Its confusing enough for new users and irritating to everyone else. Why do we need the K's and the gears to proclaim "We own your computer!" Thats what Microsoft does and is one reason I have turned away. Let us brand our own computers, or better yet, leave the system unbranded. They are only tools, after all.
To me, KDE isn't a software development project but rather, a parade. They see how Apple and Microsoft like to throw parties and festivals for their releases, all in the name of marketing, and KDE sees this and gets the awful notion that this is an area they need to compete in. That marketing somehow matters to them. From this they get strange ideas that its wrong to change this branding, that every computer the software gets installed on is thiers.
I like the system for some parts, and not so for others: but I use it and appreciate it for the freedom it grants me. So my appreciations is noted. De-brand the desktop to make for a more useful system.
I haven't had much trouble using banking.wellsfargo.com from Konqueror (KDE2). I did have problems registering, but once its registered, it has worked so far. I had to register using IE. But Konq isn't on thier list of supported browsers either
But wouldn't it be better if instead of determining specific browsers if they had a list of supported technologies?
Part of the idea was that the whole free software community would use a single styleguide. At least, that was what it sounded like. Personally, I'd like more customization on keybinding.
On the other hand, whats with all the Mac people attacking this thread?
"GPL is actually quite a restrictive license, it's just that it is restrictive in other than the usual ways."
The only way for this statement to make sense is if you live in an entirely BSD/Public Domain world. For 99% of the population, the GPL is far freer than anything they'll ever get their hands onto.
At this point, your logic is turning into rhetorical mush.
"Freedom means the ability to make meaningful choices, even if you don't like the choice I make and even if you think it's a bad choice for the future/society/environment/children/etc."
I actually think that the GPL keeps between the lines into its intention. "free" isn't the best word for what it stands for, but its usually good enough. I think "autonomous" or "independent" would be better, but thats just me.
Fuck you dimwit. He's right. The Mac zealots have invaded Slashdot.
I'm tired of having to post gingerly to avoid the wrath of the zealot moderators and thier God, Jobs and his reality distortion field.
Look, moderators, when you see a comment that isn't necessarily pro-Apple, grab yourself in the balls and squeeze. This, hopefully, will pull your mind momentarily out of the distortion field to perhaps wonder "Hey, maybe this guy has a point."
Not a troll. He is saying it because he really believes it. You would be stupid to put faith in some company not using its copyright/patent powers if that becomes profitable for them. Just think of GNU/Linux as leverage, if they pull some nasty shit you can switch to a free OS.
GNU/Linux is something special that the industry hasn't seen before, an autonomous OS. You may not like certain aspects of it, but you must acknoledge why that aspect appeals to a lot of people, myself included.
Saying that Apples have carbohydrates and give you the shits does not a troll make.
Okay, I dig it, you like your computer. No, my bad, its not a computer--its a mac. Wow wee. I mean, anyone who has been reading the slashdot posts knows that you guys like your macs a lot.
But this is insane. A post that says "Gee, I like macs and you should too" and it gets rated +4, Interesting. Its like slashdot has been invaded by Apple's marketing team, only these are people who at any other time can see through hype and bullshit. Its sad at how zealous you people can seem over some company's product.
I say you people need to all get together with your favorite "Think Different" T-shirts and parade down some suburban street with signs and flyers singing in unison "I like macs; they are cool. We like macs because they rule!" Perhaps if you saw other people doing this, you'd have some idea how ridiculous you all seem.
Please, leave the marketing to the folks who get paid for it. And then we can get back to talking about stuff that matters.
Just kidding. But seriously, if they started making these games more girl-friendly, would guys want to play it?
I don't really think girl's minds work that differently than guys. Its just that popular games tend to go extreme in that corner of the mind where they are different. There are all sorts of possibilities with regard to gaming, why do games have to be predictible? Do all guys really want to be a badass all the fucking time?
Here's an idea, when making a game for the 14-18 range, make the character a 15 year old. Let the character be male or female and you're not going to have problems like overdeveloped breasts or bulging muscles.
And most definitely, appeal to the casual gamer. Lets face it, the being glued to the computer from mid-afternoon to four o'clock the next morning is definitely a guy thing.
"No bullshit. There is a conspicuous absence of a popular non-Linux Gnu distribution. This is the only proof I need to show that Linus, not RMS, was the motivating force behind Linux."
Bullshit. There is a conspicuous absence of popular non-GNU Linux distributions too. There isn't a point either way. That doesn't saying anything about motivating factors, either.
As far as "dogma," it just means a set of beliefs, any set of beliefs. Unless you want to consider GNU a religion, then you're just being childish.
"As far as crediting contributors, I agree. The question is: at what point is a contribution considered significant enough to warrent high-level credit?"
This is as much bullshit too. What you are really arguing is for no name whatsoever. You're saying there is no one worthy enough to get to decide the name. Thats bullshit, we need to name the system something.
Somehow you think that the kernel is significant enough to warrant be the name of the operating system as a whole, while the GNU system isn't. The FSF take the opposite stance: that GNU is a primary contribution to the system and that Linux and all the other applications and services are secondary contributions.
There are a lot of valid reasons why this makes sense. I think it'd be a waste of time to go into these here, but if you want I'll go through them.
But I think the larger point is why people don't like GNU. It has nothing to do with logic really, its about how people feel. Some people just really don't like RMS--for both legitemate and illegitemate reasons. Some people are *really* fond of Linus as the posterboy, and believe that he should get the credit for "inventing the operating system" [sic]. In that respect, its simply a popularity contest. But the most important reason, I think, is that they don't understand what RMS is shooting for. Linus does, but has rejected it. Perens groks it, and is trying to get the media to pick up on it. Raymond gets it, but I think he sees it as a challenge to his ego. But all three of these hackers are way ahead of you.
The Free Software Philosophy is Stallman's, its all his. Not everyone agrees with it but a lot of very talented hackers have picked up on parts of it--but don't take it to the extreme that Stallman does. This is just as well, since taking any philosophy to an extreme is pretty crazy. But saying the philosophy itself isn't important is a severe understatement.
But if you don't understand it, what people who believe in it do may seem mystical to you. Heck, to Bill Gates opening source code seems mystiscal. So you'll find yourself galloping around calling GNU a religion doctrine. But please, put it in context. If the philosophy is wrong, criticize it. Its funny, after almost two decades of bashing GNU I haven't seen any real critisms on the GNU philosophy itself. All I see is people trumpetting ignorance around.
"In both situations, it is less important who wrote the code than who was the central motivating factor in the creation of the phenomenon."
Please, don't bullshit. There are a lot of motivating factors for writing free software, from ESR's cathedral and the bazaar to the freeing of mozilla to just the simple fact on how much Windows sucked at the time. Giving Linus undue credit in this regard is merely dishonest.
".... This is probably because RMS's motivations are morally dogmatic, where as Linus's are practical/hedonistic. You can be a communist and like Linux, but you don't have to."
First, look up dogmatic and see if that is really what you mean.
To provide more freedom in software development and to serve as an institution where knowledge can be exchanged are the two most pronounced purposes of the OS/FS community, followed by the provision of more variety of software and by support for innovations, which are very similar items. Thus, we witness a clear coherence with the otherwise mentioned motives and orientations, the strong interest in skill improvements and a strong wish for a large variety of software products, which apparently is considered as a value itself.
It is noteworthy that all material or hedonistic interests are clearly outplayed by these items.
Read the rest of the study itself here. What they found is that most people who write free software do it for the "dogmatic" reasons Linus seems to despise so much. Certainly, its not an overwhelming majority--but the point stands: without RMS, free software would not be anywhere near as important or complete, nor have as many developers, as it has today.
Not that even a majority of these people agree with RMS in every way. But, for a movement to sustain itself, there needs to be something more than a "cult of personality". There needs to be something real to work towards--a lofty goal.
I suppose I should stop here. The study really should speak for itself. But there is no doubt in my mind, no matter how unpopular it may seem, credit is certainly due.
"Perhaps it should become a requirement to teach kids to touch-type at an earlier age."
It is. That was a fun class. The whole point of that class was to give the teacher as much of a headache as possible. Those of us in the know would leave a surprise on the computer when we left and then teach all the other kids how to do the same.
I was in sixth grade and I had pages of RAM being printed to the screen when I left the classroom on our Apple IIe's. The teacher was bitch though--she deserved it.
I recognize Apple as a dominant PC maker. Not software though. The only application I can think of is Claris Works. I guess Oregon Trail:) Unless you include software that can only be used on Macs. Hence the problem.
The amount of money GNU/Linux companies have isn't really relevent given that they are really just selling software that is already out there and being developed autonomously.
But if a bunch of organizations all go out and buy a bunch of Macs then they have a combination of Macs and PCs. Eventually they might just decide to throw GNU/Linux on all the machines to save costs.
Slashdot Mirror
Its confusing enough for new users and irritating to everyone else. Why do we need the K's and the gears to proclaim "We own your computer!" Thats what Microsoft does and is one reason I have turned away. Let us brand our own computers, or better yet, leave the system unbranded. They are only tools, after all.
To me, KDE isn't a software development project but rather, a parade. They see how Apple and Microsoft like to throw parties and festivals for their releases, all in the name of marketing, and KDE sees this and gets the awful notion that this is an area they need to compete in. That marketing somehow matters to them. From this they get strange ideas that its wrong to change this branding, that every computer the software gets installed on is thiers.
I like the system for some parts, and not so for others: but I use it and appreciate it for the freedom it grants me. So my appreciations is noted. De-brand the desktop to make for a more useful system.
I haven't had much trouble using banking.wellsfargo.com from Konqueror (KDE2). I did have problems registering, but once its registered, it has worked so far. I had to register using IE. But Konq isn't on thier list of supported browsers either
But wouldn't it be better if instead of determining specific browsers if they had a list of supported technologies?
Part of the idea was that the whole free software community would use a single styleguide. At least, that was what it sounded like. Personally, I'd like more customization on keybinding.
On the other hand, whats with all the Mac people attacking this thread?
While I agree with most of your points:
"GPL is actually quite a restrictive license, it's just that it is restrictive in other than the usual ways."
The only way for this statement to make sense is if you live in an entirely BSD/Public Domain world. For 99% of the population, the GPL is far freer than anything they'll ever get their hands onto.
At this point, your logic is turning into rhetorical mush.
"Freedom means the ability to make meaningful choices, even if you don't like the choice I make and even if you think it's a bad choice for the future/society/environment/children/etc."
I actually think that the GPL keeps between the lines into its intention. "free" isn't the best word for what it stands for, but its usually good enough. I think "autonomous" or "independent" would be better, but thats just me.
The project is called Fresco now. There is not 'berlin'.
What?
"Quit being so sensitive and get a fucking life."
Fuck you dimwit. He's right. The Mac zealots have invaded Slashdot.
I'm tired of having to post gingerly to avoid the wrath of the zealot moderators and thier God, Jobs and his reality distortion field.
Look, moderators, when you see a comment that isn't necessarily pro-Apple, grab yourself in the balls and squeeze. This, hopefully, will pull your mind momentarily out of the distortion field to perhaps wonder "Hey, maybe this guy has a point."
Until then, have a nice day.
"...I've started snickering at people who use the objective case for predicate nominatives."
"...those bumbling idiots who use a plural pronoun with a singular antecedent!"
Anyone willing to offer a clue to the grammatically-impaired?
Not a troll. He is saying it because he really believes it. You would be stupid to put faith in some company not using its copyright/patent powers if that becomes profitable for them. Just think of GNU/Linux as leverage, if they pull some nasty shit you can switch to a free OS.
GNU/Linux is something special that the industry hasn't seen before, an autonomous OS. You may not like certain aspects of it, but you must acknoledge why that aspect appeals to a lot of people, myself included.
Saying that Apples have carbohydrates and give you the shits does not a troll make.
Okay, I dig it, you like your computer. No, my bad, its not a computer--its a mac. Wow wee. I mean, anyone who has been reading the slashdot posts knows that you guys like your macs a lot.
But this is insane. A post that says "Gee, I like macs and you should too" and it gets rated +4, Interesting. Its like slashdot has been invaded by Apple's marketing team, only these are people who at any other time can see through hype and bullshit. Its sad at how zealous you people can seem over some company's product.
I say you people need to all get together with your favorite "Think Different" T-shirts and parade down some suburban street with signs and flyers singing in unison "I like macs; they are cool. We like macs because they rule!" Perhaps if you saw other people doing this, you'd have some idea how ridiculous you all seem.
Please, leave the marketing to the folks who get paid for it. And then we can get back to talking about stuff that matters.
But can we keep the huge breasts?
"I am female. blah blah blah blah blah. blah blah blah. blah blah blah blah blah blah blah. blah blah blah blah blah. blah blah blah. blah blah blah blah blah blah blah.blah blah blah blah blah. blah blah blah. blah blah blah blah blah blah blah.blah blah blah blah blah. blah blah blah. blah blah blah blah blah blah blah.blah blah blah blah blah. blah blah blah. blah blah blah blah blah blah blah."
Just kidding. But seriously, if they started making these games more girl-friendly, would guys want to play it?
I don't really think girl's minds work that differently than guys. Its just that popular games tend to go extreme in that corner of the mind where they are different. There are all sorts of possibilities with regard to gaming, why do games have to be predictible? Do all guys really want to be a badass all the fucking time?
Here's an idea, when making a game for the 14-18 range, make the character a 15 year old. Let the character be male or female and you're not going to have problems like overdeveloped breasts or bulging muscles.
And most definitely, appeal to the casual gamer. Lets face it, the being glued to the computer from mid-afternoon to four o'clock the next morning is definitely a guy thing.
You really need to get out more, you know that? To take what you said seriously would require simply not being aware of whats going on around you.
"No bullshit. There is a conspicuous absence of a popular non-Linux Gnu distribution. This is the only proof I need to show that Linus, not RMS, was the motivating force behind Linux."
Bullshit. There is a conspicuous absence of popular non-GNU Linux distributions too. There isn't a point either way. That doesn't saying anything about motivating factors, either.
As far as "dogma," it just means a set of beliefs, any set of beliefs. Unless you want to consider GNU a religion, then you're just being childish.
"As far as crediting contributors, I agree. The question is: at what point is a contribution considered significant enough to warrent high-level credit?"
This is as much bullshit too. What you are really arguing is for no name whatsoever. You're saying there is no one worthy enough to get to decide the name. Thats bullshit, we need to name the system something.
Somehow you think that the kernel is significant enough to warrant be the name of the operating system as a whole, while the GNU system isn't. The FSF take the opposite stance: that GNU is a primary contribution to the system and that Linux and all the other applications and services are secondary contributions.
There are a lot of valid reasons why this makes sense. I think it'd be a waste of time to go into these here, but if you want I'll go through them.
But I think the larger point is why people don't like GNU. It has nothing to do with logic really, its about how people feel. Some people just really don't like RMS--for both legitemate and illegitemate reasons. Some people are *really* fond of Linus as the posterboy, and believe that he should get the credit for "inventing the operating system" [sic]. In that respect, its simply a popularity contest. But the most important reason, I think, is that they don't understand what RMS is shooting for. Linus does, but has rejected it. Perens groks it, and is trying to get the media to pick up on it. Raymond gets it, but I think he sees it as a challenge to his ego. But all three of these hackers are way ahead of you.
The Free Software Philosophy is Stallman's, its all his. Not everyone agrees with it but a lot of very talented hackers have picked up on parts of it--but don't take it to the extreme that Stallman does. This is just as well, since taking any philosophy to an extreme is pretty crazy. But saying the philosophy itself isn't important is a severe understatement.
But if you don't understand it, what people who believe in it do may seem mystical to you. Heck, to Bill Gates opening source code seems mystiscal. So you'll find yourself galloping around calling GNU a religion doctrine. But please, put it in context. If the philosophy is wrong, criticize it. Its funny, after almost two decades of bashing GNU I haven't seen any real critisms on the GNU philosophy itself. All I see is people trumpetting ignorance around.
Really, y'all can do better than that.
"I am staunchly against the illegal copying of copyrighted material. I do however believe in fair use."
So am I. But what use is "fair use" if we get to make up the rules on what fair use is?
Seriously, Napster ruined the party. With more people who actually live by your beliefs, we'd not have to worry about this crap.
A few million bad apples really ruined the dozen good ones. I think calling the whole situation "not fair" is quite a bit one-sided, IMHO.
"In both situations, it is less important who wrote the code than who was the central motivating factor in the creation of the phenomenon."
Please, don't bullshit. There are a lot of motivating factors for writing free software, from ESR's cathedral and the bazaar to the freeing of mozilla to just the simple fact on how much Windows sucked at the time. Giving Linus undue credit in this regard is merely dishonest.
".... This is probably because RMS's motivations are morally dogmatic, where as Linus's are practical/hedonistic. You can be a communist and like Linux, but you don't have to."
First, look up dogmatic and see if that is really what you mean.
Second, read this from here:
Read the rest of the study itself here. What they found is that most people who write free software do it for the "dogmatic" reasons Linus seems to despise so much. Certainly, its not an overwhelming majority--but the point stands: without RMS, free software would not be anywhere near as important or complete, nor have as many developers, as it has today.
Not that even a majority of these people agree with RMS in every way. But, for a movement to sustain itself, there needs to be something more than a "cult of personality". There needs to be something real to work towards--a lofty goal.
I suppose I should stop here. The study really should speak for itself. But there is no doubt in my mind, no matter how unpopular it may seem, credit is certainly due.
Can't we get radio signals that are bounced off the planet's terran from the planet's star, kind of like radar?
Does have a CD of the OS included?
A sign of zealotry with regard to computers is when someone has a legitamit problem you call his problem unimportant.
In fact, I remap my control key to Caps Lock as well--its almost standard for emacs users.
"Steve Jobs scares me."
He scares me too, pal. Why do you think the Mac nuts can be so rabid? They know he'll raise prices if they don't support them in every way.
Macs are a habit that will kill you first on the inside.
Is like a zit on God's nose.
See? You can unify Creationism and Big Bang.
After discussion with a few, the answer is "yes" unless you also happen to be a libertarian.
He doesn't seem to want any kind of government involvement. That would be hypocritical.
:)
But I think it is enough for him to question his allegiances a bit.
The whole situation is funny in an ironic kind of way
"Perhaps it should become a requirement to teach kids to touch-type at an earlier age."
It is. That was a fun class. The whole point of that class was to give the teacher as much of a headache as possible. Those of us in the know would leave a surprise on the computer when we left and then teach all the other kids how to do the same.
I was in sixth grade and I had pages of RAM being printed to the screen when I left the classroom on our Apple IIe's. The teacher was bitch though--she deserved it.
Gotcha about the TCO thing.
:) Unless you include software that can only be used on Macs. Hence the problem.
I recognize Apple as a dominant PC maker. Not software though. The only application I can think of is Claris Works. I guess Oregon Trail
The amount of money GNU/Linux companies have isn't really relevent given that they are really just selling software that is already out there and being developed autonomously.
But if a bunch of organizations all go out and buy a bunch of Macs then they have a combination of Macs and PCs. Eventually they might just decide to throw GNU/Linux on all the machines to save costs.
Hence the solution.