There's a tiny bit of a flaw to your logic about the collective knowledge about DNA...... if the DNA of certain species knows so much about "surviving" and then doesn't survive then it wasn't very worthy of life now was it?
A post can be both flamebait and true as mine was.
YOU may prefer to use Linux+Xfce over OS X and thats your right. You aren't alone either. There are whole hundreds of thousands of people who use Linux everyday as a desktop operating system, and as their main operating system too. Not just as a rarely used dual boot option when they get bored of Windows.
The issue here is that Google is a company and a company makes money by catering to LARGE groups of people. This is why they're willing to develop for Windows and Mac OS X and not so much for Linux. Emphasis on the LARGE in large groups of people there.
The problem with some Linux users is that they cannot see that time has a price value too. If you severely undervalue your time at $5 an hour, then you have about 40 hours to tinker with Linux and get it running properly before it would have made more sense to just shell out the money for a copy of Windows. Lets say you go for a Mac instead, with a MacBook at $1000 that gives you 400 hours to get your Linux install working properly. Thats 16 days worth of time. I can assure you that there are folks who have spent 16 MONTHS trying to get Linux to do what a Windows running PC or Mac can do pretty much out of the box.
Of course if you were smart enough to realize any of this you wouldn't be using Linux in the first place, now would you?
The appeal is the quality of the user interface and developer community as opposed to both of those on Linux.
Superior interface, mature developers vs Whatever bad interface you want to use, we got 10 of them and childish political programmers who think what software license one uses is the civil rights battle of our time.
Oh and users. As in Macs have more non-programmer users than Linux does.
When you look at it that way its not much of a contest.
His point is wrong though. Its usually not the companies that keep people in the dark but the peoples own lack of care.
I'm not saying iPhone exploits don't exist I'm just saying they're not a big deal. For an exploit finder every exploit is a big deal. The thing is most people don't spend their days trying to crack their phones. And every device has exploits. Blackberries, Windows Mobile, Symbian, Palm OS, Linux based phones....etc. No device is immune.
Ease of use trumps security. Windows XP should prove this point. Despite all the exploits that existed for XP, large numbers of people didn't start switching to Macs until Microsoft released Vista which is more secure than XP but less easy to use.
That was exactly my point, they aren't Americans just because they live on a continent called North or South America. They're Canadians, Mexicans and Brazilians. They only Americans live in the United States.
What exactly is it with so many technical people being anarchists? The general public has no desire for anarchy. If those who value a land with no government are really serious about what they say why not move to such a country? Afghanistan for example is always looking for bright people to help build its economy and infrastructure.
Its American. No one who actually lives in the western hemisphere takes offense at Americans calling themselves Americans seeing as how its in the official name of our country. Only Europeans who have no stake in the matter at all complain about it.
Linux and Mac OS X couldn't be farther apart in terms of usability. Windows is actually closer to OS X than Linux is in that regard. So why you think people are going to flock to Linux when they're already rejecting an operating system thats easier to use than Linux, Windows for Macs is beyond me. You are living in a pure fantasy land where time has no value and all people care about is that software is free. Free is worthless if you can't make it work for you.
The good deal for the Yahoo investors would have been the instant payout. They would have gotten a combination of cash and Microsoft stock at a value that Yahoo just isn't worth and is unlikely to ever get to on its own. So it wouldn't really matter what would have happened to Yahoo in the meantime.
I'm not anti-free software. What I am against is people thinking they're on a noble quest or have a noble cause when in reality their cause isn't as important as they think it is. If someone were to compile a list of causes open source would rank near the bottom, but maybe above the 9/11 Truthers.
I'm not threatened by free software so I don't hate it. Any fear anyone in the proprietary world had against open source has long since gone away because of the systematic failure of Linux to achieve any footholds on the desktop, even with Ubuntu leading the way. Microsoft and Apple have nothing to fear. My number one beef is with the idea that free software is liberating people and that proprietary software or the companies who sell it are evil.
Not being able to fix something you've bought may rate as a mild annoyance. Any higher than that and you've blown it out of proportion.
Someone running Microsoft Office on Microsoft Windows or Apple iWork on Mac OS X can write reports and catalog data just as effectively as someone using Open Office on Linux. They could be political dissidents in foreign countries using any of the three operating systems and get along just fine.
Yeah RMS suffered a great injustice there with his printer. He couldn't have bought a new printer or anything. If your software has been EOL'ed and you already have it you don't have to stop using it. You can continue using it until you absolutely have to upgrade. Again, not a big deal except to those who want something for nothing.
The movement for proprietary software comes from the masses. They want something worth using. Not something to use just because its free. They've already made their choice loud and clear in the marketplace by choosing Windows and Macs over Linux.
Yes you can buy a boxed OpenSUSE system. No one really has any incentive to though seeing as how you can download it for free. The difference between selling software or a service is that you make more money selling proprietary software then you do selling services for open source software. The only entities making large amounts of money servicing open source software are IBM and SUN. They're using the product of YOUR labor as a loss leader.
Great you personally are contributing. That puts you in the tiny minority. I use free software myself in certain situations. Thanks for the free stuff!
The OLPC is meant mainly for third world children. They don't have TIME to learn how to program. They'll be too busy building a society. Its incredibly idealistic to think that this is some golden opportunity for open source to "save" these people from the evils of proprietary software practices. If there was some proprietary software package that could help them farm more effectively and avoid future famines they'd buy it in a heartbeat.
Proprietary software is in no way shape or form an impedance to independence. If someone can vote, if someone can choose their employment if someone can move from neighborhood to neighborhood or city to city and print what they want in a newspaper then they are free and independent. Whether or not they use proprietary software or free software is wholly irrelevant to that. The free software movement has self elevated the importance of software being free. The truth is that its not that important at all in the grand scheme of things.
Unless of course you consider it morally objectionable to pay people for the labor put into creating a quality software product should they ask to be compensated. I wonder what else the movement is morally opposed to paying for. Clothing? Cars? Electricity? Why don't any of these things get movements? Why just software?
Red Hat and Novell make money from SERVICES not the software itself. There's a limited market for that. For most examples commercial software IS proprietary.
With proprietary software, say Microsoft's Visual Studio you could use that proprietary tool to write open source software. Nothing in the world stopping you from doing so. Yes you are forbidden from repurposing some proprietary software. My point is that that is not a big deal. Its not a civil rights issue. Its a case of a group of people (free software proponents) wanting to get something for nothing. Understandably they're upset the proprietary industry does not allow them to do so. Boo hoo.
Your issues with proprietary software are the real red herrings.
1. Most people don't know how to program. So having the source code available to you is a non-starter. Go ask your mom what she would do with some source code. Go on, ask her.
2. You can use open formats with proprietary software. So that solves that problem right there.
Slashdot Mirror
"most serious developers have lost interest in the iPhone"
What are you, on meth AND crack?
There's a tiny bit of a flaw to your logic about the collective knowledge about DNA... ... if the DNA of certain species knows so much about "surviving" and then doesn't survive then it wasn't very worthy of life now was it?
A post can be both flamebait and true as mine was.
YOU may prefer to use Linux+Xfce over OS X and thats your right. You aren't alone either. There are whole hundreds of thousands of people who use Linux everyday as a desktop operating system, and as their main operating system too. Not just as a rarely used dual boot option when they get bored of Windows.
The issue here is that Google is a company and a company makes money by catering to LARGE groups of people. This is why they're willing to develop for Windows and Mac OS X and not so much for Linux. Emphasis on the LARGE in large groups of people there.
The problem with some Linux users is that they cannot see that time has a price value too. If you severely undervalue your time at $5 an hour, then you have about 40 hours to tinker with Linux and get it running properly before it would have made more sense to just shell out the money for a copy of Windows. Lets say you go for a Mac instead, with a MacBook at $1000 that gives you 400 hours to get your Linux install working properly. Thats 16 days worth of time. I can assure you that there are folks who have spent 16 MONTHS trying to get Linux to do what a Windows running PC or Mac can do pretty much out of the box.
Of course if you were smart enough to realize any of this you wouldn't be using Linux in the first place, now would you?
The appeal is the quality of the user interface and developer community as opposed to both of those on Linux.
Superior interface, mature developers vs Whatever bad interface you want to use, we got 10 of them and childish political programmers who think what software license one uses is the civil rights battle of our time.
Oh and users. As in Macs have more non-programmer users than Linux does.
When you look at it that way its not much of a contest.
His point is wrong though. Its usually not the companies that keep people in the dark but the peoples own lack of care.
I'm not saying iPhone exploits don't exist I'm just saying they're not a big deal. For an exploit finder every exploit is a big deal. The thing is most people don't spend their days trying to crack their phones. And every device has exploits. Blackberries, Windows Mobile, Symbian, Palm OS, Linux based phones....etc. No device is immune.
Ease of use trumps security. Windows XP should prove this point. Despite all the exploits that existed for XP, large numbers of people didn't start switching to Macs until Microsoft released Vista which is more secure than XP but less easy to use.
This guy really thinks highly of himself. He claims the iPhone's "secrecy" or Apple's inattention to the "privacy flaws" have hurt the product.
Ridiculous.
The biggest complaints about the iPhone are the lack of 3G, lack of GPS and no current support for cut and paste or MMS.
I've never seen someone anywhere complain that its insecure and vulnerable to hackers.
If you have a large enough number of clients then one of them IS using Gmail so what are you going to do about it?
When does paranoia become paralysis?
Since when did the use of Linux surpass the use of Windows and Mac OS X?
Free software hasn't killed the proprietary software business. I really think you are jumping the gun here.
My viewpoint is correct.
Your viewpoint is anti-American and wrong.
What's so complicated about this?
That was exactly my point, they aren't Americans just because they live on a continent called North or South America. They're Canadians, Mexicans and Brazilians. They only Americans live in the United States.
What exactly is it with so many technical people being anarchists? The general public has no desire for anarchy. If those who value a land with no government are really serious about what they say why not move to such a country? Afghanistan for example is always looking for bright people to help build its economy and infrastructure.
Its American. No one who actually lives in the western hemisphere takes offense at Americans calling themselves Americans seeing as how its in the official name of our country. Only Europeans who have no stake in the matter at all complain about it.
Linux and Mac OS X couldn't be farther apart in terms of usability. Windows is actually closer to OS X than Linux is in that regard. So why you think people are going to flock to Linux when they're already rejecting an operating system thats easier to use than Linux, Windows for Macs is beyond me. You are living in a pure fantasy land where time has no value and all people care about is that software is free. Free is worthless if you can't make it work for you.
Utterly worthless!
Yeah but at least with Apple you'd get a system usable by regular non-geek people.
For some strange reason I see companies actually being interested in that kind of a thing more than the inane politics of free software.
The good deal for the Yahoo investors would have been the instant payout. They would have gotten a combination of cash and Microsoft stock at a value that Yahoo just isn't worth and is unlikely to ever get to on its own. So it wouldn't really matter what would have happened to Yahoo in the meantime.
Yes because a congressman or Senator is going to give a flying frack about opt-in ads.
Nerds have no perspective on whats really important in life.
I'm not anti-free software. What I am against is people thinking they're on a noble quest or have a noble cause when in reality their cause isn't as important as they think it is. If someone were to compile a list of causes open source would rank near the bottom, but maybe above the 9/11 Truthers.
I'm not threatened by free software so I don't hate it. Any fear anyone in the proprietary world had against open source has long since gone away because of the systematic failure of Linux to achieve any footholds on the desktop, even with Ubuntu leading the way. Microsoft and Apple have nothing to fear. My number one beef is with the idea that free software is liberating people and that proprietary software or the companies who sell it are evil.
Not being able to fix something you've bought may rate as a mild annoyance. Any higher than that and you've blown it out of proportion.
Most of what you say is right but not everyone is born in the ghetto.
Someone running Microsoft Office on Microsoft Windows or Apple iWork on Mac OS X can write reports and catalog data just as effectively as someone using Open Office on Linux. They could be political dissidents in foreign countries using any of the three operating systems and get along just fine.
So how is someone who uses open source more free?
You know if having free software were a fraction as important as having free speech you might have a point there.
Yeah RMS suffered a great injustice there with his printer. He couldn't have bought a new printer or anything. If your software has been EOL'ed and you already have it you don't have to stop using it. You can continue using it until you absolutely have to upgrade. Again, not a big deal except to those who want something for nothing.
The movement for proprietary software comes from the masses. They want something worth using. Not something to use just because its free. They've already made their choice loud and clear in the marketplace by choosing Windows and Macs over Linux.
I had to deal with some really tiny screws that required a size 00# screwdriver on a MacBookPro. That was a hoot too.
Yes you can buy a boxed OpenSUSE system. No one really has any incentive to though seeing as how you can download it for free. The difference between selling software or a service is that you make more money selling proprietary software then you do selling services for open source software. The only entities making large amounts of money servicing open source software are IBM and SUN. They're using the product of YOUR labor as a loss leader.
Great you personally are contributing. That puts you in the tiny minority. I use free software myself in certain situations. Thanks for the free stuff!
The OLPC is meant mainly for third world children. They don't have TIME to learn how to program. They'll be too busy building a society. Its incredibly idealistic to think that this is some golden opportunity for open source to "save" these people from the evils of proprietary software practices. If there was some proprietary software package that could help them farm more effectively and avoid future famines they'd buy it in a heartbeat.
Proprietary software is in no way shape or form an impedance to independence. If someone can vote, if someone can choose their employment if someone can move from neighborhood to neighborhood or city to city and print what they want in a newspaper then they are free and independent. Whether or not they use proprietary software or free software is wholly irrelevant to that. The free software movement has self elevated the importance of software being free. The truth is that its not that important at all in the grand scheme of things.
Unless of course you consider it morally objectionable to pay people for the labor put into creating a quality software product should they ask to be compensated. I wonder what else the movement is morally opposed to paying for. Clothing? Cars? Electricity? Why don't any of these things get movements? Why just software?
Red Hat and Novell make money from SERVICES not the software itself. There's a limited market for that. For most examples commercial software IS proprietary.
With proprietary software, say Microsoft's Visual Studio you could use that proprietary tool to write open source software. Nothing in the world stopping you from doing so. Yes you are forbidden from repurposing some proprietary software. My point is that that is not a big deal. Its not a civil rights issue. Its a case of a group of people (free software proponents) wanting to get something for nothing. Understandably they're upset the proprietary industry does not allow them to do so. Boo hoo.
Your issues with proprietary software are the real red herrings.
1. Most people don't know how to program. So having the source code available to you is a non-starter. Go ask your mom what she would do with some source code. Go on, ask her.
2. You can use open formats with proprietary software. So that solves that problem right there.