This article highlights something which I've always disliked about the GNU/Stallman way of thinking. It seems to claim that greed is a bad thing and a negative thing. That anywhere money goes, evil must follow.
You misunderstand. RMS does *not* claim money is evil, or bad. He claims that hoarding is evil and bad-- especially hoarding something that is, in essence, knowledge.
This is a common misconception, made worse by the ignorant press and neo-McCarthyists who mistake his ideas for Communism and are frightened by that. The GPL grants the specific right to make money off any software under the GPL, without any kind of compensation to the actual author. The only requirement is this: access to the source code must be guaranteed, and the person recieving the software also recieves the exact same rights-- including the right to redistribute the software.
This ensures that the code will always be "free." Why is this important? Not to keep people from making money, but to ensure that the code survives; and so other people can learn, and fix, and enhance.
Also, true communism is neither bad, nor good. It's an ideal, and quite impossible, just as a Free Market is an ideal, and quite impossible. Communism in Russia turned into Socialism, and Free Market in the US turned into Wall Street. Same difference.
I can't believe there are so many, "But they are really doing you a favor," posts. Yes, the stock market is gambling; yes, investing in an IPO is gambling with the dice loaded against you. BIG FUCKING DEAL! We *know* the risks.
I think a *lot* of us have been here since the beginning. I started using Linux in fall of '93-- I was using the SLS distribution. I've been waiting for a way to invest in the community, in the traditional sense; and now that the chance arrives, I am being blocked. I want to invest in Red Hat not because I want to get rich quick; I want to invest because *I believe in Linux!*
Perhaps this elevates my desires to the religious realms; perhaps that makes this a poor investment. But, believe it or now, I should have the RIGHT to invest, whether I'm a fool or a prophet.
I can afford to lose the two grand I want to invest; otherwise, I would not have invested.
Personally, I am not going to lie to invest. I have always detested the "holier than thou" mentality of investors, as if they participate in some secret ritual that gives them power over the rest of the world; and I believe that once corporations go public, their eyes are constantly on the bottom line, and not the road ahead.
But Red Hat could be different. It's been honorable so far; and I suspect it will continue to be honorable.
Look this is how the business world works... you need money to make money. As a Linux hacker says to a newbie asking a question...rtfm!
Yeah, I read them manual, I knew what I was doing, I had the ability, knowledge, and inclination to invest in Red Hat. I know the stock could tank-- that's the nature of the business. I wasn't born before the Great Depression, but I still know the stock market is a risky venture.
I had the money to make money. Yet I was still barred. And that is the frustrating part.
I was just going to say this exact same thing, including the quote from Benjamin Franklin. My Cod.
Well, I wasn't going to do that bit about the talking head and the helmet, since I'm not familiar with that parable.
WRT secondary consquences, above: *every*thing has secondary consequences. You cannot live with affecting other people. Either you have the freedom to make your own decisions (increasing financial and sometimes physical risk to others) or we are in Jack Williamson's "With Folded Hands," were we are protected-from-ourselves to death.
WRT lawuits: anyone sues over anything. Most lawsuits are judged frivolous. And it would be simple to document everything in such a way that it would be difficult for a lawsuit to succeed-- an affidavit signed by novice investors swearing they know what the hell they are doing would go a long way (though, I admit, not reduce the risk of lawsuit to zero).
No. The argument that we are being protected from ourselves is patronizing and wrong-headed. Plus, I don't think that is their reasoning; essentially, we are being informed that the stock market is a club, and we are not full members, and cannot enjoy member benefits.
This is utter crank. The, "It's for your own good," argument is stupid, demeaning, and absolutely ridiculous. If one person has the right to do something that doesn't require certification (say, brain surgery), *every*one has that right.
And this is what it comes down to: we haven't been told the judgement criteria up front; we are being barred based not on our ability to invest, but in their judgement of our *worthiness* to invest; and they are stupid mutton-brains who wouldn't know code if it came up and bit their pinheads off.
Face it, we were denied only because we haven't joined the club. And I am not going to lie to play.
But to the actual point, reports from people using W2K (not just the marketing hype) it's far more stable than any previous version of NT.
Beta 3 isn't. The build I've seen (more recent than B3) is more stable than NT4, but not 3.51. I have not heard anyone claim with any credibility that the betas are more stable than NT 3.51.
But even your statement is damning with faint praise.
The implication that Linux is rock-solid is correct, as well. I'm glad you see that as an important consideration.
As far as applications go: I know several people who have installed Linux applications without ever touching the source. That's why package management exists. There are sites dedicated to providing packaged applications; it's a simple matter to download and install an application.
The only people who have to hit Freshmeat and download the most current source are the middle group of users-- those who like the source enough to compile it, yet aren't adventurous enough to use CVS.
Your point is well-taken, though; there aren't many Linux application CDs at Fry's. And considering the market pressure MS has levered in the past, I doubt we'll ever have too much shelf space.
But, considering it'll be about a year before anyone even considers W2k seriously, I suspect we'll have to wait and see. If the last 12 months are any indication, we may very well see more application CDs for Linux.
WRT MS-Office2k-- check out KOffice. It still has a long way to go, but... I think you'll find it is better-designed than MS-Office (for instance, the word processor is frames-based, like FrameMaker, and not page-based, like the current crop of word prossessors).
But get real, mainstream users won't put up with this. There's no reason they should have to.
Are you implying users should have to put up with installation conflicts (where installing one application kills another app or the OS itself), poor stability, and no out-of-the-box scripting capability?
You're right. Linux will *never* be as easy-to-use as MS-Windows. I'm a fool to believe Linux can progress, and that the progress in ease-of-use Linux has exhibited will continue.
I think it's sad, but, there will be little reason to choose Linux over W2k except the ones we little people like (open-source, cheaper.)
Uhmmm... Stability? Speed? Flexibility?
But w2k will be a better server, will be leaps and bounds beyond Linux as far as consistent GUI goes and it will have great games.
Why will w2k be a better server than Linux? What evidence do you have to support that claim? So far, Linux has proven better than NT in server-space, in terms of programmability (flexibility), efficiency, and stability-- everything that matters. W2k is 40M lines of beta-level software. MS brags that W2k is a complete re-write of NT-- essentially making it a v1.0 release. Granted, it's a 1.0 release with the testing of technical might of MS (and I will not argue that MS is a technical giant-- they definitely have very brilliant people working for them).
Wish it weren't so, but I see KDE and GNOME as being the defeating tactical "catch-up" error.
And KDE and Gnome are merely one facet of Linux. (A techinical point: KDE and Gnome run on many other operating systems; they are not Linux-only.) If you think Linux is only following MS, you miss the point entirely-- Linux is moving forward on all fronts. If some people consider a gee-whiz UI as progress, then KDE or Gnome are progress. If other people consider journalling filesystems or destributed objects as important, then Linux is making progress on those fronts, as well. And during this progress, Linux is not sacrificing performance, adaptability, efficiency, or technical merit.
With the re-write of NT, MS has admitted they coded themselves into a corner. The reason W2k is a massive re-write is because nobody understood the NT code anymore. They think doubling the size of the codebase is a good way to get the OS under control? And making *every*thing a part of the OS (including the windowing system and web browser) will make it more efficient?
You are falling into the trap laid by the MS marketing department-- that the graphical interface *is* the operating system. This is a blatant lie. Just because the UI is pretty does not mean the operating system is good. And just because the UI is prettier this release does not mean that progress has been made on the operating system.
There are many reasons to choose Linux over W2k. There will be only one reason to choose W2k over Linux-- the MS interface.
You are right. The copyright won't be an issue in 1,000. My mistake; I'm aware of the time-limit, but in my rush to rhetoric, neglected it.
You're incorrect about changes to the GPL not being retroactive. The FSF expressly requests on its Web site that developers license their software so that it falls under the latest version of the GPL. Thus, if the next version gives the FSF complete rights to it, or says something about first-born children, the author can do nothing.
No, my statement was not incorrect. Your understand seems to be incomplete. If you read the GPL, it states
This library is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU Library General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later version.
Who gets the option? The user. Who owns the copyright on the piece of software this came from? Me. I wrote the software. I put it under the GPL.
The reason Mr. Stallman wants GNU attached to Linux is because the kernel is Linux; the system is a Linux kernel with the rest being mostly FSF-owned GNU software. His demands are not unreasonable, if a bit silly. He does not want credit for the Linux kernel; he wants credit for the parts that are FSF-owned GNU, which represents many more years of development.
And he does not insist that all GPL software be owned by the FSF. He insists that all FSF-funded software development be credited to the FSF, under the terms of the GPL.
I see. FSF wants to "control," by giving up control. You mentioned that the FSF can change the license at any time; this is not true. The FSF can change the license, but it is not retroactive. Anything released under the GPL today will remain under the current GPL in a thousand years.
This is the part of your argument that doesn't quite make sense. I can see the "Richard Stallman and Avenging Angel (or Devil)." But the licensing/control issue? I'm not too clear on the logic here.
The prevention of predatory business practices does not reflect an allegiance to any "Powers that Be." Rather, it preserves free markets and individual freedom -- in particular, the freedom to be successful without bullying or predation by malicious organizations such as the FSF.
Now we're getting somewhere.
The idea that individual freedom is somehow preserved in a "free market" economy (of which there is no such thing) is ironic. Individuals write software; companies hold the copyright on software (in most cases). Inidividuals invent; companies hold the patents on those inventions (in most cases). Individuals do the creating; companies reap the benefits of the creation.
I'm not saying I should be able to drive your car. I am saying that if you come up with a great idea, or even a not-so-great-idea, I should be able to use it. I'm not saying you *have* to give away your idea. Keep it secret if you want. But then it will help only yourself. But if I know of an idea, I should be able to use it.
Hoarding (and hiding) information only adds to the entropy of society. Hidden information does no-one any good, and does not benefit society in any way; it only benefits the people who keep it hidden.
Perhaps you see it differently. That's okay; if we all had the same damn opinion, life would be boring.
You're right; I don't understand public access cable. We don't have that in Alaska. I get all of my knowledge of public access from Wayne's World and old MST3k episodes.
But you just as obviously don't understand social theory. "Communism" has never been tried on a large scale. "Socialism" has, though, and has generally failed.
Yes, I do feel that corporations are dangerous, if not evil in general. Currently the goal of any corporation is to grow as much as possible, by any means. (There are a few exceptions, though I can't think of any at the moment.) Since money is essentially power, and power allows for even more growth, companies tend to grab as much money as possible, and let as little money go as possible. This is hoarding, and has nothing to do with the protection of individuals from the state. After a certain point, a company can gain enough power to replace the state as a ruling organization. (Don't think so? Look at the regulation MS has managed to excersize on the industry.) The centralization of power into corporations my necessity takes power away from individuals.
I realize our opinions differ here, and I'm not likely to convince you any differently. By my central ideal is simply this: any single individual is more important than any single organization.
The core precepts of Marxism-- that the individual is the most important part of any society, that industrialism tends to destroy humanity and enslave its populace to the corporations-- are not flawed. The conclusions are a bit off-center, I think. The thought of replacing one faceless organization with another is rather ludicrous.
I think you misunderstand Mr. Stallman's goals. His is a reaction to the greed and selfishness endemic to our society. He encourages people to be less greedy, and less selfish. How can that can be a bad thing?
I fail to see how I'm sabotaging my own or anyone else's future. I work as the senior DBA at a native health organization. My job is not dependent on my writing or my code. However, I enjoy both writing and programming; so I contribute, because it is what I love to do. I am contributing much more than a simple opinion in some trade rag.
And if you are not terrified of your future, you probably should be. Everyone does have an opinion. And we no longer rely on tree-based mass-produced periodicals to find opinions. So your line of work is quickly become commoditized. If this doesn't frighten you, you must have some other skill than the ability to express simple opinions with good grammer and proper spelling.
Conspiracy? I don't think so. Change is happening right now. I'm simply doing my part to make sure the change is good, and in the right direction.
And as far as destroying honest businesses: I don't think there is a such thing as an honest business in this industry. People are honest; businesses are not. Any time a business offers an IPO, they sell their soul to continuous growth, at any cost. And since there are few mom-and-pop companies that will be affected, I don't see how we are destroying honest business.
We'll disagree with each other. I doubt we'll be able to sway each other, no matter how eloquent or thoughtful our opinions; we draw different conclusions from the same set of facts. This happens, even among rational and intelligent people. (Not that I claim to be either.)
Thanks for this chance at debate. I enjoy a lively discussion.
Interesting. The implication is that those of use working on Free (Open Source) Software are not legitimate. Would you care to elucidate?
So I'm willing to write programs and give them away. So tens of thousands of other people are also willing to write programs and give them away. How does this take away from anyone? And if I choose to write a manual and give it away (not even taking into account the FSF's rather generous offer), how does this take away from anyone?
In fact, it is *giving* to people. If people are willing to do this, why are you complaining? It is our right to do with our intellectual property as we wish.
Writers recieve hardly any recompense for their works anymore. Not only is it harder to get published, but the payments are the same as they were 15 years ago. (The average is going up, but that's because Stephen King and Robert Jordan and anything about Monica Lewinski skew the numbers terribly.) Meanwhile publishers are charging about 30% more than they were 15 years ago. Where does the extra money go? I suspect it goes to the publisher.
Writers will rarely get $20k for a single work, even something like the proposed Programmer's Manual.
Yes, I know you write (Computerworld, isn't it?), so your view is from the inside of the industry. But from *outside* the industry, people who write Free Software wouldn't mind Free Documentation. And since it doesn't take away anyone's rights, why are you upset?
Interesting point. So the harder they push, the more we gain? I can see this is true if they actually try arguing with real data, and real facts.
However, if they attack us as they attacked Java, that is, by taking Linux and extending it in a proprietary fashion, we could be in trouble.
How could they do that? I proposed one method: create a version of MS-Office that will only run when a specific library is installed, and make that library available only with MS-Linux. Since it is not part of the kernel, they wouldn't have to release it as free software.
Did you ever read the story, "And Then There Were None"? It was an interesting '50s short story. Very funny. In it, a galactic patrol vessel lands on a planet of peaceful folk. Ever patrolman who goes into the world ends up "going native." Wouldn't it be great? Everyone who joins the "anti-Linux" group turns native?
Just because someone has a CS degree does not mean that they can program worth a damn, nor does an English degree mean a person is worth their weight in sand as a writer. As was said in another post, and I misquote... "A CS degree teaches you the History of programming, so you don't make the same mistakes" (apologies to author, was a good post!) In order for that CS degree to be of help to you, you need to PAY ATTENTION AND LEARN WHAT THEY ARE TEACHING YOU. Figure out what professors are the ones "in the know". Do more than is required in class.
I did do more than was required in class-- because it was the only way to learn anything. And I did pay attention-- I just didn't learn anything. (I did very well in those classes, grade-wise; I just didn't learn anything. Other students came to me for asssistance; I just didn't learn anything.)
The best way to learn about software lifecycles is to get involved in a project. Yes, taking classes teaches you which mistakes to avoid, and that is helpful; and I did learn that there is more to programming than just stringing together lines of code.
However.
I've learned a hell of a lot more since I've started working on real projects, with real programmers. And everything taught in college is better learned apprenticing yourself to a project, like KDE or GNOME. And considering the number of worthless CS graduates out there (most of the CS graduates I've worked with, in fact) the degree means nothing.
Now, I must give one caveat-- I did not go to a great CS school. My computer architecture class covered the war between CISC and RISC better than it covered actual architecture. I reckon if I'd gone to a decent school, my classes would not have been worthless.
But my central assertion remains-- a good programmer can learn everything from experience and exposure to other programmers, including project and software management, software design, etc.
Even the best programmer cannot learn in a vacuum. I'm not claiming that a totally-self-taught programmer is better than a CS grad. I'm just saying, a CS degree is no real indicator of capability.
I have never taken a CS class in which I learned anything. The *only* good I've gotten out of those classes were the projects-- and not because I completed the projects, but because I took the projects and made them into something interesting.
I had been programming for *years* before I ever took a CS class; I started programming (BASIC, Pascal, and 6502 assembly-- Sweet16, don't'cha know) on the Apple ][ in 6th grade. By the time I started college, I already knew C, and I'd written a few assembly-level TSRs for the IBM PC. The data structures classes, and the algorithms classes, and the methods classes were moronic; the only classes that had something to offer were the math classes.
Most of the people clogging the CS classes were there because they knew that computers were the paying wave of the future. About 30% had never touched a computer before; about another 60% knew how to process words.
A lot of great programmers get CS degrees; but they are not great programmers *because* of the CS degree. I learned more from my peers than I ever learned from a class; peers, and good, classic texts.
There are a *lot* of bad programmers that are degreed. And the good ones tend to be good programmers to start with-- they got into CS because they love computers in the first place. So do not confuse cause and effect here. Just because you've noticed a good correlation between good programmers and CS degrees does not mean the CS degree caused the good programmer.
Good arguments, especially the last half of your post. However, I take some exception to the logic of the first part.
Just because it's a melting pot doesn't mean kids should have to put up with the cruelties of school. From about junior high through their sophomore year, kids are under incredible hormonal pressure-- they are becoming adults, with all the body chemistry and uncertainty that implies. Then, to top it off, they have to put up with the ridicule of their peers.
This goes beyond what *any*one should have to endure. Sure, you can say it builds character; but so does being torture, by that reasoning.
As far as other victim groups not having egos, that's false; in the US, almost everyone is a victim (or at least feels they are). In some sense, every *is* a victim. But in the truest sense, geeks in schools *are* victims. There is no justice; intelligence is cause for societal rejection, and adherence to strict social order is the only way to come out with your ego and sanity intact.
Now, as far as our problems go, vis-a-vis a large part of the rest of the world-- we have hardly anything to whine about. We certainly *do* have it easy, except for one thing:
We're told we live in a world in which everyone is equal, and we all have equal opportunity at success. Yet we are constantly stepped on, dumped upon, and spit upon; we are proud of our intelligence, yet that is what makes us outcasts. And then when we are singled out for ridicule, we have nowhere to go-- and so we discover that Justice is also a sham.
If we were simply taught from birth that we are losers, that we suck, and that we will never be anything other than serfs, we'd be much better off. Then at least we'd have no hope.
(Yes, I realize that having a hopeless lot in life is even more terrible than the hazings, ignorance, and hate we endure in school. There is a certain amount of irony in all of this, no?)
There are a lot of different jobs for free software programmers:
1) In-house support for large companies
2) Teaching
3) DBA/programmer/sysadmin for any company
4) Self-employed consultant
5) Tech writer (books will be in demand for a long time)
6) Electonic Engineer (a *real* engineer)
7) Garbage man
8) Sesame Street muppetmaster
9) That guy in Mall of America who builds huge lego models all day in LegoLand. (He probably doesn't code, but he *could*.)
10) Special effects maven (Mr. Lucas, if you need any help, just e-mail me.)
11) Did I say programmer? No? Programmer.
I work as a DBA in a hospital. I code on free software at home, and any code I write at work I release as free software, unless it's bound by NDA stuff, in which case I release it as free software among other people bound by the same NDA. (That software would be useless to anyone who doesn't use the database we use anyway, so I don't feel too guilty. A little, but not too much.) I make as much per year as a typical MS code monkey, only without the stock options. Big deal-- I'm still living comfortably, and I have a warm fuzzy feeling contributing to something in which I believe.
Wait a second. Shows re-use old material all the time. In fact, original programming is rare. Sure, the cosmetics change, but the meat, the core, the jokes, the characters, are all re-hashed I Love Lucy. It's all variations on a theme.
The biggest difference between free TV and free (speech) software is this: free TV is created by a bunch of suits thinking up new shows ("It's like All In The Family, but the daughter moves in with another woman!"), except when it's thought up by one person and pitched to suits ("It's like Kolchak: The Night Stalker, but with two FBI agents.").
Free software is created by the people who actually use it. It's like public access TV, only everyone has the resources of George Lucas. Sure, 90% of it is crap. But, but Sturgeon's Law, 90% of *everything* is crap.
If TV started out as a public access medium, it would be a different world today. And I bet TV would be a lot more interesting.
You're saying that, without proprietary software companies, there would be no demand for personal computers? Or, are you saying there would be no fantastically rich companies on the stock market based on software?
If your point is the latter, I agree. That follows from our assumptions. But I don't agree the demand for personal computers would fail. Look at the Internet; when I first got on (fall '89), there was no web; Archie was still being maintained; and, contrasted with today, there was little noise in the signal.
Before companies started putting their URL in their ads, people were asking for the Internet. It wasn't the marketing that drove that demand; it was a percieved need.
It's the perception of need that drives demand. Marketing is geared to inciting that perception. But, lacking marketting, real need drives demand.
Besides, computer manufacturers (Dell, Compaq, et al) are good at marketing and convincing people they can't enter the new milenium without a new PC. I'll bet you a Starfire that Gateway has sold more PCs than MS.
The ownership of software has not determined the demand of computers. The ownership of software has just forced everyone to constantly re-invent what has already been invented.
Yes Microsoft is a monopoly. But it isn't illegal to be a monopoly. It is illegal to use monopolistic powers to hurt consumers.
Well, it's also illegal to use a monopoly in one area to gain a monopoly in another. Then the question becomes, did MS use an OS monopoly to attempt the monopolisation of the browser market? And if so, are they really two separate markets, or two facets of the same market?
The focus of the trial is to determine whether Microsoft's actions have hurt consumers.
On just that merit I'm not sure if this case is sound.
The focus of the trial is to determine if MS used one monopoly to gain another.
All the politics now surrounding this case have made the whole point totally obscure.
Damn straight. This is not a real trial of Microsoft the marauding monopoly. It's a trial of corporate character. The offence should focus on the core issues; and Microsoft should focus on the core defence.
As it is, though, the prosecution is giving MS enough rope to hang itself, character-wise. MS is no longer the unsullied uber-corp in the eyes of the public. So if nothing else positive comes of this, at least people will know what kind of corporation is running the desktop software industry.
The Lisa was slow because the technology was slow. It was bloated because it wasn't finished. It was expensive because it was a first attempt, and ate a lot of money in development. It failed in the marketplace because of a factor of all of the above, and Jobs discovered a little project that a few engineers were working on, and he grabbed control of (and credit for) the project. Since it was in direct competition to the Lisa, he kept it quiet, while sabatoging the Lisa project politically. If Jobs had not interfered with the Lisa, it might have been something other than Just Another Apple///. (Historically, Jobs tried to kill anything in which Woz was involved.)
And if you want to get rid of that Lisa, just let me know. I've been wanting one since they came out. And the disk drive was a great idea-- two independent heads, one for each side; but just like the rest of the machine, it was unfinished.
And these religious/GUI wars are really silly. Yeah, I know, I have been participating in them too. But the Mac is not a paragon of usability, as much as it was pioneering.
And I will stand by my critisisms. I read at the time the reasoning for many of the design decisions, and the reason the bar was at the top was to save pixels. It was retconned into being "consistent" in later years,/after/ the usability studies. Although, the "ugly" comment makes sense, too. I suppose aesthetics factored in, to a certain extent.
And though there is a common multi-button mouse API, it is not extensively used. You are right-- the mouse-button argument is a nitpick, but an important one: it is just as critical as most arguments levelled by Mac folks against other UIs. It always comes down to one argument: "It's not like the UI I'm used to."
Anyway, this isn't a "Mac SUX, LINUX RULEZ," thread. The Mac doesn't suck, and Linux doesn't rule. It's a, "Linux *can* grow to be as easy-to-use as the Mac," thread.
I can't understand why you insist ease-of-use requires integration, especially among things that don't need integrated. I also can't understand why you keep using the term, "Never," when historically "never" has turned out to be, "eventually." (Do you need some examples, or are you familiar with computer history?)
Although we have one common goal (ease-of-use), there may be more than one path.
Linux is integrated into the hardware; otherwise, it wouldn't run. There are even setup programs that autodetect almost all hardware, and install the appropriate drivers.
(The Mac behaves this way exactly; there are many hardware types, and the OS installation routine detects hardware and installs it. The fabled "Mac Plug-and-play" is fabled. The Mac can also have conflicts, just as the PC does.)
Why do I need my Word Processor integrated with my 3D modeller? They are two different, orthogonal applications, with two different interfaces. And why does my spreadsheet have to be integrated into the GUI? Shouldn't I be able to choose the GUI that works for me, and use whatever spreadsheet I like best? To me, ease-of-use is defined by my ability to customize my environment to fit me, not to change my desires and preferences to fit my environment.
As far as the ease-of-use of KDE, I have set KDE up at home for my S.O. She is a Mac-head. However, she had no problem at all adapting to KDE. Same for my Mom. Both have said that KDE was easier to use than the Mac interface. And if you want KDE to behave as a Mac, use only KDE apps, and put it in Mac mode. you get the funky little menu bar across the top and everything. In every respect, the interface behaves just like the Mac interface. If you use KDE, and only KDE apps, then you have your GUI and GUI integration.
The apps are a different beast. They are not currently as full-featured as the Mac apps. But they are evolving at a tremendous rate. KOffice is already a very easy-to-use and powerful office suite. When complete (and stable), it will give any Mac or MS-Windows suite a run for the money.
Me, I prefer Gnome. It's not quite a mature, but it is a lot more powerful, without sacrificing the ease-of-use. If you install the Gnome desktop, and use only Gnome apps, you get a common application interface. So there is your integration. Linux can be exactly as integrated as you want; so you can have ease-of-use without sacrificing power.
Someday soon, you will be able to install Linux on a any computer, and install any desktop you want. Everything will be fully integrated, if that is what you wish. There are already 2 major desktops, with a third coming soon (GnuStep), with their own applications. You will be able to install SuSE or RedHat or any other distribution, specify the desktop you prefer, and have a fully-functional computer where you never have to see a command line. If that's what makes you happy.
And if you want to stick with your Mac, be my guest. No skin off my nose.
I agree with some of your points; however, I do not agree with all.
There are many things you cannot do with a gui that you can do with a CLI. Pipes+filters are just one example-- and even the best scripting language (Perl to some, Python to others, Applescript to some others) cannot match the simplicity of a plethora of useful commands strung together hastily on a command line. Get a list of running processes, and pull out only those that are over a day old and not run by the system. I can do it in three seconds on a CLI; how long would it take to accomplish that in a GUI?
And I wasn't talking about closing windows; I was talking about the system hiding the windows when you switch tasks. Although the system thinks I can only operate on one task at a time, usually I'm working on one task using many tools. I don't like my work in one tool to hide just because I switched tools. If I wanted my app to hide, I'd do it myself.
And as far as "properly-programmed" apps-- a good system (including the GUI) will allow me to work around constraints in the application, whether it is lack of foresight on the part of the programmer, or I'm just wanting to be perverse and do something the programmer hadn't considered.
Now, you argue that apps must be well-designed to avoid the Mac limitations on one hand, and then using poorly-designed interfaces of applications as an argument against multiple buttons on a mouse. Most applications make good use of the multiple mouse buttons. xfig and many other applications using the Athena widget set were designed over 10 years ago; we've come a long way since then.
The biggest problem the "ease-of-use" of the Mac is also its biggest strength-- it shoe-horns everyone into the exact same method of doing things, no matter the skills of the user or the complexity of the application. What you consider ease-of-use, I consider a straight-jacket.
The funny thing is, I learned to program on an old Apple ][, back before they added anything to the ][. When the Mac came out, I was overjoyed, and wanted one so badly. I had to settle for a ][gs. (What I really wanted was a Lisa. Damn Jobs forever for killing that project.) I love the Mac interface.
But every time I sit down to use a Mac, I realize how constraining the stupid things really are. I'm more sophisticated, and able to do things in a non-linear way; I *do* multitask. Many people do. I can only perform one action at a time, but many things happen at once.
As a side-note: you're right about Copeland. The Mac was designed when pre-emptive multitasking was still a technical novelty, so the fact that MacOS-8 still doesn't have pre-emptive multitasking (and mentioning the Copeland disaster) was just a strawman, though unintentionally.
And I don't consider this a flamewar-- it's a brisk conversation. You make logical arguments, with supporting evidence; therefore, it is not a flame, or even flamebait.
Slashdot Mirror
This article highlights something which I've always disliked about the GNU/Stallman way of thinking. It seems to claim that greed is a bad thing and a negative thing. That anywhere money goes, evil must follow.
You misunderstand. RMS does *not* claim money is evil, or bad. He claims that hoarding is evil and bad-- especially hoarding something that is, in essence, knowledge.
This is a common misconception, made worse by the ignorant press and neo-McCarthyists who mistake his ideas for Communism and are frightened by that. The GPL grants the specific right to make money off any software under the GPL, without any kind of compensation to the actual author. The only requirement is this: access to the source code must be guaranteed, and the person recieving the software also recieves the exact same rights-- including the right to redistribute the software.
This ensures that the code will always be "free." Why is this important? Not to keep people from making money, but to ensure that the code survives; and so other people can learn, and fix, and enhance.
Also, true communism is neither bad, nor good. It's an ideal, and quite impossible, just as a Free Market is an ideal, and quite impossible. Communism in Russia turned into Socialism, and Free Market in the US turned into Wall Street. Same difference.
Other than that, I agree with you 100%.
Fuck!
I can't believe there are so many, "But they are really doing you a favor," posts. Yes, the stock market is gambling; yes, investing in an IPO is gambling with the dice loaded against you. BIG FUCKING DEAL! We *know* the risks.
I think a *lot* of us have been here since the beginning. I started using Linux in fall of '93-- I was using the SLS distribution. I've been waiting for a way to invest in the community, in the traditional sense; and now that the chance arrives, I am being blocked. I want to invest in Red Hat not because I want to get rich quick; I want to invest because *I believe in Linux!*
Perhaps this elevates my desires to the religious realms; perhaps that makes this a poor investment. But, believe it or now, I should have the RIGHT to invest, whether I'm a fool or a prophet.
I can afford to lose the two grand I want to invest; otherwise, I would not have invested.
Personally, I am not going to lie to invest. I have always detested the "holier than thou" mentality of investors, as if they participate in some secret ritual that gives them power over the rest of the world; and I believe that once corporations go public, their eyes are constantly on the bottom line, and not the road ahead.
But Red Hat could be different. It's been honorable so far; and I suspect it will continue to be honorable.
And damnit, I was invited.
Look this is how the business world works... you need money to make money. As a Linux hacker says to a newbie asking a question...rtfm!
Yeah, I read them manual, I knew what I was doing, I had the ability, knowledge, and inclination to invest in Red Hat. I know the stock could tank-- that's the nature of the business. I wasn't born before the Great Depression, but I still know the stock market is a risky venture.
I had the money to make money. Yet I was still barred. And that is the frustrating part.
I was just going to say this exact same thing, including the quote from Benjamin Franklin. My Cod.
Well, I wasn't going to do that bit about the talking head and the helmet, since I'm not familiar with that parable.
WRT secondary consquences, above: *every*thing has secondary consequences. You cannot live with affecting other people. Either you have the freedom to make your own decisions (increasing financial and sometimes physical risk to others) or we are in Jack Williamson's "With Folded Hands," were we are protected-from-ourselves to death.
WRT lawuits: anyone sues over anything. Most lawsuits are judged frivolous. And it would be simple to document everything in such a way that it would be difficult for a lawsuit to succeed-- an affidavit signed by novice investors swearing they know what the hell they are doing would go a long way (though, I admit, not reduce the risk of lawsuit to zero).
No. The argument that we are being protected from ourselves is patronizing and wrong-headed. Plus, I don't think that is their reasoning; essentially, we are being informed that the stock market is a club, and we are not full members, and cannot enjoy member benefits.
This is utter crank. The, "It's for your own good," argument is stupid, demeaning, and absolutely ridiculous. If one person has the right to do something that doesn't require certification (say, brain surgery), *every*one has that right.
And this is what it comes down to: we haven't been told the judgement criteria up front; we are being barred based not on our ability to invest, but in their judgement of our *worthiness* to invest; and they are stupid mutton-brains who wouldn't know code if it came up and bit their pinheads off.
Face it, we were denied only because we haven't joined the club. And I am not going to lie to play.
But to the actual point, reports from people using W2K (not just the marketing hype) it's far more stable than any previous version of NT.
Beta 3 isn't. The build I've seen (more recent than B3) is more stable than NT4, but not 3.51. I have not heard anyone claim with any credibility that the betas are more stable than NT 3.51.
But even your statement is damning with faint praise.
The implication that Linux is rock-solid is correct, as well. I'm glad you see that as an important consideration.
As far as applications go: I know several people who have installed Linux applications without ever touching the source. That's why package management exists. There are sites dedicated to providing packaged applications; it's a simple matter to download and install an application.
The only people who have to hit Freshmeat and download the most current source are the middle group of users-- those who like the source enough to compile it, yet aren't adventurous enough to use CVS.
Your point is well-taken, though; there aren't many Linux application CDs at Fry's. And considering the market pressure MS has levered in the past, I doubt we'll ever have too much shelf space.
But, considering it'll be about a year before anyone even considers W2k seriously, I suspect we'll have to wait and see. If the last 12 months are any indication, we may very well see more application CDs for Linux.
WRT MS-Office2k-- check out KOffice. It still has a long way to go, but... I think you'll find it is better-designed than MS-Office (for instance, the word processor is frames-based, like FrameMaker, and not page-based, like the current crop of word prossessors).
But get real, mainstream users won't put up with this. There's no reason they should have to.
Are you implying users should have to put up with installation conflicts (where installing one application kills another app or the OS itself), poor stability, and no out-of-the-box scripting capability?
You're right. Linux will *never* be as easy-to-use as MS-Windows. I'm a fool to believe Linux can progress, and that the progress in ease-of-use Linux has exhibited will continue.
I think it's sad, but, there will be little reason to choose Linux over W2k except the ones we little people like (open-source, cheaper.)
Uhmmm... Stability? Speed? Flexibility?
But w2k will be a better server, will be leaps and bounds beyond Linux as far as consistent GUI goes and it will have great games.
Why will w2k be a better server than Linux? What evidence do you have to support that claim? So far, Linux has proven better than NT in server-space, in terms of programmability (flexibility), efficiency, and stability-- everything that matters. W2k is 40M lines of beta-level software. MS brags that W2k is a complete re-write of NT-- essentially making it a v1.0 release. Granted, it's a 1.0 release with the testing of technical might of MS (and I will not argue that MS is a technical giant-- they definitely have very brilliant people working for them).
Wish it weren't so, but I see KDE and GNOME as being the defeating tactical "catch-up" error.
And KDE and Gnome are merely one facet of Linux. (A techinical point: KDE and Gnome run on many other operating systems; they are not Linux-only.) If you think Linux is only following MS, you miss the point entirely-- Linux is moving forward on all fronts. If some people consider a gee-whiz UI as progress, then KDE or Gnome are progress. If other people consider journalling filesystems or destributed objects as important, then Linux is making progress on those fronts, as well. And during this progress, Linux is not sacrificing performance, adaptability, efficiency, or technical merit.
With the re-write of NT, MS has admitted they coded themselves into a corner. The reason W2k is a massive re-write is because nobody understood the NT code anymore. They think doubling the size of the codebase is a good way to get the OS under control? And making *every*thing a part of the OS (including the windowing system and web browser) will make it more efficient?
You are falling into the trap laid by the MS marketing department-- that the graphical interface *is* the operating system. This is a blatant lie. Just because the UI is pretty does not mean the operating system is good. And just because the UI is prettier this release does not mean that progress has been made on the operating system.
There are many reasons to choose Linux over W2k. There will be only one reason to choose W2k over Linux-- the MS interface.
It's your choice. Choose well.
-Tony
You are right. The copyright won't be an issue in 1,000. My mistake; I'm aware of the time-limit, but in my rush to rhetoric, neglected it.
You're incorrect about changes to the GPL not being retroactive. The FSF expressly requests on its Web site that developers license their software so that it falls under the latest version of the GPL. Thus, if the next version gives the FSF complete rights to it, or says something about first-born children, the author can do nothing.
No, my statement was not incorrect. Your understand seems to be incomplete. If you read the GPL, it states
This library is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU Library General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later version.
Who gets the option? The user. Who owns the copyright on the piece of software this came from? Me. I wrote the software. I put it under the GPL.
The reason Mr. Stallman wants GNU attached to Linux is because the kernel is Linux; the system is a Linux kernel with the rest being mostly FSF-owned GNU software. His demands are not unreasonable, if a bit silly. He does not want credit for the Linux kernel; he wants credit for the parts that are FSF-owned GNU, which represents many more years of development.
And he does not insist that all GPL software be owned by the FSF. He insists that all FSF-funded software development be credited to the FSF, under the terms of the GPL.
I see. FSF wants to "control," by giving up control. You mentioned that the FSF can change the license at any time; this is not true. The FSF can change the license, but it is not retroactive. Anything released under the GPL today will remain under the current GPL in a thousand years.
This is the part of your argument that doesn't quite make sense. I can see the "Richard Stallman and Avenging Angel (or Devil)." But the licensing/control issue? I'm not too clear on the logic here.
Could you please elucidate?
The prevention of predatory business practices does not reflect an allegiance to any "Powers that Be." Rather, it preserves free markets and individual freedom -- in particular, the freedom to be successful without bullying or predation by malicious organizations such as the FSF.
Now we're getting somewhere.
The idea that individual freedom is somehow preserved in a "free market" economy (of which there is no such thing) is ironic. Individuals write software; companies hold the copyright on software (in most cases). Inidividuals invent; companies hold the patents on those inventions (in most cases). Individuals do the creating; companies reap the benefits of the creation.
I'm not saying I should be able to drive your car. I am saying that if you come up with a great idea, or even a not-so-great-idea, I should be able to use it. I'm not saying you *have* to give away your idea. Keep it secret if you want. But then it will help only yourself. But if I know of an idea, I should be able to use it.
Hoarding (and hiding) information only adds to the entropy of society. Hidden information does no-one any good, and does not benefit society in any way; it only benefits the people who keep it hidden.
Perhaps you see it differently. That's okay; if we all had the same damn opinion, life would be boring.
You're right; I don't understand public access cable. We don't have that in Alaska. I get all of my knowledge of public access from Wayne's World and old MST3k episodes.
But you just as obviously don't understand social theory. "Communism" has never been tried on a large scale. "Socialism" has, though, and has generally failed.
Yes, I do feel that corporations are dangerous, if not evil in general. Currently the goal of any corporation is to grow as much as possible, by any means. (There are a few exceptions, though I can't think of any at the moment.) Since money is essentially power, and power allows for even more growth, companies tend to grab as much money as possible, and let as little money go as possible. This is hoarding, and has nothing to do with the protection of individuals from the state. After a certain point, a company can gain enough power to replace the state as a ruling organization. (Don't think so? Look at the regulation MS has managed to excersize on the industry.) The centralization of power into corporations my necessity takes power away from individuals.
I realize our opinions differ here, and I'm not likely to convince you any differently. By my central ideal is simply this: any single individual is more important than any single organization.
The core precepts of Marxism-- that the individual is the most important part of any society, that industrialism tends to destroy humanity and enslave its populace to the corporations-- are not flawed. The conclusions are a bit off-center, I think. The thought of replacing one faceless organization with another is rather ludicrous.
I think you misunderstand Mr. Stallman's goals. His is a reaction to the greed and selfishness endemic to our society. He encourages people to be less greedy, and less selfish. How can that can be a bad thing?
I fail to see how I'm sabotaging my own or anyone else's future. I work as the senior DBA at a native health organization. My job is not dependent on my writing or my code. However, I enjoy both writing and programming; so I contribute, because it is what I love to do. I am contributing much more than a simple opinion in some trade rag.
And if you are not terrified of your future, you probably should be. Everyone does have an opinion. And we no longer rely on tree-based mass-produced periodicals to find opinions. So your line of work is quickly become commoditized. If this doesn't frighten you, you must have some other skill than the ability to express simple opinions with good grammer and proper spelling.
Conspiracy? I don't think so. Change is happening right now. I'm simply doing my part to make sure the change is good, and in the right direction.
And as far as destroying honest businesses: I don't think there is a such thing as an honest business in this industry. People are honest; businesses are not. Any time a business offers an IPO, they sell their soul to continuous growth, at any cost. And since there are few mom-and-pop companies that will be affected, I don't see how we are destroying honest business.
We'll disagree with each other. I doubt we'll be able to sway each other, no matter how eloquent or thoughtful our opinions; we draw different conclusions from the same set of facts. This happens, even among rational and intelligent people. (Not that I claim to be either.)
Thanks for this chance at debate. I enjoy a lively discussion.
Interesting. The implication is that those of use working on Free (Open Source) Software are not legitimate. Would you care to elucidate?
So I'm willing to write programs and give them away. So tens of thousands of other people are also willing to write programs and give them away. How does this take away from anyone? And if I choose to write a manual and give it away (not even taking into account the FSF's rather generous offer), how does this take away from anyone?
In fact, it is *giving* to people. If people are willing to do this, why are you complaining? It is our right to do with our intellectual property as we wish.
Writers recieve hardly any recompense for their works anymore. Not only is it harder to get published, but the payments are the same as they were 15 years ago. (The average is going up, but that's because Stephen King and Robert Jordan and anything about Monica Lewinski skew the numbers terribly.) Meanwhile publishers are charging about 30% more than they were 15 years ago. Where does the extra money go? I suspect it goes to the publisher.
Writers will rarely get $20k for a single work, even something like the proposed Programmer's Manual.
Yes, I know you write (Computerworld, isn't it?), so your view is from the inside of the industry. But from *outside* the industry, people who write Free Software wouldn't mind Free Documentation. And since it doesn't take away anyone's rights, why are you upset?
-Tony
Interesting point. So the harder they push, the more we gain? I can see this is true if they actually try arguing with real data, and real facts.
However, if they attack us as they attacked Java, that is, by taking Linux and extending it in a proprietary fashion, we could be in trouble.
How could they do that? I proposed one method: create a version of MS-Office that will only run when a specific library is installed, and make that library available only with MS-Linux. Since it is not part of the kernel, they wouldn't have to release it as free software.
Did you ever read the story, "And Then There Were None"? It was an interesting '50s short story. Very funny. In it, a galactic patrol vessel lands on a planet of peaceful folk. Ever patrolman who goes into the world ends up "going native." Wouldn't it be great? Everyone who joins the "anti-Linux" group turns native?
That'd be a hoot.
Just because someone has a CS degree does not mean that they can program worth a damn, nor does an English degree mean a person is worth their weight in sand as a writer. As was said in another post, and I misquote... "A CS degree teaches you the History of programming, so you don't make the same mistakes" (apologies to author, was a good post!) In order for that CS degree to be of help to you, you need to PAY ATTENTION AND LEARN WHAT THEY ARE TEACHING YOU. Figure out what professors are the ones "in the know". Do more than is required in class.
I did do more than was required in class-- because it was the only way to learn anything. And I did pay attention-- I just didn't learn anything. (I did very well in those classes, grade-wise; I just didn't learn anything. Other students came to me for asssistance; I just didn't learn anything.)
The best way to learn about software lifecycles is to get involved in a project. Yes, taking classes teaches you which mistakes to avoid, and that is helpful; and I did learn that there is more to programming than just stringing together lines of code.
However.
I've learned a hell of a lot more since I've started working on real projects, with real programmers. And everything taught in college is better learned apprenticing yourself to a project, like KDE or GNOME. And considering the number of worthless CS graduates out there (most of the CS graduates I've worked with, in fact) the degree means nothing.
Now, I must give one caveat-- I did not go to a great CS school. My computer architecture class covered the war between CISC and RISC better than it covered actual architecture. I reckon if I'd gone to a decent school, my classes would not have been worthless.
But my central assertion remains-- a good programmer can learn everything from experience and exposure to other programmers, including project and software management, software design, etc.
Even the best programmer cannot learn in a vacuum. I'm not claiming that a totally-self-taught programmer is better than a CS grad. I'm just saying, a CS degree is no real indicator of capability.
-Tony
I think this is the point. "We don't want hobbyists writing our software!"
By taking the worst-case scenerio, they can shoe-horn in every kind of software developer.
Me, I'd like to see politicians certified. Makes more sense to me-- their decisions affect millions, and sometimes billions, of people.
I have never taken a CS class in which I learned anything. The *only* good I've gotten out of those classes were the projects-- and not because I completed the projects, but because I took the projects and made them into something interesting.
I had been programming for *years* before I ever took a CS class; I started programming (BASIC, Pascal, and 6502 assembly-- Sweet16, don't'cha know) on the Apple ][ in 6th grade. By the time I started college, I already knew C, and I'd written a few assembly-level TSRs for the IBM PC. The data structures classes, and the algorithms classes, and the methods classes were moronic; the only classes that had something to offer were the math classes.
Most of the people clogging the CS classes were there because they knew that computers were the paying wave of the future. About 30% had never touched a computer before; about another 60% knew how to process words.
A lot of great programmers get CS degrees; but they are not great programmers *because* of the CS degree. I learned more from my peers than I ever learned from a class; peers, and good, classic texts.
There are a *lot* of bad programmers that are degreed. And the good ones tend to be good programmers to start with-- they got into CS because they love computers in the first place. So do not confuse cause and effect here. Just because you've noticed a good correlation between good programmers and CS degrees does not mean the CS degree caused the good programmer.
-- Tony
Good arguments, especially the last half of your post. However, I take some exception to the logic of the first part.
Just because it's a melting pot doesn't mean kids should have to put up with the cruelties of school. From about junior high through their sophomore year, kids are under incredible hormonal pressure-- they are becoming adults, with all the body chemistry and uncertainty that implies. Then, to top it off, they have to put up with the ridicule of their peers.
This goes beyond what *any*one should have to endure. Sure, you can say it builds character; but so does being torture, by that reasoning.
As far as other victim groups not having egos, that's false; in the US, almost everyone is a victim (or at least feels they are). In some sense, every *is* a victim. But in the truest sense, geeks in schools *are* victims. There is no justice; intelligence is cause for societal rejection, and adherence to strict social order is the only way to come out with your ego and sanity intact.
Now, as far as our problems go, vis-a-vis a large part of the rest of the world-- we have hardly anything to whine about. We certainly *do* have it easy, except for one thing:
We're told we live in a world in which everyone is equal, and we all have equal opportunity at success. Yet we are constantly stepped on, dumped upon, and spit upon; we are proud of our intelligence, yet that is what makes us outcasts. And then when we are singled out for ridicule, we have nowhere to go-- and so we discover that Justice is also a sham.
If we were simply taught from birth that we are losers, that we suck, and that we will never be anything other than serfs, we'd be much better off. Then at least we'd have no hope.
(Yes, I realize that having a hopeless lot in life is even more terrible than the hazings, ignorance, and hate we endure in school. There is a certain amount of irony in all of this, no?)
There are a lot of different jobs for free software programmers:
1) In-house support for large companies
2) Teaching
3) DBA/programmer/sysadmin for any company
4) Self-employed consultant
5) Tech writer (books will be in demand for a long time)
6) Electonic Engineer (a *real* engineer)
7) Garbage man
8) Sesame Street muppetmaster
9) That guy in Mall of America who builds huge lego models all day in LegoLand. (He probably doesn't code, but he *could*.)
10) Special effects maven (Mr. Lucas, if you need any help, just e-mail me.)
11) Did I say programmer? No? Programmer.
I work as a DBA in a hospital. I code on free software at home, and any code I write at work I release as free software, unless it's bound by NDA stuff, in which case I release it as free software among other people bound by the same NDA. (That software would be useless to anyone who doesn't use the database we use anyway, so I don't feel too guilty. A little, but not too much.) I make as much per year as a typical MS code monkey, only without the stock options. Big deal-- I'm still living comfortably, and I have a warm fuzzy feeling contributing to something in which I believe.
Wait a second. Shows re-use old material all the time. In fact, original programming is rare. Sure, the cosmetics change, but the meat, the core, the jokes, the characters, are all re-hashed I Love Lucy. It's all variations on a theme.
The biggest difference between free TV and free (speech) software is this: free TV is created by a bunch of suits thinking up new shows ("It's like All In The Family, but the daughter moves in with another woman!"), except when it's thought up by one person and pitched to suits ("It's like Kolchak: The Night Stalker, but with two FBI agents.").
Free software is created by the people who actually use it. It's like public access TV, only everyone has the resources of George Lucas. Sure, 90% of it is crap. But, but Sturgeon's Law, 90% of *everything* is crap.
If TV started out as a public access medium, it would be a different world today. And I bet TV would be a lot more interesting.
I'm not sure I understand.
You're saying that, without proprietary software companies, there would be no demand for personal computers? Or, are you saying there would be no fantastically rich companies on the stock market based on software?
If your point is the latter, I agree. That follows from our assumptions. But I don't agree the demand for personal computers would fail. Look at the Internet; when I first got on (fall '89), there was no web; Archie was still being maintained; and, contrasted with today, there was little noise in the signal.
Before companies started putting their URL in their ads, people were asking for the Internet. It wasn't the marketing that drove that demand; it was a percieved need.
It's the perception of need that drives demand. Marketing is geared to inciting that perception. But, lacking marketting, real need drives demand.
Besides, computer manufacturers (Dell, Compaq, et al) are good at marketing and convincing people they can't enter the new milenium without a new PC. I'll bet you a Starfire that Gateway has sold more PCs than MS.
The ownership of software has not determined the demand of computers. The ownership of software has just forced everyone to constantly re-invent what has already been invented.
At least, that's my opinion. I could be wrong.
Yes Microsoft is a monopoly. But it isn't illegal to be a monopoly. It is illegal to use monopolistic powers to hurt consumers.
Well, it's also illegal to use a monopoly in one area to gain a monopoly in another. Then the question becomes, did MS use an OS monopoly to attempt the monopolisation of the browser market? And if so, are they really two separate markets, or two facets of the same market?
The focus of the trial is to determine whether Microsoft's actions have hurt consumers.
On just that merit I'm not sure if this case is sound.
The focus of the trial is to determine if MS used one monopoly to gain another.
All the politics now surrounding this case have made the whole point totally obscure.
Damn straight. This is not a real trial of Microsoft the marauding monopoly. It's a trial of corporate character. The offence should focus on the core issues; and Microsoft should focus on the core defence.
As it is, though, the prosecution is giving MS enough rope to hang itself, character-wise. MS is no longer the unsullied uber-corp in the eyes of the public. So if nothing else positive comes of this, at least people will know what kind of corporation is running the desktop software industry.
The Lisa was slow because the technology was slow. It was bloated because it wasn't finished. It was expensive because it was a first attempt, and ate a lot of money in development. It failed in the marketplace because of a factor of all of the above, and Jobs discovered a little project that a few engineers were working on, and he grabbed control of (and credit for) the project. Since it was in direct competition to the Lisa, he kept it quiet, while sabatoging the Lisa project politically. If Jobs had not interfered with the Lisa, it might have been something other than Just Another Apple ///. (Historically, Jobs tried to kill anything in which Woz was involved.)
/after/ the usability studies. Although, the "ugly" comment makes sense, too. I suppose aesthetics factored in, to a certain extent.
And if you want to get rid of that Lisa, just let me know. I've been wanting one since they came out. And the disk drive was a great idea-- two independent heads, one for each side; but just like the rest of the machine, it was unfinished.
And these religious/GUI wars are really silly. Yeah, I know, I have been participating in them too. But the Mac is not a paragon of usability, as much as it was pioneering.
And I will stand by my critisisms. I read at the time the reasoning for many of the design decisions, and the reason the bar was at the top was to save pixels. It was retconned into being "consistent" in later years,
And though there is a common multi-button mouse API, it is not extensively used. You are right-- the mouse-button argument is a nitpick, but an important one: it is just as critical as most arguments levelled by Mac folks against other UIs. It always comes down to one argument: "It's not like the UI I'm used to."
Anyway, this isn't a "Mac SUX, LINUX RULEZ," thread. The Mac doesn't suck, and Linux doesn't rule. It's a, "Linux *can* grow to be as easy-to-use as the Mac," thread.
And I'm serious about that Lisa.
Then what's consigned the Mac to the shelf these last 7 years?
I can't understand why you insist ease-of-use requires integration, especially among things that don't need integrated. I also can't understand why you keep using the term, "Never," when historically "never" has turned out to be, "eventually." (Do you need some examples, or are you familiar with computer history?)
Although we have one common goal (ease-of-use), there may be more than one path.
Linux is integrated into the hardware; otherwise, it wouldn't run. There are even setup programs that autodetect almost all hardware, and install the appropriate drivers.
(The Mac behaves this way exactly; there are many hardware types, and the OS installation routine detects hardware and installs it. The fabled "Mac Plug-and-play" is fabled. The Mac can also have conflicts, just as the PC does.)
Why do I need my Word Processor integrated with my 3D modeller? They are two different, orthogonal applications, with two different interfaces. And why does my spreadsheet have to be integrated into the GUI? Shouldn't I be able to choose the GUI that works for me, and use whatever spreadsheet I like best? To me, ease-of-use is defined by my ability to customize my environment to fit me, not to change my desires and preferences to fit my environment.
As far as the ease-of-use of KDE, I have set KDE up at home for my S.O. She is a Mac-head. However, she had no problem at all adapting to KDE. Same for my Mom. Both have said that KDE was easier to use than the Mac interface. And if you want KDE to behave as a Mac, use only KDE apps, and put it in Mac mode. you get the funky little menu bar across the top and everything. In every respect, the interface behaves just like the Mac interface. If you use KDE, and only KDE apps, then you have your GUI and GUI integration.
The apps are a different beast. They are not currently as full-featured as the Mac apps. But they are evolving at a tremendous rate. KOffice is already a very easy-to-use and powerful office suite. When complete (and stable), it will give any Mac or MS-Windows suite a run for the money.
Me, I prefer Gnome. It's not quite a mature, but it is a lot more powerful, without sacrificing the ease-of-use. If you install the Gnome desktop, and use only Gnome apps, you get a common application interface. So there is your integration. Linux can be exactly as integrated as you want; so you can have ease-of-use without sacrificing power.
Someday soon, you will be able to install Linux on a any computer, and install any desktop you want. Everything will be fully integrated, if that is what you wish. There are already 2 major desktops, with a third coming soon (GnuStep), with their own applications. You will be able to install SuSE or RedHat or any other distribution, specify the desktop you prefer, and have a fully-functional computer where you never have to see a command line. If that's what makes you happy.
And if you want to stick with your Mac, be my guest. No skin off my nose.
I agree with some of your points; however, I do not agree with all.
There are many things you cannot do with a gui that you can do with a CLI. Pipes+filters are just one example-- and even the best scripting language (Perl to some, Python to others, Applescript to some others) cannot match the simplicity of a plethora of useful commands strung together hastily on a command line. Get a list of running processes, and pull out only those that are over a day old and not run by the system. I can do it in three seconds on a CLI; how long would it take to accomplish that in a GUI?
And I wasn't talking about closing windows; I was talking about the system hiding the windows when you switch tasks. Although the system thinks I can only operate on one task at a time, usually I'm working on one task using many tools. I don't like my work in one tool to hide just because I switched tools. If I wanted my app to hide, I'd do it myself.
And as far as "properly-programmed" apps-- a good system (including the GUI) will allow me to work around constraints in the application, whether it is lack of foresight on the part of the programmer, or I'm just wanting to be perverse and do something the programmer hadn't considered.
Now, you argue that apps must be well-designed to avoid the Mac limitations on one hand, and then using poorly-designed interfaces of applications as an argument against multiple buttons on a mouse. Most applications make good use of the multiple mouse buttons. xfig and many other applications using the Athena widget set were designed over 10 years ago; we've come a long way since then.
The biggest problem the "ease-of-use" of the Mac is also its biggest strength-- it shoe-horns everyone into the exact same method of doing things, no matter the skills of the user or the complexity of the application. What you consider ease-of-use, I consider a straight-jacket.
The funny thing is, I learned to program on an old Apple ][, back before they added anything to the ][. When the Mac came out, I was overjoyed, and wanted one so badly. I had to settle for a ][gs. (What I really wanted was a Lisa. Damn Jobs forever for killing that project.) I love the Mac interface.
But every time I sit down to use a Mac, I realize how constraining the stupid things really are. I'm more sophisticated, and able to do things in a non-linear way; I *do* multitask. Many people do. I can only perform one action at a time, but many things happen at once.
As a side-note: you're right about Copeland. The Mac was designed when pre-emptive multitasking was still a technical novelty, so the fact that MacOS-8 still doesn't have pre-emptive multitasking (and mentioning the Copeland disaster) was just a strawman, though unintentionally.
And I don't consider this a flamewar-- it's a brisk conversation. You make logical arguments, with supporting evidence; therefore, it is not a flame, or even flamebait.