Fine. I wanted a general purpose system that could be used for anything. Games, movie editing, music production, programming, web design, you name it. I also wanted commercial-level programs which generally have more polish and functionality than their FOSS counterparts, in addition to open-source software when suitable. In Windows 7 I can get that, in addition to the feeling of being part of an extremely large and very well supported community who have an answer to virtually every problem that might occur, in virtue of the size of the userbase. In Linux I just feel like the lack of direction means that important stuff never gets fixed. I have no confidence with standby/resume in Linux, I have no confidence in tear-free video playback without having to tweak it myself, I have issues with the fact that I am not able to run programs like Photoshop/Office without WINE or VirtualBox, programs I want because they make life easier than the FOSS counterparts.
People have explained time and time again why Linux sucks on the desktop, but there's too much of an inertia and group mentality to ignore all the information that's OUT THERE ALREADY. So I can't describe it any better except by saying - it offers very little that Windows does not have except ideology and a very, very obsessive fanbase. I end up losing more by sticking with Linux then I do with Windows.
I'm not smug. I think the Linux zealots are smug and have some sort of superiority complex. But whatever, I've been using Linux on and off for the last 10 years and am fed up with its deficiencies on the desktop.
I'm so sick of the supposedly "smart", "tech-savvy" people on Slashdot bitching about Windows getting "viruses"
Agreed. Why am I able to run a butter-smooth Windows 7 machine for ages without being swamped with viruses and other people, who are supposedly fluent with Linux (and hence I assume computers in general) can't? I'd rather just learn how to be smart and stay safe on the net, rather than throw out an entire operating system for another set of problems just because of one little thing.
Agreed. I'll stick with the classics that I still find fun as well the occasional new game that doesn't have oppressive DRM which is also fun. But if it becomes the case whereby virtually all new games require always-on DRM and I end up not having control over my software any longer, then I'll give it up entirely and move onto something else.
These publishers act as if people HAVE to play their games, as if it's an insatiable need rather than a want. Not all of us are so weak-willed.
You can't be a zealot about it and demand NO DRM EVAR! If you do that you'll find your selection fairly limited, however if you meet them half way and say "Only DRM that doesn't mess with my ability to play," you find a whole lot of games.
Please don't label those who are wary of companies who employ any form of DRM as zealots. It's not helpful and disregards any legitimate concerns they might have for not wanting DRM at all. For example, I no longer use Steam because although the DRM is generally reasonably fair (and we're talking stock Steam-DRM and not any addition 3rd-party DRM), I cannot resolve to my satisfaction the lingering concern about what happens if my account is locked/suspended over an issue with a game payment, or a mistake at Valve's or PayPal's end that results in said suspension, or VAC makes a mistake and bans me from VAC servers by accident and I have no resource, etc. I agree they're basically "what if's" but they do bother me, funnily enough. I cannot see myself having a large 100+ games Steam account without continually concerned that the keys to accessing all of my games are with Valve and not in my hands.
Apple now sells DRM-free music. Movie studios are still living in the dark ages but I'm slightly hopeful they'll come around, maybe. Game developers are mixed though, so why would I be a zealot for not wanting DRM? It's generally shown to be cracked after all and it only causes problems for paying customers and not pirates, so I don't touch it. I don't have a problem with SERIAL NUMBERS though as a means of authentication, which are still used even with digital purchases in many cases, but at least I know they don't require activation which is still a bad idea (what if I want to play a game in 10 years and the activation server is no longer running? I still play the original Deus Ex from time to time, so don't tell me old games aren't worth playing).
Just thinking long term here. Most indie games don't have DRM but they also don't have the lasting interest that something like Deus Ex: Human Revolution has. If this DRM trend doesn't turn around soon then I'll have to move onto another hobby. There's plenty other things in life to enjoy that I can have under my own rules.
If publishers keep persisting with this anti-consumer push for always-on DRM, I'll have to find another hobby. Good thing I bought my first Arduino last week.
You have to pay money to your phone company, so sure I have a greater level of expectation over them not screwing with my conversations as opposed to Facebook/MSN, for which I pay nothing. As for the postal service, in Australia it's wholly Government owned and hence comes under appropriate legislation.
I don't know why you were modded insightful. No-one reasonable likes censorship but to think Microsoft/Facebook have to follow your rules even though you don't pay a cent for the server is asinine.
Wrong guess - Australian actually. It's noted that we've weathered the economic crisis pretty well actually, in that it barely affected us (some were affected of course, it's not like we were isolated, but it's hardly as prevalent as it was elsewhere). On top of that I work for the Government in a position that basically can't be lost unless I look at porn or something on the net, since it's a very important and well-funded department and layoffs are basically non-existent. Not that I'm gloating, but I sometimes forget how bad things have gotten for others.
Microsoft and Facebook can do what they want - people can't complain too much, they are the company's networks after all, they can do what they want. But at least it's good in reminding people that their messages aren't private, and that there is going to be at least some automated checking of the contents before it's granted clearance to be sent through unaltered. If you really want to use an IM platform that's completely under your control (and not at the risk of censorship), then host your own XMPP server.
Potential Employer: "Er, so you are saying you're not part of any social network online whatsoever?"
You: "Yes, that is correct."
(Potential Employer quietly checks the box next to "Does not play well with others", and upon conclusion of the interview, places your resume in the "don't bother" pile)
The best approach in an interview is to give the potential employer something to work with, rather than just a flat-out denial: ------
Potential Employer: "Er, so you are saying you're not part of any social network online whatsoever?"
You: "Well not exactly. I am a member of several tech sites and forums, helping people with problems and discussing various issues."
PE: "But what if you want to communicate with friends/family?"
You: "Email, the phone, etc. I have a Dropbox account where I share all my photos in the Photos gallery it provides. I don't use Facebook because I don't trust it as I'm concerned as to what might happen if my private data is leaked my accident or otherwise."
(Potential Employer considers this to be a different but thoughtful approach to remaining social and the interview progresses as normal...)
Really easy for you to say when you have not been on unemployment for over a year, your wife is about ready to leave you, your house is in foreclosure, repo guys are going to come take your car away, and the collection agencies you around the clock demanding you pay them back and harassing your family members.
In such a scenario is unfortunately, very typical in this economy for those who got laid off at the absolute worst time.
My God, you Americans really have a fucked up country. Just in case you weren't aware. I'm surprised there's anyone left who could be described as genuinely happy.
who said it would protect 'against internet evils,'
Seriously, who talks like that? Internet 'evils'? Ohhhhh! I've noticed the rhetoric from Iran, North Korea and other reclusive countries consistently sounds like it was made up by some hammy Z-grade Hollywood writer, rather than written by someone who wants to be, you know, taken seriously by the world.
Actually I don't care about what you say anymore. I was just glancing over at your previous comments to see if I was dealing with a nutbag, and I saw that in response to someone saying ""Medicaid and public universities both work fine", you replied "No, they don't."
In my country (Australia) we couldn't afford private health insurance so we relied on Medicare and the public health system. We also have predominately public unis although there are some private ones, but once again due to lack of funds I went to a public uni like most other people. I turned out alright and now have a great hardware engineering job. So as far as I'm concerned you can fuck off, because you clearly don't know anything.
I feel happy knowing I don't have to keep debating with a stranger when he's actually quite stupid and in the clouds.:)
After all, for most software the major part of the value comes from all the other lemmings.
Belittling people who see value in purchasing non-free software just makes you look like an arrogant ass. There's nothing wrong with a balanced middle-of-the-road approach.
I think he favours the Blender model of FOSS: there are people in the community coming up with ideas for new features and making fundraisers for it. It's like Kickstarter except the result becomes OSS. If not enough money comes together, less features will be implemented. Of course it only works for people with proper resume/portfolio. (See their OpenCL renderer.)
Blender is rather unique though. They have their milestone rendering projects to create short films (Big Buck Bunny, Sintel, etc) that push the latest features and raise their profile. This helps in fundraising and allows the project to continue. I think Blender is a success story for a professional-level tool in the FOSS ecosystem, but not all software can be made like this. A single product like a game, well... maybe the engine can be released as FOSS and you end up buying the data (maps, models, sounds, etc). But from his post I don't think he'd be satisfied with any financial compensation as an end-user, no matter how minor. That's his prerogative though.
Shit, I'll admit it. It used to be because I though it was a nice ideology (and it is), but nowadays I'll freely admit that I just like free software. I don't want to pirate anymore, but I don't want to buy software if there's a perfectly good OSS alternative available. Plus by using the OSS alternative I future-proof myself in case I finally decide to move to Linux (which may never happen, but it can't hurt to keep my options open and make the possible transition as painless as possible).
There's nothing wrong with being tight with money, particularly if the OSS options are good enough. I tend to now buy games and media more than tools, so long as the games are cross-platform and the media is non-DRMed. Keeps me happy, and yes it's a cheaper way to do things. Big deal, I like cheap.:)
I am basically opposed to the idea of paying for something that it is already done, payed for and that has zero replication costs too.
So what if the replication costs are zero? The work to make the software in the first place isn't free (we're assuming of course a for-sale product), so compensating for said effort is appropriate. It might take quite a number of sales before the costs for developing a product breaks even. Then there are the distribution costs, which even if it's something as simple as a server requires upkeep and maintenance costs.
Your position doesn't match the realities of the real world and no-one would take you seriously if you tried doing business with such a position.
What I've come to realize (speaking as a Linux fan but not a full-time user) is that a lot of Linux supporters like to blame everyone else for the lack of Linux's success on the desktop, EXCEPT Linux itself. They don't seem to acknowledge the fact that perhaps, just perhaps, it's the kernel developer's insistence on the lack of a stable ABI/API, the lack of support for commercial developers and the often hostile attitude of the community to said developers who write proprietary software, that might make Linux distros undesirable for the developers, and so the lack of software/hardware support and indeed, polish, ends up pushing people away.
But no, it's everyone else's fault. The Linux ecosystem is surely not at fault right? As long as people keep believing this, nothing will get better (and since it's such a pervasive idea that it's everyone ELSE who's at fault, no wonder uptake of Linux desktops is not only at a standstill, but in some reports is regressing.) It's fucking disturbing how many people think Linux is good enough for mainstream users, and ignore the legitimate complains people have about it. Personally I'm prepared to work with its deficiencies but at least I'm not blind to them!
I can appreciate your sentiments, but I haven't had the experiences you've had.
Doesn't make them any less annoying or worthy of recognition of their existence. Plenty of people have had these issues, posted on various Linux forums, with varying levels of success at fixing them.
If a desktop configuration gets corrupted in Windows and I can't login to my user profile, then I usually I have to blow the user profile away to have it rebuilt.
What in God's name are you doing to your system that ends up corrupting your user profile? To be fair I shouldn't complain too much because in a past life I did IT support (never again!) and some people somehow fucked up their profiles so badly that new ones had to be made. I still have no idea why it happened.
With Linux, the settings are ruled by text files
Traditionally yes, and this is a good thing which has saved me some trouble when copying settings between various servers. However there seems to be a new breed of Linux developer who stores their settings in binary files now, sorta akin to the Windows Registry, and if this trend keeps up then you won't be able to mark this as an advantage anymore.
I use Linux because I find it very attractive. Sure, there are problems I encounter but I'm committed to working through them. That's how I learn how computers work and I have learned more about how computers work with Linux than I ever have with Windows.
Are you sure you're learning about how computers work, or just how Linux works? I've had many problems with various Linux distros which I've managed to solve through shear determination, but I'm not convinced I've expanded my knowledge about the fundamentals of computers - rather I've expanded my knowledge about how to fix Linux-specific problems. There's a difference.
Also, I do enjoy learning how to fix problems. But only in my OWN TIME. I do not enjoy coming home to fix problems unless I'm in a mood to do so. If I come home and find that a kernel update I applied the night before had killed my wireless adaptor or my graphics drivers, this does not please me. I can fix them most likely (or boot an older kernel), but I don't want to have to deal with this shit unless I'm mentally in the mood to do so.
And to counter your argument, I'm still looking for the feature or features that Office has that Libre Office lacks
That's easy - there's no way to easily vertically/middle align text in Open/LibreOffice writer. In Word 2010 you can simply click Align Text -> Middle on the ribbon and that's that. In Open/LibreOffice writer the closest and quickest alternative I've see anyone manage to do this is as follows:
Write your text and select it () 1.) Insert Frame by typing M 2.) Set width automagically:
3.) Select vertical align C 4.) Select reference:
select 'entire page' or 'page text area' - as you wish 5.) confirm by pressing
Even then you still aren't done, since you have to remove the frame's border if you want the result to be the same as the one in Word. People have asked for this, but it hasn't been implemented yet. Perhaps one day, but still it's little things like this that you only discover once you find a need for them, and you realize why people might be inclined to just pay money for the market leader and get on with life.
Note: I use LibreOffice at home since I want cross-platform support between Windows and Linux, plus I don't want to pirate Office and yet don't feel it's worth buying for the little I use it for. At the same time, if Office were cross-platform and really cheap (and didn't require activation and instead just a serial), I'd jump on it in a heartbeat.
Slashdot Mirror
Fine. I wanted a general purpose system that could be used for anything. Games, movie editing, music production, programming, web design, you name it. I also wanted commercial-level programs which generally have more polish and functionality than their FOSS counterparts, in addition to open-source software when suitable. In Windows 7 I can get that, in addition to the feeling of being part of an extremely large and very well supported community who have an answer to virtually every problem that might occur, in virtue of the size of the userbase. In Linux I just feel like the lack of direction means that important stuff never gets fixed. I have no confidence with standby/resume in Linux, I have no confidence in tear-free video playback without having to tweak it myself, I have issues with the fact that I am not able to run programs like Photoshop/Office without WINE or VirtualBox, programs I want because they make life easier than the FOSS counterparts.
People have explained time and time again why Linux sucks on the desktop, but there's too much of an inertia and group mentality to ignore all the information that's OUT THERE ALREADY. So I can't describe it any better except by saying - it offers very little that Windows does not have except ideology and a very, very obsessive fanbase. I end up losing more by sticking with Linux then I do with Windows.
I'm not smug. I think the Linux zealots are smug and have some sort of superiority complex. But whatever, I've been using Linux on and off for the last 10 years and am fed up with its deficiencies on the desktop.
Agreed. Why am I able to run a butter-smooth Windows 7 machine for ages without being swamped with viruses and other people, who are supposedly fluent with Linux (and hence I assume computers in general) can't? I'd rather just learn how to be smart and stay safe on the net, rather than throw out an entire operating system for another set of problems just because of one little thing.
Agreed. I'll stick with the classics that I still find fun as well the occasional new game that doesn't have oppressive DRM which is also fun. But if it becomes the case whereby virtually all new games require always-on DRM and I end up not having control over my software any longer, then I'll give it up entirely and move onto something else.
These publishers act as if people HAVE to play their games, as if it's an insatiable need rather than a want. Not all of us are so weak-willed.
Please don't label those who are wary of companies who employ any form of DRM as zealots. It's not helpful and disregards any legitimate concerns they might have for not wanting DRM at all. For example, I no longer use Steam because although the DRM is generally reasonably fair (and we're talking stock Steam-DRM and not any addition 3rd-party DRM), I cannot resolve to my satisfaction the lingering concern about what happens if my account is locked/suspended over an issue with a game payment, or a mistake at Valve's or PayPal's end that results in said suspension, or VAC makes a mistake and bans me from VAC servers by accident and I have no resource, etc. I agree they're basically "what if's" but they do bother me, funnily enough. I cannot see myself having a large 100+ games Steam account without continually concerned that the keys to accessing all of my games are with Valve and not in my hands.
Apple now sells DRM-free music. Movie studios are still living in the dark ages but I'm slightly hopeful they'll come around, maybe. Game developers are mixed though, so why would I be a zealot for not wanting DRM? It's generally shown to be cracked after all and it only causes problems for paying customers and not pirates, so I don't touch it. I don't have a problem with SERIAL NUMBERS though as a means of authentication, which are still used even with digital purchases in many cases, but at least I know they don't require activation which is still a bad idea (what if I want to play a game in 10 years and the activation server is no longer running? I still play the original Deus Ex from time to time, so don't tell me old games aren't worth playing).
Just thinking long term here. Most indie games don't have DRM but they also don't have the lasting interest that something like Deus Ex: Human Revolution has. If this DRM trend doesn't turn around soon then I'll have to move onto another hobby. There's plenty other things in life to enjoy that I can have under my own rules.
If publishers keep persisting with this anti-consumer push for always-on DRM, I'll have to find another hobby. Good thing I bought my first Arduino last week.
You have to pay money to your phone company, so sure I have a greater level of expectation over them not screwing with my conversations as opposed to Facebook/MSN, for which I pay nothing. As for the postal service, in Australia it's wholly Government owned and hence comes under appropriate legislation.
I don't know why you were modded insightful. No-one reasonable likes censorship but to think Microsoft/Facebook have to follow your rules even though you don't pay a cent for the server is asinine.
Wrong guess - Australian actually. It's noted that we've weathered the economic crisis pretty well actually, in that it barely affected us (some were affected of course, it's not like we were isolated, but it's hardly as prevalent as it was elsewhere). On top of that I work for the Government in a position that basically can't be lost unless I look at porn or something on the net, since it's a very important and well-funded department and layoffs are basically non-existent. Not that I'm gloating, but I sometimes forget how bad things have gotten for others.
Facebook also blocks TPB links, and has for ages.
Microsoft and Facebook can do what they want - people can't complain too much, they are the company's networks after all, they can do what they want. But at least it's good in reminding people that their messages aren't private, and that there is going to be at least some automated checking of the contents before it's granted clearance to be sent through unaltered. If you really want to use an IM platform that's completely under your control (and not at the risk of censorship), then host your own XMPP server.
The best approach in an interview is to give the potential employer something to work with, rather than just a flat-out denial:
------
Potential Employer: "Er, so you are saying you're not part of any social network online whatsoever?"
You: "Well not exactly. I am a member of several tech sites and forums, helping people with problems and discussing various issues."
PE: "But what if you want to communicate with friends/family?"
You: "Email, the phone, etc. I have a Dropbox account where I share all my photos in the Photos gallery it provides. I don't use Facebook because I don't trust it as I'm concerned as to what might happen if my private data is leaked my accident or otherwise."
(Potential Employer considers this to be a different but thoughtful approach to remaining social and the interview progresses as normal...)
My God, you Americans really have a fucked up country. Just in case you weren't aware. I'm surprised there's anyone left who could be described as genuinely happy.
As per a YouTube Comment:
Autismï is a hell of a drug.
Seriously, who talks like that? Internet 'evils'? Ohhhhh! I've noticed the rhetoric from Iran, North Korea and other reclusive countries consistently sounds like it was made up by some hammy Z-grade Hollywood writer, rather than written by someone who wants to be, you know, taken seriously by the world.
Actually I don't care about what you say anymore. I was just glancing over at your previous comments to see if I was dealing with a nutbag, and I saw that in response to someone saying ""Medicaid and public universities both work fine", you replied "No, they don't."
In my country (Australia) we couldn't afford private health insurance so we relied on Medicare and the public health system. We also have predominately public unis although there are some private ones, but once again due to lack of funds I went to a public uni like most other people. I turned out alright and now have a great hardware engineering job. So as far as I'm concerned you can fuck off, because you clearly don't know anything.
I feel happy knowing I don't have to keep debating with a stranger when he's actually quite stupid and in the clouds. :)
Belittling people who see value in purchasing non-free software just makes you look like an arrogant ass. There's nothing wrong with a balanced middle-of-the-road approach.
Blender is rather unique though. They have their milestone rendering projects to create short films (Big Buck Bunny, Sintel, etc) that push the latest features and raise their profile. This helps in fundraising and allows the project to continue. I think Blender is a success story for a professional-level tool in the FOSS ecosystem, but not all software can be made like this. A single product like a game, well... maybe the engine can be released as FOSS and you end up buying the data (maps, models, sounds, etc). But from his post I don't think he'd be satisfied with any financial compensation as an end-user, no matter how minor. That's his prerogative though.
Shit, I'll admit it. It used to be because I though it was a nice ideology (and it is), but nowadays I'll freely admit that I just like free software. I don't want to pirate anymore, but I don't want to buy software if there's a perfectly good OSS alternative available. Plus by using the OSS alternative I future-proof myself in case I finally decide to move to Linux (which may never happen, but it can't hurt to keep my options open and make the possible transition as painless as possible).
There's nothing wrong with being tight with money, particularly if the OSS options are good enough. I tend to now buy games and media more than tools, so long as the games are cross-platform and the media is non-DRMed. Keeps me happy, and yes it's a cheaper way to do things. Big deal, I like cheap. :)
So what if the replication costs are zero? The work to make the software in the first place isn't free (we're assuming of course a for-sale product), so compensating for said effort is appropriate. It might take quite a number of sales before the costs for developing a product breaks even. Then there are the distribution costs, which even if it's something as simple as a server requires upkeep and maintenance costs.
Your position doesn't match the realities of the real world and no-one would take you seriously if you tried doing business with such a position.
I think you made a typo, here's the correct command:
sudo apt-get install cinnamon
OK it's still pretty new, but it's very quick and functional, and people are making themes and addons for it already.
What I've come to realize (speaking as a Linux fan but not a full-time user) is that a lot of Linux supporters like to blame everyone else for the lack of Linux's success on the desktop, EXCEPT Linux itself. They don't seem to acknowledge the fact that perhaps, just perhaps, it's the kernel developer's insistence on the lack of a stable ABI/API, the lack of support for commercial developers and the often hostile attitude of the community to said developers who write proprietary software, that might make Linux distros undesirable for the developers, and so the lack of software/hardware support and indeed, polish, ends up pushing people away.
But no, it's everyone else's fault. The Linux ecosystem is surely not at fault right? As long as people keep believing this, nothing will get better (and since it's such a pervasive idea that it's everyone ELSE who's at fault, no wonder uptake of Linux desktops is not only at a standstill, but in some reports is regressing.) It's fucking disturbing how many people think Linux is good enough for mainstream users, and ignore the legitimate complains people have about it. Personally I'm prepared to work with its deficiencies but at least I'm not blind to them!
Am I the only one who was thinking something when reading this?
Doesn't make them any less annoying or worthy of recognition of their existence. Plenty of people have had these issues, posted on various Linux forums, with varying levels of success at fixing them.
What in God's name are you doing to your system that ends up corrupting your user profile? To be fair I shouldn't complain too much because in a past life I did IT support (never again!) and some people somehow fucked up their profiles so badly that new ones had to be made. I still have no idea why it happened.
Traditionally yes, and this is a good thing which has saved me some trouble when copying settings between various servers. However there seems to be a new breed of Linux developer who stores their settings in binary files now, sorta akin to the Windows Registry, and if this trend keeps up then you won't be able to mark this as an advantage anymore.
Are you sure you're learning about how computers work, or just how Linux works? I've had many problems with various Linux distros which I've managed to solve through shear determination, but I'm not convinced I've expanded my knowledge about the fundamentals of computers - rather I've expanded my knowledge about how to fix Linux-specific problems. There's a difference.
Also, I do enjoy learning how to fix problems. But only in my OWN TIME. I do not enjoy coming home to fix problems unless I'm in a mood to do so. If I come home and find that a kernel update I applied the night before had killed my wireless adaptor or my graphics drivers, this does not please me. I can fix them most likely (or boot an older kernel), but I don't want to have to deal with this shit unless I'm mentally in the mood to do so.
Apologies - Slashdot ate the keyboard shortcuts in my post. For reference the steps came from http://en.libreofficeforum.org/node/498
That's easy - there's no way to easily vertically/middle align text in Open/LibreOffice writer. In Word 2010 you can simply click Align Text -> Middle on the ribbon and that's that. In Open/LibreOffice writer the closest and quickest alternative I've see anyone manage to do this is as follows:
Write your text and select it ()
1.) Insert Frame by typing
M
2.) Set width automagically:
3.) Select vertical align
C
4.) Select reference:
select 'entire page' or 'page text area' - as you wish
5.) confirm by pressing
Even then you still aren't done, since you have to remove the frame's border if you want the result to be the same as the one in Word. People have asked for this, but it hasn't been implemented yet. Perhaps one day, but still it's little things like this that you only discover once you find a need for them, and you realize why people might be inclined to just pay money for the market leader and get on with life.
Note: I use LibreOffice at home since I want cross-platform support between Windows and Linux, plus I don't want to pirate Office and yet don't feel it's worth buying for the little I use it for. At the same time, if Office were cross-platform and really cheap (and didn't require activation and instead just a serial), I'd jump on it in a heartbeat.