I know people gripe about every large company, but Verizon has provided very good service to us. Regarding this issue, we received 2 unsolicited premium SMS messages for $10 each. We called them, and Verizon refunded the charges and suggested blocking premium SMS (which we did).
Kids today are understanding that it makes sense to cover your own ass. Being an empathetic emo doesn't do that, and never did. Some of us are ancient enough to remember times before universal emophilia (hey, I coined a word!) and aren't nostalgic FOR emophilia. In tough times, get tough.
Empathy and a concern for others isn't a trivial emotional hobby, and a concern about it isn't nostalgia (you make it sound like it's the same as longing for the days of Mickey Mantle). It *is* morality and a necessity for a society to work. Almost every religion and system of morality is centered around overcoming innate human selfishness and helping others. Did Jesus or any other religious leader preach cover your own ass? Can you think of any admirable secular leader who did? Is that what the members of our military, who do sacrifice themselves, do? And how will your attitudes make our society a better place?
Rants like yours are trendy these days, and seeing many people say those things justifies them, just like a mob 'justifies' horrific actions to otherwise normal people who are part of it. It's cool and rebellious not to care; it's uninspiring and conventional to feel empathy. If we decided our morality by trendiness, there would be no doubt what to do.
In tough times, get tough.
I disagree completely. If we only do the right thing when it's easy to do, then our beliefs are meaningless -- just empty words, conveniences. In tough times you find out who people really are. Do they have the courage of their convictions, or are they cowards who surrender when challenged?
military research has led to an enormous number of scientific advances...
There are definitely benefits, but that's an expensive way to obtain them. If we invest directly in the science and skipped the weapons, it would much cost less. Also, we could choose to invest in scientific advances -- or other things -- that are more beneficial to society than those the military produces accidentally. (For those inclined to economics, I'm talking about opportunity cost.)
I'm not arguing against military spending -- it's absolutely necessary. And I agree that the scientific advances offset the costs to degree, they just don't justify the costs by themselves (our security justifies the costs).
the 900MB of RAM I'd often see it eating up was annoying too.
You have some other problem, maybe with an extension. I support many, many Firefox users and I've never seen anything like that. You can also read many reviews talking about how Firefox' memory management is superior to the other browsers, including Chrome.
I don't see the other problems you describe among our users either, though 900 MB memory consumption would explain them.
It's funny to see Slashdot's audience entranced by the shiny new thing and forgetting their usual priorities. I'm pretty sure that Firefox exceeds Chrome in security, privacy, and end-user control. Suddenly these things don't matter?
The obsession with speed is because people like easily defined, measurable statistics; it's harder to measure productivity, which is what really matters. I use Firefox heavily every day. I can't imagine that any increase in speed would be very noticeable or make my work (or play) go any faster. It responds immediately to whatever I'm doing. The functionality is fantastic -- I can do whatever I need without thinking and very quickly; it's some of the best software I use.
Those who call it bloated are, I suspect, parroting criticism they've heard of other software. I can't think of an application that has a more carefully pruned, uncluttered, and efficient interface. Remember when they added the smart URL field -- it was a huge increase in productivity, immediately benefiting all users without requiring training and with zero interface clutter. It's simple (for users), sophisticated, brilliant software that just worked like magic.
Firefox is stable and, if you care, resource usage is better than other browsers (I think there's a Tom's Hardware or Ars Technica review that covers this issue, among others).
Finally, Firefox promotes open web standards -- it's the reason that browsers like Chrome and Safari are compatible with modern websites, and that we're all not using IE.
Let's not get too carried away with that shiny new thing (though some competition never hurts).
You read about many exploits in Acrobat, but are they really exploits in the PDF format and/or JavaScript? What I'm really getting at is, does using an alternative PDF viewer (such as Foxit, Nitro, or MacOS X Preview) protect you from most exploits?
I've asked this question in a few places and tried to do some research on it, but I haven't found much relevant info at all.
Most of the cost is not buying the software, but testing, deploying, supporting, integrating, maintaining, and upgrading it. That's a big reason why businesses don't often use free software -- it's not free.
Would switching to a non-Adobe PDF viewer make you safer? I understand this exploit affects Foxit, but there are many other exploits and PDF viewers (MacOS X's Preview, Ghostview/GSView, CutePDF, Nitro, etc.).
Usually the headline says the exploits are in Acrobat; and given Adobe's much larger installed base, they are a much more likely target; but perhaps the exploits are really in PDFs (or JavaScript) in general.
I think I probably wrote the same thing when news of the GMail hacking allegations came out: Who is dumb enough to use a public webmail service for confidential email? Don't they have access to any good advice? Training? Or just think it through a little -- does Yahoo Mail seem like a secure place to store sensitive data?
I never understood the argument that capitalism would lead to anything like democracy. Democracy [usually] leads to at least some level of capitalist/free-enterprise economy, but not the other way around.
There's some evidence for it: Chile, South Korea, and Taiwan are examples of countries that went from right-wing, capitalist dictatorships to democracies. The idea is that capitalism allows individuals to build wealth and make large investments (e.g., factories). Then, they have something to lose in the political process.
They don't want the government to appropriate their hard-earned assets. For example, who will invest millions of dollars and years of their life building a factory, if the government can take it away on a whim? Thus they want property rights, limited government, and influence over policy. They also want a stable, effective government, and the track record of democracy (all the most prosperous countries in the world) is very attractive.
It doesn't always work out, but having a middle class helps, also because they have time, skills, and money to spend on politics.
The parent is simply wrong. The caste system is falling apart; it's illegal under the Indian Constitution, they have a massive affirmative action programs for the lower castes, and there was a Dalit (lowest caste) President in India 10 years before there was a black one in the U.S.
While being in favor of freedom, along with truth, justice, and pumpkin pie
You are joking (I hope) but I think the problem is that many people don't rate it ahead of pumpkin pie, and brag about it. I guess those issues were once "hot" and now they're "not".
I agree that Facebook gives you control, but a FOSS system would give you much more control. For example, you could post your personal info and social network, but limit the ability of companies to build profiles about you.
Nobody really cares what they think about social networking and in this case there's no answer to the question "what's in it for me?".
I don't think either of the statements are true, but regardless, the truth of what RMS, etc. say is independent of how many people believe them. We can safely say that the masses' judgment doesn't have a great track record; do you really want to use it as a basis for your decisions?
It's entertaining that so many responses amount to, 'FOSS isn't cool' and 'Facebook is cool'. Perhaps that approach to analyzing issues is a consequence of social networking. How many friends does Facebook have? How many does FOSS have? I think that settles it!
It's called the World Wide Web. People hated it because it wasn't constrained and limited enough.
Excellent point, though I think people didn't use it for social networking because it was too difficult. Facebook is essentially a Content Management System for social networking data, as well as a platform. Probably 99% of their users couldn't make a web page, much less install on their web servers the apps that Facebook provides. But they can update their Facebook pages, which have replaced many people's home pages, and they use those apps every day.
Heck, it's so much easier that even people with the skills to DIY generally prefer to use Facebook.
Why does every piece of software on the planet need to promote freedom? Isn't it enough that a whole lot of it does?
Is it bad if a major new application is FOSS? I don't understand your objection.
why shouldn't I feel free to put selected information about myself in the public view?
Did someone say you shouldn't? A (completely theoretical) FOSS social network would give you more control over what is public and what isn't. You could do whatever you wanted with it.
I am getting pretty tired of other people telling me what freedom should mean to me.
Your choice to use Facebook has nothing to do with freedom. You are free to use Microsoft Word, but it's not Free Software. Freedom and "Free software" have specific meanings, whether or not you choose to care about them.
Will the fact that Facebook is not FOSS have an big impact on your life or on others? It's not a matter of opinion; it will or it won't no matter how you feel about it. I will say this: Society is almost always "safe" for the majority; it's the minority who do unpopular things that suffer. Freedom is not that you can do what you want, but that the people you dislike can do what they want.
I've been wondering for some time why social networking is not already a priority for the free software movement. The benefits of FOSS, open systems, and putting control in the end users' hands apply just as well to social networking as they do to any other application. It enables innovation (good luck building your own apps based on Facebook), it protects privacy (I know, it's trendy to disregard it so it must not be consequential - like housing prices and.com stocks), enables inter-operability between applications, and also long-term data integrity (good luck migrating your Facebook data to another platform).
Where are the FOSS social networking competitors? The peer-to-peer application that gives users control over their own, most personal data. The open source code and open systems that allow innovation and easy integration with new apps? The open data formats and protocols? The end-user control that allows users to do whatever they want, whenever they want, with their data and systems?
Is there still a movement? Has there been a major new project since Firefox? I wonder if the mass popularization of the web resulted in a class of users that don't understand these issues. If so, the FOSS movement has failed, so far, in its most important task, which is educating this new generation of users. There are not enough FOSS advocates to do it themselves; it needs to be a priority in the public's mind.
Slashdot Mirror
Much to my surprise, there has been a lot of press coverage about the iOS 4 in the enterprise:
http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9177830/iPhone_4_iOS_4_offer_deeper_enterprise_support
http://www.networkworld.com/news/2010/062110-five-ways-apples-ios-4.html
http://www.networkworld.com/news/2010/062110-iphone-ios4-apis-management.html
http://www.mobilecrunch.com/2010/06/07/iphone-os-4-0-now-ios-is-here/
I know people gripe about every large company, but Verizon has provided very good service to us. Regarding this issue, we received 2 unsolicited premium SMS messages for $10 each. We called them, and Verizon refunded the charges and suggested blocking premium SMS (which we did).
It was a little while ago, as a said, but I seem to remember learning that there was a legal issue involved -- either a lawsuit or FCC investigation. Also, Verizon has a FAQ that explains premium SMS well:
http://support.vzw.com/faqs/Premium_TXT_and_MMS/faq_premium_txt_and_mms.html
Empathy and a concern for others isn't a trivial emotional hobby, and a concern about it isn't nostalgia (you make it sound like it's the same as longing for the days of Mickey Mantle). It *is* morality and a necessity for a society to work. Almost every religion and system of morality is centered around overcoming innate human selfishness and helping others. Did Jesus or any other religious leader preach cover your own ass? Can you think of any admirable secular leader who did? Is that what the members of our military, who do sacrifice themselves, do? And how will your attitudes make our society a better place?
Rants like yours are trendy these days, and seeing many people say those things justifies them, just like a mob 'justifies' horrific actions to otherwise normal people who are part of it. It's cool and rebellious not to care; it's uninspiring and conventional to feel empathy. If we decided our morality by trendiness, there would be no doubt what to do.
I disagree completely. If we only do the right thing when it's easy to do, then our beliefs are meaningless -- just empty words, conveniences. In tough times you find out who people really are. Do they have the courage of their convictions, or are they cowards who surrender when challenged?
military research has led to an enormous number of scientific advances ...
There are definitely benefits, but that's an expensive way to obtain them. If we invest directly in the science and skipped the weapons, it would much cost less. Also, we could choose to invest in scientific advances -- or other things -- that are more beneficial to society than those the military produces accidentally. (For those inclined to economics, I'm talking about opportunity cost.)
I'm not arguing against military spending -- it's absolutely necessary. And I agree that the scientific advances offset the costs to degree, they just don't justify the costs by themselves (our security justifies the costs).
I have the same problem in FF, everyone does.
Certainly not everyone does.
the 900MB of RAM I'd often see it eating up was annoying too.
You have some other problem, maybe with an extension. I support many, many Firefox users and I've never seen anything like that. You can also read many reviews talking about how Firefox' memory management is superior to the other browsers, including Chrome.
I don't see the other problems you describe among our users either, though 900 MB memory consumption would explain them.
It's funny to see Slashdot's audience entranced by the shiny new thing and forgetting their usual priorities. I'm pretty sure that Firefox exceeds Chrome in security, privacy, and end-user control. Suddenly these things don't matter?
The obsession with speed is because people like easily defined, measurable statistics; it's harder to measure productivity, which is what really matters. I use Firefox heavily every day. I can't imagine that any increase in speed would be very noticeable or make my work (or play) go any faster. It responds immediately to whatever I'm doing. The functionality is fantastic -- I can do whatever I need without thinking and very quickly; it's some of the best software I use.
Those who call it bloated are, I suspect, parroting criticism they've heard of other software. I can't think of an application that has a more carefully pruned, uncluttered, and efficient interface. Remember when they added the smart URL field -- it was a huge increase in productivity, immediately benefiting all users without requiring training and with zero interface clutter. It's simple (for users), sophisticated, brilliant software that just worked like magic.
Firefox is stable and, if you care, resource usage is better than other browsers (I think there's a Tom's Hardware or Ars Technica review that covers this issue, among others).
Finally, Firefox promotes open web standards -- it's the reason that browsers like Chrome and Safari are compatible with modern websites, and that we're all not using IE.
Let's not get too carried away with that shiny new thing (though some competition never hurts).
You read about many exploits in Acrobat, but are they really exploits in the PDF format and/or JavaScript? What I'm really getting at is, does using an alternative PDF viewer (such as Foxit, Nitro, or MacOS X Preview) protect you from most exploits?
I've asked this question in a few places and tried to do some research on it, but I haven't found much relevant info at all.
1600 seats @free per seat
Most of the cost is not buying the software, but testing, deploying, supporting, integrating, maintaining, and upgrading it. That's a big reason why businesses don't often use free software -- it's not free.
Far out.
I suggest more freedom, less government
More is always better? No government is better than some government? How about a concrete proposal rather than a theory.
Agreed, every solution is imperfect. What solution do you suggest?
[My emphasis added.] It's Sophophora melanOgaster.
Would switching to a non-Adobe PDF viewer make you safer? I understand this exploit affects Foxit, but there are many other exploits and PDF viewers (MacOS X's Preview, Ghostview/GSView, CutePDF, Nitro, etc.).
Usually the headline says the exploits are in Acrobat; and given Adobe's much larger installed base, they are a much more likely target; but perhaps the exploits are really in PDFs (or JavaScript) in general.
I think I probably wrote the same thing when news of the GMail hacking allegations came out: Who is dumb enough to use a public webmail service for confidential email? Don't they have access to any good advice? Training? Or just think it through a little -- does Yahoo Mail seem like a secure place to store sensitive data?
I never understood the argument that capitalism would lead to anything like democracy. Democracy [usually] leads to at least some level of capitalist/free-enterprise economy, but not the other way around.
There's some evidence for it: Chile, South Korea, and Taiwan are examples of countries that went from right-wing, capitalist dictatorships to democracies. The idea is that capitalism allows individuals to build wealth and make large investments (e.g., factories). Then, they have something to lose in the political process.
They don't want the government to appropriate their hard-earned assets. For example, who will invest millions of dollars and years of their life building a factory, if the government can take it away on a whim? Thus they want property rights, limited government, and influence over policy. They also want a stable, effective government, and the track record of democracy (all the most prosperous countries in the world) is very attractive.
It doesn't always work out, but having a middle class helps, also because they have time, skills, and money to spend on politics.
The UN HCR is not what you think it is.
The parent is simply wrong. The caste system is falling apart; it's illegal under the Indian Constitution, they have a massive affirmative action programs for the lower castes, and there was a Dalit (lowest caste) President in India 10 years before there was a black one in the U.S.
Is there still discrimination? Of course. There's probably discrimination in your neighborhood too. But your characterization does not reflect reality. If anyone wants to know more, here's a decent resource:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dalit
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caste_system_in_India
While being in favor of freedom, along with truth, justice, and pumpkin pie
You are joking (I hope) but I think the problem is that many people don't rate it ahead of pumpkin pie, and brag about it. I guess those issues were once "hot" and now they're "not".
I agree that Facebook gives you control, but a FOSS system would give you much more control. For example, you could post your personal info and social network, but limit the ability of companies to build profiles about you.
Nobody really cares what they think about social networking and in this case there's no answer to the question "what's in it for me?".
I don't think either of the statements are true, but regardless, the truth of what RMS, etc. say is independent of how many people believe them. We can safely say that the masses' judgment doesn't have a great track record; do you really want to use it as a basis for your decisions?
It's entertaining that so many responses amount to, 'FOSS isn't cool' and 'Facebook is cool'. Perhaps that approach to analyzing issues is a consequence of social networking. How many friends does Facebook have? How many does FOSS have? I think that settles it!
It's called the World Wide Web. People hated it because it wasn't constrained and limited enough.
Excellent point, though I think people didn't use it for social networking because it was too difficult. Facebook is essentially a Content Management System for social networking data, as well as a platform. Probably 99% of their users couldn't make a web page, much less install on their web servers the apps that Facebook provides. But they can update their Facebook pages, which have replaced many people's home pages, and they use those apps every day.
Heck, it's so much easier that even people with the skills to DIY generally prefer to use Facebook.
Why does every piece of software on the planet need to promote freedom? Isn't it enough that a whole lot of it does?
Is it bad if a major new application is FOSS? I don't understand your objection.
why shouldn't I feel free to put selected information about myself in the public view?
Did someone say you shouldn't? A (completely theoretical) FOSS social network would give you more control over what is public and what isn't. You could do whatever you wanted with it.
why would you want to preserve that in a brand-new network?
Because the user would control the data and access to it. The data would be on your computer, not a commercial business' servers.
I am getting pretty tired of other people telling me what freedom should mean to me.
Your choice to use Facebook has nothing to do with freedom. You are free to use Microsoft Word, but it's not Free Software. Freedom and "Free software" have specific meanings, whether or not you choose to care about them.
Will the fact that Facebook is not FOSS have an big impact on your life or on others? It's not a matter of opinion; it will or it won't no matter how you feel about it. I will say this: Society is almost always "safe" for the majority; it's the minority who do unpopular things that suffer. Freedom is not that you can do what you want, but that the people you dislike can do what they want.
I've been wondering for some time why social networking is not already a priority for the free software movement. The benefits of FOSS, open systems, and putting control in the end users' hands apply just as well to social networking as they do to any other application. It enables innovation (good luck building your own apps based on Facebook), it protects privacy (I know, it's trendy to disregard it so it must not be consequential - like housing prices and .com stocks), enables inter-operability between applications, and also long-term data integrity (good luck migrating your Facebook data to another platform).
Where are the FOSS social networking competitors? The peer-to-peer application that gives users control over their own, most personal data. The open source code and open systems that allow innovation and easy integration with new apps? The open data formats and protocols? The end-user control that allows users to do whatever they want, whenever they want, with their data and systems?
Is there still a movement? Has there been a major new project since Firefox? I wonder if the mass popularization of the web resulted in a class of users that don't understand these issues. If so, the FOSS movement has failed, so far, in its most important task, which is educating this new generation of users. There are not enough FOSS advocates to do it themselves; it needs to be a priority in the public's mind.