten thousand packages is a Good Thing(tm). The trouble with too many Linux distros is that they feel obligated to indundate the first time user with truckloads of cruft.
Plop a first time Linux user in front of your typical "EZLinux" and watch what happens. They'll either choose "default" somewhere along the line and end up with five gigabytes of stuff they will never use and a nightmare dependency graph, or they'll spend five hours wading through poorly described packages. This is not good for a new user.
Instead, the OS installation should install just the bare necessities for an OS and desktop. Put all the other packages on CDs number two through four, and put an "extra software" icon on the desktop. This will prevent the newbie from experiencing sensory overload, while allowing the experienced user to install whatever he wants.
People just haven't figured out what works yet. They keep trying to use the old advertising models on a media they don't understand.
Compare television ads to radio ads to newspaper ads to magazine ads. They are all different. And none of them will work with the internet.
I want to know which EULA first said "by using this software you agree to...".
There are no socialists in the US government
Considering that Bernie Sanders is a Socialist by party and by name, and that his views seem moderate in comparison to certain committee chairman, I would say that you are in error.
The only thing stopping the US from being a bona fide socialist nation is the fact that we haven't nationalized all industries.
True, expect for one huge difference: radio shows from yesteryear were actually humorous, witty and intelligent, as opposed to today's television which is so stupid it insults lower simian life forms.
Yeah, three days of recruiting participants, four days of phone tags, two days of fighting with Outlook to fit everyone in. And then it's all over in six and half minutes.
Yup, I agree. I've got a couple of software projects that are crossplatform. I released one binary zip file for Windows users that miraculously happens to work on every Windows OS. But maintaining Linux and BSD packages would be a nightmare, so I don't do it.
The difference is that Windows "packages" include redundant software. Those zip files or installshield executables include their own redundant copies of msvcrt.dll, vbrunxxx.dll, etc. Though this makes Windows packages a hell of a lot larger (in my case, 2.7Meg versus 300Kb), and makes package creation exceedingly difficult, it makes the users' lives a hell of a lot easier.
Here's one tiny solution that will go a long way. I've never understood why all the distros don't use it:
No dependency should be a package! If kdelibs-3.0.3 requires qt-3 or greater, then the dependency should be "libqt.so.3", and not qt-3.0.3-17.i386.rpm. (of course, even that is oversimplifying, as many distros will break Qt up into five different packages).
The purpose of packages is to make the user's life easier, not to lock them into a particular lifestyle.
There's a lot of technical problems with RPMs, but there all minor. The major problem is pilot error, specifically the pilot error of the package builders. It wouldn't surprise me the least bit to encounter a roomful of monkeys cranking out packages.
apt-get is better than RPM simply because the people creating Debian packages are more clueful than those creating RPMs.
Whatever happened to campaign finance reform?
The public realized that all the campaign finance reform proposals were coming from entrenched politicians. Unlike the typical media pundit, the typical citizen realizes that putting politicians in charge of this kind of reform is like putting the mafia in charge of police internal affairs.
he Enron et. al. scandals are not the fault of one person or one party. They are the product of an increasing trend in this country to favour big business of small businesses and consumers.
Wrong! Enron, Worldcom, etc., are the result of a handful of executives breaking the law. The current media assertion that this is the fault of the one politicial party is silly. We don't need new laws passed, we need the current laws enforced.
So you want me to devote my misson critical servers to something people develop on in their free time?
Never seeing your servers, I couldn't answer that. But I do know that the people developing that software may be doing it on their spare time, but that doesn't meant that they aren't professional developers.
As a professional developer, I can tell you software quality has nothing whatsoever to do with the the pay of the developers.
It's too bad more people don't recognize this. I just can't understand these people crying in their beer because Linux is less than I year behind Microsoft. Geez!
99% of drivers for Windows are written by device manufacturers. 99% of drivers for Linux are written by people working in their own spare time.
But the US does produce beef without hormones. Just because it's more profitable to sell that beef locally doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.
For fun with economics, what is the value of money? Does $2 have twice the value of $1?
This is probably a trick question, so I'll probably get it wrong. But here goes...
Two one dollar bills will, of course, have twice the value of one one dollar bill, since there is twice the paper. And two one dollar gold coins will be worth twice one one dollar gold coin, since there is twice the gold.
But that's currency. In terms of money, $2 will have exactly the same value as $1. Why? Because money has no value. It is instead a measurement of value. One million dollars is worth nothing to me until I exchange it for something that has worth.
Two dollars worth of gumballs will have more value than one dollar worth of gumballs, because the gumballs have value. The dollars do not.
Without knowing what HP told him, we'll never know.
It could have been something as simple as "you know, our legal insurance doesn't cover willful, premeditated, and pre-announced violations of the law. If you get arrested you'll have to pay for your own defense. But don't worry, when you get out in ten years your old job will still be waiting for you..."
Then obviously, that particular filtering mechanism does not work for you. But that doesn't mean it fails to be a service for other people.
Maybe the word "corporate" is throwing everyone off. What if it wasn't a corporation hawking music? What if it were the unincorporated independent producers? What if it were a coop of musicians? The effect would be the same. Someone approaches a radio station and says "here is some music that fits your target audience." I still get the same benefit. I turn on the radio and I here music that is somewhat to my liking, as opposed to downloading a bunch of MP3s by unknown artists until I find one that I like.
I have a close friend in the alternative music scene (he is a well known reveiwer). From what I can see, the alternative music scene works exactly the same way as the "corporate" music scene, just at a much smaller scale and to a much smaller audience. Music still gets marketed to alternative radio stations. Ads still get placed in mags. Payola of a sort still occurs. And alternative music lovers still look to the mags and radio stations as filtering mechanisms.
Bzzzrt! The cost of distributing Free Software may be zero (it's not, but it's close enough for argument's sake), but the cost of *creating* it is very high. There is a very real scarcity in Free Software, which is easily demonstrated by the the fact there are not an infinite number of high quality applications.
So let's look at the Lighthouse Problem. 100 ship captain's desire a lighthouse. It costs $50,000 to build one. The value of the lighthouse to each captain is $1000. How does the lighthouse get built? Obviously, if every captain contributes $500, then the lighthouse gets built. If one captain decides not to join the Lighthouse Fund, it will still get built. If 51 captains decide not to join, it will not. It is in a captain's best interest not to join the Fund, and be a freeloader. But if every captain chose not to join, then it won't get built.(p.s. the typical solution to this dilemma is to create a government and tax all captains by force)
Now for the comparison. Once the lighthouse is built, the light from it is NOT SCARCE. Once a piece of Free Software gets written, it is not scarce. But both creating the lighthouse and writing the software are going to expend resources. In the case of the lighthouse it will be monetary resources. In the case of the software it will be time resources.
The situation with Free Software is as if one of those captains was a hobbyist lighthouse builder. He enjoys building lighthouses. So he goes and builds the lighthouse. He spends the rest of his days bitching about the other 99 freeloaders. The 99 "freeloaders" complain that the lighthouse is the wrong color. And masons' guild lobbies congress to outlaw freelance lighthouse building.
The barn-raising example from Gilmour really seems to me like communism at its best
Aaaargh!! Cooperation is not communism! Aaargh!
It doesn't make the world a better place, it only makes shareholders and CEOs richer.
Oh, but it DOES make the world a better place! My time has a value. I cannot possibly listen to sample music from every artist and every album. "Music as a business" acts as a filter. By marketing it to radio stations to play, I get to listen to music samples filtered towards the "average" listener of the particular radio station. I'll most likely miss out on some really awesome music, but at least I won't have to slog through a mountain of crap just to find an album worth purchasing.
In other words, "corporate" marketing allows me to make more informed choices.
That was an example of Game Theory, not Economics.
Much of economics is game theory. In some ways, economics is really applied game theory.
But in a sphere without scarcity (digital data), and with $0 prices, how can market theory improve the "efficiency' of free software?
There's a whole list of economic study topics just waiting to be explored in this area. First, there is a scarcity of programmers. Why does a programmer choose to contribute to one project but not another? Second, there is a scarcity of distribution channels. How can Cheapbytes and Linuxmall get away with charging $2 a CD when there is no scarcity? Why do I maintain subscriptions to FreeBSD and Slackware Linux when I can download them for free?
It's not bigotry, it's normal self interest. I desire to work in the nation of my citizenship. Is that so hard to understand?
But you're not describing standard market economic models unless actions are motivated by profits and regulated by prices.
Economics is not about monetary profits and prices. One recent example that most geeks should relate to: The movie "A Beautiful Mind" showed John Nash receiving the nobel prize. In the movie he discovered the key to this theory while analyzing how guys pick up chicks. It was a funny scene, but it was pure economics. And no market prices or monetary profits anywhere to be seen.
People acting in their best self-interest may be a tautology, but it is the tautology that ecnomics is based upon. The reason why so much "popular" economics emphasizes money is that money is much easier to measure than than other things that human beings value.
The original post was titled "The progession is clear for any tracking tech" and stated the warning "Finally, it's mandatory". The conclusion was "This is the time to oppose this stuff."
My understanding of the post was that there is a history of voluntary tracking technologies progressing to mandatory technologies. All I wanted was one or two examples where this had happened. Apparently there have not been any.
Opposing a technology because maybe, just maybe, sometime in the future the government could mandate it, is stupid. That rationale can be used to oppose any technology.
Now is the time to oppose center mounted reciprocating framjets otherwise they may become mandatory, and we can't take that chance.