So he's learned to live with it. He's lived with it for a long time. The move to Mac OS X would be done to get away from what he doesn't like. Carrying forward X and the things he doesn't like would defeat the purpose of switching at all.
Except for the politicians nasty habit of using overly broad verbage so that thier fancy new laws cover any new technology that might work in an even slightly similar manner as the current tech.
Rather than giving up our rights and allowing bad laws to stand unchallenged we need to take a proactive approach. If we don't the time could come when it is illegal to build that something else.
You think that by not entering the technology sector that sector will end up producing products that are less environementally unfriendly?
If you want to see a change become an Electrical Engineer instead (or related field) and WORK on producing processes that are better.
Using your logic you shouldn't become a doctor either because of the hazards of biomedical waste. I can't think of a profession that isn't environmentally unfriendly in some way. Daily life is environmentally unfriendly. If you think there is a problem do something proactive. Not getting a degree in CS because the tools of the trade are produced in an environment unfriedly way doesn't solve the problem or really make any differance at all.
From what I've read JWZ absolutly hates X. Based on that, and the way he stated he didn't want to use X on Mac OS X, it leads me to believe he doesn't want to use it at all, even rootless.
I believe that JWZ was moved from the Navigator project onto other things after version 3 which was the last good version of Netscape. That's also the point where it became the "Communicator" nightmare.
Something that most people forget is that the help desk can't work without support from the users and devs/admins. When people have little faith in the help desk and go directly to the devs/admins it undermines the help desks ability to get better or do thier job at all. Whenever a dev/admin is approached by a user with a question that should have been taken to the help desk and then routed to them it is the dev/admins responsibility to show the user where the help desk is and leave it at that.
No kidding? I understand how a license works. I asked WHY do people agree to license software!?!? Why is it that software is licensed? What is the benefit to consumers? Why as consumers do we agree to these licenses?
I personally see absolutly no benefit to software licenses on the consumer level. For the corporation selling software they make perfect sense. They limit how the software can be used, who it can be used by, how long it's good for etc. I've watched customers purchase NAMED licenses where the software license is purchased for the employee that is using it. The company doesn't own it, if the employee leaves the company is stuck shelling out for another license. How is this cost effective? Why would anyone agree to such nonsense? Noone has been able to give me a good answer to any of those questions.
At one point I worked for a company that paid 5 developers to build an ERP system for internal use. It had all of the features they wanted plus a few extra because it was designed that way. They spent probably $250-300k doing this. About the time the software was finished a certain portion of the managment decided that they needed to purchase a "professional" solution to make themselves look better if the company went public. They ended up spending three times as much on the new software, hardware to run it, and consultants to make some off the shelf garbage have the features they wanted. They paid thousands upon thousands of dollars on per seat licensing fees. For no reason. Of course, they laid off all the technical folk and then shortly went out of business shortly there after, but that's beside the point. There are plenty of companies that do the same thing. Pay tons of money for software that has horrible licensing requirments. For no apparently good reason IMO.
So, I'll ask again. Why do we as consumers agree to license software instead of agreeing to purchase it outright with some restrictions (no resale, whole or modified, no copying, etc). This makes no sense to me.
I don't want to hear about lack of choices, there is always a choice, and if enough people yelled about it loud enough software publishers would change thier EULAs and licensing policies.
While I agree with you fully, and don't use hardware/software that I don't like the agreement for (have you ever tried to get a refund on software after disagreeing with the license, it's a ROYAL pain). I use whatever is needed to get the job done in my work regardless of license as that is the customers choice not mine.
I also fully understand that hardware/software vendors can sell thier products under whatever terms they want. What I don't understand is why this has changed from years past. Why is most software licensed? Why are some hardware manufacturers moving to similar terms? What happened to the concept of consumer ownership of a product. When I buy a car I can tinker with it, change out parts, add new parts. As long as it works and doesn't break any laws the car manufacturers don't really care. At most you are voiding the warranty and any problems that may arise are yours and not thiers. This makes sense to me.
I have yet to hear a good explanation why software is treated differantly. Why 3rd party addons are not ok. Why tinkering with the programs violates the license. What makes software so special that the vendor feels they need to lock it up and throw away the key.
Ok, but why exactly is software licensed? Why is it that we pay our hard earned money to software developers for product and then don't own it?
I have a real problem with license agreements that come with software. Once I have paid you my money I should have full control over whatever it is I purchased. If this means I want to extend it in some way you don't like that's too bad. As long as I'm not redistributing your product I don't see the problem.
The same goes for hardware. If you buy a new TiVo the agreement says you can't modify it. I can see that you can't use thier services if you modify it, but other than that they have no say in the matter. Why is software any differant? Why do we allow software manufacturers to have a say in how we use thier product once it is in our posession on our computers. Agreements that prevent you from reselling or redistributing thier software make sense. Anything above and beyond that is intrusive.
I suppose I should point out that I make my living creating software, I do work for hire and my customers can do whatever they want with the software once it's finished. I no have no say in the matter once my contract is finished. I like it that way.
I used to have this problem with my work provided cell phone from Verizon and thier voice mail system. I'd get notification of a new voice message between two and four days after the message was originally left. The sad thing is that this was the norm. I can't remember getting more than one or two messages on the same day they were left in my voice mail box.
Editors aren't supposed to correct spelling errors in direct quotes they are supposed to point out that there is an error with [sic]. However, most people don't know what that means, and many submissions have too many errors to bother fixing them all. In that case a better submission should be chosen or the editor could write thier own summary of the article.
My point is that corporations make money from sales/services and not donations. If Mandrake has to rely on donations to survive they probably will not.
You have to make the source available, there is no requirement to make it free (no cost), though many people believe you should.
See the following for examples. http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.h tml http://ftp.gnu.org/pub/gnu/standards/ORDERS http://ftp.gnu.org/pub/gnu/standards/DISTRIB
MandrakeSoft is under no obligation to make thier software freely downloadable. They can choose to only distribute thier software in either boxed form, or on servers that you pay to access, or whatever other distribution method they choose. Any losses incurred from makeing the software freely downloadable are due to thier business decisions.
If they did remove free downloads public mirrors would still exist when the software started showing up on peoples doorsteps, however Mandrake could save money on bandwidth this way. Cost reduction is smart business, and typically the only people affected are the ones that wouldn't buy the software anyway.
Asking for charity and having a donations page is hardly the way to run a successful for profit business. If they want donations they should change to a not for profit organization.
Last time I checked AOL/Time Warner was a helluva lot bigger than Apple. That's where they should be turning for support. That's where we should see the big Mozilla push come from. Where's the release version of AOL using gecko?
Apples decision says two things. 1. KHTML is easy to work with. 2. Apple makes business decisions based on what's best for thier business.
IBM is working on a scaled down Power4 chip (speculation says for Apple) which could potentially end up in desktop computers. Hence over what IBM is doing with the Power4 line.
of vendors not planning on making chips with DRM? So far we know that Intel, AMD, and now Transmeta will be incorporating DRM. What about Cyrix/Winchip? Has anyone heard about IBM adding this to ther PowerX series of chips? Or Motorola for thier upcoming lines? I would have no problem moving to PowerPC if it meant I wouldn't have to deal with DRM.
While there are very valid and good reasons for this technology to exist, I don't ever want to see it on my desktop/laptop. Server side makes sense to me, but I only see potential for abuse on the desktop side.
Being that the Alienware laptop uses a desktop processor there is a good chance the batter life is not that great. I'd also like to see it compare to the powerbook in these test running on battery since the Intel will drastically reduce it's speed in many cases and the PowerBook should not.
I would still not be surprised in the least if the Alien ware box won the tests simply because even though the G4 is a good processor, the speed increases have been very small compared to what Intel has done. Until Apple can get thier hands on new processors this isn't going to change and shouldn't surprise anyone any more.
Slashdot Mirror
So he's learned to live with it. He's lived with it for a long time. The move to Mac OS X would be done to get away from what he doesn't like. Carrying forward X and the things he doesn't like would defeat the purpose of switching at all.
Except for the politicians nasty habit of using overly broad verbage so that thier fancy new laws cover any new technology that might work in an even slightly similar manner as the current tech.
Rather than giving up our rights and allowing bad laws to stand unchallenged we need to take a proactive approach. If we don't the time could come when it is illegal to build that something else.
Let me get this straight.
You think that by not entering the technology sector that sector will end up producing products that are less environementally unfriendly?
If you want to see a change become an Electrical Engineer instead (or related field) and WORK on producing processes that are better.
Using your logic you shouldn't become a doctor either because of the hazards of biomedical waste. I can't think of a profession that isn't environmentally unfriendly in some way. Daily life is environmentally unfriendly. If you think there is a problem do something proactive. Not getting a degree in CS because the tools of the trade are produced in an environment unfriedly way doesn't solve the problem or really make any differance at all.
Of course you should take my comment with a grain of salt as I really can't stand SCO, thier business practices, or most of thier products.
From what I've read JWZ absolutly hates X. Based on that, and the way he stated he didn't want to use X on Mac OS X, it leads me to believe he doesn't want to use it at all, even rootless.
I believe that JWZ was moved from the Navigator project onto other things after version 3 which was the last good version of Netscape. That's also the point where it became the "Communicator" nightmare.
You are completly ignoring the fact that he thinks running X of any sort on Mac OS X defeats the purpose. I'd tend to agree with his reasoning.
Only because buying a slot in the top 40 is part of the payolla.
Something that most people forget is that the help desk can't work without support from the users and devs/admins. When people have little faith in the help desk and go directly to the devs/admins it undermines the help desks ability to get better or do thier job at all. Whenever a dev/admin is approached by a user with a question that should have been taken to the help desk and then routed to them it is the dev/admins responsibility to show the user where the help desk is and leave it at that.
Except he wants all of the mozilla features, not just the browser. Did you even read the text?
No kidding? I understand how a license works. I asked WHY do people agree to license software!?!? Why is it that software is licensed? What is the benefit to consumers? Why as consumers do we agree to these licenses?
I personally see absolutly no benefit to software licenses on the consumer level. For the corporation selling software they make perfect sense. They limit how the software can be used, who it can be used by, how long it's good for etc. I've watched customers purchase NAMED licenses where the software license is purchased for the employee that is using it. The company doesn't own it, if the employee leaves the company is stuck shelling out for another license. How is this cost effective? Why would anyone agree to such nonsense? Noone has been able to give me a good answer to any of those questions.
At one point I worked for a company that paid 5 developers to build an ERP system for internal use. It had all of the features they wanted plus a few extra because it was designed that way. They spent probably $250-300k doing this. About the time the software was finished a certain portion of the managment decided that they needed to purchase a "professional" solution to make themselves look better if the company went public. They ended up spending three times as much on the new software, hardware to run it, and consultants to make some off the shelf garbage have the features they wanted. They paid thousands upon thousands of dollars on per seat licensing fees. For no reason. Of course, they laid off all the technical folk and then shortly went out of business shortly there after, but that's beside the point. There are plenty of companies that do the same thing. Pay tons of money for software that has horrible licensing requirments. For no apparently good reason IMO.
So, I'll ask again. Why do we as consumers agree to license software instead of agreeing to purchase it outright with some restrictions (no resale, whole or modified, no copying, etc). This makes no sense to me.
I don't want to hear about lack of choices, there is always a choice, and if enough people yelled about it loud enough software publishers would change thier EULAs and licensing policies.
While I agree with you fully, and don't use hardware/software that I don't like the agreement for (have you ever tried to get a refund on software after disagreeing with the license, it's a ROYAL pain). I use whatever is needed to get the job done in my work regardless of license as that is the customers choice not mine.
I also fully understand that hardware/software vendors can sell thier products under whatever terms they want. What I don't understand is why this has changed from years past. Why is most software licensed? Why are some hardware manufacturers moving to similar terms? What happened to the concept of consumer ownership of a product. When I buy a car I can tinker with it, change out parts, add new parts. As long as it works and doesn't break any laws the car manufacturers don't really care. At most you are voiding the warranty and any problems that may arise are yours and not thiers. This makes sense to me.
I have yet to hear a good explanation why software is treated differantly. Why 3rd party addons are not ok. Why tinkering with the programs violates the license. What makes software so special that the vendor feels they need to lock it up and throw away the key.
Ok, but why exactly is software licensed? Why is it that we pay our hard earned money to software developers for product and then don't own it?
I have a real problem with license agreements that come with software. Once I have paid you my money I should have full control over whatever it is I purchased. If this means I want to extend it in some way you don't like that's too bad. As long as I'm not redistributing your product I don't see the problem.
The same goes for hardware. If you buy a new TiVo the agreement says you can't modify it. I can see that you can't use thier services if you modify it, but other than that they have no say in the matter. Why is software any differant? Why do we allow software manufacturers to have a say in how we use thier product once it is in our posession on our computers. Agreements that prevent you from reselling or redistributing thier software make sense. Anything above and beyond that is intrusive.
I suppose I should point out that I make my living creating software, I do work for hire and my customers can do whatever they want with the software once it's finished. I no have no say in the matter once my contract is finished. I like it that way.
I used to have this problem with my work provided cell phone from Verizon and thier voice mail system. I'd get notification of a new voice message between two and four days after the message was originally left. The sad thing is that this was the norm. I can't remember getting more than one or two messages on the same day they were left in my voice mail box.
Editors aren't supposed to correct spelling errors in direct quotes they are supposed to point out that there is an error with [sic]. However, most people don't know what that means, and many submissions have too many errors to bother fixing them all. In that case a better submission should be chosen or the editor could write thier own summary of the article.
Don't you mean the slashdot submitters? Since for once this isn't an editor typo.
My point is that corporations make money from sales/services and not donations. If Mandrake has to rely on donations to survive they probably will not.
You have to make the source available, there is no requirement to make it free (no cost), though many people believe you should.
h tml
http://ftp.gnu.org/pub/gnu/standards/DISTRIB
See the following for examples.
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.
http://ftp.gnu.org/pub/gnu/standards/ORDERS
MandrakeSoft is under no obligation to make thier software freely downloadable. They can choose to only distribute thier software in either boxed form, or on servers that you pay to access, or whatever other distribution method they choose. Any losses incurred from makeing the software freely downloadable are due to thier business decisions.
If they did remove free downloads public mirrors would still exist when the software started showing up on peoples doorsteps, however Mandrake could save money on bandwidth this way. Cost reduction is smart business, and typically the only people affected are the ones that wouldn't buy the software anyway.
Asking for charity and having a donations page is hardly the way to run a successful for profit business. If they want donations they should change to a not for profit organization.
Oh not to mention that every single user infected could go down and attempt to sue them for invasion of privacy and trespassing.
Last time I checked AOL/Time Warner was a helluva lot bigger than Apple. That's where they should be turning for support. That's where we should see the big Mozilla push come from. Where's the release version of AOL using gecko?
Apples decision says two things.
1. KHTML is easy to work with.
2. Apple makes business decisions based on what's best for thier business.
IBM is working on a scaled down Power4 chip (speculation says for Apple) which could potentially end up in desktop computers. Hence over what IBM is doing with the Power4 line.
of vendors not planning on making chips with DRM? So far we know that Intel, AMD, and now Transmeta will be incorporating DRM. What about Cyrix/Winchip? Has anyone heard about IBM adding this to ther PowerX series of chips? Or Motorola for thier upcoming lines? I would have no problem moving to PowerPC if it meant I wouldn't have to deal with DRM.
While there are very valid and good reasons for this technology to exist, I don't ever want to see it on my desktop/laptop. Server side makes sense to me, but I only see potential for abuse on the desktop side.
His whole point was that a valid credit card is not valid age verification even though that's what the pr0n companies use it for.
Being that the Alienware laptop uses a desktop processor there is a good chance the batter life is not that great. I'd also like to see it compare to the powerbook in these test running on battery since the Intel will drastically reduce it's speed in many cases and the PowerBook should not.
I would still not be surprised in the least if the Alien ware box won the tests simply because even though the G4 is a good processor, the speed increases have been very small compared to what Intel has done. Until Apple can get thier hands on new processors this isn't going to change and shouldn't surprise anyone any more.