And since when Is disliking the GPLv3 considered to be a troll? There are lots of developers who dislike it.
You misunderstand, comrade. "Freedom" in GNUspeak means solely and exclusively the freedom to agree with the enlightened law and way of thinking that Comrade Stallman has handed down to us. Any thought that exists outside of this threatens the good of the people, and must be ruthlessly expunged, and the voices of those who utter it muted.
but I don't understand why you think that is necessary
Because
a) I feel that history has shown me at least that having only a single implementation of *anything* (especially something as important as GCC) is a bad thing in general terms.
b) Going on from a), I especially feel that a *license* monoculture with the license controlled by a single institution is an extremely bad thing, especially when said license is as strongly mutually exclusive as the GPL is.
c) I do not trust Richard Stallman, and I never have. His own rhetoric about "freedom," notwithstanding, there are those of us who believe that the GPL was written expressly with the intent to create a monoculture in mind. I also feel that the behaviour of the FSF over the last 18 months or so has gradually been bearing this assertion out to an increasing degree. If we had access to a compiler under a license outside of the FSF's control, (my own suggestion would be the BSD license, but there are a lot of different options) those of us who no longer wish to be in any way associated with the FSF could still continue to use FOSS on our own terms, rather than theirs. It would also mean a radical reduction in factional conflict I suspect, since people like Bruce Perens and the Debian Project who agree with the FSF could continue to develop their own software and persue their own interests without continually trying to force their perspectives on those of us who do not agree. There are those of us who fervently wish that, while being able to continue to use open source in various forms, that we could otherwise forget about the FSF's existence entirely.
If the FSF want to start banning people who are taking actions that they dislike from using or distributing their software, that's fine. I simply want a scenario where not only I myself, but *anyone* can have an alternative if they do not wish to bow to Richard Stallman's dictates. The FSF's threat to ban people from using GNU software is only of any importance *because* in the case of GCC they're the only game in town. If they weren't, Stallman could ban whoever he wanted to from using his software, and he'd be the only person who cared. Exclusivity is in itself the very thing that gives him power...and you can bet that he knows that.
In case you're thinking of accusing me of having purely or primarily economic reasons for wanting an alternate compiler under a different license, I can make two points in refutation of that:-
a) Some of us (primarily the developers of the BSDs, among others) simply do not believe that the law should be involved in any way whatsoever in dictating either distribution *or* end use. Anyone else who believes otherwise is entirely free to, in my mind...and that itself is a very important distinction. Those who use licenses such as the BSD license believe that an individual's choice of beliefs is their own to make, rather than feeling that their own belief system should be imposed on everyone else. Richard Stallman has always seemed to believe that he has a divine right to dictate how other people think. It is but one of a myriad things about the man that I consider profoundly repugnant.
b) The idea that software should not be associated with commercial enterprise at all is an idea largely introduced by Stallman anyway, and propogated not only in the face of extreme fear and disgust over the behaviour of such companies as Microsoft, but also due to the FSF (and particularly the FSFE) being deeply cultic in nature. The rank and file adherents of these two groups blindly propogate whatever ideological dictates are handed down from on high, without recourse to any use of critical thought whatsoever. If Stallman or the zealots in charge of the FSFE say that making money from software is a bad thing, then said adherents will believe it, without the need for any further word being said. Stallman's perspectives are accepted without question.
Some of the BSD developers have written about scenarios where, as a result
...that learning assembly will teach you is that a libc is really a convenience, rather than a necessity. If you know what you're doing you can accomplish pretty much anything either via system calls directly to the kernel, or by writing your own asm functions for various things (print, etc) and then simply calling *them* via includes. If you end up writing your own asm includes for things you'll still get some bloat, but I can guarantee you that it will be an order of magnitude less than using glibc. There are times when that can be valuable...like if you're needing a system which will fit on a floppy or usb stick, or for an older system with less ram etc.
I strongly recommend checking out asmutils if you want examples of asm programs that actually do something useful. Some of these (such as ls and the basic httpd) are less than 1k in size.
You might also be interested in Menuet, which is an entire (small) OS including GUI written completely in either 32 or 64 bit asm.
Are you asking because you genuinely want to know what I think, or because you've already made up your own mind and you simply want to use whatever answer I give you to refute me?
I've observed this before, but the cowardice shown by the pro-Stallmanite moderators on this site continues to be truly sickening to behold.
Don't ever try and actually refute opposing viewpoints with anything approaching logical argument, guys...because then you might be forced to confront the idea that raw mind control is the only thing supporting your own perspectives...and whatever else, we can't have that, can we?
When you do this, you do not only reveal your own nature...but you also again show us the real nature of he who you serve.
The word "community," is a euphemism for the word "cult" to the same degree that the phrase "collateral damage," is a euphemism for the phrase "mass murder."
Not necessarily - RMS does not run gcc anymore and has clashed with the developers before by attempting counterproductive political instead of technical moves.
I'm guessing you mean that Stallman has clashed with some developers...I'd bet that a fair number of the faithful are still there.
Although that doesn't matter a whit anywayz; anything that is part of the GNU project, Stallman (via the FSF) owns the copyright to. If anyone who's developing the project tries to resist GCC being moved to the GPL v3, Stallman *could* spuriously claim that they are violating the existing version 2 in some manner, have their rights under the GPL v2 revoked as a supposed consequence of that, and subsequently have them removed from the project. Lather, rinse, repeat until all opposition to the move to v3 has been removed, at which point he could then do so easily...with the added bonus that even if GCC hadn't been entirely under his control before that point, it then would be again entirely.
Game, set, and match. You can sing along...
"One Ring to bring them all. One Ring to find them. One Ring to rule them all, and in the darkness, bind them."
Samba seems like they'll be moving and even Sun has sounded positive.
Sun are the proverbial populist whores. The only direction they ever move in is where they think the wind is blowing. They've been like that for as long as I can remember. The only reason why they adopted GPL v2 is because they were trying to curry favour. They'll make approving noises about the GPL v3 for exactly as long as they think large numbers of other people are going to migrate to it first. The moment it starts to look as though the license will be unpopular, they'll about-face so fast that you could end up with whiplash if you watch it.
Their endorsement of GPL v3 means less than nothing.
Hey, the "Big Mike" analogy is funny and everything, buts it's sad to see someone of Bruce's caliber and stature stooping to antics
Er, no. Bruce's fecal matter smells just as bad as the next human being's; of this I am entirely certain. Take him down off that huge marble pedestal in your mind. Once you start perceiving him as just another pathologically flawed human being like the rest of us, you then cease to be so amazed when he behaves accordingly.
Third, WHATVER MIGHT happen in the future between Microsoft and the OSS movement, the odds of Microsoft being able to seriously damage the spread of Linux, let alone OSS in general, is virtually nil.
Precisely correct. Anyone with a brain knows that Microsoft are not going to exist for more than another 15 years, tops. Why?
1. No concrete long-term strategy after Windows NT 4, and no substantially new products since then. Windows 2000, XP, and Server 2003 are all incremental upgrades to NT 4. Vista is Microsoft's last release, and everyone knows it. After this, all they've got left is consumer inertia based on their *existing* software. They've hit a technological brick wall. Gates has said that Microsoft could run for years without making a single sale...but not many years. We may just get to see that claim verified.
2. Rabid (even fanatical in some places) consumer hatred of the company. You don't have people hating you the way people hate Microsoft and survive with it for long, especially when that is coupled with the above. Microsoft doing an IBM and surviving while becoming less important is not going to happen, simply because of the number of people who feel a passionate need to completely destroy the company. Machiavelli wrote about it...once you're hated as widely and with the degree of intensity that Steve Ballmer is, the show is over. People will band together and do whatever they have to in order to get rid of you...they will move heaven and earth to do it. If the first problem was all Microsoft had to worry about, it wouldn't be insurmountable...they could do what Apple did with OSX and probably survive. But when you've got this much ill will *on top of* needing to completely re-invent yourself, forget it.
The only reason why Stallman still thinks Microsoft are a genuine threat to anybody but themselves is because he has started to believe his own fearmongering.
Fourth, if Stallman and crew take the GNU utilities out of action because of GPLv3, the OSS community will simply reinvent them - or better ones - which is long overdue in many cases.
In the case of virtually all other elements of the POSIX toolchain, we have substitutes ready and waiting. The one area however where Stallman still has us over a barrel however just happens to also be the most important one:- GCC. When I pointed this out a week or so ago, someone gave me a link to something in progress, but what was linked to still uses GCC in part. Of the very few other remaining possibilities, neither TenDRA or ACK are technologically current, (with the latter's obsolescence being measured in *decades*) and the Intel C Compiler is not open source.
We *need* an alternative to GCC. If I had one, barring translation problems, I could put together a completely non-GNU/FSF toolchain in probably a week and a half or so, as could many other people. *All* of the other pieces are there. The problem is, we don't have an alternative to GCC, and it's far too complex a piece of software for most of us to apparently even know where to begin to write one.
If there is anyone reading this who *does* have even a vague idea of how to begin this, please seriously consider it...because you could provide exactly the kind of miracle that right now, a lot of us need.
Although you might have initially intended it as satire, this could genuinely be an extremely useful site for Linux advocacy. I've bookmarked it, and I'd also like to help write some of the personas.
You can count the WoW crowd out. WoW in Ubuntu gets a marginally higher framerate than XP if you set it up properly, and OpenGL redering is to die for by comparison, also.
...I'd compare Microsoft trying to compete with Linux to a case of McDonald's trying to compete with Ian Gawler.;-)
Microsoft genuinely is the software equivalent of junk food, and as such, the only way they can compete with Linux/UNIX at all is in terms of superficial aesthetic appeal and initial user friendliness.
However, be warned, kids. Joe Sixpack will go for sizzle over steak every time, and sizzle is where Microsoft lives. However, it's also true with things like Beryl, Linux is catching up on that score as well. Eventually Linux will get to the point where every single perceived checklist item Microsoft can come up with, Linux will have a counter for. We're getting close already.
If you put yourselves in the shoes of any artist - how do you feel when someone is profiting from your stuff without your permission?
The only problem with trying to use this line of reasoning is that the media companies themselves don't give a shit about any artist; I'm sure you've read about the worst case scenario where musical artists will see 2 cents in every dollar from CD sales. The only people media companies care about are themselves. The reason why they try and claim that they care about artists is so that well-meaning people like yourself will see their position as something positive, when it isn't. It's just pure, totally mindless greed.
Media companies see artists the same way they see consumers...as cows to be milked. Nothing other than money matters. Not human life, not human freedom, and not genuine human creativity. Just money. They don't even care whether or not they will even be alive to spend said money after they get it. The only thing that matters is getting it. In order to keep getting it, they will bribe whoever they need to, intimidate whoever they need to, sue whoever they need to, and kill whoever they need to.
"We don't care who suffers or dies. We don't care how much damage we do in any other respect.
I suggested that if Linux wants to become more mainstream and convert average users that it might want to make that transition more seamless than what it currently is by making its initial interface with the user
How close to Windows do you mean? My point was actually not so much that user-friendliness is something that I have a problem with, but more that if we don't insist on the interface being identical to Windows, it might be possible to find an interface design that is actually even easier to use than Windows' has been. KDE has introduced a few interesting innovations in that regard, but they've only been able to do so by being unafraid to deviate from the Windows model somewhat.
the opposite occurs when you can't get Linux to set standards for what the desktop experience will be like, but it leaves it to distros and unregulated projects.
That is UNIX design philosophy. It has existed for a long time, and it exists for a valid reason. There's an explanation of that particular issue here if you're interested. The linked article is written by Jim Gettys, one of the principle designers of the X Window system, on which the Linux desktop is of course based.
Also, standards do exist, but nobody really adheres to that particular one anywayz because it incorporates a couple of fairly silly ideas. It also, now that I look at it, fairly egregiously violates the Single UNIX Specification.
the guerrilla war against the Borg known as Microsoft is and has been at a stalemate for a number of years.
Fear of Microsoft is used as a motivation for far too many things where Linux is concerned, IMHO. As Linus once said, fear and/or hatred are never motivations that produce good programming work.
Microsoft as a company are going to die purely due to their own missteps...it'll happen as naturally as the sun rising. That is not something which Linux users or developers need to continue to worry about, and we shouldn't.
2. Linux is NOT getting there and will NEVER get there so chill out.
I strongly disagree. As long as you avoid unsupported hardware, (which is extremely easy to do) Ubuntu's level of maturity is becoming genuinely amazing. Have you actually used it?
Install Edgy Eft with Beryl, VLC, and the multimedia codecs from Automatix2. Then after you've used it for a few days, get back to me about how backward Linux still is.;-)
... the Average User ("AU") will start adopting it. This really should be the goal of Linux now that it is well into its teens. Time to stop being a geek-only, tinkerer OS and streamline the process.
Why? Vista still exists. If you want Windows, use Windows. Linux isn't Windows. It's an entirely different OS. Nobody's forcing you to use Linux, either. If you want Windows, it's still there for you. Use it and enjoy it, and allow Linux to be itself, rather than insist that it become something it isn't.
If a free (as in beer) copy of Windows is something you want, download a cracked copy of XP from the Pirate Bay. (and realise the legal consequences of doing so are entirely on your own head)
If the evil behaviour of Microsoft is something you're having a problem with, and you want Linux to become a Windows clone purely in order to be able to escape that, maybe what you need to realise is that given human nature, a company that make a product that does as much for you as Windows does are also entirely logically and naturally going to want to dominate other areas of your life as well...hence, the only way to really escape that is to voluntarily become more self-responsible...which would mean using Linux as is.
What is a resistance to a consistent interface and making things look at least somewhat like Windows by default in the Linux community?
See above. Do you want Windows? Use Windows. Stop wanting to turn Linux into Windows, because in wanting that, all you'll really accomplish is to destroy Linux.
Yeesh! Never happen with an AU... and an AU would never adopt an OS they couldn't just watch a DVD (or rip an MP3 or whatever) from first boot.
AUs don't need to use Linux. (Are you getting the message yet?) They can use Windows. Have fun with Vista.
Also...DVD and mp3 codecs are used as competitive weapons by Microsoft. (and to a lesser extent, Apple) If you've got a problem with them not having been installed with Ubuntu by default, take it up with them. That issue is not the fault of anybody associated with Linux.
This should be a "never" for AU adoption. Geeks want to run everything from the terminal, moms, wives and bosses do not.
You already know what I'm going to say in response to this by now surely, don't you?
Now, I have enough to do without fighting over all the stuff mentioned in this article (and hey for Edgy Eft on the T23, wireless was the only real difficult thing)!
For people experiencing hardware problems preventing them from having the usual effortless Ubuntu experience, I offer the following advice. Linux still *does* have a few blind spots where hardware support is concerned, but if you can maneuver around these, you'll be fine.
1) If you can get non-USB replacements for your USB hardware, you might want to consider doing so. Obviously with things like cameras and memory cards, that's not an option...but for such devices as keyboards, it is. You might even have less problems under Windows if you do that as well.
2) Use non-wireless network hardware where possible. I myself have a RealTek Ethernet card, which has very solid support under both Linux and the BSDs...it is also one of the core hardware drivers included with the Menuet OS.
3) If you can avoid a need for printing entirely, you'll be a lot happier. I don't own a printer, and I am deeply gratified to be able to make that claim. I consider printers genuinely evil things. I've been using different types of computers on and off since the early 80s, and in all of that time, the one type of hardware that I've seen people having more consistent difficulty with is printers. That is still true under Linux.
...millions of atheists orgasmed simultaneously, and then were silent.;)
This is a major step forward for those individuals who somehow believe that life evolving somewhere else proves that God doesn't exist. I might be aware that that line of reasoning is nuts, but hey...don't let me rain on your parade.;)
I have 1000s of mp3s. How can these songs be automatically categorized by mood, tempo, etc without manually entering in meta-data? Think of it as Pandora with your own music collection.
Do you have any idea how difficult something like that would be to code?
Re:Compiling distros is for distro maintainers
on
Is Gentoo in crisis?
·
· Score: 1
All of your examples are examples of a need unfulfilled by regular distros. Re-read my post: it has nothing to do with any of the stuff you've angirly bashed into your keyboard.
Define regular.
Also...when you talked about me having angrily bashed the parent response into my keyboard, you're correct. Evangelical stupidity does make me angry. It offends me that you see yourself as superior to people who actually want to learn. You are the idiot in this case if you see something wrong with people wanting to gain knowledge and exercise their minds...not them.
You've made an assertion which I repeat, I consider baseless and moronic. If you consider it justifiable, let's see you justify it.
One thing you'll never hear any of his worshippers mention is that what Stallman has established is (at its' core) just as much a monoculture as anything Microsoft have. To prove the point, try looking for a compiler to build a Linux system + apps other than GCC. The GCC monoculture is so deeply entrenched that even people who don't use Linux (*BSD, SkyOS, etc) have no other choice.
The entire point behind the "viral" nature of the GPL is the establishment of a monoculture. Stallman doesn't want people using anything other than his software and his licenses. Most of the zombies who follow him adamantly attempt to enforce this desire as well...without stopping to think that the long term implications of *any* monoculture (whether commercial or otherwise) are never ultimately positive.
Linux users might not recognise the FSF monoculture for what it is, but you can bet that Microsoft does. They know that all using the GPL really does is move material out of their monoculture, and into Stallman's.
Slashdot Mirror
And since when Is disliking the GPLv3 considered to be a troll? There are lots of developers who dislike it.
You misunderstand, comrade. "Freedom" in GNUspeak means solely and exclusively the freedom to agree with the enlightened law and way of thinking that Comrade Stallman has handed down to us. Any thought that exists outside of this threatens the good of the people, and must be ruthlessly expunged, and the voices of those who utter it muted.
but I don't understand why you think that is necessary
Because
a) I feel that history has shown me at least that having only a single implementation of *anything* (especially something as important as GCC) is a bad thing in general terms.
b) Going on from a), I especially feel that a *license* monoculture with the license controlled by a single institution is an extremely bad thing, especially when said license is as strongly mutually exclusive as the GPL is.
c) I do not trust Richard Stallman, and I never have. His own rhetoric about "freedom," notwithstanding, there are those of us who believe that the GPL was written expressly with the intent to create a monoculture in mind. I also feel that the behaviour of the FSF over the last 18 months or so has gradually been bearing this assertion out to an increasing degree. If we had access to a compiler under a license outside of the FSF's control, (my own suggestion would be the BSD license, but there are a lot of different options) those of us who no longer wish to be in any way associated with the FSF could still continue to use FOSS on our own terms, rather than theirs. It would also mean a radical reduction in factional conflict I suspect, since people like Bruce Perens and the Debian Project who agree with the FSF could continue to develop their own software and persue their own interests without continually trying to force their perspectives on those of us who do not agree. There are those of us who fervently wish that, while being able to continue to use open source in various forms, that we could otherwise forget about the FSF's existence entirely.
If the FSF want to start banning people who are taking actions that they dislike from using or distributing their software, that's fine. I simply want a scenario where not only I myself, but *anyone* can have an alternative if they do not wish to bow to Richard Stallman's dictates. The FSF's threat to ban people from using GNU software is only of any importance *because* in the case of GCC they're the only game in town. If they weren't, Stallman could ban whoever he wanted to from using his software, and he'd be the only person who cared. Exclusivity is in itself the very thing that gives him power...and you can bet that he knows that.
In case you're thinking of accusing me of having purely or primarily economic reasons for wanting an alternate compiler under a different license, I can make two points in refutation of that:-
a) Some of us (primarily the developers of the BSDs, among others) simply do not believe that the law should be involved in any way whatsoever in dictating either distribution *or* end use. Anyone else who believes otherwise is entirely free to, in my mind...and that itself is a very important distinction. Those who use licenses such as the BSD license believe that an individual's choice of beliefs is their own to make, rather than feeling that their own belief system should be imposed on everyone else. Richard Stallman has always seemed to believe that he has a divine right to dictate how other people think. It is but one of a myriad things about the man that I consider profoundly repugnant.
b) The idea that software should not be associated with commercial enterprise at all is an idea largely introduced by Stallman anyway, and propogated not only in the face of extreme fear and disgust over the behaviour of such companies as Microsoft, but also due to the FSF (and particularly the FSFE) being deeply cultic in nature. The rank and file adherents of these two groups blindly propogate whatever ideological dictates are handed down from on high, without recourse to any use of critical thought whatsoever. If Stallman or the zealots in charge of the FSFE say that making money from software is a bad thing, then said adherents will believe it, without the need for any further word being said. Stallman's perspectives are accepted without question.
Some of the BSD developers have written about scenarios where, as a result
...that learning assembly will teach you is that a libc is really a convenience, rather than a necessity. If you know what you're doing you can accomplish pretty much anything either via system calls directly to the kernel, or by writing your own asm functions for various things (print, etc) and then simply calling *them* via includes. If you end up writing your own asm includes for things you'll still get some bloat, but I can guarantee you that it will be an order of magnitude less than using glibc. There are times when that can be valuable...like if you're needing a system which will fit on a floppy or usb stick, or for an older system with less ram etc.
I strongly recommend checking out asmutils if you want examples of asm programs that actually do something useful. Some of these (such as ls and the basic httpd) are less than 1k in size.
You might also be interested in Menuet, which is an entire (small) OS including GUI written completely in either 32 or 64 bit asm.
Are you asking because you genuinely want to know what I think, or because you've already made up your own mind and you simply want to use whatever answer I give you to refute me?
Feel free to write the rest of the toolchain.
*Bangs head on desk*
Did you *look* at any of the links in the parent? Where I linked to the Heirloom Project?
Meaning, that I wouldn't *need* to write the rest of it myself, because it's already been done.
I've observed this before, but the cowardice shown by the pro-Stallmanite moderators on this site continues to be truly sickening to behold.
Don't ever try and actually refute opposing viewpoints with anything approaching logical argument, guys...because then you might be forced to confront the idea that raw mind control is the only thing supporting your own perspectives...and whatever else, we can't have that, can we?
When you do this, you do not only reveal your own nature...but you also again show us the real nature of he who you serve.
The word "community," is a euphemism for the word "cult" to the same degree that the phrase "collateral damage," is a euphemism for the phrase "mass murder."
Not necessarily - RMS does not run gcc anymore and has clashed with the developers before by attempting counterproductive political instead of technical moves.
I'm guessing you mean that Stallman has clashed with some developers...I'd bet that a fair number of the faithful are still there.
Although that doesn't matter a whit anywayz; anything that is part of the GNU project, Stallman (via the FSF) owns the copyright to. If anyone who's developing the project tries to resist GCC being moved to the GPL v3, Stallman *could* spuriously claim that they are violating the existing version 2 in some manner, have their rights under the GPL v2 revoked as a supposed consequence of that, and subsequently have them removed from the project. Lather, rinse, repeat until all opposition to the move to v3 has been removed, at which point he could then do so easily...with the added bonus that even if GCC hadn't been entirely under his control before that point, it then would be again entirely.
Game, set, and match. You can sing along...
"One Ring to bring them all.
One Ring to find them.
One Ring to rule them all,
and in the darkness, bind them."
Samba seems like they'll be moving and even Sun has sounded positive.
Sun are the proverbial populist whores. The only direction they ever move in is where they think the wind is blowing. They've been like that for as long as I can remember. The only reason why they adopted GPL v2 is because they were trying to curry favour. They'll make approving noises about the GPL v3 for exactly as long as they think large numbers of other people are going to migrate to it first. The moment it starts to look as though the license will be unpopular, they'll about-face so fast that you could end up with whiplash if you watch it.
Their endorsement of GPL v3 means less than nothing.
Hey, the "Big Mike" analogy is funny and everything, buts it's sad to see someone of Bruce's caliber and stature stooping to antics
Er, no. Bruce's fecal matter smells just as bad as the next human being's; of this I am entirely certain. Take him down off that huge marble pedestal in your mind. Once you start perceiving him as just another pathologically flawed human being like the rest of us, you then cease to be so amazed when he behaves accordingly.
Third, WHATVER MIGHT happen in the future between Microsoft and the OSS movement, the odds of Microsoft being able to seriously damage the spread of Linux, let alone OSS in general, is virtually nil.
Precisely correct. Anyone with a brain knows that Microsoft are not going to exist for more than another 15 years, tops. Why?
1. No concrete long-term strategy after Windows NT 4, and no substantially new products since then. Windows 2000, XP, and Server 2003 are all incremental upgrades to NT 4. Vista is Microsoft's last release, and everyone knows it. After this, all they've got left is consumer inertia based on their *existing* software. They've hit a technological brick wall. Gates has said that Microsoft could run for years without making a single sale...but not many years. We may just get to see that claim verified.
2. Rabid (even fanatical in some places) consumer hatred of the company. You don't have people hating you the way people hate Microsoft and survive with it for long, especially when that is coupled with the above. Microsoft doing an IBM and surviving while becoming less important is not going to happen, simply because of the number of people who feel a passionate need to completely destroy the company. Machiavelli wrote about it...once you're hated as widely and with the degree of intensity that Steve Ballmer is, the show is over. People will band together and do whatever they have to in order to get rid of you...they will move heaven and earth to do it. If the first problem was all Microsoft had to worry about, it wouldn't be insurmountable...they could do what Apple did with OSX and probably survive. But when you've got this much ill will *on top of* needing to completely re-invent yourself, forget it.
The only reason why Stallman still thinks Microsoft are a genuine threat to anybody but themselves is because he has started to believe his own fearmongering.
Fourth, if Stallman and crew take the GNU utilities out of action because of GPLv3, the OSS community will simply reinvent them - or better ones - which is long overdue in many cases.
In the case of virtually all other elements of the POSIX toolchain, we have substitutes ready and waiting. The one area however where Stallman still has us over a barrel however just happens to also be the most important one:- GCC. When I pointed this out a week or so ago, someone gave me a link to something in progress, but what was linked to still uses GCC in part. Of the very few other remaining possibilities, neither TenDRA or ACK are technologically current, (with the latter's obsolescence being measured in *decades*) and the Intel C Compiler is not open source.
We *need* an alternative to GCC. If I had one, barring translation problems, I could put together a completely non-GNU/FSF toolchain in probably a week and a half or so, as could many other people. *All* of the other pieces are there. The problem is, we don't have an alternative to GCC, and it's far too complex a piece of software for most of us to apparently even know where to begin to write one.
If there is anyone reading this who *does* have even a vague idea of how to begin this, please seriously consider it...because you could provide exactly the kind of miracle that right now, a lot of us need.
Although you might have initially intended it as satire, this could genuinely be an extremely useful site for Linux advocacy. I've bookmarked it, and I'd also like to help write some of the personas.
You can count the WoW crowd out. WoW in Ubuntu gets a marginally higher framerate than XP if you set it up properly, and OpenGL redering is to die for by comparison, also.
...I'd compare Microsoft trying to compete with Linux to a case of McDonald's trying to compete with Ian Gawler. ;-)
Microsoft genuinely is the software equivalent of junk food, and as such, the only way they can compete with Linux/UNIX at all is in terms of superficial aesthetic appeal and initial user friendliness.
However, be warned, kids. Joe Sixpack will go for sizzle over steak every time, and sizzle is where Microsoft lives. However, it's also true with things like Beryl, Linux is catching up on that score as well. Eventually Linux will get to the point where every single perceived checklist item Microsoft can come up with, Linux will have a counter for. We're getting close already.
If you put yourselves in the shoes of any artist - how do you feel when someone is profiting from your stuff without your permission?
The only problem with trying to use this line of reasoning is that the media companies themselves don't give a shit about any artist; I'm sure you've read about the worst case scenario where musical artists will see 2 cents in every dollar from CD sales. The only people media companies care about are themselves. The reason why they try and claim that they care about artists is so that well-meaning people like yourself will see their position as something positive, when it isn't. It's just pure, totally mindless greed.
Media companies see artists the same way they see consumers...as cows to be milked. Nothing other than money matters. Not human life, not human freedom, and not genuine human creativity. Just money. They don't even care whether or not they will even be alive to spend said money after they get it. The only thing that matters is getting it. In order to keep getting it, they will bribe whoever they need to, intimidate whoever they need to, sue whoever they need to, and kill whoever they need to.
"We don't care who suffers or dies. We don't care how much damage we do in any other respect.
Just give us your money."
I suggested that if Linux wants to become more mainstream and convert average users that it might want to make that transition more seamless than what it currently is by making its initial interface with the user
How close to Windows do you mean? My point was actually not so much that user-friendliness is something that I have a problem with, but more that if we don't insist on the interface being identical to Windows, it might be possible to find an interface design that is actually even easier to use than Windows' has been. KDE has introduced a few interesting innovations in that regard, but they've only been able to do so by being unafraid to deviate from the Windows model somewhat.
the opposite occurs when you can't get Linux to set standards for what the desktop experience will be like, but it leaves it to distros and unregulated projects.
That is UNIX design philosophy. It has existed for a long time, and it exists for a valid reason. There's an explanation of that particular issue here if you're interested. The linked article is written by Jim Gettys, one of the principle designers of the X Window system, on which the Linux desktop is of course based.
Also, standards do exist, but nobody really adheres to that particular one anywayz because it incorporates a couple of fairly silly ideas. It also, now that I look at it, fairly egregiously violates the Single UNIX Specification.
the guerrilla war against the Borg known as Microsoft is and has been at a stalemate for a number of years.
Fear of Microsoft is used as a motivation for far too many things where Linux is concerned, IMHO. As Linus once said, fear and/or hatred are never motivations that produce good programming work.
Microsoft as a company are going to die purely due to their own missteps...it'll happen as naturally as the sun rising. That is not something which Linux users or developers need to continue to worry about, and we shouldn't.
Which version of Ubuntu was this? I've installed both Dapper and Edgy and they did this automatically.
2. Linux is NOT getting there and will NEVER get there so chill out.
;-)
I strongly disagree. As long as you avoid unsupported hardware, (which is extremely easy to do) Ubuntu's level of maturity is becoming genuinely amazing. Have you actually used it?
Install Edgy Eft with Beryl, VLC, and the multimedia codecs from Automatix2. Then after you've used it for a few days, get back to me about how backward Linux still is.
... the Average User ("AU") will start adopting it. This really should be the goal of Linux now that it is well into its teens. Time to stop being a geek-only, tinkerer OS and streamline the process.
;-)
Why? Vista still exists. If you want Windows, use Windows. Linux isn't Windows. It's an entirely different OS. Nobody's forcing you to use Linux, either. If you want Windows, it's still there for you. Use it and enjoy it, and allow Linux to be itself, rather than insist that it become something it isn't.
If a free (as in beer) copy of Windows is something you want, download a cracked copy of XP from the Pirate Bay. (and realise the legal consequences of doing so are entirely on your own head)
If the evil behaviour of Microsoft is something you're having a problem with, and you want Linux to become a Windows clone purely in order to be able to escape that, maybe what you need to realise is that given human nature, a company that make a product that does as much for you as Windows does are also entirely logically and naturally going to want to dominate other areas of your life as well...hence, the only way to really escape that is to voluntarily become more self-responsible...which would mean using Linux as is.
What is a resistance to a consistent interface and making things look at least somewhat like Windows by default in the Linux community?
See above. Do you want Windows? Use Windows. Stop wanting to turn Linux into Windows, because in wanting that, all you'll really accomplish is to destroy Linux.
Yeesh! Never happen with an AU... and an AU would never adopt an OS they couldn't just watch a DVD (or rip an MP3 or whatever) from first boot.
AUs don't need to use Linux. (Are you getting the message yet?) They can use Windows. Have fun with Vista.
Also...DVD and mp3 codecs are used as competitive weapons by Microsoft. (and to a lesser extent, Apple) If you've got a problem with them not having been installed with Ubuntu by default, take it up with them. That issue is not the fault of anybody associated with Linux.
This should be a "never" for AU adoption. Geeks want to run everything from the terminal, moms, wives and bosses do not.
You already know what I'm going to say in response to this by now surely, don't you?
Now, I have enough to do without fighting over all the stuff mentioned in this article (and hey for Edgy Eft on the T23, wireless was the only real difficult thing)!
Then I guess at 35...
"The Wow starts now."
For people experiencing hardware problems preventing them from having the usual effortless Ubuntu experience, I offer the following advice. Linux still *does* have a few blind spots where hardware support is concerned, but if you can maneuver around these, you'll be fine.
1) If you can get non-USB replacements for your USB hardware, you might want to consider doing so. Obviously with things like cameras and memory cards, that's not an option...but for such devices as keyboards, it is. You might even have less problems under Windows if you do that as well.
2) Use non-wireless network hardware where possible. I myself have a RealTek Ethernet card, which has very solid support under both Linux and the BSDs...it is also one of the core hardware drivers included with the Menuet OS.
3) If you can avoid a need for printing entirely, you'll be a lot happier. I don't own a printer, and I am deeply gratified to be able to make that claim. I consider printers genuinely evil things. I've been using different types of computers on and off since the early 80s, and in all of that time, the one type of hardware that I've seen people having more consistent difficulty with is printers. That is still true under Linux.
...millions of atheists orgasmed simultaneously, and then were silent. ;)
;)
This is a major step forward for those individuals who somehow believe that life evolving somewhere else proves that God doesn't exist. I might be aware that that line of reasoning is nuts, but hey...don't let me rain on your parade.
Of course, this depends on a number of factors. The TCO of my Linux box is £0.
Interesting. You don't pay for hardware or bandwidth?
I have 1000s of mp3s. How can these songs be automatically categorized by mood, tempo, etc without manually entering in meta-data? Think of it as Pandora with your own music collection.
Do you have any idea how difficult something like that would be to code?
All of your examples are examples of a need unfulfilled by regular distros. Re-read my post: it has nothing to do with any of the stuff you've angirly bashed into your keyboard.
Define regular.
Also...when you talked about me having angrily bashed the parent response into my keyboard, you're correct. Evangelical stupidity does make me angry. It offends me that you see yourself as superior to people who actually want to learn. You are the idiot in this case if you see something wrong with people wanting to gain knowledge and exercise their minds...not them.
You've made an assertion which I repeat, I consider baseless and moronic. If you consider it justifiable, let's see you justify it.
One thing you'll never hear any of his worshippers mention is that what Stallman has established is (at its' core) just as much a monoculture as anything Microsoft have. To prove the point, try looking for a compiler to build a Linux system + apps other than GCC. The GCC monoculture is so deeply entrenched that even people who don't use Linux (*BSD, SkyOS, etc) have no other choice.
The entire point behind the "viral" nature of the GPL is the establishment of a monoculture. Stallman doesn't want people using anything other than his software and his licenses. Most of the zombies who follow him adamantly attempt to enforce this desire as well...without stopping to think that the long term implications of *any* monoculture (whether commercial or otherwise) are never ultimately positive.
Linux users might not recognise the FSF monoculture for what it is, but you can bet that Microsoft does. They know that all using the GPL really does is move material out of their monoculture, and into Stallman's.