Your expectation that an OS will work on random hardware makes no sense. You wouldn't expect Windows to run on a PPC Mac - why would you expect Ubuntu to give you 3D acceleration out of the box with an ATI Radeon X1300 (that has "Windows XP or higher" as a system requirement)? You're comparing apples to oranges (no pun intended). I expect Linux to run on the same machine where Windows XP will run; after all, in theory there shouldn't be a reason why this shouldn't occur without a problem. Also, no one mentioned anything about 3D acceleration out of the box; I mentioned basic usability that is present in the default Windows drivers, such as dual desktop support and support for all of the resolutions the card is capable of running at, not the piddly 800x600 default that the Xorg server uses when it has no clue what else to do and it uses the VESA driver. I'd say that's a fairly small requirement for a (arguably) up-to-date distribution, specially when the manufacturer provides Linux drivers (whether they're 'free', 'open', or even good enough is a discussion for another time).
When you buy a computer, you buy it for a specific purpose. You select hardware that can run the software you intend to use. Excuse me? I need to tailor my hardware purchases around my operating system? Are you nuts? I go back to the point I illustrated above; there should be no reason whatsoever why it is almost not possible to set up a machine with minimal functionality using basic hardware using a recently-released version of any OS; barring, of course, ignorant cases of someone attempting stupid things like run Windows on a PPC box or something similar. The bottom line is, if I can install Windows on a basic PC, I should be able to install Linux. That should be the baseline if we want to have 'Linux takeover the desktop' or at the very least, adopted in large numbers.
Non-enthusiasts doing OS installs is a non-starter anyway. If your time is worth anything, you buy machines pre-installed - in which case any unsupported hardware means you return the computer as "broken". Dell sells Ubuntu desktops, as well as SLED and RHEL workstations.
The OS 'enthusiast' market is very small, and therefore it will be a blip in the sales numbers. If you want to make any progress, you have to make things palatable to Joe User, who wants to just hit a button and go. But, Joe User will never buy a machine with a version of Linux pre-installed, because the next time he triest to install anything from TuCows or (God forbid) a game he picked up at his local gameshack, guess what? It won't work Looks like Linux won't be making large progress in the desktop consumer market after all.
Again, the "Consumer Desktop Market" has NOTHING to do with people self-installing operating systems, much less self-installing an operating systems on systems that weren't specifically built to run that OS. Oh? I thought that was exactly what the article was about? Oh wait, let me guess: someone didn't read the article
I will have to call you a troll, unless it is OEM in which it is pretty meaningless. But seriously man, you got Dells and wanted to run Linux on them? Why not just buy the one that comes with Linux? God forbid I'd rather have 1000 more years of microsoft than one year of apple. I'm confused by that paragraph. Why would you consider my experience 'a troll', and/or meaningless? We received new PCs for the two new Perl developers we hired, who wanted to run Linux (like everyone here, including myself does). Fedora 6, 7, and Ubuntu installs would not work without some serious mucking around, period. An install of Windows XP Pro SP2 went without an itch, and it was done in 30 minutes. One hour later, he also had VMWare Workstation 5 with a Fedora Core 7 virtual machine running on top of Windows. What part exactly is the troll?
It's not simply 'ordering the ones with Linux'; we just don't have the option. First of all, these were provided by the corporate IT staff, who has a strict machine configuration; i.e. if you're a regular user, you get machine type X with specs A, if you're a developer, you get machine type Y with specs B. Our developers all use Fedora because it's what our site runs on, and time that is spent fiddling with a machine to get the OS running is time they're not working on production tickets or new features.
I read this cliche over and over again. But I consider it to be BS. Average users don't install windows, average users don't configure hardware. It is NOT the obstacle for Linux at all. Oh really? So I presume no average user buys printers, scanners, digital camers, joysticks, new videocards, memory upgrades, etc. Right.
Windows' hardware support is void, and its installation is currently substandard , and last time I needed 12 hours to get windows running CORRECTLY with all my hardware, and to install all of its things. But it is not stopping people from using windows. Because users don't do it. It is somebody else who does, and most of the times it is the hardware vendor. See, I call that BS. I specifically stated that my most recent experience was with two plain-vanilla machines that had nothing other than a SATA disk, a current video card, a DVDROM drive, and a core 2 duo processor. Fedora and Ubuntu would *NOT* install in those boxes. I don't know what your definition of "running correctly" is, and I don't know just how much software or what type of hardware you have on your machine, but I can probably assume with a very high degree of certainty that it would take you 10 times as long to install a Linux distribution and have it "running CORRECTLY" with all your hardware and to "install all of its things", whichever those things might be.
And that is where the problem is with Linux adoption. Users won't switch to Linux because it's not 'easy as pie' to set up, and hardware vendors won't support Linux as much as they support Windows because there isn't as much of a demand, which ends up being a catch-22 situation.
I wouldn't be surprised if Dell killed the Ubuntu version of their desktop within the next year because sales are less than stellar.
While the article is nice and points to some great progress in a number of fronts (like Dell's recent announcement about shipping desktops loaded with Ubuntu), Linux still has an enourmous amount of ground to cover before it comes close to being a serious rival to Windows in the consumer desktop market.
Please note that this is just a personal experience which has repeated itself pretty much every time I ran across a new machine.
It is still a bit of work to get Linux to function properly in a machine with recent hardware. As an example, we have a few new Dell boxes with nothing fancy here, just Core 2 Duo processors, SATA drive, and ATI X1300 video cards. Fedora 6 and 7 both barfed when starting the install because of the SATA DVDROM. Ubuntu had the same behavior. After 4 hours of checking multiple forums for FAQs and HowTos, we got Fedora 7 running on them, yet the video card isn't recognized properly by Xorg off the box, so no dual-head, no native resolution. Off to get more updates, more FAQs, etc. By comparison, we had XP running in 30 minutes in one of the boxes, and one hour later it had all the required software needed for the developer to go to work, including VMWare with a Fedora 7 virtual machine running in it.
How can you expect large user migrations to Linux is experiences like this one are closer to the norm? Joe User doesn't want to spend 2 or 3 days just trying to get his OS installed, only to have to spend another few days just trying to get his/her bearings around.
People will *not* migrate to it if the applications they want to run don't run on Linux, and Joe User can't be bothered with adapting to a whole slew of apps, that 'sort-of-look-but-aren't-really-the-same' as their old ones, even if they're superior to their Windows versions when it comes to functionality. Let's not even start discussing games. Yes, a number of popular games run under Wine or Cedega, but people do not want to spend hours trying to diagnose issues or tweak stuff; more often than not, they want to install it and go.
Until you can take a distribution disk, pop it on a random machine with decent hardware, and have everything up and running without requiring any type of user action 'under the hood', Linux will remain firmly esconced in the realm of server rooms, geek basements, and nerd bedrooms; not in your average household.
"they altered the dll's so that they could use some of the funtionality in them. that means they must release their changes for everyone."
Hold on, I haven't seen anything saying that any of the DLLs were modified. Certainly none of the posts linked to at WineHQ or here have stated anything like you're describing. That is just an assumption on what Parallels has done, not what they actually did.
What I am saying is that no one knows what Parallels has really done other than a remark on the Parallels forum and a page on the WineHQ wiki. I am not saying that they should hide their 'violation' (there is no proof they violated anything yet). What I am saying is that everyone is being extremely fast at pointing fingers at Parallels, claiming they're violating the GPL (when Wine uses an old version of the LGPL), yet no one really knows what exactly is going on and how much has Wine been modified (if at all) to work with Parallels.
What I don't want to see happening is a company pull out a product that is arguably being used by a lot of folks because someone is 'rallying the troops', spreading misinformation and bullying them using outraged nerds. This would be one heck of a way to give the detractors of GPLv3 a perfect example of how bad things can get if there's even an inkling of possibility that the (L)GPL or one of it's relatives is being 'violated'.
Thanks for linking back to the same post I linked to. I'll repeat what I said in my post, which I believe you either ignored or glossed over:
"While they admit they use Wine DLLs in a forum post (http://forum.parallels.com/showthread.php?t=12648 ), the statement is somewhat confusing, since it can be intepreted that they're using only Wine DLLs or that they actually changed some of Wine code to suit them. Are we going after Parallels simply because of a forum post and a timeline on a wiki?"
The Parallels forum post says they use modified Wine source, but then he goes on to say "Wine is absolutely separate binary (number of DLLs) installed in guest Windows", which could also be interpreted as "We bundle Wine with Parallels so that Parallels can use the Wine DLLs after the Guest OS is installed".
Since no one has seen their source code, we don't know what they're actually doing, but because it's under the LGPL, all they technically have to do is release the source for Wine and Wine alone, not Parallels, if they haven't modified it.
Wine uses LGPL 2.1, not the latest GPL or even the latest version of the LGPL.
WineHQ states that "The licensing terms are the GNU Lesser General Public License" on their main page, which links to the Licensing page where they have the text for the LGPL v2.1 (http://www.winehq.org/site/license).
I read their copy of the LGPL 2.1, and other than requesting that copies of the library and its source be distributed with the project that uses it, I don't see where it says that the source for the entire project making use of the library has to be released as well, unless it can be demonstrated that significant changes have been made to the library to use it in the project or that the project relies completely on it to make it unusable if removed.
Now, correct me if I am wrong, but I don't think anyone has actually seen any of the Parallels sourcecode, so no one can actually say how much or even if Parallels has modified Wine to use it in their software.
While they admit they use Wine DLLs in a forum post (http://forum.parallels.com/showthread.php?t=12648 ), the statement is somewhat confusing, since it can be intepreted that they're using only Wine DLLs or that they actually changed some of Wine code to suit them. Are we going after Parallels simply because of a forum post and a timeline on a wiki?
Does Parallels really have to release their source code if no one can conclusively know if or how they have modified Wine source?
"We didn't let them" means status quo will stay for at least next 2 years - till citizens vote out republicans who seem to be unable to pass any single piece of legislation which is not pork for their corporate handlers. You understand that republicans are not the majority anymore, but the minority, right? Do you understand that both the House and the Senate both have a Democrat majority? You must've missed last November's election results, or something...
If something doesn't pass, it's because:
1) Someone is not getting their share of pork tacked onto whatever bill is up for voting (kinda like pork tacked onto the Iraq funding bill)
2) An incredibly bad proposal, which neither side can really cover for or agree on what amendments should be tacked on to confuse the living shit out of the average person (like this bill was).
As usual, I guess it's much easier to simply blame the Republicans for everything, even though they're not running the show anymore.
You are right when you say the vast majority of people don't care, because it is not something that affects their daily existence like it does to someone here in California.
You are wrong when you say that I'm out of touch with reality. If you lived in California and saw how much illegal immigration impacts our daily lives, then you'd understand why it is such a major problem. If you live in California and you still believe that no one cares, then I'm sorry to say you're the one that's out of touch with reality.
You also assume that illegal aliens want to become citizens. That is not the case; illegal aliens only want to become legal so that they may continue to work here, something which the immigration bill would do very easily, by granting them Z visas which could be perpetually renewed, for which they would have to pay virtually no fines until they decided to become citizens (which means they'd never pay).
Why bother with a path to citizenship when all they want is legalization?
No, my analogy is right on the money, in the sense that this is effectively what is happening with illegal immigration.
While I'm familiar with the problems and social stigma that your Irish ancestors had to deal with when they came here, the fact is that they were hard-working people, who wanted to become productive members of society, and immersed themselves in it. Also, note that your ancestors came here because they were effectively fleeing abject poverty, famine, and religious persecution, and they entered *legally*.
That is not the case with the vast majority of the immigrants from South America, who for the most part, enter the US *illegally*. Latin immigrants also are not compelled to learn English, because they have access to everything in Spanish. There are neighbourhoods and even cities in California where people speak Spanish first, and English barely. It is a fact your ancestors did not have to deal with a language barrier (at least not one as big as this one), but there is little or no incentive for hispanic immigrants to adapt, therefore maintaining the divide between cultures which only leads to a bigger divide between what is perceived as 'American culture' and 'Mexican culture' in southern California.
Also, note that you referring to the 'legal gates being all but shut' is exactly what the problem is with this Immigration Bill. Every year, hundreds of thousands of people around the world follow the rules and apply for legal entry into this great country, and what this bill was going to do was effectively 'snub' all of them in favor of a massive number of *illegal immigrants* whose only advantage was that they were already here. Where is the fairness in that? Where is the incentive for Juan Carlos to follow the law, if all he has to do is sneak in, and keep a low-profile until some inept Congress and President hand him a visa?
The USA is not an exclusive gated community; however, preference should be given to those that follow the rules and trying hard to legitimately come in, not those that simply snuck in thru the back door while no one was paying attention.
So, you're saying that it is our duty to maintain and support a group of poor people that are foreign nationals, simply because they walked right on in?
Let me explain the situation with a slight analogy, maybe it'll make it easier for you to understand the fallacy of your argument.
Why exactly is it an imaginary line? If you owned several acres of land, would it be ok for a group of strangers to simply jump over its fence, walk right onto it, set up a bunch of tents, and make themselves at home, then demand you feed them and clothe them because they're in your property? Now what happens when you also have your extended family (cousins, uncles/aunts, grandparents, etc) living with and being supported by you, but now they have to share whatever your were giving them with the strangers that are now living in your property? Now what happens when those strangers also harvest your land, and send their crops over the fence to their friends and relatives that live in the field next door to yours.
What would be your argument then? "They need our help, those poor people, they have nowhere else to turn. They're not my family, and I have no idea who they are, but oh well, they can just stay there. Sorry guys, we're gonna have to cut down on things a little here, seems like the strangers need a little more help."
It was one of the Republican amendments that was voted down by the Democrat senators, as it was deemed to be too much of a burden or something along those lines. A Democrat submitted a modified version of the bill that this time only barred members of certain gangs and child molesters from applying for the Z visas; everyone else (murders, rapists, etc) would be ok.
Honestly, our elected representants here are quite a few bricks short of a castle... I'm counting the days until I can finally get my cityzenship and vote.
Why don't you address the actual statements I made instead of simply trying this straw man argument?
Poor people and illegal immigration have nothing to do with each other, other than the fact that illegal immigrants drain resources that could be otherwise used to help the legitimately poor people in our society, like for example, educational training, medical care, job training and placement assistance, etc.
See how addressing illegal immigration actually works in favor of 'poor people'?
You're kiding right? You are aware that Bush suspended habeas corpus 6 years ago right? No. No. No. Please stop repeating this tired old sensationalistic half-truth. Bush suspended the writ of habeas corpus for alien combatants in th Military Commissions Act of 2006. This legislation does not apply to American citizens, only to foreign national enemy combatants. You can read more about it here:
Also, I don't know where you got the fingerprinting requirement for a Passport, but that's likewise not true. Again, you need to prove both identity and citizenship, but I've had a Passport for years and I've never been fingerprinted. My apologies. My wife recently had to go renew her passport and I was under the impression she had to provide a thumbprint, but she didn't (I called her to check). However, there are at least 8 states that require fingerprints for general driver's licenses (including Georgia, Texas, Colorado, etc), and it's a requirement for commercial driver's licenses for hazardous materials (according to AAMVA.org).
The fact that California used to be part of Mexico a century ago has no meaning in the current discussion. The fact is that California *IS* part of the United States, and as so, if you are not here legally, you are here *illegally*.
No one said that 'white persons' have more of a claim to rights in the US. Americans have a claim here, because they were born here or became citizens. This includes white, black, hispanic, indian, whatever. Mexicans (to use your example) have no claim to US soil, just like Germans have no claim on French soil, or Italians have claim to Spanish soil, just because hundreds of years ago, they controlled part of it. National borders exist because at some point in time, when there was a conflict, one side won and the other side lost. That's how it always works.
Now, with regards to what harm have I seen from immigrants? Well, depends. Being a legal immigrant, I can tell you that I pay income taxes, property taxes (I own a home), have a job, and I'm a productive member of my community.I know a number of other legal immigrants that do exactly the same, and love this country as only someone that views it as the land of true oportunity could.
Illegal immigrants, on the other hand, are a burden on the health system (a number of emergency rooms in California hospitals closed because bills were not being paid), are unsafe drivers (number of hit-and-run accidents by unlicensed and uninsured drivers has skyrocketed in California), drain resources in the education system (some districts are over made up of over 70% illegal aliens), all the while not contributing one dime to the infrastructure that supports them (since they don't pay taxes because they have no documentation or are paid in cash at their construction/landscaping/agricultural jobs).
I won't even start on the failure rates of hispanic students in the public school system compared to other minorities, or the criminal statistics for hispanic males, most of which never get deported back to their country because local law enforcement has their hands tied by things like Proposition 87 in LA, where police cannot ask about residency status, even if they have reason to believe the person is here illegally.
Overall, I think you might not want to get that nail-studded clue bat out... you might end up injuring yourself.
You know, while I believe the current administration is full of idiots and liars, I really find statements like yours incredibly ignorant.
Honestly, comparing the US to the Nazi Germany? How daft can you possibly be?
Can you explain how sites like DailyKOS, MoveOn, and their contributors are still up and running, despite all their constant condemnation of the government, with little to no repercussions on the owners/operators of said websites? Can you explain how popular meetings and demonstrations like the Impeach Bush rallies up in San Francisco that seem to occur almost every weekend can go on without any government interference (other than the local police for traffic/safety reasons)?
Do you honestly think that a Nazi-like regime would allow things such as this to go on?
Now compare the US to say, Venezuela and its ruler, Cesar Chavez. Which one do you really think has more in common with Nazi Germany?
Technically, while you have the 'right' to travel by air, the airline is under no obligation to sell you a ticket or allow you into an airplane if they deem you a security risk or for any other reason. Remember that airlines are businesses, so they can do whatever they please (within the rules, of course).
If you want to buy your own plane, get licensed as a pilot, and go through whatever legal process is necessary to fly it around, then you can claim you have the right to travel by air. Of course, if you don't obey the rules, you will be grounded, just like your driver's license gets revoked if you fail to obey the rules.
With regards to biometrics, I honestly don't see what the big deal is. As a legal immigrant, I had to go through a whole set of medical tests and biometrics to establish my identity and eligibility to live and work here in the US. Every California person looking to get a Driver's License will get fingerprinted, and I imagine a number of other states do the same. Every American that wants a passport also gets fingerprinted and has to show documents such as his/her Birth Certificate, etc. So what exactly is the main objection towards a National ID card, if it will reduce the amount of documentation one has to carry around to establish his/her identity and employment eligibility, etc?
Paranoia can't be used as a valid excuse all the time.
While I can understand why privacy advocates would want to make this one of the 'main reasons' why the Immigration Bill failed, it was really not much of a deal-breaker. Sure, maybe some of the senators' votes were partially influenced by this, but there were literally dozens of amendments that were far more important which were the deal-breakers, such as:
1) Requiring that illegal immigrants go back to their country of origin to apply for the Z visa 2) Requiring that illegal immigrants had no felonies on their record 3) Requiring a lengthier background check, rather than the default 24-hour 'status adjustment' if the background check wasn't finished
The discussion has been very heated, particularly here in California, where talk show hosts have been rallying their listeners for the past few months to contact our local senators and pretty much tell them that their job is on the line if they passed this bill. California is probably the one state where illegal immigration is pretty much out of control, and the public is pretty passionate about it, because we live with it and see it first-hand. Trust me, the National ID card was barely mentioned in any of the discussions here; enforcement of the existing laws and tougher penalties for businesses that knowingly hire illegals were the main arguments.
Honestly, I wish that Senator Kennedy moved to California and lived here for a good 6 months, so he could see how out-of-control things really are. Maybe then he'd get back in touch with reality and would stop his ignorant rhetoric about "Gestapo tactics" and whatnot.
I am not stating that she is or isn't a shill. I do not know her, I am not familiar with what her work entailed, and while I don't particularly hold the RIAA in high regard, they serve a purpose (which one I'm not sure of, but whatever).
A number of the comments in the discussion were referring to 'how the democrats sold out' by hiring her, and here comes someone who identifies himself as an avowed liberal, saying that her prior experience has absolutely no bearing in her current employment for the Democratic party.
My comment was simply pointing out the disparity in those statements. What do you think the reaction would have been if she had gone to work for the RNC?
Last I checked, international diplomacy was not part of job description for Speaker of the House, particularly someone as uninformed as Nancy Pelosi.
Any time a politician behaves in a unethical, hypocritical, or just downright stupid fashion, it upsets me, just it should upset anyone else, regardless of their partisan choice. Things like Mark Foley and the page boys, Tom Delay and the campaign finance scheme, 'Scooter' Libby and the CIA leak, etc, are all examples of how corrupt our government is, but I do believe that the media is generally biased in favor of the democrats/liberals. You don't see extensive reports of Harry Reids' questionable real estate deals, Diane Feinstein using her influence to gain contracts for her husband's companies, John Murtha and his ABSCAM involvement, William Jefferson (Louisiana Congressman) and his magical freezer that spawned $90,000, etc.
Does the administration deserve criticism? Absolutely. Should we question the behavior of elected officials? Most certainly. Should we do it only for those that don't share our beliefs? NO!
Halliburton was awarded no-bid contracts by other administrations way before Cheney was Vice-President, and I'm pretty sure that he has never forced anyone to use Halliburton for anything. Halliburton got those contracts because they were (arguably) the most experienced and best equipped to perform the job. This has been demonstrated time and time again, and is well-documented. Taxpayers might not have a direct choice in where the money goes, but they will always have the ultimate power of choice; it's called voting, and its efficiency was demonstrated in last November's elections.
While you're right that Al Gore is not very relevant to the subject at hand, he has a vested interest in pushing carbon credits, and a little bit of research would show you that the Chicago Climate Exchange is North America's largest and only carbon-credit registry and exchange. I'd say that pretty much forces every one who wishes to deal in carbon credits has to do it thru them. Now imagine that in two years, Mr. Gore decides to run for President. Right.
That doesn't sound like much of a choice, now does it? And it's something that isn't being discussed hand-in-hand with global warming, and it's not on any disclaimers on his documentary or on CNN.
Following his fourteenth birthday in 1941, Ratzinger was enrolled in the Hitler Youth -- membership being legally required after December 1939[3] -- but was an unenthusiastic member and refused to attend meetings. His father was a bitter enemy of Nazism, believing it conflicted with the Catholic faith.
As you can see, he was required by law to be a member of Hitler's Youth, so he didn't necessarily have much of a choice. You can read the rest of the entry to see that he wasn't necessarily 'poster-boy material' for them.
I'd say that this would invalidate his 'relevant comparison', so it didn't merit a reply.
Not at all. Both parties have apologists that go to extensive lenghts to minimize criticism.
But, specifically addressing your request above, the discussion at hand is a perfect example. The OP was basically saying 'Hey, it's ok, they're on our side now, they just used to work for the evil guys'.
This is the type of bias that I'm speaking of, and never did I mean to imply that one party is better than the other. However, I am implying that the media is generally less inclined to portray democrats/liberals in a less-than-favorable light.
A perfect example is California Senator Diane Feinstein, who as the chairperson and ranking member of the Military Construction Appropriations subcommittee (MILCON) from 2001 through the end of 2005,supervised the appropriation of billions of dollars a year for specific military construction projects that were given to two defense contractors that were largely controlled by her husband, Richard Blum. You will not see a whole lot of discussion about this on CNN or NBC (although they did post an article for a day or two on their sites), and you most certainly will not see negative articles thinly asking for an investigation into her actions on places like CNN, NBC, or CBS.
I hope this example is helpful. There are more, but this is one that irks me the most since I'm a California resident, and I can't believe how ignorant and hypocritical our representants are.
Slashdot Mirror
Also, no one mentioned anything about 3D acceleration out of the box; I mentioned basic usability that is present in the default Windows drivers, such as dual desktop support and support for all of the resolutions the card is capable of running at, not the piddly 800x600 default that the Xorg server uses when it has no clue what else to do and it uses the VESA driver.
I'd say that's a fairly small requirement for a (arguably) up-to-date distribution, specially when the manufacturer provides Linux drivers (whether they're 'free', 'open', or even good enough is a discussion for another time). When you buy a computer, you buy it for a specific purpose. You select hardware that can run the software you intend to use. Excuse me? I need to tailor my hardware purchases around my operating system? Are you nuts?
I go back to the point I illustrated above; there should be no reason whatsoever why it is almost not possible to set up a machine with minimal functionality using basic hardware using a recently-released version of any OS; barring, of course, ignorant cases of someone attempting stupid things like run Windows on a PPC box or something similar.
The bottom line is, if I can install Windows on a basic PC, I should be able to install Linux. That should be the baseline if we want to have 'Linux takeover the desktop' or at the very least, adopted in large numbers. Non-enthusiasts doing OS installs is a non-starter anyway. If your time is worth anything, you buy machines pre-installed - in which case any unsupported hardware means you return the computer as "broken". Dell sells Ubuntu desktops, as well as SLED and RHEL workstations.
The OS 'enthusiast' market is very small, and therefore it will be a blip in the sales numbers. If you want to make any progress, you have to make things palatable to Joe User, who wants to just hit a button and go. But, Joe User will never buy a machine with a version of Linux pre-installed, because the next time he triest to install anything from TuCows or (God forbid) a game he picked up at his local gameshack, guess what? It won't work
Looks like Linux won't be making large progress in the desktop consumer market after all. Again, the "Consumer Desktop Market" has NOTHING to do with people self-installing operating systems, much less self-installing an operating systems on systems that weren't specifically built to run that OS. Oh? I thought that was exactly what the article was about? Oh wait, let me guess: someone didn't read the article
Nice.
We received new PCs for the two new Perl developers we hired, who wanted to run Linux (like everyone here, including myself does). Fedora 6, 7, and Ubuntu installs would not work without some serious mucking around, period.
An install of Windows XP Pro SP2 went without an itch, and it was done in 30 minutes. One hour later, he also had VMWare Workstation 5 with a Fedora Core 7 virtual machine running on top of Windows. What part exactly is the troll?
It's not simply 'ordering the ones with Linux'; we just don't have the option. First of all, these were provided by the corporate IT staff, who has a strict machine configuration; i.e. if you're a regular user, you get machine type X with specs A, if you're a developer, you get machine type Y with specs B. Our developers all use Fedora because it's what our site runs on, and time that is spent fiddling with a machine to get the OS running is time they're not working on production tickets or new features. I read this cliche over and over again. But I consider it to be BS. Average users don't install windows, average users don't configure hardware. It is NOT the obstacle for Linux at all. Oh really? So I presume no average user buys printers, scanners, digital camers, joysticks, new videocards, memory upgrades, etc. Right. Windows' hardware support is void, and its installation is currently substandard , and last time I needed 12 hours to get windows running CORRECTLY with all my hardware, and to install all of its things. But it is not stopping people from using windows. Because users don't do it. It is somebody else who does, and most of the times it is the hardware vendor. See, I call that BS. I specifically stated that my most recent experience was with two plain-vanilla machines that had nothing other than a SATA disk, a current video card, a DVDROM drive, and a core 2 duo processor. Fedora and Ubuntu would *NOT* install in those boxes.
I don't know what your definition of "running correctly" is, and I don't know just how much software or what type of hardware you have on your machine, but I can probably assume with a very high degree of certainty that it would take you 10 times as long to install a Linux distribution and have it "running CORRECTLY" with all your hardware and to "install all of its things", whichever those things might be.
And that is where the problem is with Linux adoption. Users won't switch to Linux because it's not 'easy as pie' to set up, and hardware vendors won't support Linux as much as they support Windows because there isn't as much of a demand, which ends up being a catch-22 situation.
I wouldn't be surprised if Dell killed the Ubuntu version of their desktop within the next year because sales are less than stellar.
While the article is nice and points to some great progress in a number of fronts (like Dell's recent announcement about shipping desktops loaded with Ubuntu), Linux still has an enourmous amount of ground to cover before it comes close to being a serious rival to Windows in the consumer desktop market.
Please note that this is just a personal experience which has repeated itself pretty much every time I ran across a new machine.
It is still a bit of work to get Linux to function properly in a machine with recent hardware. As an example, we have a few new Dell boxes with nothing fancy here, just Core 2 Duo processors, SATA drive, and ATI X1300 video cards.
Fedora 6 and 7 both barfed when starting the install because of the SATA DVDROM. Ubuntu had the same behavior.
After 4 hours of checking multiple forums for FAQs and HowTos, we got Fedora 7 running on them, yet the video card isn't recognized properly by Xorg off the box, so no dual-head, no native resolution. Off to get more updates, more FAQs, etc.
By comparison, we had XP running in 30 minutes in one of the boxes, and one hour later it had all the required software needed for the developer to go to work, including VMWare with a Fedora 7 virtual machine running in it.
How can you expect large user migrations to Linux is experiences like this one are closer to the norm? Joe User doesn't want to spend 2 or 3 days just trying to get his OS installed, only to have to spend another few days just trying to get his/her bearings around.
People will *not* migrate to it if the applications they want to run don't run on Linux, and Joe User can't be bothered with adapting to a whole slew of apps, that 'sort-of-look-but-aren't-really-the-same' as their old ones, even if they're superior to their Windows versions when it comes to functionality.
Let's not even start discussing games. Yes, a number of popular games run under Wine or Cedega, but people do not want to spend hours trying to diagnose issues or tweak stuff; more often than not, they want to install it and go.
Until you can take a distribution disk, pop it on a random machine with decent hardware, and have everything up and running without requiring any type of user action 'under the hood', Linux will remain firmly esconced in the realm of server rooms, geek basements, and nerd bedrooms; not in your average household.
"they altered the dll's so that they could use some of the funtionality in them. that means they must release their changes for everyone."
Hold on, I haven't seen anything saying that any of the DLLs were modified. Certainly none of the posts linked to at WineHQ or here have stated anything like you're describing.
That is just an assumption on what Parallels has done, not what they actually did.
What I am saying is that no one knows what Parallels has really done other than a remark on the Parallels forum and a page on the WineHQ wiki. I am not saying that they should hide their 'violation' (there is no proof they violated anything yet).
What I am saying is that everyone is being extremely fast at pointing fingers at Parallels, claiming they're violating the GPL (when Wine uses an old version of the LGPL), yet no one really knows what exactly is going on and how much has Wine been modified (if at all) to work with Parallels.
What I don't want to see happening is a company pull out a product that is arguably being used by a lot of folks because someone is 'rallying the troops', spreading misinformation and bullying them using outraged nerds.
This would be one heck of a way to give the detractors of GPLv3 a perfect example of how bad things can get if there's even an
inkling of possibility that the (L)GPL or one of it's relatives is being 'violated'.
Thanks for linking back to the same post I linked to.
8 ), the statement is somewhat confusing, since it can be intepreted that they're using only Wine DLLs or that they actually changed some of Wine code to suit them. Are we going after Parallels simply because of a forum post and a timeline on a wiki?"
I'll repeat what I said in my post, which I believe you either ignored or glossed over:
"While they admit they use Wine DLLs in a forum post (http://forum.parallels.com/showthread.php?t=1264
The Parallels forum post says they use modified Wine source, but then he goes on to say "Wine is absolutely separate binary (number of DLLs) installed in guest Windows", which could also be interpreted as "We bundle Wine with Parallels so that Parallels can use the Wine DLLs after the Guest OS is installed".
Since no one has seen their source code, we don't know what they're actually doing, but because it's under the LGPL, all they technically have to do is release the source for Wine and Wine alone, not Parallels, if they haven't modified it.
My question still isn't answered.
The headline is *wrong*.
8 ), the statement is somewhat confusing, since it can be intepreted that they're using only Wine DLLs or that they actually changed some of Wine code to suit them. Are we going after Parallels simply because of a forum post and a timeline on a wiki?
Wine uses LGPL 2.1, not the latest GPL or even the latest version of the LGPL.
WineHQ states that "The licensing terms are the GNU Lesser General Public License" on their main page, which links to the Licensing page where they have the text for the LGPL v2.1 (http://www.winehq.org/site/license).
I read their copy of the LGPL 2.1, and other than requesting that copies of the library and its source be distributed with the project that uses it, I don't see where it says that the source for the entire project making use of the library has to be released as well, unless it can be demonstrated that significant changes have been made to the library to use it in the project or that the project relies completely on it to make it unusable if removed.
Now, correct me if I am wrong, but I don't think anyone has actually seen any of the Parallels sourcecode, so no one can actually say how much or even if Parallels has modified Wine to use it in their software.
While they admit they use Wine DLLs in a forum post (http://forum.parallels.com/showthread.php?t=1264
Does Parallels really have to release their source code if no one can conclusively know if or how they have modified Wine source?
If something doesn't pass, it's because:
1) Someone is not getting their share of pork tacked onto whatever bill is up for voting (kinda like pork tacked onto the Iraq funding bill)
2) An incredibly bad proposal, which neither side can really cover for or agree on what amendments should be tacked on to confuse the living shit out of the average person (like this bill was).
As usual, I guess it's much easier to simply blame the Republicans for everything, even though they're not running the show anymore.
You are right when you say the vast majority of people don't care, because it is not something that affects their daily existence like it does to someone here in California.
You are wrong when you say that I'm out of touch with reality. If you lived in California and saw how much illegal immigration impacts our daily lives, then you'd understand why it is such a major problem.
If you live in California and you still believe that no one cares, then I'm sorry to say you're the one that's out of touch with reality.
You also assume that illegal aliens want to become citizens. That is not the case; illegal aliens only want to become legal so that they may continue to work here, something which the immigration bill would do very easily, by granting them Z visas which could be perpetually renewed, for which they would have to pay virtually no fines until they decided to become citizens (which means they'd never pay).
Why bother with a path to citizenship when all they want is legalization?
You are absolutely correct. My apologies for my mistake; I was reading an article about Prop 87 while replying, and had a brain fart.
Thank you, nytes.
No, my analogy is right on the money, in the sense that this is effectively what is happening with illegal immigration.
While I'm familiar with the problems and social stigma that your Irish ancestors had to deal with when they came here, the fact is that they were hard-working people, who wanted to become productive members of society, and immersed themselves in it. Also, note that your ancestors came here because they were effectively fleeing abject poverty, famine, and religious persecution, and they entered *legally*.
That is not the case with the vast majority of the immigrants from South America, who for the most part, enter the US *illegally*.
Latin immigrants also are not compelled to learn English, because they have access to everything in Spanish. There are neighbourhoods and even cities in California where people speak Spanish first, and English barely.
It is a fact your ancestors did not have to deal with a language barrier (at least not one as big as this one), but there is little or no incentive for hispanic immigrants to adapt, therefore maintaining the divide between cultures which only leads to a bigger divide between what is perceived as 'American culture' and 'Mexican culture' in southern California.
Also, note that you referring to the 'legal gates being all but shut' is exactly what the problem is with this Immigration Bill. Every year, hundreds of thousands of people around the world follow the rules and apply for legal entry into this great country, and what this bill was going to do was effectively 'snub' all of them in favor of a massive number of *illegal immigrants* whose only advantage was that they were already here. Where is the fairness in that?
Where is the incentive for Juan Carlos to follow the law, if all he has to do is sneak in, and keep a low-profile until some inept Congress and President hand him a visa?
The USA is not an exclusive gated community; however, preference should be given to those that follow the rules and trying hard to legitimately come in, not those that simply snuck in thru the back door while no one was paying attention.
So, you're saying that it is our duty to maintain and support a group of poor people that are foreign nationals, simply because they walked right on in?
Let me explain the situation with a slight analogy, maybe it'll make it easier for you to understand the fallacy of your argument.
Why exactly is it an imaginary line? If you owned several acres of land, would it be ok for a group of strangers to simply jump over its fence, walk right onto it, set up a bunch of tents, and make themselves at home, then demand you feed them and clothe them because they're in your property?
Now what happens when you also have your extended family (cousins, uncles/aunts, grandparents, etc) living with and being supported by you, but now they have to share whatever your were giving them with the strangers that are now living in your property?
Now what happens when those strangers also harvest your land, and send their crops over the fence to their friends and relatives that live in the field next door to yours.
What would be your argument then? "They need our help, those poor people, they have nowhere else to turn. They're not my family, and I have no idea who they are, but oh well, they can just stay there. Sorry guys, we're gonna have to cut down on things a little here, seems like the strangers need a little more help."
Yah, ok. See the problem now?
That's a really good question.
It was one of the Republican amendments that was voted down by the Democrat senators, as it was deemed to be too much of a burden or something along those lines. A Democrat submitted a modified version of the bill that this time only barred members of certain gangs and child molesters from applying for the Z visas; everyone else (murders, rapists, etc) would be ok.
Honestly, our elected representants here are quite a few bricks short of a castle... I'm counting the days until I can finally get my cityzenship and vote.
Why don't you address the actual statements I made instead of simply trying this straw man argument?
Poor people and illegal immigration have nothing to do with each other, other than the fact that illegal immigrants drain resources that could be otherwise used to help the legitimately poor people in our society, like for example, educational training, medical care, job training and placement assistance, etc.
See how addressing illegal immigration actually works in favor of 'poor people'?
http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/rightsandfreedoms/a
And you can go read the actual legislation here:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:s.03
Please please please, get informed. Everytime you parrot out another talking point, you just sound more ignorant of the actual truth.
However, there are at least 8 states that require fingerprints for general driver's licenses (including Georgia, Texas, Colorado, etc), and it's a requirement for commercial driver's licenses for hazardous materials (according to AAMVA.org).
The fact that California used to be part of Mexico a century ago has no meaning in the current discussion. The fact is that California *IS* part of the United States, and as so, if you are not here legally, you are here *illegally*.
No one said that 'white persons' have more of a claim to rights in the US. Americans have a claim here, because they were born here or became citizens. This includes white, black, hispanic, indian, whatever.
Mexicans (to use your example) have no claim to US soil, just like Germans have no claim on French soil, or Italians have claim to Spanish soil, just because hundreds of years ago, they controlled part of it. National borders exist because at some point in time, when there was a conflict, one side won and the other side lost. That's how it always works.
Now, with regards to what harm have I seen from immigrants? Well, depends. Being a legal immigrant, I can tell you that I pay income taxes, property taxes (I own a home), have a job, and I'm a productive member of my community.I know a number of other legal immigrants that do exactly the same, and love this country as only someone that views it as the land of true oportunity could.
Illegal immigrants, on the other hand, are a burden on the health system (a number of emergency rooms in California hospitals closed because bills were not being paid), are unsafe drivers (number of hit-and-run accidents by unlicensed and uninsured drivers has skyrocketed in California), drain resources in the education system (some districts are over made up of over 70% illegal aliens), all the while not contributing one dime to the infrastructure that supports them (since they don't pay taxes because they have no documentation or are paid in cash at their construction/landscaping/agricultural jobs).
I won't even start on the failure rates of hispanic students in the public school system compared to other minorities, or the criminal statistics for hispanic males, most of which never get deported back to their country because local law enforcement has their hands tied by things like Proposition 87 in LA, where police cannot ask about residency status, even if they have reason to believe the person is here illegally.
Overall, I think you might not want to get that nail-studded clue bat out... you might end up injuring yourself.
You know, while I believe the current administration is full of idiots and liars, I really find statements like yours incredibly ignorant.
Honestly, comparing the US to the Nazi Germany? How daft can you possibly be?
Can you explain how sites like DailyKOS, MoveOn, and their contributors are still up and running, despite all their constant condemnation of the government, with little to no repercussions on the owners/operators of said websites?
Can you explain how popular meetings and demonstrations like the Impeach Bush rallies up in San Francisco that seem to occur almost every weekend can go on without any government interference (other than the local police for traffic/safety reasons)?
Do you honestly think that a Nazi-like regime would allow things such as this to go on?
Now compare the US to say, Venezuela and its ruler, Cesar Chavez. Which one do you really think has more in common with Nazi Germany?
Technically, while you have the 'right' to travel by air, the airline is under no obligation to sell you a ticket or allow you into an airplane if they deem you a security risk or for any other reason. Remember that airlines are businesses, so they can do whatever they please (within the rules, of course).
If you want to buy your own plane, get licensed as a pilot, and go through whatever legal process is necessary to fly it around, then you can claim you have the right to travel by air. Of course, if you don't obey the rules, you will be grounded, just like your driver's license gets revoked if you fail to obey the rules.
With regards to biometrics, I honestly don't see what the big deal is. As a legal immigrant, I had to go through a whole set of medical tests and biometrics to establish my identity and eligibility to live and work here in the US. Every California person looking to get a Driver's License will get fingerprinted, and I imagine a number of other states do the same. Every American that wants a passport also gets fingerprinted and has to show documents such as his/her Birth Certificate, etc. So what exactly is the main objection towards a National ID card, if it will reduce the amount of documentation one has to carry around to establish his/her identity and employment eligibility, etc?
Paranoia can't be used as a valid excuse all the time.
While I can understand why privacy advocates would want to make this one of the 'main reasons' why the Immigration Bill failed, it was really not much of a deal-breaker. Sure, maybe some of the senators' votes were partially influenced by this, but there were literally dozens of amendments that were far more important which were the deal-breakers, such as:
1) Requiring that illegal immigrants go back to their country of origin to apply for the Z visa
2) Requiring that illegal immigrants had no felonies on their record
3) Requiring a lengthier background check, rather than the default 24-hour 'status adjustment' if the background check wasn't finished
The discussion has been very heated, particularly here in California, where talk show hosts have been rallying their listeners for the past few months to contact our local senators and pretty much tell them that their job is on the line if they passed this bill. California is probably the one state where illegal immigration is pretty much out of control, and the public is pretty passionate about it, because we live with it and see it first-hand.
Trust me, the National ID card was barely mentioned in any of the discussions here; enforcement of the existing laws and tougher penalties for businesses that knowingly hire illegals were the main arguments.
Honestly, I wish that Senator Kennedy moved to California and lived here for a good 6 months, so he could see how out-of-control things really are. Maybe then he'd get back in touch with reality and would stop his ignorant rhetoric about "Gestapo tactics" and whatnot.
But that's my whole point.
I am not stating that she is or isn't a shill. I do not know her, I am not familiar with what her work entailed, and while I don't particularly hold the RIAA in high regard, they serve a purpose (which one I'm not sure of, but whatever).
A number of the comments in the discussion were referring to 'how the democrats sold out' by hiring her, and here comes someone who identifies himself as an avowed liberal, saying that her prior experience has absolutely no bearing in her current employment for the Democratic party.
My comment was simply pointing out the disparity in those statements. What do you think the reaction would have been if she had gone to work for the RNC?
Actually yes, it does.
Last I checked, international diplomacy was not part of job description for Speaker of the House, particularly someone as uninformed as Nancy Pelosi.
Any time a politician behaves in a unethical, hypocritical, or just downright stupid fashion, it upsets me, just it should upset anyone else, regardless of their partisan choice. Things like Mark Foley and the page boys, Tom Delay and the campaign finance scheme, 'Scooter' Libby and the CIA leak, etc, are all examples of how corrupt our government is, but I do believe that the media is generally biased in favor of the democrats/liberals.
You don't see extensive reports of Harry Reids' questionable real estate deals, Diane Feinstein using her influence to gain contracts for her husband's companies, John Murtha and his ABSCAM involvement, William Jefferson (Louisiana Congressman) and his magical freezer that spawned $90,000, etc.
Does the administration deserve criticism? Absolutely.
Should we question the behavior of elected officials? Most certainly.
Should we do it only for those that don't share our beliefs? NO!
*sigh*
Halliburton was awarded no-bid contracts by other administrations way before Cheney was Vice-President, and I'm pretty sure that he has never forced anyone to use Halliburton for anything. Halliburton got those contracts because they were (arguably) the most experienced and best equipped to perform the job.
This has been demonstrated time and time again, and is well-documented. Taxpayers might not have a direct choice in where the money goes, but they will always have the ultimate power of choice; it's called voting, and its efficiency was demonstrated in last November's elections.
While you're right that Al Gore is not very relevant to the subject at hand, he has a vested interest in pushing carbon credits, and a little bit of research would show you that the Chicago Climate Exchange is North America's largest and only carbon-credit registry and exchange. I'd say that pretty much forces every one who wishes to deal in carbon credits has to do it thru them.
Now imagine that in two years, Mr. Gore decides to run for President. Right.
That doesn't sound like much of a choice, now does it? And it's something that isn't being discussed hand-in-hand with global warming, and it's not on any disclaimers on his documentary or on CNN.
I ignored the 'relevant comparison' using the Pope and Hitler because it was flat-out wrong and it was designed to ridicule the discussion.
I quote from the Wikipedia entry:
Following his fourteenth birthday in 1941, Ratzinger was enrolled in the Hitler Youth -- membership being legally required after December 1939[3] -- but was an unenthusiastic member and refused to attend meetings. His father was a bitter enemy of Nazism, believing it conflicted with the Catholic faith.
As you can see, he was required by law to be a member of Hitler's Youth, so he didn't necessarily have much of a choice. You can read the rest of the entry to see that he wasn't necessarily 'poster-boy material' for them.
I'd say that this would invalidate his 'relevant comparison', so it didn't merit a reply.
What about Al Gore talking about the impending danger of global warming, while he has a vested interest in everyone investing in 'carbon credits'?
You can read about it here.
Would that qualify as a "Massively Obvious Conflicts of Interest that flew right over your head"?
Not at all. Both parties have apologists that go to extensive lenghts to minimize criticism.
But, specifically addressing your request above, the discussion at hand is a perfect example. The OP was basically saying 'Hey, it's ok, they're on our side now, they just used to work for the evil guys'.
This is the type of bias that I'm speaking of, and never did I mean to imply that one party is better than the other. However, I am implying that the media is generally less inclined to portray democrats/liberals in a less-than-favorable light.
A perfect example is California Senator Diane Feinstein, who as the chairperson and ranking member of the Military Construction Appropriations subcommittee (MILCON) from 2001 through the end of 2005,supervised the appropriation of billions of dollars a year for specific military construction projects that were given to two defense contractors that were largely controlled by her husband, Richard Blum.
You will not see a whole lot of discussion about this on CNN or NBC (although they did post an article for a day or two on their sites), and you most certainly will not see negative articles thinly asking for an investigation into her actions on places like CNN, NBC, or CBS.
I hope this example is helpful. There are more, but this is one that irks me the most since I'm a California resident, and I can't believe how ignorant and hypocritical our representants are.