Or you are a little kid, or you have some carpal tunnel, or you have some arthritis, or you just generally have some trouble with gripping/coordination and haven't gotten used yet to moving your hand/arm around in the fashion encouraged by the Wiimote
Except that none of these people you cited can throw the wiimote with enough force to break anything, especially the wrist-strap. Especially thoses people (except kids) would have educated themselves to move efficiently to bypass their handicap. Despite what you want to claim, I still see only morons (or kids under 8) that would throw their wiimote as hard as they can towards the TV set. For the strap, a reasonnable other possibility I see, is that USA having been served first, there was a defect in the first straps which they got.
Why is that just because one person doesn't have a particular issue, that means that anyone who does have the issue is either dumb or "doing something pretty stupid?"
Perhaps because it's true... Now, people are warned officially. So if you see someone breaking his TV set again, then I can see 2 main reasons : - He's really a moron - The Wii is so immersive you forget everything else, which would be an amazing feat
But they innovated in one critical way. When the Unix wars were in full swing, they came up with a remarkable new business model that utterly crushed all competition and set them as the worlds main desktop and office OS
Excuse me ? Using IBM's name and money to build an OS where there were none before, for brand new standard of compatible personal computers that didn't exist before, is not exactly innovation. The innovation was from IBM then : the IBM PC. Their business model was basically screwing IBM with the licensing. You can call that innovative, or their illegal bundling of OS and PC innovative, I sue don't.
they managed it, and business was so desperate for someone to get of their fat corporate arse and solve their newborn IT problem, that they loved everything microsoft did
I'm not sure love has a lot to do with it. I'd rather say vendor lock-in.
The reason that Microsoft is so successful is in no small part to their innovations
Is it ? I thought it was due to abusing monopoly and IBM name.
Regardless of whether or not they created the ideas, by far the most difficult part is putting them into practice
But the difficult part you talk about is no innovation.
This feat alone is a major innovation of the industry. An even greater feat is putting them into practice in large quantities
Feats are no innovation.
they have had success stories such as Direct-X too. Of course, the merits of Direct-X are continually questioned by OpenGL fans, but there is no doubt that creating a standard is innovative
But DirectX is not a standard, whereas OGL is. So OGL is the innovation here, not Direct3D (or DirectX). And OGL has far more merits, being used in most of the consoles out there too. Perhaps that's why DX merits are questioned : it's not even multiplatform !
Well technically I would agree that MS plays catch-up most of the time. They are always innovating the way they do business, and in turn setting a standard so to speak for commercial software
What BS ! Using illegal business practices, to the point of make you convicted of abusing your monopoly, is surely not an innovation, as the law already exits for it, so it has been done before. Using and screwing a big name like IBM is nothing innovative either, even in business.
Two examples of how they have changed certain markets in the recent years would be.NET and Xbox Live. They may not be innovating on their flagship stuff i.e. Windows, Office, but they move forward in other areas
What nonsense again ! C# was not even their invention, and.NET is just a library around it, which is a pure copy of the Java innovation. As for XBox Live, it's a copy of what you find on PCs (and was done before on consoles too). It's also no innovation, even on PCs. So please...
The only reason we have to buy Chinese instead of European and American goods is that their goods do not have the environmental costs included. They pollute as much as they want dumping toxic chemicals into their rivers which end up in the ocean which we all use. Same for the atmosphere
Excuse me ? I agree with everything you said, except that. If the environmental cost was added, that's american products we wouldn't buy at all. The toxics you talk about come from industrial country like the USA for the most part (like all these computer monitors people dump) and from Europe too. As for the atmosphere, the USA are still the worst country to pollute it, so be a little more moderate about it, please. I think I don't need to remind you of the country that didn't sign the Kyoto treaty.
Frankly, f*** carbon. Put excise duty on environmental damage for all goods
But remember carbon is one of them.
The price of the good must include its full recycling cost and damage cost to the environment when producing it. This should be the case regardless of where it is produced. The Earth is not that big, so mercury, cadmium and lead dumped into the Yantze will end up in the tuna on our dinner table in less then 5 years
Transgenic vegetables from the USA already try to make their way on our dinner table, don't think in any way it's a better thing. You seem to loathe China for environment, but don't make the mistake to believe that USA is not the worst offender in that matter... at least for now.
For a start, it is by no means certain that GPL 3 stops this kind of deal (and it would have to be proven)
It will specifically address these kind of deals, by the FSF attorney's own mouth. We're just waiting for it to be written.
and secondly, all the contributors to GCC and other software may just fork it and remain on GPL 2
You're living on denial now ? So you really believe all the contributors, most of them screwed by this deal, will stay GPLv2 to stay screwed ? Wow, you really think FOSS community are some kind of idiots, don't you ?
The FSF may have copyright on the software, but that software is nothing without many contributors from IBM, Novell, Red Hat and other places
You got to be kidding ! Drop the narrow vision, and try the other way : the Linux distros from IBM, Novell, Red Hat and other places are nothing without the GNU software ! And rest assured at least RH contributors won't work for Novell for free, then to be screwed. But I forgot : you think they are idiots !
FSF's plans for GPL3 have been pretty controversial in some says, and Novell might not be the only ones who end up saying they don't want it
Not a problem, once every GNU software goes GPLv3, they won't need Novell to do the same, mark my word.
Who says the GPL2 releases of userland tools will freeze?
Every people that know about them and works with them. A fork on these would be a HUGE painful task.
This is Free Software, people, and anyone can maintain it, including a multimillion dollar company and all the other people who don't like GPL3. All of FSF's software may be headed for a fork
I think you don't have any idea of the task at hand. Anyway, a fork is not a bad thing. But if you really believe that all the people out of the MS-Novell deal will contribute to software with a license (GPLv2) that will only help Novell, with risk of a lawsuit as a reward, you're again in for a very rude awakening. I bet all these GPLv2 sofware will go GPLv3 quick, so that it doesn't happen !
I don't see how the GPL v3 can force a certain behaviour on MS
That's because it can't.
Novell is not giving their customers any rights beyond those Novell or anybody else has. If there is a valid MS patent, suddenly nobody has the right to distribute or use the code. THe only thing special is MS promised not to sue Novell cutomers
Mmmh no ! Nobody has the right to distribute or use the code IF MS says so. The problem is that if most of the base OS becomes GPLv3, and Novell uses it, it will pass any patent related agreement (like "promise not to sue") to every FOSS users of the software that has the problem. This would break their contract, or prevent them from using the GPLv3 software. As most of the code in a distro like Suse comes from outside, they're in for a rude awakening then.
But is Novell the only distro that will be stuck with the old GPL2 versions of relicensed GPL3 software?
Yes
http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/01/25/ 2135222 [slashdot.org] mentioned that there are possible incompatibilities between the DFSF and GPL3. Have they been resolved?
Before asking if they are resolved, you should ask "do they exist ?". Seems to me it's the first step. There's no point of asking if a non-existant incompatibility is resolved, is there ?
For example, whatif you can run some direct x applications almost natively on SUSE because of what Microsoft has done? Now lets say that MCSE also has a subcomponent for SUSE support? As a CIO or a semi-retarded Mid level manager, would you choose a linux that "works well with windows" or a linux that doesnt
Where exactly did you see a CIO or semi-retarded mid level manager that could say an OS "works well with Windows" because you can run Direct X applications (mostly entertainment apps) on it ?! Even if it existed, there is absolutely NO incentive to buy a Linux distro to basically run Windows applications. Windows would be chosen in this case, not SUSE.
There is nothing wrong with the FOSS community, however there are a small number of very vocal people who are total assholes towards people new to things such as Linux
I think the problem as you say it is far from the reality. I have this strong belief, you know, for which I've yet to find an exception : when asking for help, people get their behaviour reflected back to them. I've done some help before, I also searched for help in a lot of occasions. I never saw these behaviours for myself. But I saw these for lots of people that were assholes themselves. Sometimes I didn't understand why some people were getting assaulted as soon as they asked for sth, before others tell me to be cautious, as this was a known troll/asshole. So now, as soon as someone talks about people in help forums being assholes, I have this instinctive feeling that the author himself is one of those.
There are a small number of groups within the FOSS community who give it a bad name, however this is the same with most communities IMHO
Wrong and wrong. I, for one, know that I would NEVER give a bad name to a community because I fell on one or two bad apples. I would say that there are one or two bad people, that's all. People that do that obviously want to trash talk this community. People that give the community a bad name are those people, not even the one or two bad apples I talked about. So stop trying to reverse the blame. If I were a new user, YOU would be the one that gave this community a bad name.
Ubuntu are doing a lot of good not just with their decent distribution but with a positive and helpful community as well. Infact this is probably the best thing about Ubuntu
See ? You're basically implying that gentoo has a negative and unhelpful community, again.
You know what the funny thing is? That people are stuck on assuming a Bazaar model, and Bazaar methodologies [...] when basically it doesn't work like that any more
You know what the funny thing is ? It still works like that nowadays, and you are on a crusade to destroy that view. Not that it will do any harm, but I wonder what is your agenda.
The bazaar model still worked when the pinnacle of software complexity were "cat" and "vi". That's it
And yet, lots of projects like X11 implementations, Utopia, most freedesktop.org projects, most basic toolchains, Gnome and KDE works like that...
It stopped working almost completely when complexity meant Open Office Org
Here comes the wrong example : OOo never was Bazaar style developed to begin with, and Sun makes all it can so that it doesn't. Like I said, it still works for things like KOffice and Gnome Office.
The Asperger's Syndrome kind of coder (and I'm one, so I can make fun of myself if I want to) which finds more joy in coding something cool instead of going out and flirting with a girl
Stop the BS please. What is an Asperger's Syndrome kind of coder BTW ? An Asperger's Syndrome person would never "make fun of" himself, he would'nt know how, and this wouldn't have any purpose in his mind. You're far from what you say you are.
also has a very narrow focus of attention and gets bored easily when he must deal with stuff either (A) outside that focus, or (B) which is basically homework instead of getting to the cool stuff
BS again. An Asperger's Syndrome don't get bored at what he does, he just find it completed or not.
Spending weeks understanding someone else's framework and code before you can even start on your cute "number paragraphs in Klingon" idea, is boring, and it's even more boring to understand and test all dependencies so you don't break something else
What do you mean ? What is the connection with Asperger's Syndrome kind of coder ? Do you mean all FOSS people are these kind of people ? It's well hidden, but that's the worst troll I ever read: - So all the projects are like that ? - Why would you spend weeks understanding someone else's framework ? - How do you know nobody enjoys that ? - What is this nonsense about testing dependancies to not break something else ? (that must be the worst nonsense in all your sentence) And finally, how can someone put so much red herring, straw men and unfounded facts in one sentence ?
So today in F/OSS the only ones making any progress nowadays are, sad to say, the Cathedrals
How did you come to this conclusion exactly ? Why is this sad ? Are you here to find out if the Cathedral is better than the Bazaar ?
Yes, everyone likes to use the Linux kernel and such as an example of why the Bazaar is strong, but have a look at the actual contributors some day. It's _not_ bored nerds like you and me working in their free time. Most of them are paid employees of Red Hat, IBM, etc.
What ? Did you expect all these brilliant people to remain unemployed or what ? Did you actually believe people contributing to a kernel were mostly not working in IT ? Did you think most of RH was marketing ? Who even told you that contributors to the Linux kernel were "bored nerds" ? Again, how can someone put so much straw men and red herring in so little space ? What tells you most RH devs don't work in a bazaar style too ? One would think you assume company == Cathedral.
Linux as the work of bored nerds in their free time was a security shithole until Red Hat spent some real money doing a code and security review. And it was a joke in the enterprise arena until IBM started pumping some real money and formerly Cathedral-developped closed-source code into it. There's a reason why IBM looked like a believable target to SCO, and that's the sheer quantity of Aix code that IBM donated
As bad an idea as I think this MS / Novell deal is, statements like that really make GPLv3 look more like a political statement than a viable, useful license. It may make people feel good to put things like this in there but it doesn't change the fact that it's still a highly complex and restrictive license
What you say doesn't make sense. There's a license, someone try to circumvent it and it's not clear if the license can prevent it. Now, they add some text in the license so that it's sure it could not be circumvented by this method, and by some magic, you see a political statement in this ? That would just be a fix for a hole in the license, which is basically the goal of GPLv3 compared to GPLv2. You rather seem like the one that put strawmen to say the fixes are political statements, and you're not alone.
Then, having given all the big enterprise Linux users a reason to switch over to those distros, Microsoft starts publishing software for those distros specifically, keeping it all closed of course
Where is the problem exactly ? Especially since you can install these binaries in any Linux distros, just by creating a custom package. Just like some distros did for firefox binaries. This doesn't make the OS closed at all.
Finally, after a few years, Linux has become a platform for proprietary products...and is no longer a threat to Microsoft
Why is it not a threat anymore ? It runs lots of proprietary products and all the FOSS products, and yet, you magically believe that it would no longer be a threat ? It would be a far greater threat on the contrary : that's exactly what some company deny us now, and what people are asking for.
By ensuring that only major Linux vendors are in on it, Microsoft helps sideline other FOSS projects, killing the culture of openness and freedom and limiting choice
Which is BS. I fail to see how what you say ensure anything. Oracle was available on RH only, it didn't sideline any FOSS database project at all, Oracle even had to buy some afterwards !! It didn't kill culture of openness and freedom either. That's complete wishful thinking on your part, that goes contrary to factual evidence.
Notice that no overtures have been made for non-commercial distros or distros that are popular among home users: Microsoft is not threatened by them. It's about the server market, and about Microsoft's continuing inability to maintain more than a 30% market share
But MS has no valuable patent on the server side where it matters for Linux OS. So what you're saying seems like nonsense to me.
Let me get this straight, essentially Microsoft has successfully divided the Linux community in twain by making some sort of psuedo-deal with Novell
Actually, they haven't divided anything. Unless you believe Novell is even part of the "Linux community", or that their part is significant, or that big corporate buyers are part of the Linux community. None of this is true though. This split is wishful thinking from FUDders.
The "alternative to Microsoft" community is divided
Again it's not. It's no more divided than before the deal. You think it's divided, because you think Linux-MS shops are part of the "Linux community". I doubt most of them contribute a lot to FOSS though. I don't see anyone divided, what I see is lots of people that fear for Novell : they're basically toast once GPLv3 is out. Or you actually believe they will succeed in maintaining a fork of the GNU toolchain and libraries ?
I think you guys overestimate the people who care about this sort of thing. It's really sad that they don't, but the simple fact is that they don't
I disagree ! Divx and a lot of other similar technologies failed precisely because of restrictions like that. Most people may not know what exactly is the problem, thus don't care, but they sure enough care about the end result.
Here's an example: I know of a lot of people who were screwed when they bought music at iTMS and didn't own an iPod, they owned an MP3 player. They could only listen to the music on their computer or burn a CD.[...] So they get annoyed, but all that happens is they figure out what format their player plays and buy that. Problem solved, in their minds
Which, for DRM, means they'll seek non DRM media : so DRM fail. Even by your example, DRM is bound to fail. And your example clearly shows that they cared ! They may be clueless about it, but they still cared.
Why on earth would they need to "set it free" when their player will play it? Why waste time and resources taking that extra step?
Almost all of the money made by open source has been made by exploiting open source
Which is the goal of open source, which shows you can make money with open source,...
Yes most of the internet runs on OSS. But how many of the billions if not trillions of dollars has made it back to the pockets of the developers of the big parts like Apache?
Why this money should make it back to their pockets ? Did they ask for it ? They can make a company like any other one out there, that makes money exploiting their server. But Apache is a foundation. So your question doesn't make sense. FOSS is not sth you can talk about like it is an individual. M. Shuttleworth is an example that show another picture. Why do you even expect a few individuals to rake in the profits like they were several companies ? Because the billions/trillions you talk about were not made by some individuals, but by all the market selling Apache related services.
I would guess not much since even Apache has a 'donations' link on their site
Apache is not a public company that makes money, but a software foundation. Can't you make a difference ?
As for the anti-trust issue, it's because MSFT is doing things that are AGAINST THE INTERESTS OF THE CUSTOMERS all in a guise to raise their vendor lockin (through no valid technical need) to raise profits. Prosecuting anti-trust violators is about giving the customers freedom of choice, so they can decide how to invest their money. e,g, sure I'll run Windows, but I'd rather use Lotus, not Excel, etc, etc....
How so? The customers have about 20 different developers for spreadsheets, word processors, databases, browsers, etc. All my customers use Microsoft because the software is easy to use and is stable enough for their purposes
You're such a funny guy ! So all your customers use MS because the software is easy to use and yet, they have 20 different developers for spreadsheets, word processors, database,s, browsers,... ? Even worse : Did Microsoft promote vendor-lockin? I can say surely they did. So what? and My business has a vendor lockin process, too.
Such a funny guy. So why do you and MS have a vendor lockin process if your customer use MS because it's easy to use and stable enough ? Do you mean the alternatives are easier to use and more stable ?
In fact, we haven't had one service call for thousands of desktops for a Microsoft add-on application in about 2 years, other than installation. We have repeated calls for OpenOffice mostly because of memory problems and a reboot is enough to cure it
Now I don't understand, all your customer use MS because it's easy to use and stable enough and yet, they use OOo that causes problems ? Something doesn't compute here.
The basis of the anti-trust lawsuits or threats is unfounded
You're so confused you couldn't know if it were founded (which it is).
You don't have to buy from vendors that are "locked in."
Riiight. So you expect joe user to build its white box, that's what you think ? The rest is so clueless that it's a waste of time commenting it.
Think about it - if Microsoft doesn't market Windows et. al. in the EU, the EU has no standing to impose fines on Microsoft
Of course they have. The fines are not for future behaviour, but for current ones.
European customers will be obliged to purchase Microsoft products in the USA and to find a way to get their shiny new copies of Vista home (as I've never heard of a way to force a company to do business in a given geographic region)
And EU won't do that. Very few companies and people in the EU will cope with an OS that is not in their native language. That also means no more preinstalled Windows on any computer in the EU : MS is toast then.
The EU will be forced be economic pressure to either 1) cave in to Microsoft, or 2) subsidize the vast number of businesses in Europe which will have to endure the nightmare of migrating their enterprises off of Windows onto some other solution
BS !! The EU court doesn't have to cave to anything. That you can't get Windows is not their problem at all. And the EU is not even responsible for which OS businesses use or any of the software they use. So they don't have to subsidize anything. The only responsible for this would be MS, not the EU. Business have a contract with MS, not with the EU. I don't know by which logic you came to these bogus conclusions.
Even if the EU were more economically powerful than it is, I doubt that it could afford option #2, especially once the US government catches wind of things and slaps an export tax on it (which you know they would)
As your options don't make sense, this doesn't either.
Of course, they could start running their businesses using OLPC laptops! That'd show those bullies at Redmond who's boss!
And why not use normal laptops and desktops !? Try to get a grasp of reality first : you're mixing comic wishful thinking with reality.
On the other hand, a lot of casual gamers that I talk to don't seem too interested in the Wii. [...] They seem to think "wii is teh ghey" and be really focused on the PS3. Of course, this still works out well for Nintendo and badly for Sony, since it's the hardcore gamers who will fork over merry bundles of cash for games - while casual gamers will be averse to the idea of spending more than a couple hundred to play the newest football game
I have a hard time believing that the casual gamers that don't want to spend more than a couple hundred to play the newest football game will fork 600+ for the console itself. I'd rather believe they will take the less expensive console for that. And Winning Eleven (Pro Evolution Soccer) has high chances of landing on the Wii (as it's on the DS).
In fact, I'll even go ahead and say that anyone whose great feat was compiling some 3rd party program, probably isn't really a programmer to start with. There are a ton of people who just like to pretend they're oh-so l33t because they can run someone else's build script. Maybe they even configured (through the nice supplied GUI) and compiled (by running the commands supplied in the readme) a _kernel_. Wow, that makes them sooo great computing gurus. Not. That's to programming what script-kiddies are to real security experts. A sad joke
But unfortunately, what you say is far from reality. The reality is that people who compile apps or compile kernels do not say they are great feats. That's rather people like the GP that says they are great incredible feats that no ordinary users could do, that only gurus could do. Basically, the kind of people you agree with are the ones that say these are great feats, not those that do them. Thos that do it are so convince it's simple that they encourage other common people to do it too. So you're completely wrong on all these points, and the people you agre with contradict your stand.
In the end what I'm saying is that what I want from a computer is no different from what Jack Random and Jane Average want. I want it to just work. Whatever I choose to do with it, whether it's programming my own toy app or watching a DVD or playing a game, I _don't_ want to compile the IDE/media-player/game/whatever first, and that goes double for pointless track-the-dependencies games. If I chose to do X tonight, then anything else that gets in between me and X (like having to first compile some other stuff) is just a waste of my time
Exactly. Now, you have a pretty narrow view of the subject. So I will take a little very simple and evident example for you to grasp. If the something that gets between me and doing X is a bug in a program, then you have a big waste of time on your hand. Now, if you have FOSS and the knowledge to make it work, it is in no way a waste of time, but an investment, even more when you send the fix upstream. People that try to say bad things about the ability to debug/compile programs generally think like every program they use works like a dream, have all the features they need and has zero bugs. If that were true, people would never upgrade. Fact is no software is like that, and so, your example is plain stupid. There are actually even advantages to compile FOSS programs yourself. One of the most evident one, is the ability to tailor the software for your case. That's why, for example, a program like MPlayer can be so efficient because you can tailor it for, say, run on OLPC, or run on a multicore CPU. And that's true for most of FOSS apps.
Really? All I have to do is re-compile? Assuming I have the proper kernel to begin with, and the proper libraries, along with all their dependencies
Actually, what he says is wrong. All you have to do is have the legacy dependancies, which is what some distro actually did : they furnished legacy compatibility libraries for old closed source apps. So don't get high like that : he was wrong.
I just want to run a program man, I don't want to become a programmer just to use my computer. (90% of office workers speaking, I.T. specific roles excluded)
Two news flash : you don't have to, and office workers don't install their apps.
But Joe CEO and Jack employee can click next all day but the moment he has to type./configure or./make or whatever, his eyes will glaze over and he'd rather spend a million dollars on a setup wizard app than have to go to school just to learn how to install a free app. Not to mention the fact that 6 times out of 10, you'll get an error and have to track down what went wrong and fix something before you can attempt to compile again
All of this is BS, as you don't have to do that, and Joe CEO and Jack employee just don't install their app, be it through "Next" or "./configure". So stop the BS.
Compiling source to a binary IS complex stuff despite what any mainstream Linux supporters might think. And having to re-compile something EVER, WILL keep it from being accepted main stream
Fortunately, no one has to do that. Even Gentoo users don't have to do that : it's all embedded in a frontend.
I've even heard people say "well all ya gotta do is just make your own kernel and there ya go, piece of cake". As easy as that might sound for the Linux guru, that is exactly equal to telling a driver to build their own car. Plenty of mechanics out there that can do it, yes, but EVERYONE isn't a mechanic nor should they be. People who build their own kernels and compile software are the mechanics of the computer world and shouldn't expect all computer users to be mechanics.
That's because you're completely out of context here. People don't say that to newbies, but to people that want to go the next level of expertise, and have their kernel faster than the stock one. Like someone that want to add power to his car engine. He will have to do it himself or pay for someone to do it for him. His engine then won't be the stock one that everyone has.
I for one do not ever want my bosses to be as 'smart' as us I.T. guys are. Why then would they have any use for me if THEY know how to compile a kernel? If the world was so enlightened as some people seem to want it to be, then a lot of people would be without jobs because their skills wouldn't be needed
BS again. Even if your boss knew, that doesn't mean he wants to do it. You would still have your job. Most people know how to clean their room, wash their garments,... And yet, some companies propose this very service, and they still have lots of clients.
I wouldn't DREAM of putting Linux on our desktops. Are you crazy?! Will YOU then be the one who baby sit every soccer mom who comes to work for us and teach them how to use it for free?
You don't have to do that either... nor have to do it for free.
If products could be packaged such that they get compiled during install, but in the background with the user being none the wiser, then it might fly. Like say your installer went out and did all the work on its own of gathering the required libraries while the user only ever saw a wizard with a next button
Can you explain the precise mechanism of this Unix binary backwards compatibility you're talking about?
Can you explain the one in Windows ?
I work with Linux every day and have since 1998. I'm pretty sure if I grabbed a version of, say, Postgresql from those days and tried to launch it now, it wouldn't work, nor would it even compile
What was your point exactly ? The latest version of Postgresql will work just fine with your old database of 1998. So this is a pretty stupid example. The old Postgresql woudl also have far more bugs, far more security problems,... Talking about app backwards compatibility for what are basically servers, is plain stupid. As long as the protocol doesn't change, you have no reason to launch an old version. I'm not sure an old Apache version would compile either, but my web site will work just better on the latest version.
Same with any gui desktop app or driver. I haven't worked a lot with AIX or HP-UX since the '90s, but I'd be pretty surprised if a CDE app from 10 years ago just fired up without any problems
That's because you don't know what you are talking about. Backward compatibility on Linux is in fact excellent. Lesstif compiles just fine on the latest Linux OS available, and that's what CDE will use, and it will work just fine too, without ANY problem. It will actually work better than with older versions of Lesstif. Very old apps will work just fine with the latest libX11 too (except if you use XCB).
Not possible - no one supports that old version. If there are any important fixes (not just security, anything) they are always for the latest version. Open source people don't bother supporting older versions...;-)
This is pure BS. Older versions are supported where it makes sense, for example the Linux kernel. Even the Gnome 1.x framework was supported for a long time (perhaps it still is). In GD, where later versions are fixes and improvements, this makes no sense. In most FOSS libs, this is the same and makes no sense. Only keeping the latest major versions is enough on Linux. If what you say is true about GD, it's a bug, and the author will fix it. But I'd bet you use it on Windows, and there's a big fat warning about gd 2.0.24 (and higher) right there on the main page which says you have to recompile your apps on Windows for them to work. Note that this is a Windows only problem. You rather sound like someone who tried hard to find a fallacious problem with old minor versions.
Slashdot Mirror
Or you are a little kid, or you have some carpal tunnel, or you have some arthritis, or you just generally have some trouble with gripping/coordination and haven't gotten used yet to moving your hand/arm around in the fashion encouraged by the Wiimote
...
Except that none of these people you cited can throw the wiimote with enough force to break anything, especially the wrist-strap.
Especially thoses people (except kids) would have educated themselves to move efficiently to bypass their handicap.
Despite what you want to claim, I still see only morons (or kids under 8) that would throw their wiimote as hard as they can towards the TV set.
For the strap, a reasonnable other possibility I see, is that USA having been served first, there was a defect in the first straps which they got.
Why is that just because one person doesn't have a particular issue, that means that anyone who does have the issue is either dumb or "doing something pretty stupid?"
Perhaps because it's true
Now, people are warned officially. So if you see someone breaking his TV set again, then I can see 2 main reasons :
- He's really a moron
- The Wii is so immersive you forget everything else, which would be an amazing feat
But they innovated in one critical way. When the Unix wars were in full swing, they came up with a remarkable new business model that utterly crushed all competition and set them as the worlds main desktop and office OS
Excuse me ?
Using IBM's name and money to build an OS where there were none before, for brand new standard of compatible personal computers that didn't exist before, is not exactly innovation. The innovation was from IBM then : the IBM PC. Their business model was basically screwing IBM with the licensing. You can call that innovative, or their illegal bundling of OS and PC innovative, I sue don't.
they managed it, and business was so desperate for someone to get of their fat corporate arse and solve their newborn IT problem, that they loved everything microsoft did
I'm not sure love has a lot to do with it. I'd rather say vendor lock-in.
The reason that Microsoft is so successful is in no small part to their innovations
Is it ? I thought it was due to abusing monopoly and IBM name.
Regardless of whether or not they created the ideas, by far the most difficult part is putting them into practice
But the difficult part you talk about is no innovation.
This feat alone is a major innovation of the industry. An even greater feat is putting them into practice in large quantities
Feats are no innovation.
they have had success stories such as Direct-X too. Of course, the merits of Direct-X are continually questioned by OpenGL fans, but there is no doubt that creating a standard is innovative
But DirectX is not a standard, whereas OGL is. So OGL is the innovation here, not Direct3D (or DirectX).
And OGL has far more merits, being used in most of the consoles out there too. Perhaps that's why DX merits are questioned : it's not even multiplatform !
Well technically I would agree that MS plays catch-up most of the time. They are always innovating the way they do business, and in turn setting a standard so to speak for commercial software
.NET and Xbox Live. They may not be innovating on their flagship stuff i.e. Windows, Office, but they move forward in other areas
.NET is just a library around it, which is a pure copy of the Java innovation. ...
What BS ! Using illegal business practices, to the point of make you convicted of abusing your monopoly, is surely not an innovation, as the law already exits for it, so it has been done before. Using and screwing a big name like IBM is nothing innovative either, even in business.
Two examples of how they have changed certain markets in the recent years would be
What nonsense again !
C# was not even their invention, and
As for XBox Live, it's a copy of what you find on PCs (and was done before on consoles too). It's also no innovation, even on PCs.
So please
This scheme would not penalise the poor as carbon taxes might because they would be able to sell off their surplus rations
You got to be kidding.
Rations without big control (like in the army) means higher criminality most of the time, related to the goods rationed.
The only reason we have to buy Chinese instead of European and American goods is that their goods do not have the environmental costs included. They pollute as much as they want dumping toxic chemicals into their rivers which end up in the ocean which we all use. Same for the atmosphere
... at least for now.
Excuse me ?
I agree with everything you said, except that.
If the environmental cost was added, that's american products we wouldn't buy at all.
The toxics you talk about come from industrial country like the USA for the most part (like all these computer monitors people dump) and from Europe too.
As for the atmosphere, the USA are still the worst country to pollute it, so be a little more moderate about it, please.
I think I don't need to remind you of the country that didn't sign the Kyoto treaty.
Frankly, f*** carbon. Put excise duty on environmental damage for all goods
But remember carbon is one of them.
The price of the good must include its full recycling cost and damage cost to the environment when producing it. This should be the case regardless of where it is produced. The Earth is not that big, so mercury, cadmium and lead dumped into the Yantze will end up in the tuna on our dinner table in less then 5 years
Transgenic vegetables from the USA already try to make their way on our dinner table, don't think in any way it's a better thing.
You seem to loathe China for environment, but don't make the mistake to believe that USA is not the worst offender in that matter
For a start, it is by no means certain that GPL 3 stops this kind of deal (and it would have to be proven)
It will specifically address these kind of deals, by the FSF attorney's own mouth.
We're just waiting for it to be written.
and secondly, all the contributors to GCC and other software may just fork it and remain on GPL 2
You're living on denial now ? So you really believe all the contributors, most of them screwed by this deal, will stay GPLv2 to stay screwed ?
Wow, you really think FOSS community are some kind of idiots, don't you ?
The FSF may have copyright on the software, but that software is nothing without many contributors from IBM, Novell, Red Hat and other places
You got to be kidding !
Drop the narrow vision, and try the other way : the Linux distros from IBM, Novell, Red Hat and other places are nothing without the GNU software !
And rest assured at least RH contributors won't work for Novell for free, then to be screwed.
But I forgot : you think they are idiots !
FSF's plans for GPL3 have been pretty controversial in some says, and Novell might not be the only ones who end up saying they don't want it
Not a problem, once every GNU software goes GPLv3, they won't need Novell to do the same, mark my word.
Who says the GPL2 releases of userland tools will freeze?
Every people that know about them and works with them. A fork on these would be a HUGE painful task.
This is Free Software, people, and anyone can maintain it, including a multimillion dollar company and all the other people who don't like GPL3. All of FSF's software may be headed for a fork
I think you don't have any idea of the task at hand. Anyway, a fork is not a bad thing.
But if you really believe that all the people out of the MS-Novell deal will contribute to software with a license (GPLv2) that will only help Novell, with risk of a lawsuit as a reward, you're again in for a very rude awakening. I bet all these GPLv2 sofware will go GPLv3 quick, so that it doesn't happen !
I don't see how the GPL v3 can force a certain behaviour on MS
That's because it can't.
Novell is not giving their customers any rights beyond those Novell or anybody else has. If there is a valid MS patent, suddenly nobody has the right to distribute or use the code.
THe only thing special is MS promised not to sue Novell cutomers
Mmmh no !
Nobody has the right to distribute or use the code IF MS says so.
The problem is that if most of the base OS becomes GPLv3, and Novell uses it, it will pass any patent related agreement (like "promise not to sue") to every FOSS users of the software that has the problem. This would break their contract, or prevent them from using the GPLv3 software.
As most of the code in a distro like Suse comes from outside, they're in for a rude awakening then.
But is Novell the only distro that will be stuck with the old GPL2 versions of relicensed GPL3 software?
/ 2135222 [slashdot.org] mentioned that there are possible incompatibilities between the DFSF and GPL3. Have they been resolved?
Yes
http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/01/25
Before asking if they are resolved, you should ask "do they exist ?". Seems to me it's the first step.
There's no point of asking if a non-existant incompatibility is resolved, is there ?
For example, whatif you can run some direct x applications almost natively on SUSE because of what Microsoft has done? Now lets say that MCSE also has a subcomponent for SUSE support? As a CIO or a semi-retarded Mid level manager, would you choose a linux that "works well with windows" or a linux that doesnt
Where exactly did you see a CIO or semi-retarded mid level manager that could say an OS "works well with Windows" because you can run Direct X applications (mostly entertainment apps) on it ?!
Even if it existed, there is absolutely NO incentive to buy a Linux distro to basically run Windows applications. Windows would be chosen in this case, not SUSE.
There is nothing wrong with the FOSS community, however there are a small number of very vocal people who are total assholes towards people new to things such as Linux
I think the problem as you say it is far from the reality.
I have this strong belief, you know, for which I've yet to find an exception : when asking for help, people get their behaviour reflected back to them.
I've done some help before, I also searched for help in a lot of occasions. I never saw these behaviours for myself.
But I saw these for lots of people that were assholes themselves. Sometimes I didn't understand why some people were getting assaulted as soon as they asked for sth, before others tell me to be cautious, as this was a known troll/asshole.
So now, as soon as someone talks about people in help forums being assholes, I have this instinctive feeling that the author himself is one of those.
There are a small number of groups within the FOSS community who give it a bad name, however this is the same with most communities IMHO
Wrong and wrong.
I, for one, know that I would NEVER give a bad name to a community because I fell on one or two bad apples. I would say that there are one or two bad people, that's all.
People that do that obviously want to trash talk this community. People that give the community a bad name are those people, not even the one or two bad apples I talked about. So stop trying to reverse the blame.
If I were a new user, YOU would be the one that gave this community a bad name.
Ubuntu are doing a lot of good not just with their decent distribution but with a positive and helpful community as well. Infact this is probably the best thing about Ubuntu
See ? You're basically implying that gentoo has a negative and unhelpful community, again.
You know what the funny thing is? That people are stuck on assuming a Bazaar model, and Bazaar methodologies [...] when basically it doesn't work like that any more
...
:
You know what the funny thing is ? It still works like that nowadays, and you are on a crusade to destroy that view. Not that it will do any harm, but I wonder what is your agenda.
The bazaar model still worked when the pinnacle of software complexity were "cat" and "vi". That's it
And yet, lots of projects like X11 implementations, Utopia, most freedesktop.org projects, most basic toolchains, Gnome and KDE works like that
It stopped working almost completely when complexity meant Open Office Org
Here comes the wrong example : OOo never was Bazaar style developed to begin with, and Sun makes all it can so that it doesn't.
Like I said, it still works for things like KOffice and Gnome Office.
The Asperger's Syndrome kind of coder (and I'm one, so I can make fun of myself if I want to) which finds more joy in coding something cool instead of going out and flirting with a girl
Stop the BS please. What is an Asperger's Syndrome kind of coder BTW ?
An Asperger's Syndrome person would never "make fun of" himself, he would'nt know how, and this wouldn't have any purpose in his mind.
You're far from what you say you are.
also has a very narrow focus of attention and gets bored easily when he must deal with stuff either (A) outside that focus, or (B) which is basically homework instead of getting to the cool stuff
BS again. An Asperger's Syndrome don't get bored at what he does, he just find it completed or not.
Spending weeks understanding someone else's framework and code before you can even start on your cute "number paragraphs in Klingon" idea, is boring, and it's even more boring to understand and test all dependencies so you don't break something else
What do you mean ? What is the connection with Asperger's Syndrome kind of coder ? Do you mean all FOSS people are these kind of people ?
It's well hidden, but that's the worst troll I ever read
- So all the projects are like that ?
- Why would you spend weeks understanding someone else's framework ?
- How do you know nobody enjoys that ?
- What is this nonsense about testing dependancies to not break something else ? (that must be the worst nonsense in all your sentence)
And finally, how can someone put so much red herring, straw men and unfounded facts in one sentence ?
So today in F/OSS the only ones making any progress nowadays are, sad to say, the Cathedrals
How did you come to this conclusion exactly ? Why is this sad ? Are you here to find out if the Cathedral is better than the Bazaar ?
Yes, everyone likes to use the Linux kernel and such as an example of why the Bazaar is strong, but have a look at the actual contributors some day. It's _not_ bored nerds like you and me working in their free time. Most of them are paid employees of Red Hat, IBM, etc.
What ? Did you expect all these brilliant people to remain unemployed or what ? Did you actually believe people contributing to a kernel were mostly not working in IT ?
Did you think most of RH was marketing ? Who even told you that contributors to the Linux kernel were "bored nerds" ?
Again, how can someone put so much straw men and red herring in so little space ?
What tells you most RH devs don't work in a bazaar style too ? One would think you assume company == Cathedral.
Linux as the work of bored nerds in their free time was a security shithole until Red Hat spent some real money doing a code and security review. And it was a joke in the enterprise arena until IBM started pumping some real money and formerly Cathedral-developped closed-source code into it. There's a reason why IBM looked like a believable target to SCO, and that's the sheer quantity of Aix code that IBM donated
You need some serious history check and
As bad an idea as I think this MS / Novell deal is, statements like that really make GPLv3 look more like a political statement than a viable, useful license. It may make people feel good to put things like this in there but it doesn't change the fact that it's still a highly complex and restrictive license
What you say doesn't make sense.
There's a license, someone try to circumvent it and it's not clear if the license can prevent it.
Now, they add some text in the license so that it's sure it could not be circumvented by this method, and by some magic, you see a political statement in this ?
That would just be a fix for a hole in the license, which is basically the goal of GPLv3 compared to GPLv2.
You rather seem like the one that put strawmen to say the fixes are political statements, and you're not alone.
Then, having given all the big enterprise Linux users a reason to switch over to those distros, Microsoft starts publishing software for those distros specifically, keeping it all closed of course
Where is the problem exactly ?
Especially since you can install these binaries in any Linux distros, just by creating a custom package. Just like some distros did for firefox binaries.
This doesn't make the OS closed at all.
Finally, after a few years, Linux has become a platform for proprietary products...and is no longer a threat to Microsoft
Why is it not a threat anymore ? It runs lots of proprietary products and all the FOSS products, and yet, you magically believe that it would no longer be a threat ?
It would be a far greater threat on the contrary : that's exactly what some company deny us now, and what people are asking for.
By ensuring that only major Linux vendors are in on it, Microsoft helps sideline other FOSS projects, killing the culture of openness and freedom and limiting choice
Which is BS. I fail to see how what you say ensure anything.
Oracle was available on RH only, it didn't sideline any FOSS database project at all, Oracle even had to buy some afterwards !!
It didn't kill culture of openness and freedom either. That's complete wishful thinking on your part, that goes contrary to factual evidence.
Notice that no overtures have been made for non-commercial distros or distros that are popular among home users: Microsoft is not threatened by them. It's about the server market, and about Microsoft's continuing inability to maintain more than a 30% market share
But MS has no valuable patent on the server side where it matters for Linux OS. So what you're saying seems like nonsense to me.
Let me get this straight, essentially Microsoft has successfully divided the Linux community in twain by making some sort of psuedo-deal with Novell
Actually, they haven't divided anything. Unless you believe Novell is even part of the "Linux community", or that their part is significant, or that big corporate buyers are part of the Linux community. None of this is true though.
This split is wishful thinking from FUDders.
The "alternative to Microsoft" community is divided
Again it's not. It's no more divided than before the deal.
You think it's divided, because you think Linux-MS shops are part of the "Linux community". I doubt most of them contribute a lot to FOSS though.
I don't see anyone divided, what I see is lots of people that fear for Novell : they're basically toast once GPLv3 is out.
Or you actually believe they will succeed in maintaining a fork of the GNU toolchain and libraries ?
I think you guys overestimate the people who care about this sort of thing. It's really sad that they don't, but the simple fact is that they don't
I disagree ! Divx and a lot of other similar technologies failed precisely because of restrictions like that.
Most people may not know what exactly is the problem, thus don't care, but they sure enough care about the end result.
Here's an example: I know of a lot of people who were screwed when they bought music at iTMS and didn't own an iPod, they owned an MP3 player. They could only listen to the music on their computer or burn a CD.[...] So they get annoyed, but all that happens is they figure out what format their player plays and buy that. Problem solved, in their minds
Which, for DRM, means they'll seek non DRM media : so DRM fail. Even by your example, DRM is bound to fail.
And your example clearly shows that they cared ! They may be clueless about it, but they still cared.
Why on earth would they need to "set it free" when their player will play it? Why waste time and resources taking that extra step?
But you just said their player won't play it !
Almost all of the money made by open source has been made by exploiting open source
...
Which is the goal of open source, which shows you can make money with open source,
Yes most of the internet runs on OSS. But how many of the billions if not trillions of dollars has made it back to the pockets of the developers of the big parts like Apache?
Why this money should make it back to their pockets ? Did they ask for it ?
They can make a company like any other one out there, that makes money exploiting their server.
But Apache is a foundation.
So your question doesn't make sense.
FOSS is not sth you can talk about like it is an individual. M. Shuttleworth is an example that show another picture.
Why do you even expect a few individuals to rake in the profits like they were several companies ? Because the billions/trillions you talk about were not made by some individuals, but by all the market selling Apache related services.
I would guess not much since even Apache has a 'donations' link on their site
Apache is not a public company that makes money, but a software foundation. Can't you make a difference ?
As for the anti-trust issue, it's because MSFT is doing things that are AGAINST THE INTERESTS OF THE CUSTOMERS all in a guise to raise their vendor lockin (through no valid technical need) to raise profits. Prosecuting anti-trust violators is about giving the customers freedom of choice, so they can decide how to invest their money. e,g, sure I'll run Windows, but I'd rather use Lotus, not Excel, etc, etc....
... ? Even worse :
How so? The customers have about 20 different developers for spreadsheets, word processors, databases, browsers, etc. All my customers use Microsoft because the software is easy to use and is stable enough for their purposes
You're such a funny guy ! So all your customers use MS because the software is easy to use and yet, they have 20 different developers for spreadsheets, word processors, database,s, browsers,
Did Microsoft promote vendor-lockin? I can say surely they did. So what? and My business has a vendor lockin process, too.
Such a funny guy. So why do you and MS have a vendor lockin process if your customer use MS because it's easy to use and stable enough ? Do you mean the alternatives are easier to use and more stable ?
In fact, we haven't had one service call for thousands of desktops for a Microsoft add-on application in about 2 years, other than installation. We have repeated calls for OpenOffice mostly because of memory problems and a reboot is enough to cure it
Now I don't understand, all your customer use MS because it's easy to use and stable enough and yet, they use OOo that causes problems ?
Something doesn't compute here.
The basis of the anti-trust lawsuits or threats is unfounded
You're so confused you couldn't know if it were founded (which it is).
You don't have to buy from vendors that are "locked in."
Riiight. So you expect joe user to build its white box, that's what you think ?
The rest is so clueless that it's a waste of time commenting it.
Think about it - if Microsoft doesn't market Windows et. al. in the EU, the EU has no standing to impose fines on Microsoft
Of course they have. The fines are not for future behaviour, but for current ones.
European customers will be obliged to purchase Microsoft products in the USA and to find a way to get their shiny new copies of Vista home (as I've never heard of a way to force a company to do business in a given geographic region)
And EU won't do that. Very few companies and people in the EU will cope with an OS that is not in their native language.
That also means no more preinstalled Windows on any computer in the EU : MS is toast then.
The EU will be forced be economic pressure to either 1) cave in to Microsoft, or 2) subsidize the vast number of businesses in Europe which will have to endure the nightmare of migrating their enterprises off of Windows onto some other solution
BS !! The EU court doesn't have to cave to anything. That you can't get Windows is not their problem at all. And the EU is not even responsible for which OS businesses use or any of the software they use. So they don't have to subsidize anything. The only responsible for this would be MS, not the EU. Business have a contract with MS, not with the EU. I don't know by which logic you came to these bogus conclusions.
Even if the EU were more economically powerful than it is, I doubt that it could afford option #2, especially once the US government catches wind of things and slaps an export tax on it (which you know they would)
As your options don't make sense, this doesn't either.
Of course, they could start running their businesses using OLPC laptops! That'd show those bullies at Redmond who's boss!
And why not use normal laptops and desktops !?
Try to get a grasp of reality first : you're mixing comic wishful thinking with reality.
On the other hand, a lot of casual gamers that I talk to don't seem too interested in the Wii. [...] They seem to think "wii is teh ghey" and be really focused on the PS3.
Of course, this still works out well for Nintendo and badly for Sony, since it's the hardcore gamers who will fork over merry bundles of cash for games - while casual gamers will be averse to the idea of spending more than a couple hundred to play the newest football game
I have a hard time believing that the casual gamers that don't want to spend more than a couple hundred to play the newest football game will fork 600+ for the console itself. I'd rather believe they will take the less expensive console for that. And Winning Eleven (Pro Evolution Soccer) has high chances of landing on the Wii (as it's on the DS).
In fact, I'll even go ahead and say that anyone whose great feat was compiling some 3rd party program, probably isn't really a programmer to start with. There are a ton of people who just like to pretend they're oh-so l33t because they can run someone else's build script. Maybe they even configured (through the nice supplied GUI) and compiled (by running the commands supplied in the readme) a _kernel_. Wow, that makes them sooo great computing gurus. Not. That's to programming what script-kiddies are to real security experts. A sad joke
But unfortunately, what you say is far from reality. The reality is that people who compile apps or compile kernels do not say they are great feats. That's rather people like the GP that says they are great incredible feats that no ordinary users could do, that only gurus could do. Basically, the kind of people you agree with are the ones that say these are great feats, not those that do them. Thos that do it are so convince it's simple that they encourage other common people to do it too. So you're completely wrong on all these points, and the people you agre with contradict your stand.
In the end what I'm saying is that what I want from a computer is no different from what Jack Random and Jane Average want. I want it to just work. Whatever I choose to do with it, whether it's programming my own toy app or watching a DVD or playing a game, I _don't_ want to compile the IDE/media-player/game/whatever first, and that goes double for pointless track-the-dependencies games. If I chose to do X tonight, then anything else that gets in between me and X (like having to first compile some other stuff) is just a waste of my time
Exactly. Now, you have a pretty narrow view of the subject. So I will take a little very simple and evident example for you to grasp.
If the something that gets between me and doing X is a bug in a program, then you have a big waste of time on your hand. Now, if you have FOSS and the knowledge to make it work, it is in no way a waste of time, but an investment, even more when you send the fix upstream.
People that try to say bad things about the ability to debug/compile programs generally think like every program they use works like a dream, have all the features they need and has zero bugs.
If that were true, people would never upgrade. Fact is no software is like that, and so, your example is plain stupid.
There are actually even advantages to compile FOSS programs yourself. One of the most evident one, is the ability to tailor the software for your case.
That's why, for example, a program like MPlayer can be so efficient because you can tailor it for, say, run on OLPC, or run on a multicore CPU. And that's true for most of FOSS apps.
Really? All I have to do is re-compile? Assuming I have the proper kernel to begin with, and the proper libraries, along with all their dependencies
./configure or ./make or whatever, his eyes will glaze over and he'd rather spend a million dollars on a setup wizard app than have to go to school just to learn how to install a free app. Not to mention the fact that 6 times out of 10, you'll get an error and have to track down what went wrong and fix something before you can attempt to compile again
... And yet, some companies propose this very service, and they still have lots of clients.
... nor have to do it for free.
Actually, what he says is wrong. All you have to do is have the legacy dependancies, which is what some distro actually did : they furnished legacy compatibility libraries for old closed source apps. So don't get high like that : he was wrong.
I just want to run a program man, I don't want to become a programmer just to use my computer. (90% of office workers speaking, I.T. specific roles excluded)
Two news flash : you don't have to, and office workers don't install their apps.
But Joe CEO and Jack employee can click next all day but the moment he has to type
All of this is BS, as you don't have to do that, and Joe CEO and Jack employee just don't install their app, be it through "Next" or "./configure". So stop the BS.
Compiling source to a binary IS complex stuff despite what any mainstream Linux supporters might think. And having to re-compile something EVER, WILL keep it from being accepted main stream
Fortunately, no one has to do that. Even Gentoo users don't have to do that : it's all embedded in a frontend.
I've even heard people say "well all ya gotta do is just make your own kernel and there ya go, piece of cake". As easy as that might sound for the Linux guru, that is exactly equal to telling a driver to build their own car. Plenty of mechanics out there that can do it, yes, but EVERYONE isn't a mechanic nor should they be. People who build their own kernels and compile software are the mechanics of the computer world and shouldn't expect all computer users to be mechanics.
That's because you're completely out of context here. People don't say that to newbies, but to people that want to go the next level of expertise, and have their kernel faster than the stock one. Like someone that want to add power to his car engine. He will have to do it himself or pay for someone to do it for him. His engine then won't be the stock one that everyone has.
I for one do not ever want my bosses to be as 'smart' as us I.T. guys are. Why then would they have any use for me if THEY know how to compile a kernel? If the world was so enlightened as some people seem to want it to be, then a lot of people would be without jobs because their skills wouldn't be needed
BS again. Even if your boss knew, that doesn't mean he wants to do it. You would still have your job. Most people know how to clean their room, wash their garments,
I wouldn't DREAM of putting Linux on our desktops. Are you crazy?! Will YOU then be the one who baby sit every soccer mom who comes to work for us and teach them how to use it for free?
You don't have to do that either
If products could be packaged such that they get compiled during install, but in the background with the user being none the wiser, then it might fly. Like say your installer went out and did all the work on its own of gathering the required libraries while the user only ever saw a wizard with a next button
Gentoo sort of does that, XFCE did that.
Can you explain the precise mechanism of this Unix binary backwards compatibility you're talking about?
...
Can you explain the one in Windows ?
I work with Linux every day and have since 1998. I'm pretty sure if I grabbed a version of, say, Postgresql from those days and tried to launch it now, it wouldn't work, nor would it even compile
What was your point exactly ? The latest version of Postgresql will work just fine with your old database of 1998. So this is a pretty stupid example.
The old Postgresql woudl also have far more bugs, far more security problems,
Talking about app backwards compatibility for what are basically servers, is plain stupid. As long as the protocol doesn't change, you have no reason to launch an old version. I'm not sure an old Apache version would compile either, but my web site will work just better on the latest version.
Same with any gui desktop app or driver. I haven't worked a lot with AIX or HP-UX since the '90s, but I'd be pretty surprised if a CDE app from 10 years ago just fired up without any problems
That's because you don't know what you are talking about. Backward compatibility on Linux is in fact excellent.
Lesstif compiles just fine on the latest Linux OS available, and that's what CDE will use, and it will work just fine too, without ANY problem.
It will actually work better than with older versions of Lesstif. Very old apps will work just fine with the latest libX11 too (except if you use XCB).
Not possible - no one supports that old version. If there are any important fixes (not just security, anything) they are always for the latest version. Open source people don't bother supporting older versions... ;-)
This is pure BS. Older versions are supported where it makes sense, for example the Linux kernel. Even the Gnome 1.x framework was supported for a long time (perhaps it still is). In GD, where later versions are fixes and improvements, this makes no sense. In most FOSS libs, this is the same and makes no sense.
Only keeping the latest major versions is enough on Linux.
If what you say is true about GD, it's a bug, and the author will fix it. But I'd bet you use it on Windows, and there's a big fat warning about gd 2.0.24 (and higher) right there on the main page which says you have to recompile your apps on Windows for them to work. Note that this is a Windows only problem.
You rather sound like someone who tried hard to find a fallacious problem with old minor versions.