You're more than welcomed to just code in your own little world, do all your work in your own little world, etc. But politics is still involved, whether you choose to ignore it or not, and it still affects you.
RMS realizes this and thus considers politics as integral in any software project.
Palladium is all about politics. Its about the polics of the BSA, the RIAA, and the MPAA conrolling what you do through MS, which will undoubtedly make unholy alliances to please these parties and profit. Palladium is about MS trying to make the GNU/Linux OS an impractical choice for users, as no hardware would run it. MS may say this about technical matters -- i.e., security, virus-prevention, etc etc -- and it is in part; but there is also politics running through the fibers of this idea. Politics is ubiquitous in this Palladium project.
As is predictable, everyone's been more than willing to jump on the "bash RMS" bandwagon. It actually reminds me of the Michael Jordan situation in the NBA. Here's a guy who's done alot for the NBA, alot for his team, and alot for basketball in general, and people are constantly criticizing him for making personal decisions which he had the right to make (i.e., to come out of retirement). Similar thing with RMS.
Many criticize RMS for what he says or where he says it; i.e., mentioning such things in newsgroups or forums which are "not meant for discussing those issues". But the politics of what he talks about is relevant to kernel developers and coders, even if they're too stupid to realize it. RMS is not an extremist. Or, if he is, extremism in defense of liberty is not a bad thing.
Next, they'll be suing Playboy because their magazines do not faciliate the masterbatory desires of the blind. Or maybe they'll sue the phone sex companies because they're services aren't available for the deaf. Pretty soon, fat and ugly women will be suing strip clubs because they don't hire fat and ugly people -- appearance discrimination.
This is getting ridiculous. I can understand public access for blind people -- ramps, elevators, etc. I can understand brail. I can understand certain features in public buildings to help the blind. But I'm gonna have to kill someone if someone sues McDonalds because they're doors aren't "wide enough for 700 pound poeple to fit through" or sues the movie theaters because their seats don't accomadate 500 pounds worth of ass.
Telling companies to redesign their websites is a violation of free speech. It would be like mandating that Michael Crichton also release his books in brail, and threatening to fine him if he doesn't. Companies shouldn't have to spend millions of dollars making sure that the 0.1% of people who are blind can use their website easily.
And private websites certainly shouldn't have to accomodate the disabled. If I have a website with some opinions by myself on there and lots of other political stuff, and then have a little link saying "buy my T-shirt", that does not make it a commercial site. Its still a private website, and I should be able to do with it whatever I want.
I'll grant you that if the web were more friendly for blind people, it would be a better web:
1. There would be no unnecessary images. All web-sites would look like those of FSF.org.
2. The only places where pictures or sounds would be would be for screenshots or things like that; there wouldn't be banner ads, and structural features of a website wouldn't rely on graphical barriers.
But forcing companies to change their websites evokes free speech issues.
So wait a minute, you save money by using Linux? Are you telling me that the folks at MS are lying and that the TCO for Winodws isn't lower?
I thought that paying $200 for every copy of Windows and regular forced "update fees" would be cheaper than buying one Debian GNU/Linux CD and then updating using apt for free.
Are you telling me that a product which costs less and functions equivalently will actually save you money? That doesn't make any sense. Microsoft says it doesn't.
For a similar set of reasons as to why the public rejected the divx "loaning scheme" for movies, they'll reject e-books as they currently stand.
People would always rather get something for free than have to pay for it; and they'd always rather have the rights laid out according to the FSF than not have those rights.
But people will pay for books. We've been doing that forever, since the beginning of this nation. But when people pay for books, they expect certain rights; the right to read as often as they like, to loan, to mark-up, to give away, to take quotes from, to put in a library, etc. Until e-books give people all the same rights they have with regular paper-back books, they will not catch on.
Asking people to buy e-books as they currently exist is like saying "why don't you pay me 30,000 dollars for the same Ford except that you can't loan it to anyone, modify it, etc etc". People aren't going to buy into this bullshit.
What should happen is that when we buy a paper-back book, we should get access to an e-book automatically, and have the same rights to utilize the e-book as we would the paper-back book.
The reason why free-books online are catching on is because they offer the consumers all the same rights they'd have with paper-back books.
Is that you're computer screen has very crappy resolution compared to the resolution on a piece of paper. When computer screen's are 300dpi like decent printers, then reading stuff on them will be much more fun.
Until then, the thing to do is offer books in pdf and html format. PDF to print out. HTML to read on the computer, which will allow you to change font settings and sizes to your preference, making it easier to read.
I don't know about Mandrake, but Debian doesn't run on the root.
I wasn't aware that Lindows did either, and I don't think it does. If it does, I'm sure you can get it not to by setting up an account. It is definately better not to do your daily operations as root. Then again, if you never make a mistake, root isn't a problem. Or is it? If a program you run makes a mistake and your at root, it could be serious. So if Lindows is root by default, I'd recommend fixing that for a safety net.
I wonder where this apparent perception that Debian GNU/Linux for newbies (on the part of the reviewers) comes from. Debian is not for newbies. What, do these people think that because Debian sounds friendly, its somehow for newbies?
No, its not. Debian-based Lindows and Libranix are for newbies.
Debian is for experts. Anyone *can* install it and get it set up to their liking, but it won't be fun. It will require knowing your exact hardware specs, exactly what you want, and reading alot of manuals. The only people who will easily navigate their way around installing and configuring Debian are people coming from Slackware, Gentoo, OpenBSD, minix, or other hard-core UNIX-like OS' even more hard-core than Debian.
Debian's a hard-core GNU/Linux distro. Not as hard-core as Slackware or Gentoo, but pretty hard-core, none-the-less. Its developers focus on stability and technical excellence, not hand-holding install and configuration processes.
That said, Debian developers could make things a little bit more intuitive, with the install and autodetection; nothing fancy, but just an intuitive install. Something noteworthy is that graphics card drivers should be by Manufacturer (i.e., Nvidia, ATI), then by Brand Name (i.e., GeForce, GeForce2, TNT, etc); then by the specific driver, with a good stable one selected and recommended by default. Fortunately, eventually Debian will ship with the Progeny Installer (at the rate at which things in Debian move from Unstable -> Testing -> Stable, that'll be sometime around 2010;-). But when it arrives, it will, like everything else about Debian, be rock solid. Debian could also work on some good defaults. Sound should be there when you first start up WindowMaker. Screen font size should be 12. WindowMaker should be well-configured by default. And so-on, and so-forth. This stuff will happen *eventually*; Debian developer's first priority is stability and technical excellence; superficial issues such as these (which are manageable for Debian's intended expert audience) are on the back-burner.
If you want an easy-to-use, easy-to-configure, easy-to-install, great-defaults Debian *right now*, then pay for Lindows or Libranet (I suggest Lindows). Lindows has glowing reviews for ease of use, and seems to solve all the problems these reviewers harp on.
Debian is not for newbies. It is *possible* for a newbie to install Debian, but only if they know their exact hardware specifications and have studied the Debian installation guides thoroughly. I installed Debian as my first Linux distro, and I'll agree with this author -- its a bitch to install. I knew my exact hardware specs and thoroughly pre-read through the install documentation (this was a graphical install guide) before starting. It was still a bitch. Then there's the setting it up so it meets your needs: another big bitch.
Hence, Debian is not for newbies. Its even confusing for experts. Now that I've used Debian for several years, I know it. But its install process is still unworthy. Do the developers try to make the install as confusing and non-sensical as possible? Is their model for installation, "Debian installer, dumb and daft by default"? A graphical install isn't necessary; in fact, graphical install's don't make it that much easier to install, and are probably a waste of valuable development time. Most users are still smart enough to figure out how to navigate through a text-based install using hte arrow keys if you tell them how to do it with on-screen help (i.e., up to move to previous item, etc).
Conclusion: Debian is not for dummies;-). If you're a new user and want the benefits of Debian (i.e., true to the Free Software spirit, stable as a rock, more secure, great package management system, and lots of packages), then get Libranet or Lindows. Personally, I'd recomment Lindows, as it seems to have more momentum and is even being included on dirt-cheap PC's sold at Walmart. Btw, for those misinformed/.ers, Lindows does not violate the GPL. I assume that their CD also comes with an offer to ship you the source at the cost of shipment.
Conclusion: Debian for the daring, Lindows & Libranet for learners. You can get Lindows by paying an $99 dollar membership fee, after which you can have Lindows shipped to your house or download it. Don't bitch about the price. And no, they're not offering it for free download off the internet (and NO, that doesn't violate the GPL). These people actually have a business plan which will keep them in business. Personally, I think that $99 is great, since it gives you access future versions of Lindows. After two years, you're click-'n-run deal runs out, and you can purchase click-'n-run service if you still want it.
The thing I like about Lindows is they have a REAL business plan. They seem to be pursuing Lindows as an OS to be installed on computers off the shelf (refer to Walmart), and seem to be pushing for OEMs to have it on their machines off-the-shelf. They also have ways to make money through their valuable click-'n-run service. Best of all, they aren't offering their entire modified version of Debian GNU/Linux online for free download. This mean's that they're not going to become another dot-bomb. Freeloaders, don't whine; if you want something for free (as in $0), get Debian GNU/Linux.
Suggestion to Debian developers: don't waste time with a graphical install, but do make the install more intelligent and logical, with auto-detection; have good default setup. Things should be set up to a good default when you boot into Debian; i.e., 12pt fonts, the WM of your choice set up to a reasonable and useable default (I'd recommend them working on a good default for KDE, GNOME, and WindowMaker).
But don't fret too much over newbie-nicities. Commercial wrap-arounds for Debian like Lindows and Libranet will make a Debian which has great defaults and is easy for the newbies. They will spend their coding time on making reasonable defaults and an easy install. Debian Developers should spend most of their coding time on hard technical details.
Kramnick is certainly a great chess player -- perhaps the best in the world -- but he is lacking in one important quality regarding a champion. And while former Champion Kasparov is arrogant and brass, he never fibbed on a challenge. During Kasparov's 15-year reign as chess-champion, he actively sought the most difficult challenger, and regularly played games in which he was disadvantaged.
This is quite contrary to what Kramnik has been doing, which is actively avoiding the strongest challenger -- Kasparov, and then after him Anand. Kasparov is still the highest ranked player in the world, and that margin has increased since after Kramnik took the crown from him, as Kasparov recently defeated Kramnik's Berlin Wall in 2001.
Kramnik appears to be not-so-subtly avoiding a rematch with Kramnik, quite the opposite of what Kramnik did when he was champion. He welcomed rematches from Karpov when Karpov was widely renowned as the best and most dangerous challenger.
What I like about the toolbars in Win98/ME is that you can add your own toolbars along all the edges of the screen. Can you do this in WindowMaker, my preferred WM?
Choosing between sloppy and click-focus is nice. I personally prefer click-focus, because I like to move the cursor off of the window I'm using, so it doesn't obsruct the view. You can also do this, however, in Win9x using X-teq.
Fine, 10 years after initial publication the copyright expires. That addresses that concern.
My proposal is still much much heavier in favor of the author than the public interest; 99% of the benefit goes to the author, only 1% of it goes to the public.
No one has the right to own information. Its not a right like the right to free speech is a right. This is a *priviledge* granted people by the government (as allowed by the constitution) for the purposes of promoting progress. Copyrights longer than 10 years do not promote progress, but rather hinder it, so they are unconstitutional. Copyrights of life are effectively indefinate and unending from the public's perspective, because nothing created in the life-time of the current public will fall into the public domain before they die (or most nothing, anyways).
And sorry for Kurt Vonneget. We don't base major policy decisions around what happens in the minority of cases. Under my system, he would still be able to make money once his works gained interest in academia, if he started writing again. Its very simple, you don't get the benefit off of a finite amount of work for the rest of your life. In any other field, a day's worth of work is a day's worth of pay, a year's worth of work a year's worth of pay. Somehow, there's this silly concept that a year's work of work for an author should provide a lifetime's worth of pay.
For something to be copyrightable, it has to be original; and for you to copyright it, you have to either be the creator or have a contract with the creator saying you own the copyright. Neither exists in this case.
Since these words were spoken at a public trial, they are all public domain.
Putting public domain words into a new format does not suddenly make them copyrightable, nor mean that you own the copyright to it. That's absurd. It would be like me taking a Michael Crichton book and reformatting it, then claiming some kind of copyright over it. Absolute non-sense.
Life + 70 is bullshit. For one thing, the vast vast majority of the profits from a work are reaped in the first few years it is on the market. Very very very few pieces of copyrighted material (be they music, books, movies, etc) will be making significant profit in 10 years.
Another problem is the undetermined time of when a copyright expires. "Life" could mean 1 year, 10 years, 50 years, or 100 years, depending on how old the creator is when (s)he copyrighted his/her work, and on how healthy (s)he is. Copyrights should be a fixed time period. If they expire before the author dies or after (s)he dies, too bad.
These increases in copyright length have not increased productivity and creativity. No artist decides whether or not to create something depending on if (s)he will still own the copyright in 10, 20, 30, 50, or 100 years from now. 10 years would be plenty of time for creators to make significant profit on their creations... Almost all software is a complete non-factor 5 years after creation (how many still buy Windows 95? or Windows 98?...what about Descent 2 ('98)?). Almost all movies are a complete non-factor in terms of profit 20 years after their creation...Jaws, one of the best thrillers of all time, isn't a significant profit factor anymore...it wasn't a factor in 1990 either. Most music is a complete non-factor (again, in terms of profit) 10 years after its creation. How many people still buy stuff by Morris Day And The Time? What about Paula Abdul?
10 years is plenty of time for any work to make a profit; if something's going to make a profit, 99.9% of that profit is going to be made in the first 10 years. The only people who have something to worry about are people like Disney who have an interest in maintaining ownership over some stupid fucking cartoon character. For the few lazy companies or authors that are still resting on the fruits of one creation 10 years ago, I say to damn bad.
My scheme provides plenty of incentive to both young authors and old one's alike. Old author's will still get 10 years of protection; if they die, then the remainder of that term is set out to their family in their will.
If anything, my scheme provides MORE incentive for authors to create. An author can't just rest on his or her previous accomplishments, as they will only make him or her money for 10 years. Thus, my system provides incentive for authors to create new works more continuously.
The other benefit of my system is that works transfer to the public domain relatively quickly. This allows new authors to make use of the works of old authors, adding additional innovations to them, without having to worry about copyright problems. This allows for more circular innovation; that is, innovation which builds atop of previous innovation.
As one additional note, hopefully, the Supreme Court will rule retroactive copyright extensions unconstitutional, thus preventing this perpetual copyright extension. Hopefully, they will also rule excessively long (i.e., life + yy) copyright terms unconstitutional, as they are effectively indefinate and not limited.
Aside from duration, the other thing which needs changing in our copyright system is the scope of copyrights. The scope of copyrights has been blown way out of due proportion (refer to discussion by Lessig in The Future of Ideas). Now-a-days, if you make a movie and have a Nike symbol in the background in a scene, you have to clear that with Nike. What bullshit. There are other areas where the scope of copyrights is blatantly unjustified, and should be radically scaled back.
Of course, the real problem is the bribery and soft-money under-handed deals going on between the RIAA/MPAA and the Congress/Senate. The RIAA and MPAA basically pay to have the laws they want.
Righting down something someone else says doesn't give you any copyright over it.
Things said in a public court are in the public domain. Any transcript of them is also in the public domain, as it is only a verbatum copy what was said in court.
The idea of M$ actually wanting to compete on a level playing field is laughable.
They don't want to compete with Free Software. They want to illegalize Free Software, and force any would be Free Software developers to release their code into the public domain or under a BSD-like license: so that M$ can take all of their ideas, embrace them, extend them in their own products, and then give nothing back to the community.
Basically, if it were up to M$, what's your's would be their's and what's their's would be their's too.
Btw, for those of you blabbing about the Free Software community not doing any innovating, that's bull. Let's just take WM's for the moment.
PWM -- any proprietary window manager out there that can adequately handle tabbed windowing, a vastly superior system?
WindowMaker -- better than Win9x's UI or that of OSX, though WindowMaker and OSX share the same heritage, NeXT. Sure, WindowMaker was based off of the OpenStep standard, but it was an *open* standard. Can't blame the Free Software community for keeping something alive in a viable form when its own company had abandoned it.
Those of you saying that KDE and GNOME are exactly like Windows are wrong; its similar to Windows to make transition easier for Windows users. However, KDE and GNOME each have their own unique features which distinguish them from Windows.
Xfce is an excellent Free Software implementation of CDE; original? no, but excellent, yes.
Alot of you people saying that Linux WM's and Desktop Environments are just Windows clones need to actually use these things instead of just looking at the screenshots from themes.org. They offer many useful features which aren't found in Windows or Mac. There are also areas where Windows and Mac are better. Mac gets points for their universal file menu (any hope of them allowing us to make it hide-away?). Windows gets points for allowing you to make your desktop background a web-page, and for allowing you to add "docks" to the sides of it with your choice of applications/folders on them. WM's in Linux like WindowMaker get points for their elegant look and feel, simplicity (dock); PWM gets points for its excellent tabbed-windowing feature; Xfce gets points for being a nice desktop environment.
Check out my website for some of my suggestions on what would make an ideal WM.
I'll stick with Lindows. Lindows is Debian-based distribution which offers an excellent set of GUI-tools, and is easy to install for the newbie. Also, it will be around in 5 years from now because Lindows has a REAL business strategy, which means making people pay for their product and not offering it for free for download online, while still complying with the GPL.
Also, Lindows knows what it wants to be. I wants to be a GNU/Linux distribution for the average desktop user.
That said, I'm not a newbie and I don't need hand-holding. I personally use Debian, because of its great track-record for stability, and because I can freely obtain it. Any graphical tools which I like in Lindows I can also get in Debian, either by download or by buying the Lindows CD and putting those apps on my computer.
Despite sticking with Debian, however, I really think that Lindows is a great thing for Debian GNU/Linux. Lindows can be to Debian GNU/Linux what OSX is to FreeBSD: an easy-to-use OS designed for ease of use for a new user (a diplomat between the world of power-users and newbies). Also, I'm excited about how Lindows is being sold pre-installed on very cheap computers. This is great, because many people just need a computer for very basic needs, and Lindows helps one buy a computer for under 500 dollars. This might be just the thing GNU/Linux needs to get newbies on-board.
Actually, Bill Gates doesn't own more than 50% of the stock at MS. If it were split up, he'd own a significant share of each little baby-MicroSoftlet, but not a majority interest.
The point is that the little MSlets would be competitors, and wouldn't be able to coroborate to lock competitors out via cartels. Cartels almost always fall out due to the greed of certain members who can gain greatly by breaking the agreement.
As for Bill Gates losing all his money, that will happen when he dies. Greedy fuck, if he were dead, everyone in India could buy themselves a real meal. Think about this as something to chew on: if Bill Gates died, every person in the world could get 15 dollars.
Does anyone really deserve to be that rich? Is he really that much smarter, harder-working, etc, than the rest of us?
This is a deliberate slap in the face. The whole point of this trial was to give M$' competition a level playing field; but that isn't what's happening. Firstly, it can't possibly be a fair playing field if MS is allowed to charge fees for access to these "intra-OS communications protocols"; this gives MS an unfair advantage over their competitors as their competitors have to pay to use these protocols, but MS doesn't. Secondly, it is specifically designed at foiling Free Software developers who develop under the GPL. GPL'ed programs cannot include such code which contains crap like this in it. As Linux is MS' biggest competitor, this move is specifically designed to prevent the only real threat to MS -- Linux -- from competing on a level playing field. Even if there weren't any absurd restrictions and just a licensing fee, it would still be outrageous; Free Software developers, MS' only real competitors, can't afford to pay such fees.
This is just another reason why MS should have been split into many pieces. It should have been split horizontally (split the OS, applications, gaming, and hardware components) and vertically (split each of them up into several companies).
I mean, we all know that in general, the TCO for Linux is cheaper than for other OS' for a variety of reasons.
But what does this specifically have to do with Linux? This guy's talking about calculating ways to save power. That can be done under any OS.
The title of this article is like saying, "Use Porsche's to get from point A to point B". Yes, you can use Porshe's to get from point A to point B; but you can also use any other car.
Slashdot Mirror
FACt: everything is politics.
You're more than welcomed to just code in your own little world, do all your work in your own little world, etc. But politics is still involved, whether you choose to ignore it or not, and it still affects you.
RMS realizes this and thus considers politics as integral in any software project.
Palladium is all about politics. Its about the polics of the BSA, the RIAA, and the MPAA conrolling what you do through MS, which will undoubtedly make unholy alliances to please these parties and profit. Palladium is about MS trying to make the GNU/Linux OS an impractical choice for users, as no hardware would run it. MS may say this about technical matters -- i.e., security, virus-prevention, etc etc -- and it is in part; but there is also politics running through the fibers of this idea. Politics is ubiquitous in this Palladium project.
As is predictable, everyone's been more than willing to jump on the "bash RMS" bandwagon. It actually reminds me of the Michael Jordan situation in the NBA. Here's a guy who's done alot for the NBA, alot for his team, and alot for basketball in general, and people are constantly criticizing him for making personal decisions which he had the right to make (i.e., to come out of retirement). Similar thing with RMS.
Many criticize RMS for what he says or where he says it; i.e., mentioning such things in newsgroups or forums which are "not meant for discussing those issues". But the politics of what he talks about is relevant to kernel developers and coders, even if they're too stupid to realize it. RMS is not an extremist. Or, if he is, extremism in defense of liberty is not a bad thing.
Next, they'll be suing Playboy because their magazines do not faciliate the masterbatory desires of the blind. Or maybe they'll sue the phone sex companies because they're services aren't available for the deaf. Pretty soon, fat and ugly women will be suing strip clubs because they don't hire fat and ugly people -- appearance discrimination.
This is getting ridiculous. I can understand public access for blind people -- ramps, elevators, etc. I can understand brail. I can understand certain features in public buildings to help the blind. But I'm gonna have to kill someone if someone sues McDonalds because they're doors aren't "wide enough for 700 pound poeple to fit through" or sues the movie theaters because their seats don't accomadate 500 pounds worth of ass.
Telling companies to redesign their websites is a violation of free speech. It would be like mandating that Michael Crichton also release his books in brail, and threatening to fine him if he doesn't. Companies shouldn't have to spend millions of dollars making sure that the 0.1% of people who are blind can use their website easily.
And private websites certainly shouldn't have to accomodate the disabled. If I have a website with some opinions by myself on there and lots of other political stuff, and then have a little link saying "buy my T-shirt", that does not make it a commercial site. Its still a private website, and I should be able to do with it whatever I want.
I'll grant you that if the web were more friendly for blind people, it would be a better web:
1. There would be no unnecessary images. All web-sites would look like those of FSF.org.
2. The only places where pictures or sounds would be would be for screenshots or things like that; there wouldn't be banner ads, and structural features of a website wouldn't rely on graphical barriers.
But forcing companies to change their websites evokes free speech issues.
This was -- hint, hint -- supposed to be funny, not insightful or inflammatory.
So wait a minute, you save money by using Linux? Are you telling me that the folks at MS are lying and that the TCO for Winodws isn't lower?
I thought that paying $200 for every copy of Windows and regular forced "update fees" would be cheaper than buying one Debian GNU/Linux CD and then updating using apt for free.
Are you telling me that a product which costs less and functions equivalently will actually save you money? That doesn't make any sense. Microsoft says it doesn't.
For a similar set of reasons as to why the public rejected the divx "loaning scheme" for movies, they'll reject e-books as they currently stand.
People would always rather get something for free than have to pay for it; and they'd always rather have the rights laid out according to the FSF than not have those rights.
But people will pay for books. We've been doing that forever, since the beginning of this nation. But when people pay for books, they expect certain rights; the right to read as often as they like, to loan, to mark-up, to give away, to take quotes from, to put in a library, etc. Until e-books give people all the same rights they have with regular paper-back books, they will not catch on.
Asking people to buy e-books as they currently exist is like saying "why don't you pay me 30,000 dollars for the same Ford except that you can't loan it to anyone, modify it, etc etc". People aren't going to buy into this bullshit.
What should happen is that when we buy a paper-back book, we should get access to an e-book automatically, and have the same rights to utilize the e-book as we would the paper-back book.
The reason why free-books online are catching on is because they offer the consumers all the same rights they'd have with paper-back books.
Is that you're computer screen has very crappy resolution compared to the resolution on a piece of paper. When computer screen's are 300dpi like decent printers, then reading stuff on them will be much more fun.
Until then, the thing to do is offer books in pdf and html format. PDF to print out. HTML to read on the computer, which will allow you to change font settings and sizes to your preference, making it easier to read.
I don't know about Mandrake, but Debian doesn't run on the root.
I wasn't aware that Lindows did either, and I don't think it does. If it does, I'm sure you can get it not to by setting up an account. It is definately better not to do your daily operations as root. Then again, if you never make a mistake, root isn't a problem. Or is it? If a program you run makes a mistake and your at root, it could be serious. So if Lindows is root by default, I'd recommend fixing that for a safety net.
I wonder where this apparent perception that Debian GNU/Linux for newbies (on the part of the reviewers) comes from. Debian is not for newbies. What, do these people think that because Debian sounds friendly, its somehow for newbies?
No, its not. Debian-based Lindows and Libranix are for newbies.
Debian is for experts. Anyone *can* install it and get it set up to their liking, but it won't be fun. It will require knowing your exact hardware specs, exactly what you want, and reading alot of manuals. The only people who will easily navigate their way around installing and configuring Debian are people coming from Slackware, Gentoo, OpenBSD, minix, or other hard-core UNIX-like OS' even more hard-core than Debian.
Debian's a hard-core GNU/Linux distro. Not as hard-core as Slackware or Gentoo, but pretty hard-core, none-the-less. Its developers focus on stability and technical excellence, not hand-holding install and configuration processes.
;-). But when it arrives, it will, like everything else about Debian, be rock solid. Debian could also work on some good defaults. Sound should be there when you first start up WindowMaker. Screen font size should be 12. WindowMaker should be well-configured by default. And so-on, and so-forth. This stuff will happen *eventually*; Debian developer's first priority is stability and technical excellence; superficial issues such as these (which are manageable for Debian's intended expert audience) are on the back-burner.
That said, Debian developers could make things a little bit more intuitive, with the install and autodetection; nothing fancy, but just an intuitive install. Something noteworthy is that graphics card drivers should be by Manufacturer (i.e., Nvidia, ATI), then by Brand Name (i.e., GeForce, GeForce2, TNT, etc); then by the specific driver, with a good stable one selected and recommended by default. Fortunately, eventually Debian will ship with the Progeny Installer (at the rate at which things in Debian move from Unstable -> Testing -> Stable, that'll be sometime around 2010
If you want an easy-to-use, easy-to-configure, easy-to-install, great-defaults Debian *right now*, then pay for Lindows or Libranet (I suggest Lindows). Lindows has glowing reviews for ease of use, and seems to solve all the problems these reviewers harp on.
haha...ok, forgive my little play on words.
;-). If you're a new user and want the benefits of Debian (i.e., true to the Free Software spirit, stable as a rock, more secure, great package management system, and lots of packages), then get Libranet or Lindows. Personally, I'd recomment Lindows, as it seems to have more momentum and is even being included on dirt-cheap PC's sold at Walmart. Btw, for those misinformed /.ers, Lindows does not violate the GPL. I assume that their CD also comes with an offer to ship you the source at the cost of shipment.
Debian is not for newbies. It is *possible* for a newbie to install Debian, but only if they know their exact hardware specifications and have studied the Debian installation guides thoroughly. I installed Debian as my first Linux distro, and I'll agree with this author -- its a bitch to install. I knew my exact hardware specs and thoroughly pre-read through the install documentation (this was a graphical install guide) before starting. It was still a bitch. Then there's the setting it up so it meets your needs: another big bitch.
Hence, Debian is not for newbies. Its even confusing for experts. Now that I've used Debian for several years, I know it. But its install process is still unworthy. Do the developers try to make the install as confusing and non-sensical as possible? Is their model for installation, "Debian installer, dumb and daft by default"? A graphical install isn't necessary; in fact, graphical install's don't make it that much easier to install, and are probably a waste of valuable development time. Most users are still smart enough to figure out how to navigate through a text-based install using hte arrow keys if you tell them how to do it with on-screen help (i.e., up to move to previous item, etc).
Conclusion: Debian is not for dummies
Conclusion: Debian for the daring, Lindows & Libranet for learners. You can get Lindows by paying an $99 dollar membership fee, after which you can have Lindows shipped to your house or download it. Don't bitch about the price. And no, they're not offering it for free download off the internet (and NO, that doesn't violate the GPL). These people actually have a business plan which will keep them in business. Personally, I think that $99 is great, since it gives you access future versions of Lindows. After two years, you're click-'n-run deal runs out, and you can purchase click-'n-run service if you still want it.
The thing I like about Lindows is they have a REAL business plan. They seem to be pursuing Lindows as an OS to be installed on computers off the shelf (refer to Walmart), and seem to be pushing for OEMs to have it on their machines off-the-shelf. They also have ways to make money through their valuable click-'n-run service. Best of all, they aren't offering their entire modified version of Debian GNU/Linux online for free download. This mean's that they're not going to become another dot-bomb. Freeloaders, don't whine; if you want something for free (as in $0), get Debian GNU/Linux.
Suggestion to Debian developers: don't waste time with a graphical install, but do make the install more intelligent and logical, with auto-detection; have good default setup. Things should be set up to a good default when you boot into Debian; i.e., 12pt fonts, the WM of your choice set up to a reasonable and useable default (I'd recommend them working on a good default for KDE, GNOME, and WindowMaker).
But don't fret too much over newbie-nicities. Commercial wrap-arounds for Debian like Lindows and Libranet will make a Debian which has great defaults and is easy for the newbies. They will spend their coding time on making reasonable defaults and an easy install. Debian Developers should spend most of their coding time on hard technical details.
Kramnick is certainly a great chess player -- perhaps the best in the world -- but he is lacking in one important quality regarding a champion. And while former Champion Kasparov is arrogant and brass, he never fibbed on a challenge. During Kasparov's 15-year reign as chess-champion, he actively sought the most difficult challenger, and regularly played games in which he was disadvantaged.
This is quite contrary to what Kramnik has been doing, which is actively avoiding the strongest challenger -- Kasparov, and then after him Anand. Kasparov is still the highest ranked player in the world, and that margin has increased since after Kramnik took the crown from him, as Kasparov recently defeated Kramnik's Berlin Wall in 2001.
Kramnik appears to be not-so-subtly avoiding a rematch with Kramnik, quite the opposite of what Kramnik did when he was champion. He welcomed rematches from Karpov when Karpov was widely renowned as the best and most dangerous challenger.
What I like about the toolbars in Win98/ME is that you can add your own toolbars along all the edges of the screen. Can you do this in WindowMaker, my preferred WM?
Choosing between sloppy and click-focus is nice. I personally prefer click-focus, because I like to move the cursor off of the window I'm using, so it doesn't obsruct the view. You can also do this, however, in Win9x using X-teq.
Artists rights to not have their work displayed in a way degrading to them or their work? What bullshit.
Fine, 10 years after initial publication the copyright expires. That addresses that concern.
My proposal is still much much heavier in favor of the author than the public interest; 99% of the benefit goes to the author, only 1% of it goes to the public.
No one has the right to own information. Its not a right like the right to free speech is a right. This is a *priviledge* granted people by the government (as allowed by the constitution) for the purposes of promoting progress. Copyrights longer than 10 years do not promote progress, but rather hinder it, so they are unconstitutional. Copyrights of life are effectively indefinate and unending from the public's perspective, because nothing created in the life-time of the current public will fall into the public domain before they die (or most nothing, anyways).
And sorry for Kurt Vonneget. We don't base major policy decisions around what happens in the minority of cases. Under my system, he would still be able to make money once his works gained interest in academia, if he started writing again. Its very simple, you don't get the benefit off of a finite amount of work for the rest of your life. In any other field, a day's worth of work is a day's worth of pay, a year's worth of work a year's worth of pay. Somehow, there's this silly concept that a year's work of work for an author should provide a lifetime's worth of pay.
LOL, that's pretty misinformed, even for /.
For something to be copyrightable, it has to be original; and for you to copyright it, you have to either be the creator or have a contract with the creator saying you own the copyright. Neither exists in this case.
Since these words were spoken at a public trial, they are all public domain.
Putting public domain words into a new format does not suddenly make them copyrightable, nor mean that you own the copyright to it. That's absurd. It would be like me taking a Michael Crichton book and reformatting it, then claiming some kind of copyright over it. Absolute non-sense.
Life + 70 is bullshit. For one thing, the vast vast majority of the profits from a work are reaped in the first few years it is on the market. Very very very few pieces of copyrighted material (be they music, books, movies, etc) will be making significant profit in 10 years.
Another problem is the undetermined time of when a copyright expires. "Life" could mean 1 year, 10 years, 50 years, or 100 years, depending on how old the creator is when (s)he copyrighted his/her work, and on how healthy (s)he is. Copyrights should be a fixed time period. If they expire before the author dies or after (s)he dies, too bad.
These increases in copyright length have not increased productivity and creativity. No artist decides whether or not to create something depending on if (s)he will still own the copyright in 10, 20, 30, 50, or 100 years from now. 10 years would be plenty of time for creators to make significant profit on their creations... Almost all software is a complete non-factor 5 years after creation (how many still buy Windows 95? or Windows 98?...what about Descent 2 ('98)?). Almost all movies are a complete non-factor in terms of profit 20 years after their creation...Jaws, one of the best thrillers of all time, isn't a significant profit factor anymore...it wasn't a factor in 1990 either. Most music is a complete non-factor (again, in terms of profit) 10 years after its creation. How many people still buy stuff by Morris Day And The Time? What about Paula Abdul?
10 years is plenty of time for any work to make a profit; if something's going to make a profit, 99.9% of that profit is going to be made in the first 10 years. The only people who have something to worry about are people like Disney who have an interest in maintaining ownership over some stupid fucking cartoon character. For the few lazy companies or authors that are still resting on the fruits of one creation 10 years ago, I say to damn bad.
My scheme provides plenty of incentive to both young authors and old one's alike. Old author's will still get 10 years of protection; if they die, then the remainder of that term is set out to their family in their will.
If anything, my scheme provides MORE incentive for authors to create. An author can't just rest on his or her previous accomplishments, as they will only make him or her money for 10 years. Thus, my system provides incentive for authors to create new works more continuously.
The other benefit of my system is that works transfer to the public domain relatively quickly. This allows new authors to make use of the works of old authors, adding additional innovations to them, without having to worry about copyright problems. This allows for more circular innovation; that is, innovation which builds atop of previous innovation.
As one additional note, hopefully, the Supreme Court will rule retroactive copyright extensions unconstitutional, thus preventing this perpetual copyright extension. Hopefully, they will also rule excessively long (i.e., life + yy) copyright terms unconstitutional, as they are effectively indefinate and not limited.
Aside from duration, the other thing which needs changing in our copyright system is the scope of copyrights. The scope of copyrights has been blown way out of due proportion (refer to discussion by Lessig in The Future of Ideas). Now-a-days, if you make a movie and have a Nike symbol in the background in a scene, you have to clear that with Nike. What bullshit. There are other areas where the scope of copyrights is blatantly unjustified, and should be radically scaled back.
Of course, the real problem is the bribery and soft-money under-handed deals going on between the RIAA/MPAA and the Congress/Senate. The RIAA and MPAA basically pay to have the laws they want.
Please, what bullshit.
Righting down something someone else says doesn't give you any copyright over it.
Things said in a public court are in the public domain. Any transcript of them is also in the public domain, as it is only a verbatum copy what was said in court.
All black holes have singularities in the center. Once you get that much mass in one place, it will collapse in upon itself infinitely.
The idea of M$ actually wanting to compete on a level playing field is laughable.
They don't want to compete with Free Software. They want to illegalize Free Software, and force any would be Free Software developers to release their code into the public domain or under a BSD-like license: so that M$ can take all of their ideas, embrace them, extend them in their own products, and then give nothing back to the community.
Basically, if it were up to M$, what's your's would be their's and what's their's would be their's too.
Btw, for those of you blabbing about the Free Software community not doing any innovating, that's bull. Let's just take WM's for the moment.
PWM -- any proprietary window manager out there that can adequately handle tabbed windowing, a vastly superior system?
WindowMaker -- better than Win9x's UI or that of OSX, though WindowMaker and OSX share the same heritage, NeXT. Sure, WindowMaker was based off of the OpenStep standard, but it was an *open* standard. Can't blame the Free Software community for keeping something alive in a viable form when its own company had abandoned it.
Those of you saying that KDE and GNOME are exactly like Windows are wrong; its similar to Windows to make transition easier for Windows users. However, KDE and GNOME each have their own unique features which distinguish them from Windows.
Xfce is an excellent Free Software implementation of CDE; original? no, but excellent, yes.
Alot of you people saying that Linux WM's and Desktop Environments are just Windows clones need to actually use these things instead of just looking at the screenshots from themes.org. They offer many useful features which aren't found in Windows or Mac. There are also areas where Windows and Mac are better. Mac gets points for their universal file menu (any hope of them allowing us to make it hide-away?). Windows gets points for allowing you to make your desktop background a web-page, and for allowing you to add "docks" to the sides of it with your choice of applications/folders on them. WM's in Linux like WindowMaker get points for their elegant look and feel, simplicity (dock); PWM gets points for its excellent tabbed-windowing feature; Xfce gets points for being a nice desktop environment.
Check out my website for some of my suggestions on what would make an ideal WM.
I'll stick with Lindows. Lindows is Debian-based distribution which offers an excellent set of GUI-tools, and is easy to install for the newbie. Also, it will be around in 5 years from now because Lindows has a REAL business strategy, which means making people pay for their product and not offering it for free for download online, while still complying with the GPL.
Also, Lindows knows what it wants to be. I wants to be a GNU/Linux distribution for the average desktop user.
That said, I'm not a newbie and I don't need hand-holding. I personally use Debian, because of its great track-record for stability, and because I can freely obtain it. Any graphical tools which I like in Lindows I can also get in Debian, either by download or by buying the Lindows CD and putting those apps on my computer.
Despite sticking with Debian, however, I really think that Lindows is a great thing for Debian GNU/Linux. Lindows can be to Debian GNU/Linux what OSX is to FreeBSD: an easy-to-use OS designed for ease of use for a new user (a diplomat between the world of power-users and newbies). Also, I'm excited about how Lindows is being sold pre-installed on very cheap computers. This is great, because many people just need a computer for very basic needs, and Lindows helps one buy a computer for under 500 dollars. This might be just the thing GNU/Linux needs to get newbies on-board.
Other than a singularity, what other physical phenomena can produce a black hole, a region from which not even light can escape?
Easy to give your money to charity when you have no children, and no real family.
Also, simply giving money to charity doesn't justify immoral business practices.
Actually, Bill Gates doesn't own more than 50% of the stock at MS. If it were split up, he'd own a significant share of each little baby-MicroSoftlet, but not a majority interest.
The point is that the little MSlets would be competitors, and wouldn't be able to coroborate to lock competitors out via cartels. Cartels almost always fall out due to the greed of certain members who can gain greatly by breaking the agreement.
As for Bill Gates losing all his money, that will happen when he dies. Greedy fuck, if he were dead, everyone in India could buy themselves a real meal. Think about this as something to chew on: if Bill Gates died, every person in the world could get 15 dollars.
Does anyone really deserve to be that rich? Is he really that much smarter, harder-working, etc, than the rest of us?
This is a deliberate slap in the face. The whole point of this trial was to give M$' competition a level playing field; but that isn't what's happening. Firstly, it can't possibly be a fair playing field if MS is allowed to charge fees for access to these "intra-OS communications protocols"; this gives MS an unfair advantage over their competitors as their competitors have to pay to use these protocols, but MS doesn't. Secondly, it is specifically designed at foiling Free Software developers who develop under the GPL. GPL'ed programs cannot include such code which contains crap like this in it. As Linux is MS' biggest competitor, this move is specifically designed to prevent the only real threat to MS -- Linux -- from competing on a level playing field. Even if there weren't any absurd restrictions and just a licensing fee, it would still be outrageous; Free Software developers, MS' only real competitors, can't afford to pay such fees.
This is just another reason why MS should have been split into many pieces. It should have been split horizontally (split the OS, applications, gaming, and hardware components) and vertically (split each of them up into several companies).
I mean, we all know that in general, the TCO for Linux is cheaper than for other OS' for a variety of reasons.
But what does this specifically have to do with Linux? This guy's talking about calculating ways to save power. That can be done under any OS.
The title of this article is like saying, "Use Porsche's to get from point A to point B". Yes, you can use Porshe's to get from point A to point B; but you can also use any other car.