The problem is that when we read this, we want to say, "Well, duh, the USA Patriot Act was talking about providing material support or means of communication to terrorists; i.e., communication to help them communicate with one another, not about giving them a way to speak to the public". That's the initial reaction.
But the law is so unclear that such an interpretation cannot be supported; nor can an interpretation which says the opposite. The problem with this law is that it is so vague that it can be construed to mean anything by the government.
Thus, this law -- or at least the parts so vague -- should be struck down on principle. Void for vagueness. Laws need to be exactingly clear, so much so that any literate person within a standard deviant of the average IQ could understand what they mean. This law, and quite a few other laws (like the DMCA) are not so clear. Rather, they were intentionally written with this vagueness, so that those writing it would not face criticism for silencing free speech, but yet could later construe the law to mean that we can't link to terrorist sites.
Laws should be constitutionally required to be:
1. Clear to any literate person within a standard deviant of the average IQ.
2. As short as possible. No law should be longer than two 11x8.5 pages of 12pt courrier ith 1-inch margins. People shouldn't have to read through hundreds of pages to find out what a law does.
3. Simply written. No complex or archane language or words should be used in laws; for example, "carnal knowledge". Sentences should be as simple as possible, avoiding all complexity. In short, laws should be written in the equivalent of "street language". They should be written in the same way that we all talk to eachother, with language appropriate to these times; no thous, thees, thys, thine, henceforths, shall, or any other of that Shakespearian British bullshit.
Oh please. Believing that intellectual property rights should either be eliminated or scaled back both in scope and duration is not incompatable with the modern world; indeed, it makes more sense in the modern world than when copyrights were first invented.
Now that most software, music, and videos are obsolete in 5, 10, and perhaps 20 years respectively, it makes sense to limit copryrights to perhaps 20 years max, following the 5-year renewal plan that Lessig proposed.
I'm not sure I support eliminating intellectual property all together. But I do support drastically scaling back its scope and duration, as I've previously indicated. By scaling back its duration, I mean that it should be very narrowly construed; Coca Cola's trademark on the slogan "its the real thing" for their drinks shouldn't be able to prevent a book reviewer from saying (in regards to a book), "its the real thing".
Your example regarding the environmentalism is absurd, because the environment is not an inherent issue in software; users freedom, however, which is the concern of the FS community, is.
I'm not anti-business; I'm just against some business methods employed:
1. Insider-trading, commonly practiced by executives, which allowed that bastard Gary Wennig to make 600 million dollars while the shareholders of Global Crossings lost their money.
2. Biopiracy and other outrageous attempts to own life. Refer here to biotech companies patenting cures developed by traditional people, then making money on that, and charging indigenous people for the cures they themselves developed. Also refer to Monsanto corporation, which has now taken up the practice of suing farmers for not removing "patented" seed which germinates on their property due to wind.
3. EULA's which take away basic user rights and attempt to extend the companies rights far beyond what copyright law allows.
4. The ever-continual efforts of corporations like Walt Disney, and corporate organizations like the RIAA and MPAA, to retroactively and unconstitutionally extend both the scope (i.e., DMCA) and duration (i.e., 1998 Mickeymouse Copyright Extension Act).
5. Other unfair licenses, like Apple's APSL (though most of the unfair parts are unenforcible [i.e., those requiring that you publicize any modifications]).
6. Unreasonable attempts to silence speech using intellectual property laws. Refer to Intel Inside and "Yoga Inside". Also refer to "fuckfordmotors.com" or whatever it was.
The business world is not indifferent to the OSS & FS movements. They want to either use them (in the way in which Apple parasites off of the efforts of the OSS community) or eliminate them, as they see them as a threat (in the way in which MS has targetted the FSF and the GPL, and any software covered under it).
I'm not against business in general. I'm just against certain business practices, which are rather common in the business world. I happen to believe its possible to make money without fucking anyone over, breaking the law, or violating anyone's rights.
Firstly, there's a big difference between Ford copying Porsche's features and an OSS / FS project copying Apple's features. Ford is commercial and competes with Porsche. OSS / FS projects are not commercial and don't compete.
Secondly, as you implied, Ford could have come out with rounded headlights the next year, or day; just it would have to be their own implementation of them. Similarly, the Aqua themes I've seen so far for Linux or Windows are not copies of Apple's implementation of a glassy/bluish look & feel; they're different, separately generated, implementations.
The idea that a "look and feel" can be patented & copyrighted is absurd. Xerox was trying to make that point when they sued Apple because Apple sued MS for "ripping off their look and feel"; essentially, Xerox said that you shouldn't legally be able to own the rights to a look and feel.
Think about how backwards what your saying is. You want a world where one person discovers something useful, and then no one else can use that something without paying them. Its like saying that if I find a better way to do business, and that becomes widely known, I can prevent anyone else from doing business that way.
The entire market is dependant to some extent upon competitors copying eachothers efforts. This is the only way you can create real competition.
Yes, I know the only thing that makes the GPL work is copyright law. However, the GPL is a brilliant tool designed by Stallman to use Intellectual Property laws against themselves, so to speak. It is not the end goal. The end goal is to either eliminate intellectual property all-together, or vastly reduce its duration and scope.
As for being an ass, I call it as I see it; if I think someone's full of it, I'll say so.
As for a dock before NeXT, what do you call this in TWM?
You should also note that while Apple has the right to license their software in whatever reasonable manner they like (and many of the clauses in their license are completely unreasonable and probably unconstitutional), they do not have the right to the praise or acceptance of the OSS and FS communities.
We have the right to criticize their license, while at the same time encouraging them for their relative progress.
Perhaps Apple improved their grade on licensing for some comoponents of its OS from an E to a D; but a D is still failing. While we should encourage them for their progress, we should hardly say that all is right.
You should also note that what's more important isn't how much software Apple licenses under an open sourced license (the APSL), but rather the quality of that license. It would be better to release that same amount of software under the BSD or GPL licenses than to release the entire OS under the APSL.
They give back to the community under a draconian license, the APSL. As has been noted by Stallman, the APSL has several problems which mean we can call it Open (as in OSS, we can see the source) but hardly Free (as in freedom):
1. Disrespect for privacy. APSL doesn't allow you to make a private modification for your own purposes; you must publish any modifications. Though this is completely uninforcible, it is disturbing none-the-less.
2. Central control. Anyone who releases or uses a modified version must notify Apple.
3. Revocation. The license states that Apple can revoke it at any time. This makes it no better than the EULA.
4. Its an unfair and unequal relationship. It requires you to give Apple certain rights to your modifications, which they do not give to their code.
This is hardly giving back; hardly a symbiotic relationship. This is, "lets see if we can get them to work for us without paying them".
If I want to make my desktop look like Apple's tacky Aqua appearance, that's my fucking right. Apple can't stop me from doing that legally, nor would any such efforts be enforcible.
Its the same as if I had branded a large copyrighted picture on my wall. That's fine. There's nothing wrong with that.
All I'm doing in distributing my customization appearance to others is helping them do the same thing I did, saving them the trouble. I'm not a commercial competitor, so trademarks don't apply.
Oh, please. Firstly, if you believe there weren't docks and such before NeXT, your fulla shit.
Secondly, Apple did not invent the NeXT look. NeXT did. NeXT was a separate company, with an abysmal profit situation. After they stopped selling the NeXT OS on NeXT boxes, people in the Linux world wanted something that felt like NeXT. Hence GNUstep & WindowMaker. Its a users right to use and get whatever interface they like; if the company that produced that interface stops selling it or goes out of business (as is the case with NeXT and Be), then you should expect users to make a replacement for themselves (i.e., GNUstep / Windowmaker, or BlueOS & OpenBe).
In short, there were docks before NeXT. It invented nothing new in that regard (though column-file navigation, I believe, was NeXT's invention). And people who developed GPL'ed alternatives comparable to NeXT (Windowmaker and GNUstep) did not rip off Apple (as Apple hadn't made them), nor NeXT (as NeXT had stopped selling them, and even had they not, we have the right to make improvements to our UI).
Besides, the idea of patenting or copyrighting or whatever a "GUI's feel" is outrageous. Progress in GUI's is greatly aided by different people copying the good ideas of others; why waste time & effort coming up with a alternate solution to the problem when a good one has already been deviced?
Apple took plenty from the FS / OSS communities via the UNIX-tools they incorporated into OS X. They pretty much took it unmodified and recompiled it for Apple hardware. A little bit hypocritical for them to ask that no one copy some of their good ideas.
The whole market of ideas is dependant on the abillity of one company or in this case volunteer effort to copy the good ideas of another; not their exact implementation, but certainly the idea behind them. First Porsches & Jaguars had rounded headlights, then Mercedes Benz' had rounded headlights, now Ford Taurus' and every commoner car have headlights. Hardly anything wrong with that. What you want is for one company like Apple to be able to obtain IP rights over something very general, like "a column view file navigator" or "the dock". This is outrageous.
As for using the Mac interface, if I want to use something that looks like Aqua, I can manipulate my themes for WindowMaker to look like that; there's nothing Apple can do to stop me from doing that. Why shouldn't I be able to save others that trouble and prevent them from having to do that?
Yada yada yada. Users have the right to make their OS look like whatever the hell they want to, whether those users are using Linux, Windows, OS X or whatever else. If a user wants to make WindowMaker look like Aqua, they'll do it by theming. Offering pre-made themes for downloading just saves people that hassle.
You don't see the OSS/FS community bitching because Apple ripped off the dock, which is used in so many of our Window Managers, do you? No.
Apple doesn't prohibit us from using "transparency, or blueness"...Actually, they do want to do that. They don't want to allow anyone else to make a theme which has a glassy/transparent blue look to it.
So fuck Apple. I have the right to make my UI look like whatever the hell I want to.
Personally, I think Aqua's theme sucks. Tacky and tasteless like a two-dollar whore. I'd much prefer a simple no-thrills theme which is clean and neat. Though I'll say you shouldn't use themes in OSX (as it'll make your system unbootable), the best themes for OSX are BeOS, NeXT, and Sosumi. All of them are simple and clean.
Oh, please. Shut up you idiot. If its only "one small function" which you use in your code from a GPL'ed program, it should be no problem to replace it.
Quit whining you pathetic whiner. If its "only one GPL'ed line of code" in your program, it should be no problem to replace it with your own.
Look, the fact is, that due credit is not being given to the FSF for the fact that in most distributions, it created the vast majority of the software used for the OS and other functions.
For Distributions which don't use GNU software, they shouldn't call it GNU/Linux; i.e., instead, for example, BSD/Linux. But for distributions for which the vast majority of their software is GNU -- i.e., Debian, RedHat, Suse, Caldera, Slackware, all the major distributions -- they should be called Distribution GNU/Linux. Debian actually follows this protocol, calling itself, "Debian GNU/Linux".
The FSF should get due credit for what they contributed to most of today's distributions. Sure, distributions like RedHat and Suse mention that GNU software is predominantly used on their OS. But they give no credit to the FSF in the name of their product, whereas they do give credit to Linus. How many of RedHat's users do you think actually delve into their site looking for the credits? Its the difference between giving credit to someone in a movie at the beginning of it in big bold letters, versus giving credit to them at the end in small unreadable letters, which flash by the screen quickly, when everyone is leaving the movie theater or starting to turn off the TV.
The FSF has contributed a major part -- more than Linus -- to most of today's distributions. They deserve to be, so to speak, mentioned in the opening credits, not the closing ones; that is, in the title of the software, as opposed to in some footnote in the licensing documention. Really, all the FSF is asking for is to receive due credit in an appropriate manner, where its due. Is it that hard to give them the due credit they deserve? Is it really that hard for you to say RedHat GNU/Linux or Slackware GNU/Linux? They're asking you to say three more syllables when you say the name of a distribuion, type out four more characters when you write it.
The FSF not only demands recognition (which, by the way, it got plenty of already)
What an outrageous concept, that the FSF wants to receive some credit for distributions in which the software they wrote composes 70% of the code-base. And how does the FSF get plenty of recognition if EVERY distribution (save Debian) refers to itself as Distribution Linux, not giving recognition in the title to the FSF?
it actively supports piracy, offering this newspeak as a replacement.
Bullshit. The FSF is simply saying that we shouldn't refer to copyright infringement as if it were a felony; i.e., we shouldn't put it on par with being a pirate, which means killing, rape, and plundering. And in case you hadn't noticed, intellectual property is not a constitutional right. Its questionable that it should exist at all in its current draconian form, in which it has both an enormous scope and a unreasonably long duration.
As for your gripe with the GPL, get over it. You license things under the EULA, a draconian license which violates many of the users basic rights, or attempts to do so; i.e., no product modification, no reverse engineering, no transfer to different machines, etc. If you don't like the GPL license, then DON'T USE GPL'ed code in the software you right; keep any GPL'ed code at an arms length from your code. If you choose to include GPL'ed code in your software and distribute it, then you agree to the GPL license and have to distribute your source code under the GPL. There's no trickery involved, you idiot. All their software says, "this software is covered under the GNU GPL, etc," so you know damn well that its GPL'ed. If you use that code in your program, you do it with the full knowledge that its GPL'ed; its not like the FSF tries to hide the fact that its software is GPL'ed so that people use it in their software unwittingly and then later realize they have to release their software under the GPL. Rather, quite the contrary, they make it glaringly obvious that their code is GPL'ed.
You should also note that no one has to accept the GPL (which is why I think that its outrageous that OpenOffice requires you to accept the GPL before installing it). You only accept the GPL if you choose to modify the source code of the software and then distribute it, or use that source code in your program and distribute it.
Your position can be summed up by two statements:
1. Waahhh! Waahhh! The FSF wants partial credit for distributions in which its software is predominantly used.
2. Waahhh! Waahhh! The FSF is distributing their code under the GPL, and I don't like that.
Here's something that many here seem to have overlooked, in their zeal to label Richard Stallman a speech-nazi:
Why not sue people who call the whole system "Linux"?
There are no legal grounds to sue them, but since we believe in freedom of speech, we wouldn't want to do that anyway. We ask people to call the system "GNU/Linux" because that is the right thing to do.
Though I don't think that Linux in general as a reference to all the distributions of Linux should be called GNU/Linux (because some Linux distributions do not use GNU software), I do think that any distribution which uses primarily GNU software along with the Linux kernel should call itself "Distribution GNU/Linux".
This is really an issue of academic credit and a kind of plaguarism. Due credit should be given to those who created/wrote something. This is the basis of the academic world.
Distributions -- like Debian, Redhat, Suse, etc etc -- which use predominantly GNU-software along with Linus' GPL'ed Linux kernel should be called "Distro GNU-Linux"; i.e., Debian officially calls itself "Debian GNU/Linux". This makes sense, because Debian is composed mainly of two parts: the Linux kernel, and the GNU software. Hence GNU/Linux. Duh.
However, the Linux kernel itself was made by Linus, not the GNU/FSF. Though Linus licensed Linux under the GPL, that doesn't mean that he should call it GNU/Linux or GPL/Linux. There's no reason to call every piece of software licensed unde rthe GPL GPL/Software. Hence, there is no reason why Linux itself should be called "GNU/Linux". Just call it Linux.
There is also no good reason why Linux in general (in reference to the many distributions of it, not the kernel), should be called GNU/Linux. Not all Linux distributions use mainly GNU software. Most do, and those distributions should be called, "Distribution GNU/Linux" to indicate that they are mainly composed of GNU software and Linux. Those that don't, however, shouldn't.
Also, note that RMS is not forcing anyone to do anything. He's simply saying why he thinks Linux (in reference to the distributions in general) should be called GNU/Linux. I disagree with him, but that hardly makes him the language police.
I am still responding to this because you are insulting everyone who has chosen Linux as their daily desktop OS (myself and most of slashdot) by saying that it shouldn't even be considered as a choice.
Since you had a rather long post, let me see if I can sum up your points, and provide a brief response to each.
1. The least computer savy person you know needs to be able to get images from her digital camera and manipulate them. This can be done in Mac/Windows, but not in Linux.
The least computer savy person may not have the least demanding needs, but rather advanced needs (like friend); a very computer savy person may not have the most demanding needs, but instead rather basic needs (like myself). So your example of what "the least computer-savy person" you know needs to be able to do on a computer isn't representative of the basic needs people have of a computer, which everyone who buys a computer today will want to do. The most basic computer needs are document presentation/preparation (i.e., MS Office / Open Office), e-mail checking, internet browsing, DVD-watching, and MP3-downloading. You say "no-one downloads MP3's" because that's illegal; well, forgetting about the legality of it, there's at least 60 million nobodies who used Napster to download MP3's. Must be alot of nobodies in your world.
But anyways, lets run with your "least computer-savy person," who needs to get images from a digital camera and perform simple manipulation to them. For the manipulations you mentioned and any other simple manipulations which a typical user of PhotoShop would perform, the GIMP would work fine; its only for the more advanced manipulations which professions would need to do where the GIMP wouldn't suffice. In that case, PhotoShop runs fine via Wine or VMware in Linux. Any major application like such (i.e., MS Office, Quicken, Photoshop, etc) will run fine under Linux via Wine; if not, VMware can always be used. Games or anything which requires intensive reiterated calculations won't work well under Wine or VMware, but such applications are usually only for scientific and professional special effects, of which there are many in Linux.
So, your friend can in fact manipulate the image using either GIMP or PhotoShop in Linux. She also use the tools provided in gPhoto, or Agfa. I'm sure there are many more tools, but that's beside the point.
You also seem to imply (if I read you right) that there's no way to get images from a digital camera to your computer using Linux. At first, I thought that would be hard as I figured it'd require specific drivers; however, one can simply mount the digital camera's hard drive like any other device. Though the explanation of how to do it in this article is a very tech-savy, I'm sure there's easy-to-use UI interfaces which simplify the process.
2. GNUcash is inadequate for the typical home users financial needs. Home users need something like Quicken.
Lets just say that your description of what the typical home user needs is correct; big deal. Run Quicken through Wine or VMware. As I said before, applications which don't require reiterated runs of a complex number-crunching algorithm will run fine under Wine.
3. Because the majority of the many software packages included in Linux are useless, their sheer number is irrelevant.
Really? Have you looked any of the some 7,000 packages in Debian? I'd suggest you check out Debians' Editors, Electronics, Graphics, Ham radio, Mail, Mathematics, Newsgroups, Science, Sound, and WebSoftware. There are many useful packages that come with (for example) Debian. gPhoto is one of them. Please do care to check out your facts before stating something patently false.
On that note, I must say that's one big flaw in every Linux distro I can think of. None of them let you know all of the applications on them. There are tons of useful packages, but the user isn't made aware of them (i.e., gPhoto for digital cameras). There should be something like a graphical menu which lists a bunch of things you want to do, where you select one and then it lists all the tools for that and descriptions of the uses of each. I'll admit its little good having all these packages if the average user (like yourself, obviously) is completely unaware of them.
4. There's nothing one can do in Linux, scientific or otherwise, that can't be done in Windows or Mac. If there is, one can recompile the program for Mac or Windows, or port it.
Well, to name one app which you doesn't work as is on OSX, LightSpeed. You say you can recompile it for Mac or Port it to MacOSX; true, but the average user doesn't even know what the world compile means (let alone recompile) or what the word port means, except in reference to the left side of a ship.
5. The ability to customize software to one's needs is irrelevant; all that matters is having an easy-to-use default configuration, which can be intuitively understood.
I'll agree that an easy-to-use default config is needed in order to help orient a user new to the software. However, default configs are necessarily inefficient for every user. Different users use software in different ways, and will work more efficiently if they eventually can adjust it to meet their needs. For example, I like things best when I can for all programs to make F1 the first menu, F2 the second, F3 the third, and so on, as was the case back in the old DOS days; I really feel that's a much better way of doing things than Alt-F for file menu. F1 is one button, and always the first menu -- rather convenient.
6. The license under which an OS is sold/given away is irrelevant to the user.
A rather naive statement. What happens when MS raids your company and you can't find documents proving you bought every copy of Windows running? A million-dollar settlement, in which you effectively agree to whatever terms MS dictates; that's what happens. Same thing for Apple, though we haven't heard as much about that. What happens when you post or want to download an improvement to an application, which is prohibited by its EULA? Well, if you post an improvement, your legally liable. Same thing if you download one, though there's little way to enforce that. I can go on and on. In short, its the difference between enslavement (MS/Apple in the GUI) and freedom (BSD/Linux); namely, the enslavement or freedom of the user. There's a good reason why Richard Stallman created the FSF.
7. For Linux advocates, it all comes down to "you should use Linux because of politics"
An invalid simplification. For people who believe as Richard Stallman and the FSF do, the main reason one should use Free Software is because it gives one freedom; another good reason is that, in general, they think its better. For people who believe as Linus Torvalds and the OSS does, its just the oppostie: you should use Linux because in general its better, then because it gives you freedom. In short, I'd say that about half of the Linux community believes in using it because of its technical superiority, as they see it (this is verified by the fact that Linux outperforms, for example, Win2k and *BSD in server performance tests).
Now, I realize that you probably have one more objection to my post: still, why use Linux? You can accomplish all the same stuff in Mac OS X and Windows.
Well, regarding Windows, there are no powerful Unix commands unless you get Cygwin or something like it, which is not an adequate solution; also, you don't benefit from the superior performance, security, and stability of Linux. Despite XP's stability improvements, its still not as stable as Linux; and its, as Steve Balmer of MS says, "just not built with security in mind".
Regarding MacOSX, it is true that it basically offers alot of the functionality of Linux through the terminal. But its based on BSD and Mach; and performance tests have shown that Linux outperforms BSD, though not being as secure out of the box. However, Apple's OSX is not shipped secure out of the box, as is OpenBSD, so that's a non-issue.
Performance aside, basically MacOSX basically offers all of the same powerful UNIX applications that Linux does. So why use Linux over MacOSX? Simple: cost. Do you really expect PC users to buy much more expensive Macs when essentially the same performance is available from a PC at a lower cost? Do you really expect them to dump their PC w/c they paid for just to buy a Mac with OSX on it?
What about for people who already have Mac hardware or like Mac hardware better? Linux is still a better cost option. OSX is some 120 or so dollars. Linux can be free if you download it, and if you want to buy the CD, ranges from $60 dollars for personal RedHat t o $15 or so for Debian. For that money ($0 [or the cost of downloading it] to $60) you get a OS with functionality equivalent to MacOSX. Additionally, you get tons and tons of useful software packages, which had you bought proprietary equivalents of would probably cost you tens of thousands of dollars. For example, just think about how much it would cost you to buy the proprietary equivalents of all he compilers that come with Linux for "free" or nearly so.
For the vast majority of what people do -- that is, the common functions which everyone does with a computer, like web-browsing (IE), document creation (Office), e-mail checking (Outlook), DVD-playing, music, MP3-downloading, etc -- there are comparable items in Linux, MacOS, and Windows. Trying to say otherwise -- as you seem to be implying -- is simply a flat-out lie.
Things like Adobe Photoship and Illustrator are not things which everyone will use. Furthermore, you make these statements but have no proof to back them up. Since you seem to be thoroughly embedded in the Mac world, its doubtful you've seriously looked for Linux applications.
I'll agree with the comments of someone else that the GIMP is no replacement for PhotoShop. Its at an intermediate level, between MS Paint and PhotoShop. Despite not replacing PhotoShop, its great for most of the functions you need. It should also be noted that Linux is a versatile system for 2D and 3D graphics manipulation and creation. Linux has been used in big-time movies to create 3D special effects through software systems for it.
As for financial applications (you mention Quicken) Linux boasts a wide array of excellent financial suits. For typical home use, the best-suited is probably GNUcash. However, there are enterprise-level products which scale to meet the needs of businesses like Walmart.
Another fact about Linux which is very commonly overlooked is that you gets tons of software with any major distribution of Linux. A whole slew more than you'll ever need, and orders of magnitude more than you get along with Windows and MacOS. From LinuxCentral, you can get Debian for $15, Slackware for $25, FreeBSD for $35 (I realize FreeBSD isn't a Linux). RedHat 7.3 Personal costs $60; SuSe Linux 8.1 Personal costs $40. I can go on. All of these distirbutions come at a very reasonable price (or free, if you download), along with tons of software. You don't get that with MacOS or Windows, period.
As for running windows versions of a program through an emulator, thats actually more reliable than running the windows applications from windows itself. In Linux, if one process crashes, that doesn't effect the system; it does in Windows. The other reason to be running Windows/Mac programs in an emulator when needed is to take advantage of the powerful features of Linux w/o having to reboot.
You can stand by your argument that Linux doesn't compare to OS X and Windows all you want. That doesn't change the fact that it is. Tasks that most people want to accomplish an be done in all three OS'. Perhaps there's some things one can do in MacOS that can't be done elsewhere (graphics is commonly sited, but I disagree b/c Linux is used for big-time special effects); but there's also things that one can do in Linux that one can't do elsewhere (scientific applications, complete customizability); and there's things that one can do in MS that can't be done elsewhere (games -- Linux is nowhere near MS in that category, and if your honest, neither is MacOS).
Saying Linux is at best comparable to a subset of OS X is insulting. One could say that OS X is only comparable to a subset of Linux because of all the scientific apps available in Linux with no equivalent in OS X. You are simply trying to close off an avenue of debate by saying that Linux shouldn't even be an option for serious consideration, as it doesn't allow one to do all of the things that one can do in MacOS; but as I just demonstrated, that argument can be turned on its head.
For me (a researcher) and for the vast majority of people, Linux, MacOS, and Windows are all viable options. I choose Linux because of the many quality apps that come with it for free and because of its stability & speed; as well as the fact that it doesn't require you to accept any draconian EULA's. Just remember how much you or your company will be liable for if anyone finds you in violation of Apple's EULA.
Firstly, this is the most ignorant post I've ever read. You obviously have a great deal of confusion about the boundary between an OS and an application. Typical symptoms of someone who only uses MacOS or Windows. OS != application.
For most of the programs you mention, there are Linux equivalents; I can't speak for some of the programs since I never use them in any OS. I never use Illustrator or InDesign, so I really can't talk regarding equivalents. However, Linux has the ability to emulate Windows and Mac applications, using emulators like Wine. However, there are many commercial graphics packages availble on Linux, if that's what your itnerested in. LightWork Design for photorealistic 3D, Corel DRAW, Corel Photopaint, Blender, Backlight, Renderpark. I suggest you check out "An Artists Guide to Linux". Apparently, GNU Yellow Vector Editor is an equivalent to Adobe Illustrator.
Linux equivalents to PowerPoint? Easy. Impress under Openoffice. Hell, OpenOffice and StarOffice are equivalents to the entire MS Office Suite.
Quicken. A Windows version of Quicken will run in Linux under Wine or VMWare. Many windows apps will run under Linux with Wine. Almost all of them will run under Linux with VMWare. That just about takes care of any application you can think of, since almost everything is available for Windows. Also, are you really so naive that you think there's no good financial programs available for Linux? Do you really think that many major corporations would consider or are switching over to Linux if there's no good financial programs?
Also, the entire basis of your argument is that you can't compare Linux to OSX because there's some applications which run on OSX which don't on Linux, or for which there aren't any equivalents. Perhaps so, but by that idiotic standard, you can't compare any two OS'.
And for any OS which boasts a satisfactory number and variety of applications, which certainly includes Linux, comparing the applications available is simply an invalid comparison. The creators of an OS create the OS, not the applications for it; they have no control over that.
This of course relates to the cactch-22 situation that any OS which isn't Mac or Windows faces -- in order to become popular, you need to have a lot of applications available for your OS; and in order to have a lot of applications available for your OS, you need to have a popular OS, so people will develop for it. Another good case against the MS monopoly.
Please don't use Mac OS X. Sorry, dude, but you're just not cut out for it. Everything you said here is just a Mac OS 9 feature that you wish you had in Mac OS X. I have a great solution for you: use Mac OS 9.
Next time, try reading the persons comment. I think that overall, for me, OSX is a big improvement over OS9; I won't go into all of the reasons, but sufficed to say, managing multiple windows is easier on OSX, and its much more stable.
Saying "just use OS9" is not a solution. Firstly, Apple computers will no longer be able to boot up OS9 in a couple of years. Secondly, OSX is overall better. However, there are some features which were inexcusably left out of OSX, which were in OS9, and are not replaced by anything comparable. The dock is not a suitable replacement for the applications menu; it is a suitable complement for the desktop. The dock is also not a suitable replacement for the old Finder application switcher; rather, a complement. The new control panel interface (via a tabbed window system) is vastly inferior to the old one, which was accessible through a control panel menu. Pop-up folders have inexecusably been left out, with no suitable replacement; again, the ability to put folders on the dock is not a replacement for "view as pop-up," as it is fundamentally different in what it allows you to do; its more for browsing. Labels have been left out, so now we can't mark improtant folders or files with a certain color; rather, we have to go through the trouble of creating a special icon -- much more work than simply "Lable > Red". And though I like window minimization better than window shading, it does not completely eliminate the the need for window shading.
As for my list of suggestions being uninformed, I beg to differ. I have worked with UI's for a very long time and know what things are inefficient about them. Nor do I suggest eliminating those default UI settings which make a UI easy for newcomers; I suggest adding the ability to make the universal menu and universal tool-bar hide away. I did not say that the OS should ship by default like that, because that way even expert users would be a little bit puzzled at first. Nor did I suggest eliminating the file menu at the top of the screen; I simply suggested that middle clicking should bring up a pop-up menu wherever the user's mouse was. Once users discover these features, they will work much more efficiently and quickly.
As for "having never watched a novice user," thats untrue for anyone you say it to. At one point, everyone was a novice user themselves. So we all know what its like being a novice user and learning a new system. That's why, by default, things shouldn't be hiddden or auto-hide, but rather be right on the screen, with the option to auto-hide them.
None of the features I mentioned on my website would hinder the novice user. Rather, they would give a more experienced user the ability to make his working environment more efficient.
Helping the novice user orient himself is important. But simply catering to the novice user and ignoring the fact that eventually experienced users will be annoyed by forced inefficiencies (like the mouse not auto-moving to the default button, or always having to move up to the menu) is short-sighted. No one stays a novice user forever. Everyone eventually becomes an experienced user who wants things to be as efficient as possible. Thus, giving advanced users the ability to make their working environment more efficient -- i.e., by having the cursor auto-move to the default button, by bringing the menu to the users, by having a universal file menu and toolbar and auto-hiding them, etc -- is important.
The point of a program is to allow a user -- whether that user be noviced, inermediate, or advanced -- to accomplish a certain task as quickly as possible. That means that the defaults should place everything out in the open, and more advanced users should have the option to customize things to make them more efficient.
As a Mac user, do you really like having to move your mouse around so much, and having very little intuitive keyboard control? Sure, its easy, but its also inefficient. Ideally, the UI should be "training" the user to be an advanced user; i.e., the "Yes or no" buttons for quitting a program should be clickable by a mouse, but there should also be a note on the dialog box saying, "y for yes, n for no" or "use arrow keys and enter to choose which one".
I have thought alot about these kind of things, from the perspective of a user new to MacOS (which I was a year ago) to the perspective of an advanced user (which I am now). You, on the other hand, have apparently only thought about things from the pov of a novice.
There are equivalent appllications in Linux to everything you've mentioned, or even versions available on Linux.
You seem to be implying that its impossible to run many applications at once under Linux. This is bullshit. Linux is very efficient at multi-tasking. Indeed, the hallmark of UNIX-based OS' is excellent multitasking. In fact, Linux multitasks better than MacOSX, since it isn't so filled with bloatware and thus doesn't have to deal with resource-hogging issues.
Obviously, you don't know wtf your talking about. These OS' do the same things, just in different ways.
That's a bunch of BS if I ever heard any. No comparison? Both are OS', which may or may not have a GUI.
I've used both systems exentensively, and yes, there are many differences. You seem to be saying that OSX' GUI is so much better than any WM / Desktop combination in Linux that its like comparing a Porsche to a Volkswagon. Not so.
Most WM's in Linux function very well once you have them set up to suit your needs, which is the hard part. For many WM's in Linux, getting them configured properly for yourself is difficult and somewhat tedious. But once properly configured to your likings, they are just as useful as the OSX GUI. Take WindowMaker, for example, which is once of the best WM's in Linux.
Yes, if your someone with no expertise in computing, maybe you'd best go with OSX, or a Linux distro which gives you a well-configured WM out of the box, like RedHat, Suse, or Mandrake. But if you know what you want and have a little bit of knowledge and patience, you can configure your WM in Linux to function exactly as you like it, which makes things much more efficient for you overall; quite the opposite in OSX, where Apple tries very hard to discourage anyone from changing anything regarding OSX's UI.
It all comes down to the user. A user who knows wha (s)he's doing is better suited with a hard-core Linux distribution like Debian or Slackware, which allows you to customize things exactly to your liking. No matter how good Apple's UI may be, it will fail miserably compared to a WM which I set up to suit my specific needs, which is what you can do with Linux WM's.
If your a user who just wants things to work OK without fussing around and don't care about customization at all, then OSX is suited for yoo; alternatively, you may want a out-of-the-box Linux distro like I mentioned before, if your concerned about value or proprietary issues, or if you figure that eventually you may want to do some customization.
MacOSX may be the best OS for your needs. I'm not going to tell you what's best for you in your situation. But don't insult those of us who have different needs or want to meet our needs in different ways by saying, "there's no comparison between OSX and Linux".
Yea, OSX is reasonably priced compared to Windows. Big deal? That's like saying that compared to Hitler, OJ Simpson isn't that bad.
While OSX sells for 120 dollars, you can get distros of Linux at very reasonable prices (under 50 dollars) if you want the install CD, or for free via downloading from the web.
Do NOT install MetamorphX or other theme-switching utilities with 10.2 I installed the BeOS MetamorphX theme on OSX, and it caused the OS to become unbootable! It would get to the login screen where I'd choose between users, then it would get snagged.
Fortunately, there was this nice option in Install CD to install over the current OSX, but keep the users files and preferences. Nice, but still a pain in the ass.
The desire for alternate themes shows the deficiencies in OSX's current theme. OSX's Aqua effects make it look like a two-dollar whroe. I personally preferred the OLD OS 9 appearance much more; I also like the std. BeOS appearance and the NeXT appearance much better. A GUI is supposed to help me get things done quicker, not impress me or get in my way.
Apple has dropped the ball in a number of UI areas in OSX, though overall its an improvement.
1. No labels on dock icons unless you move mouse over them. Dock icons should be labelled with labels to the left/right if the dock is on the right/left side of the screen; if its ont he bottom, the labels should be tilted.
2. No separation of the grouping of running applications from favorites on the dock. All running applications should be in the same place on the dock, not mixed in with your favorites.
3. Lack of serious configurability. This has always been a problem with Mac. Jobs, get your head out of your ass. Everyone is different; different people will want it set up different ways. I find these Aqua-effects and transition effects, as well as animations, to be completely useless. I want instantaneous responses. Here in the real world, people want to get work done, not be distracted and annoyed by genie or scaling effects.
4. Ability to view folder as pop-up has been lost. That was a good feature w/c Apple got rid of.
5. Old Mac menu dismantled. The old mac menu with an application pull-down menu where you could list *all* of your applications and with a menu where you could list *all* of your control panel items is gone. Replaced by a new and inferior Apple menu. Jobs, the dock is great, but its more suitable as a complement for the desktop, not a complete replacement for the Apple menu.
6. Loss of old applications switcher menu.
7. Loss of ability to label different folders/files different colors. Another good feature thrown out the window for god-knows-why.
8. In the dock, if you place a folder there, you can only navigate 5 sublevels deep. You should be able to navigate the entire hard drive through a folder menu bought up from the dock.
9. Option clicking on a folder should allow you to navigate from that folder via a menu.
10. When is Apple going to realize that tabbed windowing is superior to other styles of maximization? Tabbed windows, as are used in Mozilla, effectively allow all windows to be maximized, but still allow you to see the other apps running.
12. Window management. Arranging windows in ANY OS by Apple is a bitch. You have to manually drag the windows to be a certain size. Hey, Apple, ever heard of tile horizontally/vertically or cascade? Give us predefined ways to arrange windows.
13. When is Apple going to give us the ability to make the universal menu at the top of hte screen hide-away? And when are they going to give us a universal tool-bar to go along with the universal menu? Why does every instance of Finder need its own tool-bar?
I have more suggestions for Apple and anyone else making a GUI here
http://home.rochester.rr.com/tweak/WM-features.h tm l
They don't have to give it away for free. But we sure as hell don't have to pay $120 some bucks for it, when we can essentially get a comparable OS (BSD or Linux) w/ a good GUI (WindowMaker along with Xfce) for free.
No one's forcing them to give it away.
But, yea, we'd like it if they give it away.
People who support proprietary products need to stop whining when others compare the price of a proprietary product (i.e., OSX, Win9x) to that of a OSS / FS product (Linux, BSD). Getting the OS for free with future updates free is definately an advantage.
So stop trying to tell us to IGNORE the price of an OS when evaluating it.
Personally, I prefer a universe where the forces pushing for eternal expansion and the forces trying to pull everything together in a big crunch...are perfectly balanced. Duh.
Slashdot Mirror
The problem is that when we read this, we want to say, "Well, duh, the USA Patriot Act was talking about providing material support or means of communication to terrorists; i.e., communication to help them communicate with one another, not about giving them a way to speak to the public". That's the initial reaction.
But the law is so unclear that such an interpretation cannot be supported; nor can an interpretation which says the opposite. The problem with this law is that it is so vague that it can be construed to mean anything by the government.
Thus, this law -- or at least the parts so vague -- should be struck down on principle. Void for vagueness. Laws need to be exactingly clear, so much so that any literate person within a standard deviant of the average IQ could understand what they mean. This law, and quite a few other laws (like the DMCA) are not so clear. Rather, they were intentionally written with this vagueness, so that those writing it would not face criticism for silencing free speech, but yet could later construe the law to mean that we can't link to terrorist sites.
Laws should be constitutionally required to be:
1. Clear to any literate person within a standard deviant of the average IQ.
2. As short as possible. No law should be longer than two 11x8.5 pages of 12pt courrier ith 1-inch margins. People shouldn't have to read through hundreds of pages to find out what a law does.
3. Simply written. No complex or archane language or words should be used in laws; for example, "carnal knowledge". Sentences should be as simple as possible, avoiding all complexity. In short, laws should be written in the equivalent of "street language". They should be written in the same way that we all talk to eachother, with language appropriate to these times; no thous, thees, thys, thine, henceforths, shall, or any other of that Shakespearian British bullshit.
Oh please. Believing that intellectual property rights should either be eliminated or scaled back both in scope and duration is not incompatable with the modern world; indeed, it makes more sense in the modern world than when copyrights were first invented.
Now that most software, music, and videos are obsolete in 5, 10, and perhaps 20 years respectively, it makes sense to limit copryrights to perhaps 20 years max, following the 5-year renewal plan that Lessig proposed.
I'm not sure I support eliminating intellectual property all together. But I do support drastically scaling back its scope and duration, as I've previously indicated. By scaling back its duration, I mean that it should be very narrowly construed; Coca Cola's trademark on the slogan "its the real thing" for their drinks shouldn't be able to prevent a book reviewer from saying (in regards to a book), "its the real thing".
Your example regarding the environmentalism is absurd, because the environment is not an inherent issue in software; users freedom, however, which is the concern of the FS community, is.
I'm not anti-business; I'm just against some business methods employed:
1. Insider-trading, commonly practiced by executives, which allowed that bastard Gary Wennig to make 600 million dollars while the shareholders of Global Crossings lost their money.
2. Biopiracy and other outrageous attempts to own life. Refer here to biotech companies patenting cures developed by traditional people, then making money on that, and charging indigenous people for the cures they themselves developed. Also refer to Monsanto corporation, which has now taken up the practice of suing farmers for not removing "patented" seed which germinates on their property due to wind.
3. EULA's which take away basic user rights and attempt to extend the companies rights far beyond what copyright law allows.
4. The ever-continual efforts of corporations like Walt Disney, and corporate organizations like the RIAA and MPAA, to retroactively and unconstitutionally extend both the scope (i.e., DMCA) and duration (i.e., 1998 Mickeymouse Copyright Extension Act).
5. Other unfair licenses, like Apple's APSL (though most of the unfair parts are unenforcible [i.e., those requiring that you publicize any modifications]).
6. Unreasonable attempts to silence speech using intellectual property laws. Refer to Intel Inside and "Yoga Inside". Also refer to "fuckfordmotors.com" or whatever it was.
The business world is not indifferent to the OSS & FS movements. They want to either use them (in the way in which Apple parasites off of the efforts of the OSS community) or eliminate them, as they see them as a threat (in the way in which MS has targetted the FSF and the GPL, and any software covered under it).
I'm not against business in general. I'm just against certain business practices, which are rather common in the business world. I happen to believe its possible to make money without fucking anyone over, breaking the law, or violating anyone's rights.
Firstly, there's a big difference between Ford copying Porsche's features and an OSS / FS project copying Apple's features. Ford is commercial and competes with Porsche. OSS / FS projects are not commercial and don't compete.
Secondly, as you implied, Ford could have come out with rounded headlights the next year, or day; just it would have to be their own implementation of them. Similarly, the Aqua themes I've seen so far for Linux or Windows are not copies of Apple's implementation of a glassy/bluish look & feel; they're different, separately generated, implementations.
The idea that a "look and feel" can be patented & copyrighted is absurd. Xerox was trying to make that point when they sued Apple because Apple sued MS for "ripping off their look and feel"; essentially, Xerox said that you shouldn't legally be able to own the rights to a look and feel.
Think about how backwards what your saying is. You want a world where one person discovers something useful, and then no one else can use that something without paying them. Its like saying that if I find a better way to do business, and that becomes widely known, I can prevent anyone else from doing business that way.
The entire market is dependant to some extent upon competitors copying eachothers efforts. This is the only way you can create real competition.
Yes, I know the only thing that makes the GPL work is copyright law. However, the GPL is a brilliant tool designed by Stallman to use Intellectual Property laws against themselves, so to speak. It is not the end goal. The end goal is to either eliminate intellectual property all-together, or vastly reduce its duration and scope.
As for being an ass, I call it as I see it; if I think someone's full of it, I'll say so.
As for a dock before NeXT, what do you call this in TWM?
You should also note that while Apple has the right to license their software in whatever reasonable manner they like (and many of the clauses in their license are completely unreasonable and probably unconstitutional), they do not have the right to the praise or acceptance of the OSS and FS communities.
We have the right to criticize their license, while at the same time encouraging them for their relative progress.
Perhaps Apple improved their grade on licensing for some comoponents of its OS from an E to a D; but a D is still failing. While we should encourage them for their progress, we should hardly say that all is right.
You should also note that what's more important isn't how much software Apple licenses under an open sourced license (the APSL), but rather the quality of that license. It would be better to release that same amount of software under the BSD or GPL licenses than to release the entire OS under the APSL.
They give back to the community under a draconian license, the APSL. As has been noted by Stallman, the APSL has several problems which mean we can call it Open (as in OSS, we can see the source) but hardly Free (as in freedom):
1. Disrespect for privacy. APSL doesn't allow you to make a private modification for your own purposes; you must publish any modifications. Though this is completely uninforcible, it is disturbing none-the-less.
2. Central control. Anyone who releases or uses a modified version must notify Apple.
3. Revocation. The license states that Apple can revoke it at any time. This makes it no better than the EULA.
4. Its an unfair and unequal relationship. It requires you to give Apple certain rights to your modifications, which they do not give to their code.
This is hardly giving back; hardly a symbiotic relationship. This is, "lets see if we can get them to work for us without paying them".
The only moron here is you.
If I want to make my desktop look like Apple's tacky Aqua appearance, that's my fucking right. Apple can't stop me from doing that legally, nor would any such efforts be enforcible.
Its the same as if I had branded a large copyrighted picture on my wall. That's fine. There's nothing wrong with that.
All I'm doing in distributing my customization appearance to others is helping them do the same thing I did, saving them the trouble. I'm not a commercial competitor, so trademarks don't apply.
Oh, please. Firstly, if you believe there weren't docks and such before NeXT, your fulla shit.
Secondly, Apple did not invent the NeXT look. NeXT did. NeXT was a separate company, with an abysmal profit situation. After they stopped selling the NeXT OS on NeXT boxes, people in the Linux world wanted something that felt like NeXT. Hence GNUstep & WindowMaker. Its a users right to use and get whatever interface they like; if the company that produced that interface stops selling it or goes out of business (as is the case with NeXT and Be), then you should expect users to make a replacement for themselves (i.e., GNUstep / Windowmaker, or BlueOS & OpenBe).
In short, there were docks before NeXT. It invented nothing new in that regard (though column-file navigation, I believe, was NeXT's invention). And people who developed GPL'ed alternatives comparable to NeXT (Windowmaker and GNUstep) did not rip off Apple (as Apple hadn't made them), nor NeXT (as NeXT had stopped selling them, and even had they not, we have the right to make improvements to our UI).
Besides, the idea of patenting or copyrighting or whatever a "GUI's feel" is outrageous. Progress in GUI's is greatly aided by different people copying the good ideas of others; why waste time & effort coming up with a alternate solution to the problem when a good one has already been deviced?
Apple took plenty from the FS / OSS communities via the UNIX-tools they incorporated into OS X. They pretty much took it unmodified and recompiled it for Apple hardware. A little bit hypocritical for them to ask that no one copy some of their good ideas.
The whole market of ideas is dependant on the abillity of one company or in this case volunteer effort to copy the good ideas of another; not their exact implementation, but certainly the idea behind them. First Porsches & Jaguars had rounded headlights, then Mercedes Benz' had rounded headlights, now Ford Taurus' and every commoner car have headlights. Hardly anything wrong with that. What you want is for one company like Apple to be able to obtain IP rights over something very general, like "a column view file navigator" or "the dock". This is outrageous.
As for using the Mac interface, if I want to use something that looks like Aqua, I can manipulate my themes for WindowMaker to look like that; there's nothing Apple can do to stop me from doing that. Why shouldn't I be able to save others that trouble and prevent them from having to do that?
Please. You think there were no docks in UNIX WM's before NeXT? Bullshit.
Yada yada yada. Users have the right to make their OS look like whatever the hell they want to, whether those users are using Linux, Windows, OS X or whatever else. If a user wants to make WindowMaker look like Aqua, they'll do it by theming. Offering pre-made themes for downloading just saves people that hassle.
You don't see the OSS/FS community bitching because Apple ripped off the dock, which is used in so many of our Window Managers, do you? No.
Apple doesn't prohibit us from using "transparency, or blueness"...Actually, they do want to do that. They don't want to allow anyone else to make a theme which has a glassy/transparent blue look to it.
So fuck Apple. I have the right to make my UI look like whatever the hell I want to.
Personally, I think Aqua's theme sucks. Tacky and tasteless like a two-dollar whore. I'd much prefer a simple no-thrills theme which is clean and neat. Though I'll say you shouldn't use themes in OSX (as it'll make your system unbootable), the best themes for OSX are BeOS, NeXT, and Sosumi. All of them are simple and clean.
Oh, please. Shut up you idiot. If its only "one small function" which you use in your code from a GPL'ed program, it should be no problem to replace it.
Quit whining you pathetic whiner. If its "only one GPL'ed line of code" in your program, it should be no problem to replace it with your own.
Look, the fact is, that due credit is not being given to the FSF for the fact that in most distributions, it created the vast majority of the software used for the OS and other functions.
For Distributions which don't use GNU software, they shouldn't call it GNU/Linux; i.e., instead, for example, BSD/Linux. But for distributions for which the vast majority of their software is GNU -- i.e., Debian, RedHat, Suse, Caldera, Slackware, all the major distributions -- they should be called Distribution GNU/Linux. Debian actually follows this protocol, calling itself, "Debian GNU/Linux".
The FSF should get due credit for what they contributed to most of today's distributions. Sure, distributions like RedHat and Suse mention that GNU software is predominantly used on their OS. But they give no credit to the FSF in the name of their product, whereas they do give credit to Linus. How many of RedHat's users do you think actually delve into their site looking for the credits? Its the difference between giving credit to someone in a movie at the beginning of it in big bold letters, versus giving credit to them at the end in small unreadable letters, which flash by the screen quickly, when everyone is leaving the movie theater or starting to turn off the TV.
The FSF has contributed a major part -- more than Linus -- to most of today's distributions. They deserve to be, so to speak, mentioned in the opening credits, not the closing ones; that is, in the title of the software, as opposed to in some footnote in the licensing documention. Really, all the FSF is asking for is to receive due credit in an appropriate manner, where its due. Is it that hard to give them the due credit they deserve? Is it really that hard for you to say RedHat GNU/Linux or Slackware GNU/Linux? They're asking you to say three more syllables when you say the name of a distribuion, type out four more characters when you write it.
The FSF not only demands recognition (which, by the way, it got plenty of already)
What an outrageous concept, that the FSF wants to receive some credit for distributions in which the software they wrote composes 70% of the code-base. And how does the FSF get plenty of recognition if EVERY distribution (save Debian) refers to itself as Distribution Linux, not giving recognition in the title to the FSF?
it actively supports piracy, offering this newspeak as a replacement.
Bullshit. The FSF is simply saying that we shouldn't refer to copyright infringement as if it were a felony; i.e., we shouldn't put it on par with being a pirate, which means killing, rape, and plundering. And in case you hadn't noticed, intellectual property is not a constitutional right. Its questionable that it should exist at all in its current draconian form, in which it has both an enormous scope and a unreasonably long duration.
As for your gripe with the GPL, get over it. You license things under the EULA, a draconian license which violates many of the users basic rights, or attempts to do so; i.e., no product modification, no reverse engineering, no transfer to different machines, etc. If you don't like the GPL license, then DON'T USE GPL'ed code in the software you right; keep any GPL'ed code at an arms length from your code. If you choose to include GPL'ed code in your software and distribute it, then you agree to the GPL license and have to distribute your source code under the GPL. There's no trickery involved, you idiot. All their software says, "this software is covered under the GNU GPL, etc," so you know damn well that its GPL'ed. If you use that code in your program, you do it with the full knowledge that its GPL'ed; its not like the FSF tries to hide the fact that its software is GPL'ed so that people use it in their software unwittingly and then later realize they have to release their software under the GPL. Rather, quite the contrary, they make it glaringly obvious that their code is GPL'ed.
You should also note that no one has to accept the GPL (which is why I think that its outrageous that OpenOffice requires you to accept the GPL before installing it). You only accept the GPL if you choose to modify the source code of the software and then distribute it, or use that source code in your program and distribute it.
Your position can be summed up by two statements:
1. Waahhh! Waahhh! The FSF wants partial credit for distributions in which its software is predominantly used.
2. Waahhh! Waahhh! The FSF is distributing their code under the GPL, and I don't like that.
Quit your pathetic whining and get over it.
Here's something that many here seem to have overlooked, in their zeal to label Richard Stallman a speech-nazi:
Why not sue people who call the whole system "Linux"?
There are no legal grounds to sue them, but since we believe in freedom of speech, we wouldn't want to do that anyway. We ask people to call the system "GNU/Linux" because that is the right thing to do.
Though I don't think that Linux in general as a reference to all the distributions of Linux should be called GNU/Linux (because some Linux distributions do not use GNU software), I do think that any distribution which uses primarily GNU software along with the Linux kernel should call itself "Distribution GNU/Linux".
This is really an issue of academic credit and a kind of plaguarism. Due credit should be given to those who created/wrote something. This is the basis of the academic world.
Distributions -- like Debian, Redhat, Suse, etc etc -- which use predominantly GNU-software along with Linus' GPL'ed Linux kernel should be called "Distro GNU-Linux"; i.e., Debian officially calls itself "Debian GNU/Linux". This makes sense, because Debian is composed mainly of two parts: the Linux kernel, and the GNU software. Hence GNU/Linux. Duh.
However, the Linux kernel itself was made by Linus, not the GNU/FSF. Though Linus licensed Linux under the GPL, that doesn't mean that he should call it GNU/Linux or GPL/Linux. There's no reason to call every piece of software licensed unde rthe GPL GPL/Software. Hence, there is no reason why Linux itself should be called "GNU/Linux". Just call it Linux.
There is also no good reason why Linux in general (in reference to the many distributions of it, not the kernel), should be called GNU/Linux. Not all Linux distributions use mainly GNU software. Most do, and those distributions should be called, "Distribution GNU/Linux" to indicate that they are mainly composed of GNU software and Linux. Those that don't, however, shouldn't.
Also, note that RMS is not forcing anyone to do anything. He's simply saying why he thinks Linux (in reference to the distributions in general) should be called GNU/Linux. I disagree with him, but that hardly makes him the language police.
I am still responding to this because you are insulting everyone who has chosen Linux as their daily desktop OS (myself and most of slashdot) by saying that it shouldn't even be considered as a choice.
Since you had a rather long post, let me see if I can sum up your points, and provide a brief response to each.
1. The least computer savy person you know needs to be able to get images from her digital camera and manipulate them. This can be done in Mac/Windows, but not in Linux.
The least computer savy person may not have the least demanding needs, but rather advanced needs (like friend); a very computer savy person may not have the most demanding needs, but instead rather basic needs (like myself). So your example of what "the least computer-savy person" you know needs to be able to do on a computer isn't representative of the basic needs people have of a computer, which everyone who buys a computer today will want to do. The most basic computer needs are document presentation/preparation (i.e., MS Office / Open Office), e-mail checking, internet browsing, DVD-watching, and MP3-downloading. You say "no-one downloads MP3's" because that's illegal; well, forgetting about the legality of it, there's at least 60 million nobodies who used Napster to download MP3's. Must be alot of nobodies in your world.
But anyways, lets run with your "least computer-savy person," who needs to get images from a digital camera and perform simple manipulation to them. For the manipulations you mentioned and any other simple manipulations which a typical user of PhotoShop would perform, the GIMP would work fine; its only for the more advanced manipulations which professions would need to do where the GIMP wouldn't suffice. In that case, PhotoShop runs fine via Wine or VMware in Linux. Any major application like such (i.e., MS Office, Quicken, Photoshop, etc) will run fine under Linux via Wine; if not, VMware can always be used. Games or anything which requires intensive reiterated calculations won't work well under Wine or VMware, but such applications are usually only for scientific and professional special effects, of which there are many in Linux.
So, your friend can in fact manipulate the image using either GIMP or PhotoShop in Linux. She also use the tools provided in gPhoto, or Agfa. I'm sure there are many more tools, but that's beside the point.
You also seem to imply (if I read you right) that there's no way to get images from a digital camera to your computer using Linux. At first, I thought that would be hard as I figured it'd require specific drivers; however, one can simply mount the digital camera's hard drive like any other device. Though the explanation of how to do it in this article is a very tech-savy, I'm sure there's easy-to-use UI interfaces which simplify the process.
2. GNUcash is inadequate for the typical home users financial needs. Home users need something like Quicken.
Lets just say that your description of what the typical home user needs is correct; big deal. Run Quicken through Wine or VMware. As I said before, applications which don't require reiterated runs of a complex number-crunching algorithm will run fine under Wine.
3. Because the majority of the many software packages included in Linux are useless, their sheer number is irrelevant.
Really? Have you looked any of the some 7,000 packages in Debian? I'd suggest you check out Debians' Editors, Electronics, Graphics, Ham radio, Mail, Mathematics, Newsgroups, Science, Sound, and WebSoftware. There are many useful packages that come with (for example) Debian. gPhoto is one of them. Please do care to check out your facts before stating something patently false.
On that note, I must say that's one big flaw in every Linux distro I can think of. None of them let you know all of the applications on them. There are tons of useful packages, but the user isn't made aware of them (i.e., gPhoto for digital cameras). There should be something like a graphical menu which lists a bunch of things you want to do, where you select one and then it lists all the tools for that and descriptions of the uses of each. I'll admit its little good having all these packages if the average user (like yourself, obviously) is completely unaware of them.
4. There's nothing one can do in Linux, scientific or otherwise, that can't be done in Windows or Mac. If there is, one can recompile the program for Mac or Windows, or port it.
Well, to name one app which you doesn't work as is on OSX, LightSpeed. You say you can recompile it for Mac or Port it to MacOSX; true, but the average user doesn't even know what the world compile means (let alone recompile) or what the word port means, except in reference to the left side of a ship.
5. The ability to customize software to one's needs is irrelevant; all that matters is having an easy-to-use default configuration, which can be intuitively understood.
I'll agree that an easy-to-use default config is needed in order to help orient a user new to the software. However, default configs are necessarily inefficient for every user. Different users use software in different ways, and will work more efficiently if they eventually can adjust it to meet their needs. For example, I like things best when I can for all programs to make F1 the first menu, F2 the second, F3 the third, and so on, as was the case back in the old DOS days; I really feel that's a much better way of doing things than Alt-F for file menu. F1 is one button, and always the first menu -- rather convenient.
6. The license under which an OS is sold/given away is irrelevant to the user.
A rather naive statement. What happens when MS raids your company and you can't find documents proving you bought every copy of Windows running? A million-dollar settlement, in which you effectively agree to whatever terms MS dictates; that's what happens. Same thing for Apple, though we haven't heard as much about that. What happens when you post or want to download an improvement to an application, which is prohibited by its EULA? Well, if you post an improvement, your legally liable. Same thing if you download one, though there's little way to enforce that. I can go on and on. In short, its the difference between enslavement (MS/Apple in the GUI) and freedom (BSD/Linux); namely, the enslavement or freedom of the user. There's a good reason why Richard Stallman created the FSF.
7. For Linux advocates, it all comes down to "you should use Linux because of politics"
An invalid simplification. For people who believe as Richard Stallman and the FSF do, the main reason one should use Free Software is because it gives one freedom; another good reason is that, in general, they think its better. For people who believe as Linus Torvalds and the OSS does, its just the oppostie: you should use Linux because in general its better, then because it gives you freedom. In short, I'd say that about half of the Linux community believes in using it because of its technical superiority, as they see it (this is verified by the fact that Linux outperforms, for example, Win2k and *BSD in server performance tests).
Now, I realize that you probably have one more objection to my post: still, why use Linux? You can accomplish all the same stuff in Mac OS X and Windows.
Well, regarding Windows, there are no powerful Unix commands unless you get Cygwin or something like it, which is not an adequate solution; also, you don't benefit from the superior performance, security, and stability of Linux. Despite XP's stability improvements, its still not as stable as Linux; and its, as Steve Balmer of MS says, "just not built with security in mind".
Regarding MacOSX, it is true that it basically offers alot of the functionality of Linux through the terminal. But its based on BSD and Mach; and performance tests have shown that Linux outperforms BSD, though not being as secure out of the box. However, Apple's OSX is not shipped secure out of the box, as is OpenBSD, so that's a non-issue.
Performance aside, basically MacOSX basically offers all of the same powerful UNIX applications that Linux does. So why use Linux over MacOSX? Simple: cost. Do you really expect PC users to buy much more expensive Macs when essentially the same performance is available from a PC at a lower cost? Do you really expect them to dump their PC w/c they paid for just to buy a Mac with OSX on it?
What about for people who already have Mac hardware or like Mac hardware better? Linux is still a better cost option. OSX is some 120 or so dollars. Linux can be free if you download it, and if you want to buy the CD, ranges from $60 dollars for personal RedHat t o $15 or so for Debian. For that money ($0 [or the cost of downloading it] to $60) you get a OS with functionality equivalent to MacOSX. Additionally, you get tons and tons of useful software packages, which had you bought proprietary equivalents of would probably cost you tens of thousands of dollars. For example, just think about how much it would cost you to buy the proprietary equivalents of all he compilers that come with Linux for "free" or nearly so.
For the vast majority of what people do -- that is, the common functions which everyone does with a computer, like web-browsing (IE), document creation (Office), e-mail checking (Outlook), DVD-playing, music, MP3-downloading, etc -- there are comparable items in Linux, MacOS, and Windows. Trying to say otherwise -- as you seem to be implying -- is simply a flat-out lie.
Things like Adobe Photoship and Illustrator are not things which everyone will use. Furthermore, you make these statements but have no proof to back them up. Since you seem to be thoroughly embedded in the Mac world, its doubtful you've seriously looked for Linux applications.
I'll agree with the comments of someone else that the GIMP is no replacement for PhotoShop. Its at an intermediate level, between MS Paint and PhotoShop. Despite not replacing PhotoShop, its great for most of the functions you need. It should also be noted that Linux is a versatile system for 2D and 3D graphics manipulation and creation. Linux has been used in big-time movies to create 3D special effects through software systems for it.
As for financial applications (you mention Quicken) Linux boasts a wide array of excellent financial suits. For typical home use, the best-suited is probably GNUcash. However, there are enterprise-level products which scale to meet the needs of businesses like Walmart.
Another fact about Linux which is very commonly overlooked is that you gets tons of software with any major distribution of Linux. A whole slew more than you'll ever need, and orders of magnitude more than you get along with Windows and MacOS. From LinuxCentral, you can get Debian for $15, Slackware for $25, FreeBSD for $35 (I realize FreeBSD isn't a Linux). RedHat 7.3 Personal costs $60; SuSe Linux 8.1 Personal costs $40. I can go on. All of these distirbutions come at a very reasonable price (or free, if you download), along with tons of software. You don't get that with MacOS or Windows, period.
As for running windows versions of a program through an emulator, thats actually more reliable than running the windows applications from windows itself. In Linux, if one process crashes, that doesn't effect the system; it does in Windows. The other reason to be running Windows/Mac programs in an emulator when needed is to take advantage of the powerful features of Linux w/o having to reboot.
You can stand by your argument that Linux doesn't compare to OS X and Windows all you want. That doesn't change the fact that it is. Tasks that most people want to accomplish an be done in all three OS'. Perhaps there's some things one can do in MacOS that can't be done elsewhere (graphics is commonly sited, but I disagree b/c Linux is used for big-time special effects); but there's also things that one can do in Linux that one can't do elsewhere (scientific applications, complete customizability); and there's things that one can do in MS that can't be done elsewhere (games -- Linux is nowhere near MS in that category, and if your honest, neither is MacOS).
Saying Linux is at best comparable to a subset of OS X is insulting. One could say that OS X is only comparable to a subset of Linux because of all the scientific apps available in Linux with no equivalent in OS X. You are simply trying to close off an avenue of debate by saying that Linux shouldn't even be an option for serious consideration, as it doesn't allow one to do all of the things that one can do in MacOS; but as I just demonstrated, that argument can be turned on its head.
For me (a researcher) and for the vast majority of people, Linux, MacOS, and Windows are all viable options. I choose Linux because of the many quality apps that come with it for free and because of its stability & speed; as well as the fact that it doesn't require you to accept any draconian EULA's. Just remember how much you or your company will be liable for if anyone finds you in violation of Apple's EULA.
Firstly, this is the most ignorant post I've ever read. You obviously have a great deal of confusion about the boundary between an OS and an application. Typical symptoms of someone who only uses MacOS or Windows. OS != application.
For most of the programs you mention, there are Linux equivalents; I can't speak for some of the programs since I never use them in any OS. I never use Illustrator or InDesign, so I really can't talk regarding equivalents. However, Linux has the ability to emulate Windows and Mac applications, using emulators like Wine. However, there are many commercial graphics packages availble on Linux, if that's what your itnerested in. LightWork Design for photorealistic 3D, Corel DRAW, Corel Photopaint, Blender, Backlight, Renderpark. I suggest you check out "An Artists Guide to Linux". Apparently, GNU Yellow Vector Editor is an equivalent to Adobe Illustrator.
Linux equivalents to PowerPoint? Easy. Impress under Openoffice. Hell, OpenOffice and StarOffice are equivalents to the entire MS Office Suite.
Quicken. A Windows version of Quicken will run in Linux under Wine or VMWare. Many windows apps will run under Linux with Wine. Almost all of them will run under Linux with VMWare. That just about takes care of any application you can think of, since almost everything is available for Windows. Also, are you really so naive that you think there's no good financial programs available for Linux? Do you really think that many major corporations would consider or are switching over to Linux if there's no good financial programs?
Also, the entire basis of your argument is that you can't compare Linux to OSX because there's some applications which run on OSX which don't on Linux, or for which there aren't any equivalents. Perhaps so, but by that idiotic standard, you can't compare any two OS'.
And for any OS which boasts a satisfactory number and variety of applications, which certainly includes Linux, comparing the applications available is simply an invalid comparison. The creators of an OS create the OS, not the applications for it; they have no control over that.
This of course relates to the cactch-22 situation that any OS which isn't Mac or Windows faces -- in order to become popular, you need to have a lot of applications available for your OS; and in order to have a lot of applications available for your OS, you need to have a popular OS, so people will develop for it. Another good case against the MS monopoly.
Please don't use Mac OS X. Sorry, dude, but you're just not cut out for it. Everything you said here is just a Mac OS 9 feature that you wish you had in Mac OS X. I have a great solution for you: use Mac OS 9.
Next time, try reading the persons comment. I think that overall, for me, OSX is a big improvement over OS9; I won't go into all of the reasons, but sufficed to say, managing multiple windows is easier on OSX, and its much more stable.
Saying "just use OS9" is not a solution. Firstly, Apple computers will no longer be able to boot up OS9 in a couple of years. Secondly, OSX is overall better. However, there are some features which were inexcusably left out of OSX, which were in OS9, and are not replaced by anything comparable. The dock is not a suitable replacement for the applications menu; it is a suitable complement for the desktop. The dock is also not a suitable replacement for the old Finder application switcher; rather, a complement. The new control panel interface (via a tabbed window system) is vastly inferior to the old one, which was accessible through a control panel menu. Pop-up folders have inexecusably been left out, with no suitable replacement; again, the ability to put folders on the dock is not a replacement for "view as pop-up," as it is fundamentally different in what it allows you to do; its more for browsing. Labels have been left out, so now we can't mark improtant folders or files with a certain color; rather, we have to go through the trouble of creating a special icon -- much more work than simply "Lable > Red". And though I like window minimization better than window shading, it does not completely eliminate the the need for window shading.
As for my list of suggestions being uninformed, I beg to differ. I have worked with UI's for a very long time and know what things are inefficient about them. Nor do I suggest eliminating those default UI settings which make a UI easy for newcomers; I suggest adding the ability to make the universal menu and universal tool-bar hide away. I did not say that the OS should ship by default like that, because that way even expert users would be a little bit puzzled at first. Nor did I suggest eliminating the file menu at the top of the screen; I simply suggested that middle clicking should bring up a pop-up menu wherever the user's mouse was. Once users discover these features, they will work much more efficiently and quickly.
As for "having never watched a novice user," thats untrue for anyone you say it to. At one point, everyone was a novice user themselves. So we all know what its like being a novice user and learning a new system. That's why, by default, things shouldn't be hiddden or auto-hide, but rather be right on the screen, with the option to auto-hide them.
None of the features I mentioned on my website would hinder the novice user. Rather, they would give a more experienced user the ability to make his working environment more efficient.
Helping the novice user orient himself is important. But simply catering to the novice user and ignoring the fact that eventually experienced users will be annoyed by forced inefficiencies (like the mouse not auto-moving to the default button, or always having to move up to the menu) is short-sighted. No one stays a novice user forever. Everyone eventually becomes an experienced user who wants things to be as efficient as possible. Thus, giving advanced users the ability to make their working environment more efficient -- i.e., by having the cursor auto-move to the default button, by bringing the menu to the users, by having a universal file menu and toolbar and auto-hiding them, etc -- is important.
The point of a program is to allow a user -- whether that user be noviced, inermediate, or advanced -- to accomplish a certain task as quickly as possible. That means that the defaults should place everything out in the open, and more advanced users should have the option to customize things to make them more efficient.
As a Mac user, do you really like having to move your mouse around so much, and having very little intuitive keyboard control? Sure, its easy, but its also inefficient. Ideally, the UI should be "training" the user to be an advanced user; i.e., the "Yes or no" buttons for quitting a program should be clickable by a mouse, but there should also be a note on the dialog box saying, "y for yes, n for no" or "use arrow keys and enter to choose which one".
I have thought alot about these kind of things, from the perspective of a user new to MacOS (which I was a year ago) to the perspective of an advanced user (which I am now). You, on the other hand, have apparently only thought about things from the pov of a novice.
You are full of shit.
There are equivalent appllications in Linux to everything you've mentioned, or even versions available on Linux.
You seem to be implying that its impossible to run many applications at once under Linux. This is bullshit. Linux is very efficient at multi-tasking. Indeed, the hallmark of UNIX-based OS' is excellent multitasking. In fact, Linux multitasks better than MacOSX, since it isn't so filled with bloatware and thus doesn't have to deal with resource-hogging issues.
Obviously, you don't know wtf your talking about. These OS' do the same things, just in different ways.
That's a bunch of BS if I ever heard any. No comparison? Both are OS', which may or may not have a GUI.
I've used both systems exentensively, and yes, there are many differences. You seem to be saying that OSX' GUI is so much better than any WM / Desktop combination in Linux that its like comparing a Porsche to a Volkswagon. Not so.
Most WM's in Linux function very well once you have them set up to suit your needs, which is the hard part. For many WM's in Linux, getting them configured properly for yourself is difficult and somewhat tedious. But once properly configured to your likings, they are just as useful as the OSX GUI. Take WindowMaker, for example, which is once of the best WM's in Linux.
Yes, if your someone with no expertise in computing, maybe you'd best go with OSX, or a Linux distro which gives you a well-configured WM out of the box, like RedHat, Suse, or Mandrake. But if you know what you want and have a little bit of knowledge and patience, you can configure your WM in Linux to function exactly as you like it, which makes things much more efficient for you overall; quite the opposite in OSX, where Apple tries very hard to discourage anyone from changing anything regarding OSX's UI.
It all comes down to the user. A user who knows wha (s)he's doing is better suited with a hard-core Linux distribution like Debian or Slackware, which allows you to customize things exactly to your liking. No matter how good Apple's UI may be, it will fail miserably compared to a WM which I set up to suit my specific needs, which is what you can do with Linux WM's.
If your a user who just wants things to work OK without fussing around and don't care about customization at all, then OSX is suited for yoo; alternatively, you may want a out-of-the-box Linux distro like I mentioned before, if your concerned about value or proprietary issues, or if you figure that eventually you may want to do some customization.
MacOSX may be the best OS for your needs. I'm not going to tell you what's best for you in your situation. But don't insult those of us who have different needs or want to meet our needs in different ways by saying, "there's no comparison between OSX and Linux".
Yea, OSX is reasonably priced compared to Windows. Big deal? That's like saying that compared to Hitler, OJ Simpson isn't that bad.
While OSX sells for 120 dollars, you can get distros of Linux at very reasonable prices (under 50 dollars) if you want the install CD, or for free via downloading from the web.
Do NOT install MetamorphX or other theme-switching utilities with 10.2 I installed the BeOS MetamorphX theme on OSX, and it caused the OS to become unbootable! It would get to the login screen where I'd choose between users, then it would get snagged.
h tm l
Fortunately, there was this nice option in Install CD to install over the current OSX, but keep the users files and preferences. Nice, but still a pain in the ass.
The desire for alternate themes shows the deficiencies in OSX's current theme. OSX's Aqua effects make it look like a two-dollar whroe. I personally preferred the OLD OS 9 appearance much more; I also like the std. BeOS appearance and the NeXT appearance much better. A GUI is supposed to help me get things done quicker, not impress me or get in my way.
Apple has dropped the ball in a number of UI areas in OSX, though overall its an improvement.
1. No labels on dock icons unless you move mouse over them. Dock icons should be labelled with labels to the left/right if the dock is on the right/left side of the screen; if its ont he bottom, the labels should be tilted.
2. No separation of the grouping of running applications from favorites on the dock. All running applications should be in the same place on the dock, not mixed in with your favorites.
3. Lack of serious configurability. This has always been a problem with Mac. Jobs, get your head out of your ass. Everyone is different; different people will want it set up different ways. I find these Aqua-effects and transition effects, as well as animations, to be completely useless. I want instantaneous responses. Here in the real world, people want to get work done, not be distracted and annoyed by genie or scaling effects.
4. Ability to view folder as pop-up has been lost. That was a good feature w/c Apple got rid of.
5. Old Mac menu dismantled. The old mac menu with an application pull-down menu where you could list *all* of your applications and with a menu where you could list *all* of your control panel items is gone. Replaced by a new and inferior Apple menu. Jobs, the dock is great, but its more suitable as a complement for the desktop, not a complete replacement for the Apple menu.
6. Loss of old applications switcher menu.
7. Loss of ability to label different folders/files different colors. Another good feature thrown out the window for god-knows-why.
8. In the dock, if you place a folder there, you can only navigate 5 sublevels deep. You should be able to navigate the entire hard drive through a folder menu bought up from the dock.
9. Option clicking on a folder should allow you to navigate from that folder via a menu.
10. When is Apple going to realize that tabbed windowing is superior to other styles of maximization? Tabbed windows, as are used in Mozilla, effectively allow all windows to be maximized, but still allow you to see the other apps running.
12. Window management. Arranging windows in ANY OS by Apple is a bitch. You have to manually drag the windows to be a certain size. Hey, Apple, ever heard of tile horizontally/vertically or cascade? Give us predefined ways to arrange windows.
13. When is Apple going to give us the ability to make the universal menu at the top of hte screen hide-away? And when are they going to give us a universal tool-bar to go along with the universal menu? Why does every instance of Finder need its own tool-bar?
I have more suggestions for Apple and anyone else making a GUI here
http://home.rochester.rr.com/tweak/WM-features.
They don't have to give it away for free. But we sure as hell don't have to pay $120 some bucks for it, when we can essentially get a comparable OS (BSD or Linux) w/ a good GUI (WindowMaker along with Xfce) for free.
No one's forcing them to give it away.
But, yea, we'd like it if they give it away.
People who support proprietary products need to stop whining when others compare the price of a proprietary product (i.e., OSX, Win9x) to that of a OSS / FS product (Linux, BSD). Getting the OS for free with future updates free is definately an advantage.
So stop trying to tell us to IGNORE the price of an OS when evaluating it.
Ok, class...tonight you have to go home and really kill that big demon in Resident Evil.
Personally, I prefer a universe where the forces pushing for eternal expansion and the forces trying to pull everything together in a big crunch...are perfectly balanced. Duh.