Yeah, like I said, as long as this remains optional I don't have any problem with it.
It is the concept that we must "make Linux like Windows" and hence remove the optional parts that seems rather silly to me. And that's the mentality I was speaking to.
Normally I respond to thing calmly and rationally, but in this case all that comes to mind is:
OH FOR FUCKS SAKE!
I'v had it with the governmental protection/enforcement of big-business's wishes and the ritualistic ass-raping that goes on when the two entities are so intertwined. I'm about one good molestation away from completely losing it and calling for a revolution. But the truly sad part about it is that there are only about three people in the entire nation that would be willing to get up off the couch and stop consuming the garbage they push into your head through the TV long enough to even acknowledge that an attempt was being made, let alone participate in it.
Oh god, what to do. It is assumed that every person that buys an electronic device of any kind has nothing but criminal intentions. And we must be stopped at all costs! It doesn't matter how much freedom they take away from us, because they are punishing us for the evil that we might have been able to accomplish. We are slowly being built into a societal prison the likes of which has rarely been seen. Big business and big money runs the show, with big government looking over our shoulders for them, taking big paychecks to the bank to make sure that us big, bad and nasty consumers don't get out of line and get medival on those poor hurting businesses. Well, let's do it! How many people would actually be willing to even put forth the effort it would take to get some support for a positive political candidate, or even get off their asses long enough to go vote for one if he/she existed? I doubt very many, and those that would just shrug and feel they can't do anything about the current situation. Keep shrugging and see where it takes you.
I'm often reminded of this Amazing Stories show that I saw years and years ago. Children were tested at certain ages. If they were deemed "too smart" by the government/business testing them, they were 'put to sleep' like animals. It was the only way that the people in control could guarantee that no one would get bright enough to "cause problems". How far away is that day? The powers-that-be are already going out of their way to make us stupider, and somehow lock us into their media outlets so that we are not allowed to input anything that might actually cause us to think for ourselves. How long before they "thin the herd" and remove those of us that can actually still form a cognitive thought above the level of "I must never question"?
Forgive the rant, but this garbage has got to end. Who would be willing to fight for their freedom if they needed to? Instead, we sit around, take that freedom for granted, and rush, screaming, with open arms into the pits of oppression that our forefathers fought and died to pull us out of. It's time for something major to happen. I cannot stand another day of this just sitting and watching as we rush headlong into a dictatorial system. Something needs to give. And I pray it isn't us, I feel we've given enough. But I would gladly give my life if I thought I could help gain a little freedom for my children. Braveheart I'm not, but I'm not afraid to fight if the cause and the time is right.
I'm not a violent militant person. But we really need to put some serious thought into the possibility that the only way out of this mess is revolution. Surely there are enough Americans left that believe in freedom that they would be willing to fight for it. Aren't there?
This message brought to you by heavy doses of caffiene and a complete lack of sleep.
Thank you for totally a complete mis-representing what I said.
You see this as a religious war. It isn't. You try to peg me as a zealot, I am not.
Has it ever occured to you that some of us that use Unix (or Windows) don't do so for religious reasons? Has it ever occured to you that some of us actually enjoy the operating system that we choose because we understand it and enjoy using it? And, have you ever stopped to think that just because we defend one doesn't mean we can't understand the need for others and new and different things.
Personally, my favorite operating system is BeOS, but I can't use it on a daily basis because it doesn't have the applications available for it. So, I am a Unix/Unix clone user. Windows doesn't make sense to me, but for those that it does, I say let them use it in peace.
Just because I only spoke of the two operating systems doesn't mean that I totally disregard all others. In fact, I am quite happy to try any OS that comes my way. I probably enjoy change a lot more than others. But for business purposes, Unix serves my needs. Forgive me if I actually enjoy using what I already have. If I found something that served my needs better, I would take it. But at the moment, I am satisfied with what I have. Not that I don't occassionally wish for more, but you work with what you've got.
BTW, nice job of getting pissed off about nothing. Your attempt to peg me as a zealot was quite humorous. This whole religious fervor that exists around the operting system issue just seems like such non-sense. It's just a computer operating system. It's not that important. And if you think it is, then please, take a vacation.
I support everyone's right to choose whatever operating system they wish. I spoke of the two most common because it is assumed that they are the most important, and that for some reason one must become more and more like the other (remember the old "better Unix than Unix" line?). Both can exist as they are, as can several other operating systems. AtheOS, Plan 9, or even the variations on the Linux kernel that have started coming out that aren't really Unix based. Good luck to all of them. I love variety.
Well, in the case of a bootup screen I would hope to god that it is something that is put in via the boot configuration program, not something in the kernel. (Lilo or grub should allow this, right?)
The type of things that really make me shudder in fear is when people start saying that all of X should be put into kernel-space. Oh god, now that would be the last thing you would want to do. X locks? So does your box. Great idea guys.
But, for those hard-core gamers I don't see a problem in making an X module in the kernel that remains "optional". But I fear in this rush to embrace the Windows mentality of the average computer user we will slowly remove the idea of having "optional" things in the Linux kernel. I hope I'm wrong, but my paranoia has rarely been proven wrong lately.
Isn't this one of the things about Corel Linux that bothered people? I know it certainly bothered me.
And let's not forget that the people that are claiming this is really, really important are the same people that agreed whole-heartedly with that article a while back that said that there are way too many packages included with Linux distributions. These people want Linux to be just exactly like Windows. They want a system that hides everything from them. They want a system that is basically as non-powerful as possible so that the system can tell them how to work, not the other way around. They want a system that comes with nothing, so that they have to run down to Best Buy and plunk down another couple of hundred dollars before they can get any work done. Frankly, I don't understand why they want to be so limitted in how they use their system.
Now, don't get me wrong. I see nothing wrong with eye candy, even if it is just for the sake of having more eye candy. As long as it is always optional, so that I don't have to wait for that "pretty" penguin screen to disappear on my server before going to the command line, or worse yet, get stuck with a full X-based install on a system that I'm trying to set up to be headless. But please, let's not get overjoyed every time we get Linux one step close to being just like Windows. There are still plenty of us out here that started using Linux because it wasn't like Windows, and we want to keep it that way. We aren't trying to avoid progress. We are trying to promote progress, and avoid regression.
To those that like Windows, and want a Windows like system, I have a suggestion: USE WINDOWS! I know, it sounds like blasphemy, but really it isn't that big of a deal. If you want Windows, it really isn't that terrible of a thing to use it. If you want a Unix like system, then there are plenty of free choices out there (Linux and the BSDs among them). But I do not understand why the free Unices must give up their Unix heritage so that they can be "more like Windows". Windows isn't that bad. Some of us just prefer using Unix and Unix like systems. For those of us that do, we do not want to be stuck having to choose between Windows and what used to be a Unix clone but is now a Windows clone. That will not allow us choice. Unless (as I've said before) you actually believed that the choice between George W. and Al Gore was a real choice. In that case, I have wasted my writing time.
I wouldn't normally respond to stuff like this, but would it really be that difficult to add something to the lameness filter that prevents more than a few BR or P tags in a row? I would think it would be worth it for this thread alone, never mind all the other threads this person has rendered un-readable.
1. What president wasn't into adultry? (Well, aside from Regan who probably hadn't gotten it up in the ten years prior to his term.)
2. What president doesn't go out of their way to involve America in all sorts of other countries problems/wars? Even Clinton jumped into stupid-ass battles to cover his ass during some of his personal "crisis".
But, that aside, I agree. If Kennedy hadn't been shot, I doubt that we would look at him as such a great man. Sure, he pushed some great scientific advancements, but aside from the shooting, his presidency wasn't all that spectacular.
While the US is definitely in a downward spiral of personal freedoms at the moment (and I speak from experience, as a US citizen, and as a musician that has had more than one piece of music stolen by some "corporate entity" that said I was working for them at the time I wrote it), I don't think you will find things much better anywhere else.
The problem is not so much the government, but the fact that the government isn't actually running the way that it is supposed to be. It is not running based on the idealism of the forefathers, where the people have a say in what goes on. It is running purely and fully on the greed and money of the multi-national corporations. And these multi-nationals are going to be powerful no matter where you go on this planet. Unfortunately, at the moment, you are limited to this planet.
The money is what runs the show. If you have enough money, you can have all the freedom you want. But, most of us don't have the money. And our "choices" for political offices are made by the people that do have the money. We can choose between the guy that is getting half of the political money of big business for his campaign, or we can choose the guy that gets the other half of the political money of big business for his campaign. Of course, there are the third parties, but, as always, we are told that a vote for any third party candidate is a vote for (most evil option here) to scare us into staying with the status quo.
Our freedoms are eroding, and I have looked into the possibility of moving out of the country myself. But where would I go? I can speak French passibly (as well as English) so that opens up a few more doors, but the possibilities that I would move just to face exactly the same situation seems ridiculously stupid. In America, we are supposed to have a voice. But, until enough people wake up out of the rebuplicratic fog that they are in and vote their heart instead of their fear, well, it just isn't going to change.
Maybe, if more people became informed it would change. But don't hold your breath. Oh, and one other thing. If you do find a cool place to live, move there and are satisfied with it, let me know. I'd love to get away from here.
As much as I disagree with some of the "activities" they are supposedly disallowing, I do not agree with their solution of supposedly "restricting" the actions themselves.
But, the most frightening part of this entire thing is the whole deal about "reserving the right" to enter your home, monitor you and share your personal info with other companies. Granted, the info sharing happens all the time. Go ahead, mail order any product and within two to three months you will be recieving comparable product mailings from dozens of companies. But the idea of a company that I sign a service contract with saying that they have the right to, at any time, walk into my house to "observe" my activities seems a bit unreasonable.
The real problem is that there are enough lawmakers that feel this should be allowed that it may not face much of a challenge if it were ever taken to court. And people are stupid enough that they are rushing forward with open arms towards policies like this in order to "protect the children". I fear the future. At one time I had such hopes. But things of this nature make it far too frightful.
I pray by the time I have children that I still have the right to raise them myself. But even a story such as this turns that idea into a silly dream. We must be stopped from corrupting our youth. Even if the child is our own, we must not "corrupt" them.
And another thing, who will define vulgar or hateful posts? Can I not troll slashdot using this service? Or can I not use usenet (a more vile and wretched hate-filled place you will not find on the net)? I just don't like the implications of the open-ended, "vulgar or hateful" type regulations. They either need to go all out defining vulgar and hateful, or the need to realize that they would need to hire an awful lot of people to police every user 24/7. Either way it seems ridiculous.
I think the problem you will find is that the million half-assed imitations in any musical genre are the ones that get all the publicity and such. People say they hate country because they've never heard "real" country, just the crap that's on the radio. People hate heavy metal because all they hear is Manson and Zombie (and the few other corporate metal dorks). People hate folk because they hear garbage by people claiming to be folk that have ten-billion dollar budgets for an album.
Electronica music is not the only victim of over-sensationalized garbage performances. But most people that have a type of music they are already into forget that they had to look past the surface of that genre to find anything worthwhile. And so, they assume that the garbage on the surface of the other genres are an honest representation of the entire genre.
I listen to a lot of different types of music. But hardly anyone I know could recognize the names of more than maybe one or two bands in my musical collection. Popular usually is just crap, in any genre. If I had heard Godsmack and thought that they represented all of Heavy Metal, I would have never taken the interest in it that I did. Dig underground and you find so much more promise, talent and grace. And that works the same in all other music genres.
I realize this is getting slightly off-topic, but does anybody remember when the Headbanger's Ball (on MTV) used to play the 'not corporate' rock and metal bands? Sepultura, Deicide, Death, Powermad, Slayer (before they tried the hip-hop type thing), and old school metal.
I will forever hate Ricky Rack-me for destroying what was a good show. I don't care if he called the shots or not. Once he was host, it was Skid-Row, Ugly Kid Joe, Alice in Chains and all the other stuff that they played all day long (and you could hear on any radio station you wanted).
Hang on there pal. There is a big difference between "Extreme Death Metal" and radio pop metal.
Godsmack=Radio Pop Metal
Cannibal Corpse= Extreme Death Metal
I have yet to hear a radio station play a song by Cannibal Corpse, or even some of the old school death metal bands that actually played Death Metal and weren't manufactured bands. Bands like Death, Atheist, Sabbat, Pestilence and many, many others. The "eager and huge American audience" seems very small when you are a part of that audience. A large following in Florida and a few scattered souls around the rest of the country. Oh, for the good old days.;-)
This entire thread has me thinking of a newsgroup posting I saw a few months back in comp.os.linux.advocacy from someone that I know. With his permission I am reprinting some of it here.
(speech)
I always find stories like these humorous. Why you ask? Because the
assumption is that Linux is just another "business" like all the big
name software is now. People try so hard to fit Linux into the
pre-concieved notion of how software has been developed up to now that
they don't understand how Linux intends to (and in many ways already
has) break out of that mold.
Linux isn't a singular business. It doesn't depend on R&D money nearly
as much as software "businesses". It depends on users creating
software, which bring in more users/developers, which create more
software, which bring in more....
This process started slowly, and continued to increase. Yes, some
commercial companies have taken interest, but the underlying OS and a
lot of the software that runs on it are still based on the Open
Source/Free Software ideals that launched and maintained it up to now.
Linux isn't Windows. Linux isn't Microsoft. They are nothing like
eachother. Linux has a large following and that isn't going to go
away. As far as the "chicken and the egg" problem, that is strictly a
concern for the "commercial" businesses that are into Linux at the
moment. Some of them may fail before Linux truly "makes it" all the way
to the top. But Linux itself isn't going to just disappear because a
few of the companies interested in it do.
Linux also doesn't fit the traditional sense of "market" and "market
share" the way software "houses" and businesses do. How do you proclaim
market share for something that is basically free? I have no idea, and
really, no one else does either. It can be downloaded, bought on a CD
that can be installed on hundreds of computers, bought on a CD that is
never installed on any computer, bought from an OEM (and that CD taken
to other computers), handed out at trade shows for free, etc. etc.
There is no way to say: there are "X" number of systems running Linux
today. I don't think that will ever happen. I don't think it will ever
be possible to say the exact number of systems running Linux. But, it
will continue to turn a profit for consultants, "Help Desk" type support
companies, resellers, bundlers, book companies making literature about
it, and other businesses. However, traditional software companies will
also begin to see a profit returned from some of their Linux ventures
through the years. Whether that happens immediately upon entry into the
Linux market isn't certain, but as it gains mindshare (as you can't
really say market share here) it will be a bigger money maker for
software companies.
As far as the whole "We need big business to succeed, even though we
made it this far without them." I'm reminded every time I hear it of the
scene in Braveheart towards the end. I know it isn't factually correct
with history, but the scene is completely relevant to this discussion.
William says, "We need the nobles to succeed". His friend and the
others around him wonder why. "They made it that far without them, why
do we need them now?" is the general thought. Then William walked off
and was betrayed by the "nobles" in order for them to have greater
success in court. Now, why again do we "need" the big business
attention now? I say, it will come eventually if Linux just keeps
developing in the way it is. Eventually may not be tomorrow, but it
would be best of business came slowly after seeing real-world
performance from Linux than jumping in and trying to take it over.
Some businesses are already coming over on Linux's own terms. IBM comes
to mind as one huge part of this. Oracle, Sybase, Informix, and others
are all coming to Linux in one form or another. Sure, they all aren't
jumping in head first like IBM is doing right now, but like I said, let
them approach slowly and see what they are getting into. There will be
more satisfaction all around if they do so. If they jump in head first
and totally try to absorb the Linux culture/software all at once, they
will behead themselves. The whole chicken and egg problem isn't nearly
as big a problem as what some would make it out to be. GNOME grows, KDE
grows (each with their own "free" office suites), MySQL and Postgres
grow (and add features), all levels of the software we 'need' are coming
along slowly from within the community (and from donations outside the
community, like Helix Code on GNOME). It's happening just like it
always has. If all commercial interest stopped today (not something I
see as being likely) the community would continue, because to most of
them it is a labor of love, not work. The chicken and the egg problem
as it is presented by the press is just a part of the growth of Linux.
A couple of years ago the press would say, "What the hell is Linux?"
Today they are saying, "Linux can't succeed because of the chicken and
the egg problem." In two years time....(left to your imagination).
Linux has "succeeded" up to this point because of the driving force
behind it. It's developers and users are people that love the system,
and push it forward. No amount of marketing or news is going to make
that community disappear, and it will continue to grow. Slowly? Or
quickly? It doesn't really matter. It's not going away. It's not
going to "take over the world" anytime soon, but that's OK too. We (the
community) just want to see it continue to "succeed" in exactly the way
it has up to this point. Keep growing, keep building, keep adding to
the community, keep developing. The best thing for Linux and the
community around it is to ignore the little blurbs coming at it from all
sides and concentrate on what it always has concentrated on: continuing
to build momentum behind itself through growth and learning. Let the
press say it will never succeed. In the communities opinion, it already
has, and will continue to succeed in the way that only it can.
(/speech)
--
leenat@willinet.net
Nathaniel Jay Lee
I realize that's a bit lengthy, but it sums it up so well.
This guy is a business associate of mine, and said he invites you to e-mail him if you would like to "talk shop". I wanted to write a nice little rant about this, but I don't think I could have written one that says it as well as he did.
I would have to ask if the letter written on behalf of the "Author's Guild" truly was written on behalf of the authors, or if it was written on behalf of the publishers in charge of authors profits. In other words, do the authors actually support this letter?
Personally, myself and two other members of Faulty Dreams (check my web site) are currently writing novels, and one of us is already a published author. We (all of us) do not feel that this letter is representative of our interests at all. As authors, who are usually far more interested in the artistic side of creating (of course, there are exceptions) probably don't care if someone buys a used book or a new book.
And, on the other side of the coin, if you write a good book, why would it be available so quickly in the "used" section anyways? Seriously, writing crap and expecting people to pay top dollar for it, what do you expect? Eventually someone's going to say, "Hey, I was dumb enough to buy this book. I'll bet someone out there is stupid enough to buy it from me for a little less. At least it won't be a total waste."
If I saw one of my books listed in a used book list just a few months after release, I would probably just go, "wow, I must've sucked a lot more than I thought." I mean, really. Why on earth would you expect that it is the responsibility of the person that bought the book to keep it if they didn't like it? Maybe they read it and thought it was worthless? Or maybe they read a little bit of it, realized what a hack you are and sold it.
I don't know, this whole think stinks like rotten eggs. I just don't understand why people think they have the right to dictate what the consumer does with any good that is produced. Like it or not, that's what these creations are. Whether you talke music, books, magazines, MP3s or whatever, it's a good, a product.
Now, here's the really important question. When did we, as consumers, lose all the rights that were supposedly part of any deal? There was the right of the producer to make money (yes, that sounds fair). And then there was the right as a consumer to do whatever we wanted with that good after we purchased it (short of copying it and reselling the copies, sounds fair enough). That is what "consumer rights" is all about. But today it seems that the emphasis is placed on the producer's rights and the consumer is considered to be a pirate, theif, thug, or criminal of whatever sort is the most vile and disgusting at the moment just because we were stupid enough to purchase the good in the first place. I'm sorry, but at what point did big business decide that all people are as criminally motivated as they are?
Sorry, just another stupid consumer that feels like he's had enough. And as someone that is also one of the producers (in this context) it seems ridiculous that other "producers" are trying so hard to limit the rights of the consumers. ARGHHHH!
The typical corporate mentallity now is "if the public isn't buying, they must be getting it illegally."
Of course, they would never stop to think that maybe, just maybe, someone out there woke up from the induced mental haze and said, "hey, I'll bet we could live without that techno-marvel"! No, none of us would do that now would we? After all, we are just sheep, and without those big corporations telling us what to do, what to buy, and how to use what we buy, we would all degenerate into a bunch of pirating, stealing degenerates.
Sorry for the rant. Too much coroprate influence today.
Sorry for taking so long, just got back from vacation.
The idea of "consumer rights" is something that is framed in law. It is seperate from citizens rights in that we are all citizens. Once you purchase something, you are trading money for a good. In trade for that money, you have the right to have that good work as promised. That right is being taken away. That is consumer rights, and it is completely different from citizens rights. The two are not equal concepts in my mind. If you begin equating the two, then yes, that is a very disturbing thought.
The less people watching, the less "viewers" they have. Sure, they are selling to advertisers, but they are selling "market mindshare". They do that with statistics. And statistics about "how many are watching" do not necissarily filter out time-shifters. So, remove the time-shifters from the equation and you will have less, perhaps a lot less, to sell (as a media outlet) the the advertisers.
Any way that you look at it they are going to hurt themselves with this move in some way. Whether it be alienating users (which means less advertising money), or losing viewership because it can't be time-shifted (which also means less advertising money), or just pissing people off so much that they quit caring about TV at all (which also means less advertising money), they are hurting themselves with this just as much as they are hurting the consumers, er I mean stopping us nasty damn pirates.
At what point did consumer rights just completely disappear? What happened to the idea that you try to please your customer? Where did that mentallity disappear to?
I do not understand how this kind of garbage keeps happening. We used to have, under "fair use", the right to "time-shift" any publicly accessible media. Television and radio shows, broadcast movies and sporting events were allowed to be recorded by law. So, how do the media companies propose to remove the capabilities that the legal systems says are perfectly allowable? By introducing a "no record bit" in the signal. These proposals (well, they are more than proposals now aren't they? But I refuse to call them "standards") are seriously just another attempt to gather more money.
But the thing that the industries involved here don't understand is that they are only going to hurt themselves in the end. Now, all of the people that have to work during their favorite shows will not only not be able to record those shows to watch them later, but they won't be able to watch them at all. How does that improve viewership of the shows that these companies claim are so important to their livelihood? If we have an evening where we are busy and we can't watch our favorite show, we can't watch that show at all. Forget about recording it because the industry says that's piracy. Be a good little consumer and sit in front of your TV when we tell you to. Well, what if we have lives beyond our television, but we still want to watch our favorite shows? Sorry, that's no longer allowed.
It just seems utterly ridiculous to me that companies keep thinking that by "getting tighter control" of their media they are going to make more money. All they are doing is wasting a lot of money on things that are going to garauntee lower viewership, alienating viewers, and pissing people off in droves. The electronics market will suffer. The consumers will suffer. And eventually, when people get so sick of trying to find ways to watch their favorite shows that they stop watching altogether, the media companies themselves will suffer.
Well, that doesn't really hurt my feelings too much. But it is amazing to see so much money wasted on something that is so utterly stupid. But, it seems stupidity is the only thing these companies are good at anymore. Once a business hits a certain size, that's it. You cannot be big and still play smart. It just doesn't seem to work.
Now, having said all of that, is it possible that the FCC will reject this? It would be nice if there were that much common sense in a government agency. The whole intention of agencies like the FCC is supposedly to uphold the law of the land. The law of the land says that time-shifting is allowable. But the law of the green (as in the green of the money of the kickbacks the FCC is bound to be getting from the industries involved) says that time-shifting is just another way of sayhing "piracy". However this turns out, I'm sure it will be another "consumers are evil, business is good" turn of events.
At what point will business realize that people are not evil just for being consumers? Legally, at least in the US, you are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty. But when it comes to business anymore it is automatically assumed that anyone that purchases any good is guilty of the most evil and vile crime that is possible with that good (or broadcast). It is not even thought, even for a moment, that a "consumer" may just be using something as it was intended, or if not exactly as intended, it isn't the evil and disgusting nature of the person causing them to do something "different" (Oh, that's a naughty word now isn't it?). It is just that they need to do it differently or they can't do it at all (especially in the case of recording a show because you aren't home at that time).
But let them do it. Once a few million consumers are pissed off and stop watching/recording their shows every day while they are working, maybe these people will finally wake up. But I doubt it. They will probably just assume that we are illegally tapping into someone else's feed.
In all honesty it seems that Mr. Katz has taken a very, very long time to say something that would appear to be obvious. If you make it easy for people to gather, especially in a place where they cannot be held accountable, the few bad apples which are loudest, rowdiest, or just nastiest will ruin the experience for everyone (look around you, the trolls and spammers are just this bunch).
The thing that Jon doesn't even touch on, and that I rarely see mentioned anywhere, is that this is simply evolution working in a technological media. Seriously, the entire idea of "Internet Community" is very, very new when compared with the human race and its societal development. When the first humans lived together in a cave or on the plains, does anyone think that they were completely civil and organized? We are watching the Internet community develop in much the same way that the "meat world" community developed. We will go through a generation or two of uncivil, adolescent like behaviour and slowly watch our community develop into a stronger, healthier (mentally) and much more cohesive society.
The only negative thing is that the institutions that are in the meat world have seen this happening quickly (relatively) and realized that they needed to exert their influence into the online world before people got used to the idea of a "free" community, where the expression of ideas, thoughts and "digital media" like musical compositions and movies were freely and quickly transfered to anyone that was interested. The powers that be do not want that sort of freedom. It removes monetary incentives from people's minds, and removes the power that groups like the RIAA, the MPAA and even the government can use, develop, and exert.
Whether these large and powerful groups are going to be able to completely and fully tame the Internet community spirit remains to be seen. But I truly feel that there will always be some places on the Internet that are "free". Even though slashdot is not the most free of places, it is one of the freeist in existance at the moment. And there will always be something that is the equivalent of usenet and such.
But our "community" in the online world is just now starting to define itself, and just now finding its own character. It will take much more time (even by Internet time standards) before we see what "online community" will really mean. Hopefully it will be something better and still more free than the meat world allows us. And with worldwide use increasing, there is still a large amount of promise. I still have hope. How about you?
Why does everyone assume that all Linux users want to see Linux on the desktop in widespread use? I personally don't care either way.
There are people on all sides of this issue. But telling us that we all have to keep reading this article until we agree with it is just as stupid as the people that say, "If you don't like it F*CK OFF!". Neither accomplishes anything, and neither is being constructive.
I don't agree with the article at all. To me, Linux is an alternative to the current "standard" desktop environment. Making it just like Windows is not going to leave me an alternative. It would be like, hmm, let's see, having to choose between George W. "drewl and scribble" Bush and Al "Robot Man" Gore. It's not a choice at all. You can be dumb, or you can be dumb, which do you want to be?
If it does make it onto the desktop? Well, great. But it should do it as an Open system. I don't really get into the politics of Open vs. Free myself. But I don't think we need to change every aspect of Linux for it just to survive (and to some people survival seems to be tied up with 'beat Windows' and I don't see it that way at all). Linux will survive for a long time because there are a lot of people (me included) that are going to use it whether it is considered the "standard" or not. And those people aren't all going to just switch to (or back to) Windows just because someone says, "Linux can't succeed".
Sorry to disappoint you, but I don't agree with that article. And the more I read it, the more I disagreed. People have differing needs. People won't all agree. That's just the way it is.
This entire article was based on the premise that people need Linux to be "just like Windows". It angers and disappoints me every time I read something like this.
It seems the number one thing that people keep asking for when it comes to a "desktop" operating system is "just like Windows." Oh, sure, I know there are countless arguments, but when you boil through them, sift them down and shake them out it amounts to, "just like windows". Well, I'm sorry to have to restate this often overlooked possibility, but Linux is not Windows.
There is this "outraged" section of the computer community that screams bloody murder about this "upstart" Linux because it breaks all of the old rules. How dare they ship everything in one box! That seems to be what this article is saying. I know, it seems absurd to those of us that have used Linux since the days when you had to search everywhere for even a passing mention of how to use some command, or where to get some application. But there are people out there that just do not understand that Linux is not about giving you a worthless, useless, and basically inexpensive alternative to the "common" desktop environment. There are people that want something as crappily disgusting as what the Corel distrobution was. They want something that installs no usable applications by default (and forces you to go "purchase" all of your applications seperately). They want something that looks, acts and behaves exactly like Windows. It doesn't matter if that means crashing on a regular basis, just as long as they don't have to think too hard to use it.
Linux may never be accepted for what it is. It is an inexpensive, yet fully complete alternative. I buy SuSE Linux distros because I enjoy not having to purchase or download any other software (other than Mozilla nightlies occassionally). It is completely unfathomable to me that there are people screaming for there to be "less" in a distro. It also frightens me. I don't mind the idea of giving a quick install "option" where you can still pick to install the "hard" way and install as much or as little as you want. What scares me is that these people that claim Linux is "too much" may be taken too seriously and the major distros may start removing choices. Corel made that mistake. They didn't appeal to the long-time users because it was too restricting, too confining. They didn't appeal to new users because of the lack of available applications, and the lack of help available (let's face it, you ask a typical Linux geek for help and they expect you to be able to run standard commands. Corel didn't ship with a lot of the standard commands, especially if accepting a "default" install). If all of the other distrobutions begin falling into that "we need to be more like Windows" trap, I believe Linux's time in the sun will quickly fade.
This article makes me think of the people that screamed bloody murder because Linux doesn't have a registry. They don't want an '/etc' directory full of easy to configure text files, they want a one binary file system wide configuration with no possibility of users customizing their own environment. They want a "single" user system. They don't want a root account, they want the 'old' Windows way of doing things.
I pray it doesn't happen. But if it does, I guess I'll just stick with what is present right now. Make the "windows like" distro a choice, not a necessity. It seems this article is crying out for it being the only choice. Are people really so afraid of change that they can't imagine using a system that doesn't dictate their every move? And is it really so hard for them to believe that some people do want to be able to use their system any way they want to?
Freedom of choice is not a bad thing. I hope that someone important understands that.
True, very true. And I find that is something that the government, the big businesses, and the other 'controlling' factions all seem to promote. The idea is to keep people too stupid to question the "authority" figures. Well, I say, it's been far too long since someone has questioned them. At least since someone has questioned them in a way they can't ignore.
Unfortunately it seems the only way to get their attention is with multi-million dollar "contributions" or with violence. I don't have the money, and I'm not that violent of a guy (something you probably wouldn't believe if you ever saw me play guitar). Besides, the violence route is only good for a moment or two. Once you are locked up people forget all about you. Short attention spans ideed.
That's either the most amazingly inspired thing I've ever heard, or the most stupid and idiotic thing. I haven't made up my mind yet.
Does anybody rememer the Seinfeld (sp?) where Kramer was doing a few minutes of sleep every couple of hours? Take that, combine it with the 28 hour day and the 13 month calendar and then you can really have some fun watching your body and mind go, "WHAT THE *$%&^# ARE YOU TRYING TO DO?!?"
I agree whole-heartedly with your comment. But I would like to add that I feel it is the parent's responsibility to make sure they give their child the proper sense of right and wrong and the proper protections at the proper time. It is not, and should not be, the governments job.
And that was the idea that I was trying to convey in my post. It should be up to the parent to teach their children properly. The more the government tells you how to raise your children, the close we get to just handing our kids over to some government agency the second they are born. It sounds far-fetched, but it is one possible outcome.
Let people decide for themselves. And a five-year old should be supervised by someone when on the Internet. They should not be supervised by some broken and completely untrustworthy technology. The television was never a good babysitter, and the computer/internet should not be seen as a good babysitter/parental replacement either. But it should be the parent, not the government that decides when to "hold back".
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, like I said, as long as this remains optional I don't have any problem with it.
It is the concept that we must "make Linux like Windows" and hence remove the optional parts that seems rather silly to me. And that's the mentality I was speaking to.
Normally I respond to thing calmly and rationally, but in this case all that comes to mind is:
OH FOR FUCKS SAKE!
I'v had it with the governmental protection/enforcement of big-business's wishes and the ritualistic ass-raping that goes on when the two entities are so intertwined. I'm about one good molestation away from completely losing it and calling for a revolution. But the truly sad part about it is that there are only about three people in the entire nation that would be willing to get up off the couch and stop consuming the garbage they push into your head through the TV long enough to even acknowledge that an attempt was being made, let alone participate in it.
Oh god, what to do. It is assumed that every person that buys an electronic device of any kind has nothing but criminal intentions. And we must be stopped at all costs! It doesn't matter how much freedom they take away from us, because they are punishing us for the evil that we might have been able to accomplish. We are slowly being built into a societal prison the likes of which has rarely been seen. Big business and big money runs the show, with big government looking over our shoulders for them, taking big paychecks to the bank to make sure that us big, bad and nasty consumers don't get out of line and get medival on those poor hurting businesses. Well, let's do it! How many people would actually be willing to even put forth the effort it would take to get some support for a positive political candidate, or even get off their asses long enough to go vote for one if he/she existed? I doubt very many, and those that would just shrug and feel they can't do anything about the current situation. Keep shrugging and see where it takes you.
I'm often reminded of this Amazing Stories show that I saw years and years ago. Children were tested at certain ages. If they were deemed "too smart" by the government/business testing them, they were 'put to sleep' like animals. It was the only way that the people in control could guarantee that no one would get bright enough to "cause problems". How far away is that day? The powers-that-be are already going out of their way to make us stupider, and somehow lock us into their media outlets so that we are not allowed to input anything that might actually cause us to think for ourselves. How long before they "thin the herd" and remove those of us that can actually still form a cognitive thought above the level of "I must never question"?
Forgive the rant, but this garbage has got to end. Who would be willing to fight for their freedom if they needed to? Instead, we sit around, take that freedom for granted, and rush, screaming, with open arms into the pits of oppression that our forefathers fought and died to pull us out of. It's time for something major to happen. I cannot stand another day of this just sitting and watching as we rush headlong into a dictatorial system. Something needs to give. And I pray it isn't us, I feel we've given enough. But I would gladly give my life if I thought I could help gain a little freedom for my children. Braveheart I'm not, but I'm not afraid to fight if the cause and the time is right.
I'm not a violent militant person. But we really need to put some serious thought into the possibility that the only way out of this mess is revolution. Surely there are enough Americans left that believe in freedom that they would be willing to fight for it. Aren't there?
This message brought to you by heavy doses of caffiene and a complete lack of sleep.
Thank you for totally a complete mis-representing what I said.
You see this as a religious war. It isn't. You try to peg me as a zealot, I am not.
Has it ever occured to you that some of us that use Unix (or Windows) don't do so for religious reasons? Has it ever occured to you that some of us actually enjoy the operating system that we choose because we understand it and enjoy using it? And, have you ever stopped to think that just because we defend one doesn't mean we can't understand the need for others and new and different things.
Personally, my favorite operating system is BeOS, but I can't use it on a daily basis because it doesn't have the applications available for it. So, I am a Unix/Unix clone user. Windows doesn't make sense to me, but for those that it does, I say let them use it in peace.
Just because I only spoke of the two operating systems doesn't mean that I totally disregard all others. In fact, I am quite happy to try any OS that comes my way. I probably enjoy change a lot more than others. But for business purposes, Unix serves my needs. Forgive me if I actually enjoy using what I already have. If I found something that served my needs better, I would take it. But at the moment, I am satisfied with what I have. Not that I don't occassionally wish for more, but you work with what you've got.
BTW, nice job of getting pissed off about nothing. Your attempt to peg me as a zealot was quite humorous. This whole religious fervor that exists around the operting system issue just seems like such non-sense. It's just a computer operating system. It's not that important. And if you think it is, then please, take a vacation.
I support everyone's right to choose whatever operating system they wish. I spoke of the two most common because it is assumed that they are the most important, and that for some reason one must become more and more like the other (remember the old "better Unix than Unix" line?). Both can exist as they are, as can several other operating systems. AtheOS, Plan 9, or even the variations on the Linux kernel that have started coming out that aren't really Unix based. Good luck to all of them. I love variety.
Well, in the case of a bootup screen I would hope to god that it is something that is put in via the boot configuration program, not something in the kernel. (Lilo or grub should allow this, right?)
The type of things that really make me shudder in fear is when people start saying that all of X should be put into kernel-space. Oh god, now that would be the last thing you would want to do. X locks? So does your box. Great idea guys.
But, for those hard-core gamers I don't see a problem in making an X module in the kernel that remains "optional". But I fear in this rush to embrace the Windows mentality of the average computer user we will slowly remove the idea of having "optional" things in the Linux kernel. I hope I'm wrong, but my paranoia has rarely been proven wrong lately.
Isn't this one of the things about Corel Linux that bothered people? I know it certainly bothered me.
And let's not forget that the people that are claiming this is really, really important are the same people that agreed whole-heartedly with that article a while back that said that there are way too many packages included with Linux distributions. These people want Linux to be just exactly like Windows. They want a system that hides everything from them. They want a system that is basically as non-powerful as possible so that the system can tell them how to work, not the other way around. They want a system that comes with nothing, so that they have to run down to Best Buy and plunk down another couple of hundred dollars before they can get any work done. Frankly, I don't understand why they want to be so limitted in how they use their system.
Now, don't get me wrong. I see nothing wrong with eye candy, even if it is just for the sake of having more eye candy. As long as it is always optional, so that I don't have to wait for that "pretty" penguin screen to disappear on my server before going to the command line, or worse yet, get stuck with a full X-based install on a system that I'm trying to set up to be headless. But please, let's not get overjoyed every time we get Linux one step close to being just like Windows. There are still plenty of us out here that started using Linux because it wasn't like Windows, and we want to keep it that way. We aren't trying to avoid progress. We are trying to promote progress, and avoid regression.
To those that like Windows, and want a Windows like system, I have a suggestion: USE WINDOWS! I know, it sounds like blasphemy, but really it isn't that big of a deal. If you want Windows, it really isn't that terrible of a thing to use it. If you want a Unix like system, then there are plenty of free choices out there (Linux and the BSDs among them). But I do not understand why the free Unices must give up their Unix heritage so that they can be "more like Windows". Windows isn't that bad. Some of us just prefer using Unix and Unix like systems. For those of us that do, we do not want to be stuck having to choose between Windows and what used to be a Unix clone but is now a Windows clone. That will not allow us choice. Unless (as I've said before) you actually believed that the choice between George W. and Al Gore was a real choice. In that case, I have wasted my writing time.
I wouldn't normally respond to stuff like this, but would it really be that difficult to add something to the lameness filter that prevents more than a few BR or P tags in a row? I would think it would be worth it for this thread alone, never mind all the other threads this person has rendered un-readable.
1. What president wasn't into adultry? (Well, aside from Regan who probably hadn't gotten it up in the ten years prior to his term.)
2. What president doesn't go out of their way to involve America in all sorts of other countries problems/wars? Even Clinton jumped into stupid-ass battles to cover his ass during some of his personal "crisis".
But, that aside, I agree. If Kennedy hadn't been shot, I doubt that we would look at him as such a great man. Sure, he pushed some great scientific advancements, but aside from the shooting, his presidency wasn't all that spectacular.
What can I say, realism sucks.
While the US is definitely in a downward spiral of personal freedoms at the moment (and I speak from experience, as a US citizen, and as a musician that has had more than one piece of music stolen by some "corporate entity" that said I was working for them at the time I wrote it), I don't think you will find things much better anywhere else.
The problem is not so much the government, but the fact that the government isn't actually running the way that it is supposed to be. It is not running based on the idealism of the forefathers, where the people have a say in what goes on. It is running purely and fully on the greed and money of the multi-national corporations. And these multi-nationals are going to be powerful no matter where you go on this planet. Unfortunately, at the moment, you are limited to this planet.
The money is what runs the show. If you have enough money, you can have all the freedom you want. But, most of us don't have the money. And our "choices" for political offices are made by the people that do have the money. We can choose between the guy that is getting half of the political money of big business for his campaign, or we can choose the guy that gets the other half of the political money of big business for his campaign. Of course, there are the third parties, but, as always, we are told that a vote for any third party candidate is a vote for (most evil option here) to scare us into staying with the status quo.
Our freedoms are eroding, and I have looked into the possibility of moving out of the country myself. But where would I go? I can speak French passibly (as well as English) so that opens up a few more doors, but the possibilities that I would move just to face exactly the same situation seems ridiculously stupid. In America, we are supposed to have a voice. But, until enough people wake up out of the rebuplicratic fog that they are in and vote their heart instead of their fear, well, it just isn't going to change.
Maybe, if more people became informed it would change. But don't hold your breath. Oh, and one other thing. If you do find a cool place to live, move there and are satisfied with it, let me know. I'd love to get away from here.
As much as I disagree with some of the "activities" they are supposedly disallowing, I do not agree with their solution of supposedly "restricting" the actions themselves.
But, the most frightening part of this entire thing is the whole deal about "reserving the right" to enter your home, monitor you and share your personal info with other companies. Granted, the info sharing happens all the time. Go ahead, mail order any product and within two to three months you will be recieving comparable product mailings from dozens of companies. But the idea of a company that I sign a service contract with saying that they have the right to, at any time, walk into my house to "observe" my activities seems a bit unreasonable.
The real problem is that there are enough lawmakers that feel this should be allowed that it may not face much of a challenge if it were ever taken to court. And people are stupid enough that they are rushing forward with open arms towards policies like this in order to "protect the children". I fear the future. At one time I had such hopes. But things of this nature make it far too frightful.
I pray by the time I have children that I still have the right to raise them myself. But even a story such as this turns that idea into a silly dream. We must be stopped from corrupting our youth. Even if the child is our own, we must not "corrupt" them.
And another thing, who will define vulgar or hateful posts? Can I not troll slashdot using this service? Or can I not use usenet (a more vile and wretched hate-filled place you will not find on the net)? I just don't like the implications of the open-ended, "vulgar or hateful" type regulations. They either need to go all out defining vulgar and hateful, or the need to realize that they would need to hire an awful lot of people to police every user 24/7. Either way it seems ridiculous.
I think the problem you will find is that the million half-assed imitations in any musical genre are the ones that get all the publicity and such. People say they hate country because they've never heard "real" country, just the crap that's on the radio. People hate heavy metal because all they hear is Manson and Zombie (and the few other corporate metal dorks). People hate folk because they hear garbage by people claiming to be folk that have ten-billion dollar budgets for an album.
Electronica music is not the only victim of over-sensationalized garbage performances. But most people that have a type of music they are already into forget that they had to look past the surface of that genre to find anything worthwhile. And so, they assume that the garbage on the surface of the other genres are an honest representation of the entire genre.
I listen to a lot of different types of music. But hardly anyone I know could recognize the names of more than maybe one or two bands in my musical collection. Popular usually is just crap, in any genre. If I had heard Godsmack and thought that they represented all of Heavy Metal, I would have never taken the interest in it that I did. Dig underground and you find so much more promise, talent and grace. And that works the same in all other music genres.
I realize this is getting slightly off-topic, but does anybody remember when the Headbanger's Ball (on MTV) used to play the 'not corporate' rock and metal bands? Sepultura, Deicide, Death, Powermad, Slayer (before they tried the hip-hop type thing), and old school metal.
I will forever hate Ricky Rack-me for destroying what was a good show. I don't care if he called the shots or not. Once he was host, it was Skid-Row, Ugly Kid Joe, Alice in Chains and all the other stuff that they played all day long (and you could hear on any radio station you wanted).
Oh sorry, I got lost in the memories.
Hang on there pal. There is a big difference between "Extreme Death Metal" and radio pop metal.
Godsmack=Radio Pop Metal
Cannibal Corpse= Extreme Death Metal
I have yet to hear a radio station play a song by Cannibal Corpse, or even some of the old school death metal bands that actually played Death Metal and weren't manufactured bands. Bands like Death, Atheist, Sabbat, Pestilence and many, many others. The "eager and huge American audience" seems very small when you are a part of that audience. A large following in Florida and a few scattered souls around the rest of the country. Oh, for the good old days.;-)
I realize that's a bit lengthy, but it sums it up so well.
This guy is a business associate of mine, and said he invites you to e-mail him if you would like to "talk shop". I wanted to write a nice little rant about this, but I don't think I could have written one that says it as well as he did.
I would have to ask if the letter written on behalf of the "Author's Guild" truly was written on behalf of the authors, or if it was written on behalf of the publishers in charge of authors profits. In other words, do the authors actually support this letter?
Personally, myself and two other members of Faulty Dreams (check my web site) are currently writing novels, and one of us is already a published author. We (all of us) do not feel that this letter is representative of our interests at all. As authors, who are usually far more interested in the artistic side of creating (of course, there are exceptions) probably don't care if someone buys a used book or a new book.
And, on the other side of the coin, if you write a good book, why would it be available so quickly in the "used" section anyways? Seriously, writing crap and expecting people to pay top dollar for it, what do you expect? Eventually someone's going to say, "Hey, I was dumb enough to buy this book. I'll bet someone out there is stupid enough to buy it from me for a little less. At least it won't be a total waste."
If I saw one of my books listed in a used book list just a few months after release, I would probably just go, "wow, I must've sucked a lot more than I thought." I mean, really. Why on earth would you expect that it is the responsibility of the person that bought the book to keep it if they didn't like it? Maybe they read it and thought it was worthless? Or maybe they read a little bit of it, realized what a hack you are and sold it.
I don't know, this whole think stinks like rotten eggs. I just don't understand why people think they have the right to dictate what the consumer does with any good that is produced. Like it or not, that's what these creations are. Whether you talke music, books, magazines, MP3s or whatever, it's a good, a product.
Now, here's the really important question. When did we, as consumers, lose all the rights that were supposedly part of any deal? There was the right of the producer to make money (yes, that sounds fair). And then there was the right as a consumer to do whatever we wanted with that good after we purchased it (short of copying it and reselling the copies, sounds fair enough). That is what "consumer rights" is all about. But today it seems that the emphasis is placed on the producer's rights and the consumer is considered to be a pirate, theif, thug, or criminal of whatever sort is the most vile and disgusting at the moment just because we were stupid enough to purchase the good in the first place. I'm sorry, but at what point did big business decide that all people are as criminally motivated as they are?
Sorry, just another stupid consumer that feels like he's had enough. And as someone that is also one of the producers (in this context) it seems ridiculous that other "producers" are trying so hard to limit the rights of the consumers. ARGHHHH!
The typical corporate mentallity now is "if the public isn't buying, they must be getting it illegally."
Of course, they would never stop to think that maybe, just maybe, someone out there woke up from the induced mental haze and said, "hey, I'll bet we could live without that techno-marvel"! No, none of us would do that now would we? After all, we are just sheep, and without those big corporations telling us what to do, what to buy, and how to use what we buy, we would all degenerate into a bunch of pirating, stealing degenerates.
Sorry for the rant. Too much coroprate influence today.
Sorry for taking so long, just got back from vacation.
The idea of "consumer rights" is something that is framed in law. It is seperate from citizens rights in that we are all citizens. Once you purchase something, you are trading money for a good. In trade for that money, you have the right to have that good work as promised. That right is being taken away. That is consumer rights, and it is completely different from citizens rights. The two are not equal concepts in my mind. If you begin equating the two, then yes, that is a very disturbing thought.
The less people watching, the less "viewers" they have. Sure, they are selling to advertisers, but they are selling "market mindshare". They do that with statistics. And statistics about "how many are watching" do not necissarily filter out time-shifters. So, remove the time-shifters from the equation and you will have less, perhaps a lot less, to sell (as a media outlet) the the advertisers.
Any way that you look at it they are going to hurt themselves with this move in some way. Whether it be alienating users (which means less advertising money), or losing viewership because it can't be time-shifted (which also means less advertising money), or just pissing people off so much that they quit caring about TV at all (which also means less advertising money), they are hurting themselves with this just as much as they are hurting the consumers, er I mean stopping us nasty damn pirates.
At what point did consumer rights just completely disappear? What happened to the idea that you try to please your customer? Where did that mentallity disappear to?
I do not understand how this kind of garbage keeps happening. We used to have, under "fair use", the right to "time-shift" any publicly accessible media. Television and radio shows, broadcast movies and sporting events were allowed to be recorded by law. So, how do the media companies propose to remove the capabilities that the legal systems says are perfectly allowable? By introducing a "no record bit" in the signal. These proposals (well, they are more than proposals now aren't they? But I refuse to call them "standards") are seriously just another attempt to gather more money.
But the thing that the industries involved here don't understand is that they are only going to hurt themselves in the end. Now, all of the people that have to work during their favorite shows will not only not be able to record those shows to watch them later, but they won't be able to watch them at all. How does that improve viewership of the shows that these companies claim are so important to their livelihood? If we have an evening where we are busy and we can't watch our favorite show, we can't watch that show at all. Forget about recording it because the industry says that's piracy. Be a good little consumer and sit in front of your TV when we tell you to. Well, what if we have lives beyond our television, but we still want to watch our favorite shows? Sorry, that's no longer allowed.
It just seems utterly ridiculous to me that companies keep thinking that by "getting tighter control" of their media they are going to make more money. All they are doing is wasting a lot of money on things that are going to garauntee lower viewership, alienating viewers, and pissing people off in droves. The electronics market will suffer. The consumers will suffer. And eventually, when people get so sick of trying to find ways to watch their favorite shows that they stop watching altogether, the media companies themselves will suffer.
Well, that doesn't really hurt my feelings too much. But it is amazing to see so much money wasted on something that is so utterly stupid. But, it seems stupidity is the only thing these companies are good at anymore. Once a business hits a certain size, that's it. You cannot be big and still play smart. It just doesn't seem to work.
Now, having said all of that, is it possible that the FCC will reject this? It would be nice if there were that much common sense in a government agency. The whole intention of agencies like the FCC is supposedly to uphold the law of the land. The law of the land says that time-shifting is allowable. But the law of the green (as in the green of the money of the kickbacks the FCC is bound to be getting from the industries involved) says that time-shifting is just another way of sayhing "piracy". However this turns out, I'm sure it will be another "consumers are evil, business is good" turn of events.
At what point will business realize that people are not evil just for being consumers? Legally, at least in the US, you are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty. But when it comes to business anymore it is automatically assumed that anyone that purchases any good is guilty of the most evil and vile crime that is possible with that good (or broadcast). It is not even thought, even for a moment, that a "consumer" may just be using something as it was intended, or if not exactly as intended, it isn't the evil and disgusting nature of the person causing them to do something "different" (Oh, that's a naughty word now isn't it?). It is just that they need to do it differently or they can't do it at all (especially in the case of recording a show because you aren't home at that time).
But let them do it. Once a few million consumers are pissed off and stop watching/recording their shows every day while they are working, maybe these people will finally wake up. But I doubt it. They will probably just assume that we are illegally tapping into someone else's feed.
I was kind of thinking that same thing. You wanna bet he got busted writing a post to slashdot?
The press can make the most innocent person alive seem guilty as sin. And some people are dumb enough to swallow every word.
In all honesty it seems that Mr. Katz has taken a very, very long time to say something that would appear to be obvious. If you make it easy for people to gather, especially in a place where they cannot be held accountable, the few bad apples which are loudest, rowdiest, or just nastiest will ruin the experience for everyone (look around you, the trolls and spammers are just this bunch).
The thing that Jon doesn't even touch on, and that I rarely see mentioned anywhere, is that this is simply evolution working in a technological media. Seriously, the entire idea of "Internet Community" is very, very new when compared with the human race and its societal development. When the first humans lived together in a cave or on the plains, does anyone think that they were completely civil and organized? We are watching the Internet community develop in much the same way that the "meat world" community developed. We will go through a generation or two of uncivil, adolescent like behaviour and slowly watch our community develop into a stronger, healthier (mentally) and much more cohesive society.
The only negative thing is that the institutions that are in the meat world have seen this happening quickly (relatively) and realized that they needed to exert their influence into the online world before people got used to the idea of a "free" community, where the expression of ideas, thoughts and "digital media" like musical compositions and movies were freely and quickly transfered to anyone that was interested. The powers that be do not want that sort of freedom. It removes monetary incentives from people's minds, and removes the power that groups like the RIAA, the MPAA and even the government can use, develop, and exert.
Whether these large and powerful groups are going to be able to completely and fully tame the Internet community spirit remains to be seen. But I truly feel that there will always be some places on the Internet that are "free". Even though slashdot is not the most free of places, it is one of the freeist in existance at the moment. And there will always be something that is the equivalent of usenet and such.
But our "community" in the online world is just now starting to define itself, and just now finding its own character. It will take much more time (even by Internet time standards) before we see what "online community" will really mean. Hopefully it will be something better and still more free than the meat world allows us. And with worldwide use increasing, there is still a large amount of promise. I still have hope. How about you?
Why does everyone assume that all Linux users want to see Linux on the desktop in widespread use? I personally don't care either way.
There are people on all sides of this issue. But telling us that we all have to keep reading this article until we agree with it is just as stupid as the people that say, "If you don't like it F*CK OFF!". Neither accomplishes anything, and neither is being constructive.
I don't agree with the article at all. To me, Linux is an alternative to the current "standard" desktop environment. Making it just like Windows is not going to leave me an alternative. It would be like, hmm, let's see, having to choose between George W. "drewl and scribble" Bush and Al "Robot Man" Gore. It's not a choice at all. You can be dumb, or you can be dumb, which do you want to be?
If it does make it onto the desktop? Well, great. But it should do it as an Open system. I don't really get into the politics of Open vs. Free myself. But I don't think we need to change every aspect of Linux for it just to survive (and to some people survival seems to be tied up with 'beat Windows' and I don't see it that way at all). Linux will survive for a long time because there are a lot of people (me included) that are going to use it whether it is considered the "standard" or not. And those people aren't all going to just switch to (or back to) Windows just because someone says, "Linux can't succeed".
Sorry to disappoint you, but I don't agree with that article. And the more I read it, the more I disagreed. People have differing needs. People won't all agree. That's just the way it is.
This entire article was based on the premise that people need Linux to be "just like Windows". It angers and disappoints me every time I read something like this.
It seems the number one thing that people keep asking for when it comes to a "desktop" operating system is "just like Windows." Oh, sure, I know there are countless arguments, but when you boil through them, sift them down and shake them out it amounts to, "just like windows". Well, I'm sorry to have to restate this often overlooked possibility, but Linux is not Windows.
There is this "outraged" section of the computer community that screams bloody murder about this "upstart" Linux because it breaks all of the old rules. How dare they ship everything in one box! That seems to be what this article is saying. I know, it seems absurd to those of us that have used Linux since the days when you had to search everywhere for even a passing mention of how to use some command, or where to get some application. But there are people out there that just do not understand that Linux is not about giving you a worthless, useless, and basically inexpensive alternative to the "common" desktop environment. There are people that want something as crappily disgusting as what the Corel distrobution was. They want something that installs no usable applications by default (and forces you to go "purchase" all of your applications seperately). They want something that looks, acts and behaves exactly like Windows. It doesn't matter if that means crashing on a regular basis, just as long as they don't have to think too hard to use it.
Linux may never be accepted for what it is. It is an inexpensive, yet fully complete alternative. I buy SuSE Linux distros because I enjoy not having to purchase or download any other software (other than Mozilla nightlies occassionally). It is completely unfathomable to me that there are people screaming for there to be "less" in a distro. It also frightens me. I don't mind the idea of giving a quick install "option" where you can still pick to install the "hard" way and install as much or as little as you want. What scares me is that these people that claim Linux is "too much" may be taken too seriously and the major distros may start removing choices. Corel made that mistake. They didn't appeal to the long-time users because it was too restricting, too confining. They didn't appeal to new users because of the lack of available applications, and the lack of help available (let's face it, you ask a typical Linux geek for help and they expect you to be able to run standard commands. Corel didn't ship with a lot of the standard commands, especially if accepting a "default" install). If all of the other distrobutions begin falling into that "we need to be more like Windows" trap, I believe Linux's time in the sun will quickly fade.
This article makes me think of the people that screamed bloody murder because Linux doesn't have a registry. They don't want an '/etc' directory full of easy to configure text files, they want a one binary file system wide configuration with no possibility of users customizing their own environment. They want a "single" user system. They don't want a root account, they want the 'old' Windows way of doing things.
I pray it doesn't happen. But if it does, I guess I'll just stick with what is present right now. Make the "windows like" distro a choice, not a necessity. It seems this article is crying out for it being the only choice. Are people really so afraid of change that they can't imagine using a system that doesn't dictate their every move? And is it really so hard for them to believe that some people do want to be able to use their system any way they want to?
Freedom of choice is not a bad thing. I hope that someone important understands that.
True, very true. And I find that is something that the government, the big businesses, and the other 'controlling' factions all seem to promote. The idea is to keep people too stupid to question the "authority" figures. Well, I say, it's been far too long since someone has questioned them. At least since someone has questioned them in a way they can't ignore.
Unfortunately it seems the only way to get their attention is with multi-million dollar "contributions" or with violence. I don't have the money, and I'm not that violent of a guy (something you probably wouldn't believe if you ever saw me play guitar). Besides, the violence route is only good for a moment or two. Once you are locked up people forget all about you. Short attention spans ideed.
That's either the most amazingly inspired thing I've ever heard, or the most stupid and idiotic thing. I haven't made up my mind yet.
Does anybody rememer the Seinfeld (sp?) where Kramer was doing a few minutes of sleep every couple of hours? Take that, combine it with the 28 hour day and the 13 month calendar and then you can really have some fun watching your body and mind go, "WHAT THE *$%&^# ARE YOU TRYING TO DO?!?"
I agree whole-heartedly with your comment. But I would like to add that I feel it is the parent's responsibility to make sure they give their child the proper sense of right and wrong and the proper protections at the proper time. It is not, and should not be, the governments job.
And that was the idea that I was trying to convey in my post. It should be up to the parent to teach their children properly. The more the government tells you how to raise your children, the close we get to just handing our kids over to some government agency the second they are born. It sounds far-fetched, but it is one possible outcome.
Let people decide for themselves. And a five-year old should be supervised by someone when on the Internet. They should not be supervised by some broken and completely untrustworthy technology. The television was never a good babysitter, and the computer/internet should not be seen as a good babysitter/parental replacement either. But it should be the parent, not the government that decides when to "hold back".