For your sake, I'll agree and assume WGA is bad in all aspects, but why does one component of the OS package automatically make the entire OS bad? WGA isn't just "one component of the OS package" it has become the flagship feature of Microsoft's operating system. A feature that demands legitimate customers obtain permission from Microsoft to run their software. A feature that serves no purpose other than to allow Microsoft complete control over a product that customers have paid an exorbitant amount of money for.
It is designed solely as a "time bomb" to ensure Microsoft can cripple computers, hold user data hostage, to ensure compliance with forced upgrades and nebulous, unnecessary license restrictions on how many times you can replace the video card in the computer infected with this crap.
I could use the same argument and say that iTunes uses DRM therefore it is bad software This is entirely different. The iTunes software supports media encoded with a form of DRM. An iTunes user can use the software without ever encountering the DRM. The analogy would be a freeware DVD player. This DVD player also "contains" DRM in the sense that it must decode the DVD. It does not however mean the application uses DRM.
The iTunes Music Store does use DRM. That would be the appropriate outlet for derision in this case.
or that linux does not support my ATI graphics card features therefore it is a bad kernel This has no relation to the preceding examples.
As you yourself pointed out, besides the features that windows offers, KDE adds some features of Mac OS X and some of it's own. I don't like Gnome much, finding it too much like a Mac OS X. But at least it is free&open. So if you don't see the point, you haven't been looking. Not that I am forcing you to, but if you don't know, and don't want to know, could you not spread wrong information about it?
I'm not spreading anything, least of all wrong information. We're both just stating opinions here. We're not dealing with document formats, there is no particular disadvantage to using closed proprietary desktop if you like them. Even if Apple died tomorrow I could pick right up using fluxbox, or Windows, or heaven help me KDEGNOME without missing a beat.
More importantly without OS X there would be no Beryl, or features to copy. They just wouldn't exist. The actual useful, innovative desktops have been ignored by most of the major distributions. Fluxbox, WindowMaker, swept aside for Windows abortions. That is my real point. As a system Linux's strong point is its command line. Those of us who have used Linux forever were ignored for the "we have to make it easy for new users crowd" that gnome and KDE were built for. Built to make the transition from Windows easier, taskbars and the like. I don't care about any of that crap.
This sounds very windows like. So you have to get a physical medium from the vendor? How quaint. I suppose you can download it from some developers too, if you trust them, and click to install? Sounds exactly like the windows you abhor. Myself, I prefer to have all applications nearly instantly available, without having to have anything but an internet connection. The source is trusted, and the package cryptographically signed by people I know care. It doesn't get much better than this.
Are you being ironic? Do you really not know what a disk image is? I'll say again since you seem to keep glossing over the point. Just about all non-kernel dependent software can be compiled and run on OS X. I can run X (and I do for several apps) and KDE (I have parallels if I need Windows) if I desire. The exact same code as availble on Linux.
Beryl will be usable soon enough.
Heh. Any day now I'm sure.
Even if what you said that KDE is a copy of windows were true, which it is not, the "copy" is neither closed, IP infected or limited.
Of course it is. Its feature set is limited to what is released by the closed IP infected versions it copies.
What you use is your own business, but you asked what I dislike about Mac OS X, and I think I have answered in full, and also deflected every single criticism you had.
No, actually I did not ask. I responded to one of your posts is all. As far as deflecting criticism, if my gripes were not still valid I would likely not have them.
Not that KDE is perfect... far from it, there is lots of works to do.... but it is still a darn fine desktop, and for people like me, far superior to Mac OS X. Or windows, for that matter.
I have room for about 30 applications in my taskbar... it is vertical, remember? So it has plenty room for all windows I have opened. If push comes to shove, it will group windows, but I have yet to see that happen. It is not small... it covers about 10% of the screen size when it is up. Not that you have to use one in KDE, of course... whether you want 0, 1 or 100 panels is, of course, configurable. Empowerment is the watchword. Not sure about new users, they are getting to be a rare species indeed.
Again you have a bunch of applications cramed into a taskbar with no way to identify them.
The taskbar is Windows construct that needs to die. Maybe Expose isn't the answer but at
least I can get to just about any windows without the mouse, and with two button presses.
The break down is wrong, as already mentioned. I hate hunting for the right window with expose, and am not a big fan of this feature, but if you want it, it is available on Linux. (Not using KWin yet, though, you will have to go to Beryl). Expose breaks down at about 16 windows, at which point the grid becomes hideously large. The taskbar could probably handle 60 with grouping, and 30 without.
Of course Linux has various copies and implmentations of what is on OS X. That's the point though I don't feel like messing with it anymore. In '95
it was alright, now I have other things to do. Expose easily handles 20+ windows on my 13 inch MacBook. Plus I can instantly see what the windows are and I don't have to use a mouse to get to them.
Again this is my main beef with KDGNOME. They simply freakin' copied Windows. I don't like working in Windows. It's anoying. WindowMaker was the high point of the Linux desktop. Fluxbox is pretty nice and has some good features. But KDEGNOME is simply a Windows interface on Linux. I don't see the point.
Where do you drag and drop from? Drag&drop is another interface concept that I do not like much. It has some huge usability flaws, like not being discoverable.
There is nothing to discover. I drag an application from the developer supplied disk image to wherever I want it to live. That's it. None of this fourty seven different package manager crap to deal with.
This is just ridiculous. Where is the multiple desktops on windows? The multiple panels? The Beryl cube? Stay on top? Shading? Max OS X shares much with windows; as does KDE (and Gnome). That is not the point, and in any case a non-issue. What I meant was that Mac OS X is all about "our way or the high way", which is also a mantra in Gnome. I do not like this, nor do a lot of other people. So when someone says that Mac OS X is the one and only, I tend to point out to them that this is not, in fact, the case.
I believe you stated that only base desktop software was acceptable. No add ons or "3rd party apps". Everything you mention on Linux is a third party app. Kwin, Beryl most of that crap is not stable, up and working on an initial install. The very same people that write that crap write crap for OS X that allows for shading and taskbars and what have you. There really is pretty much nothing on the Linux desktop that can't be installed on OS X using the exact same software.
Don't get me wrong. You are more than welcome to use that proprietary, closed, IP infected, limited and locked down desktop, if that is what you want. But I prefer freedown, power and flexibility. Thus, I use KDE, and I am quite happy about it:)
Well, I guess I'm just glad at the end of the day the damn thing works. Besides the choice here is between a proprietary, closed, IP infected, limited and locked desktop or a copy of a proprietary, closed IP infected, limited and locked desktop. And really my time is worth enough not to bother with the later any longer unless I'm getting paid.
No obvious, configurable taskbar (Has to go to the right, be coverable, about 120px wide, pop to front if the
mouse hits the right lower left or I press a key).
Yep. Fundamental difference between Windows and OS X. I hate the taskbar.
Too small to represent the number of windows open at a given time or provide
useful information or features. It's slow, but I guess, easy to understand for new
users. Not really sure of the point. The fact that all Linux/BSD window managers except
WindowMaker copied this glaring flaw is lamentable.
This is nicely handled by Expose. One key-press and all applications
or windows within a single application are available and recognizable. Combined
with keyboard cycling of application groups and windows within application groups it
is easy to get where I need to go. Using 20+ windows at a time is easy. Taskbars
break down long before this point.
I need at least 4 desktops. 6 is ideal for me.
Virtual desktops are badly needed in OS X. Fortunately they will be in the
next release.
The application menu was on the desktop. Not sure if this is configurable, but that is one horrible idea.
That means, to use a menu, you first have to activate the application, and then click the menu.
Sort of. In Windows if an application is minimized or otherwise obscured you will still have to activate or click
on it to get to the menu. Same with Gnome, KDE, fluxbox. But this is not really something worth arguing about.
Now that I'm used to it, it is quite nice especially if have a lot of windows open for a single
application, like terminals.
The emphasis on icons rather than text. Icons are fine for browser buttons and decorations,
but it's the text that makes something instantanously recognisable.
I don't know what this means.
I never did find the package manager. If I need an application, I want to bring up an app, and
search for the apps using keywords, tags or whatever. Then click to install.
Again, nonsensical. There is no need for packages because app installation removal is handled by
drag and drop. There are package management systems (fink/ports) if they are wanted/needed.
I didn't see how to get buttons for "stay in front", "shade" and similar on the window decorations.
That is of course, a must.
Yep. Shading is not part of OS X. Stay in front is up to the application programmer.
I didn't find an easy way to make any application fullscreen. I am pretty sure I just missed that one
though, noone would make a desktop environment where this wasn't easy *somehow*.
Third button from the left on every window.
Maybe it was an old version, but for some reason I couldn't get the background image to be an SVG.
Of course, it might just have been a defective svg. Not that important, just a small thing.
No clue.
I'm happy to hear it works for you. Not that I ever use windows, nor do I "screw" around
with config files unless it takes my fancy to do so. I just find Mac OS X a very limiting desktop
environment, and worse OS.
Again nothing listed here could be considered limiting. The principal difference outlined is the
taskbar. This is a Windows abortion that unfortunately so many people are used to they don't realize
how ridiculous it is. If the taskbar is that important than OS X is definitely not for you.
It is true that everything just works, but you pay with both money, flexibility
and power. Not worth the price, I find.
No, you don't pay with flexibility or power. There is not a single thing that can be done
on a linux desktop that can't be done with OS X. Principally because I can run any window
manager available for Linux on top of OS X if I choose. (I don't)
Still, I occasionally recommend Mac OS to some people. As sort of
like a Gnome, extreme edition:)
I am sure the entire middle east is very thankful that the west is genrously preventing them from eating dirt. Most people in the middle east ARE eating dirt. The oil business provides little to no benefit to the average person in the middle east. The thing about oil is that it employs very few people, causes a lot of damage and it makes a very few people impossibly rich, thus perpetuating a system where a few people can run countries. What do you suppose finances all the unfree regimes in the middle east? With high unemployment and all the money and means to make more in the hands of a few princes its pretty damn hard for the people to bring democracy.
I didn't mean to suggest that the people of the Middle East should be particularly grateful to anyone. Although I was being flip so it was understandably inferred. I was trying to point out that the West's thirst for oil is typically not satiated with the tactics so often atributed to the United States.
Please explain how, with specific cited examples, Taliban-controlled Afghanistan committed terrorist acts against the United States. Thank you for your cooperation.
Well, obviously they provided Osama with aid, comfort, and support and had no intention of stopping. They made their choice; backed the wrong horse. The Taliban were both stupid and evil.
But Osama's a Saudi, and his hatred for America comes from America's behaviour in the middle east - their unwelcome military presence in the holy land of Saudi Arabia
And we are there against the will of Saudi Arabia? Or perhaps Osama is just an evil, fundamentalist lunatic looking for an excuse to attack non-combatents.
, their failure to force Israel to stop murdering Palestinians,
So it is alright to use force in the Middle East? Which is it? You are speaking out of both sides of your ignorant face.
their greed for oil,
Yeah aren't we terrible. Enriching countries that would otherwise be eating dirt while paying monopolistic prices. The West are just a bunch of devils.
their percieved negative attitude to Islam.
Gee. It's shocking that such an attitude would exist. Islam has done so much good in the last 100 years.
So basically you are completely incapable of providing evidence that the United States has done anything to provoke these, according to you, noble terrorists like Bin Laden. Thanks for playing.
Please explain how, with specific cited examples, the United States oppressed, or as you elegantly put "fucked over" Taliban controlled Afghanistan. Thank you for your cooperation.
All PO Box providers are required to demand a picture I.D. to rent a box. They have been for quite a while now. So, it wouldn't be terribly hard to find you Phantom.
Not really the original poster made a statement I have heard often. That statement being that the government is not a moral watchdog. Well, of course it is. Whether all pure speech/information is legal and whether murder is legal are both questions of morality. It just so happens that the answer to one question is agreed upon more that the other.
They'll try to legislate morality which is just plain nuts. The government is hear to PROTECT and SERVE the public, not be a self-appointed moral watchdog.
Not entirely true. While some laws serve the master of political expediency many, especially the biggies, are based on a moral code derived from (take your pick). Murder, theft, assault, rape and so forth are all punishable based on the assumption that they are morally wrong.
Now one might argue that most societies punish the above crimes because it promotes the health and happiness of the populace as a whole, regardless of morality. I would respond that shame, guilt, and morality exist to promote the health and happiness of the populace and therefore enforcement of laws against the above is support of a de facto morality.
This is all irrespective of my opinion on gay marriage. Just felt like I needed to comment on that one part.
I think it is a bizarre US issue that driving is somehow a god-given right...
Well, unlike Europe the US has only been around for a couple hundred years or so. Many of the western states were developed after the advent of the automobile. There is no workable public transportation. One does not have the choice to walk or ride a bicycle. It is just not possible. This means with rare exceptions if one wishes to be successfully, gainfully employed one must purchase and use an auto. The freedom to find employment is one some Americans actually hold dear.
it is legal to drive a five times the legal intoxication limit of many european countries
Well, then Europe must have zero tolerance because I know many places here where the limit is.05. The end goal of groups like MADD is modern day prohibition. They know that there is no way to get to and from a bar after work except to drive. By forcing the limits to a zero tolerance level they effectively force their moral code on the rest of society.
, while shaving, watching TV, reading a book, fiddling with the GPS, talking on the phone, etc... meanwhile we have a relatively high road mortality rate?
This is true but again look how many and how much Americans have to drive.
It seems many people regard any laws aimed at safety to somehow be inconvenient (even seat-belts). We do not even have mandatory vehicle safety inspections (closest thing are emissions tests).
These safety laws are designed to ensure that everyone in public is doing something illegal at all times. Really. It is along the same lines as the Patriot acts and other.gov grabs for freedom. If the state ensures that all citizens are guilty of something at all times than it can arrest and detain suspects at their leisure. Watch I promise these nickel and dime laws will coincide complete DNA and fingerprints during traffic stops. Did you hide your Atlas? You didn't leave it out did you? Your briefcase looks a lot like a computer better put it under the seat. Wait how fast are you going? Do you think that single beer on your breath will make you blow positive on the new zero tolerance breathalyzers? Did you remember to put on the seat-belt? You're not driving while black are you? Careful now! Have a safe day!!
Personal safety laws like seat belt laws are especially heinous as they are symptoms of the mommy state. They just can't be justified in a free society.
Safety is a low priority in the US.
As it should be in a free society.
Resist change!
If the group trying to change something starts with "Mothers against..." or "Fathers against..." that's a good call.
Keep the government out of our vehicles!
Absolutely.
(sorry the sarcasm font did not properly display in your browser)
No. The GPL only applies to the redistribution of the software it licenses. There are 0 stipulations on the use of GPLd software. GPL is copyright EULAs are bullshit. That's the difference.
Probably for the same reason that two 15 year olds shoot up a school and folk appear on slashdot within a nanosecond explaining how gun control would not possibly have prevented the event.
What reason is this?
Very little political debate in the US seems to ever be influenced by science, it is mostly prejudice and emotion.
That is because "science" is wholly inadequate to determine the rules by which a society interacts. For example, you sight gun control in your opening. One side feels gun ownership is fundamental to a free and prosperous society. The other side not so much. Both sides can present "scientific" evidence proving their case. But, really, who cares? These are issues of the fundamental rights of man in a free state. Silly soft social science (that is what we're talking about) has no real place here.
Further, social scientists are notorious for not being impartial when testing their hypothesis, thus the ability of two antithetical parties being able to prove their points with the same data. Additionally before such science can be used to determine policy both parties would have to agree that the hypothesis is one worth testing. This is usually not possible.
For example, my hypothesis is that woman who are covered head to toe in a burka are safer. I do my study and determine there is less violence against women in countries with such a policy. Therefore, we can now state scientifically that all women in the United States should be covered head to toe in a burka. There of course can be no argument against this policy as that would be prejudicial and emotional.
The people have learned instinctively to run like hell from "scientists" attempting to determine policy. There is a reason for that.
Mind you, things are not necessarily that much better in science.
Flamebait? How so? Everything there is true. As for paying taxes of course you go to jail for not paying them. Where did I say otherwise? I was countering someone who called a 75% tax rate donations and charity. Seriously. And they are doing it as an AC. I think there might be a little baiting going on there don't you? Jeez this place cracks me up.
The compulsions and central bodies you speak of are aspects of socialism as it is often implemented. This doesn't imply that things which don't have these features are not socialism.
Yes, it does. Socialism is defined by its central planning. Otherwise you still basically have a free market. Besides all of this is moot in that we are not talking about government here. We are talking about people developing software for individual reasons. Governments have a monopoly on violence, the FSF does not.
With FSF distributing tools of production for free, how's it not a communism?
As I said, there is no compulsion. Additionally, there is no centralized distribution. We are not talking about government here we are talking about individuals who have made choices.
What you're describing is communism. Socialism isn't about forcing people to work for a common good. In fact forcing people to do anything AGAINST their will is one of the things socialism is against.
Socialism is on the road to Communism. It is a stop on the way.
Mainly, socialism consists of making sure
1) Those who work for an employer can't be abused (e.g. summarily dismissed, locked out, paid different rates - trades unions stuff)
2) Ensuring the better off in society take care of those at the lower end of the scale.
How, pray tell, is any of this achieved except through the threat of violence on which the state maintains a monopoly? What if I disagree that it is good to "take care of those at the lower end of the scale"? Am I exempt from participating in these programs?
The most successfully socialist countries are in Scandanavia where taxes are huge (up to 75%) but things like dental care and hosptials are free for all, drugs are subsidised by the government, there are adult education schemes, the whole lot of it. And while people are being gouged in terms of tax, their standard of living is nonetheless increased as it all gets returned to them in kind.
The standard of living is increased? How? What if I want to create a private company to explore the outer reaches of space? Will I be exempt from the crushing taxes preventing such a thing? No, of course not. If one refuses to participate in the socialist paradise one is either shot, or reeducated.
This is the big difference between socialism and capitalism, socialism you give up significant funds to better society, which will in turn better your life.
What is better? You assume we all have the same sense of a better life. The possibility of greatness, of being able to engineer, cure, or discover might be one persons idea of a better life. For others it might be sitting on their butts watching television all day. In a socialist society these decisions are made for you by committee. It rots the sole. These systems are designed to demoralize.
By and large the core policy of socialism is donating to society for the benefit of all. In one sense it's a form of charity, except more reasoned, and engineered so you get something back from your donation.
This is not charity. Charity typically improves ones moral condition. Paying taxes at gunpoint does not. Reasoned, engineered these are of course code words. Socialists and communists consider themselves social scientists. The idea being to create a perfectly secular society which needn't concern itself with the human spirit. The Khmer Rouge, for example, considered themselves scientists. Is this really what you want? Do you want a bunch of self appointed scientists determining what path your life will take? Where you are most useful to society? It is abhorrent on its face. It is also integral to a socialist society.
It is has nothing to do with communism (which incidentally has nothing to do with the totalitarian regimes practised in China, Cuba and formerly (presently?!) the USSR).
Don't kid yourself. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, its probably a duck. If the examples you give are not communism, what is? If someone claims to be a communist, who are you or I to call them a liar? If so many societies have implemented communism and it comes out totalitarianistic as you say, what does that tell us?
Is this agitprop? Seriously, there is nothing socialist about free software.
First, and most importantly, no person is compelled to make use of, contribute to, or distribute free software. Folks make the choice to get involved with these projects. Contributors typically demand recognition for their work which can then be parlayed into resume fodder, or in some cases, actual jobs.
Second, there is typically not a central body which controls the production and distribution of said software. The whole point of F.S. is that any person may distribute as long as they follow the stipulations in the license. These stipulations denote socialism no more than any other contract.
These are important distinctions to make. Claiming free software is socialist is akin to claiming that a traditional family unit is communist.
Well Seattle's tax on espresso is okay because its kinda like a "luxury tax".
Luxury taxes are stupid and wrong headed. Just ask New England boat builders who have yet to recover from the implementation of such foolishness in years past. See, the wealthy are typically so because they are not foolish with money.
No, these taxes are purpose built to starve the independent artisan class and furnish the ranks of the demoralized, downtrodden, and dependent. Marginalizing the independent craftsmen is a good step in quashing the individuality so derided by mass production and mechanization. Both of which are indispensable to the central planner.
Instead of lauding the efforts of those who would commodify the manifestation of man's need to create, how about supporting your local artist with a donation not taken by force of government.
If they are testing it for a client they can factor the price of the software into the price they charge the client. If they are just researching it to advance the state of knowledge in the company then they can buy it from company funds.
I agree. I wasn't paticularly defending Foundstone just commenting on copyright infringement which is a problem I suspect is endemic in the field of security research.
These are not amateur bug finders though, they are a "professional" company.
Of course, but, I suspect there will be various pots and kettles having a go at Foundstone for this. Although they are a member of OIS so they probably deserve it.
Maybe but remember this is a special situation. A security company researching vulnerabilities must have at their disposal a huge quantity of software. Not just the stuff that they personally like to use, but, the stuff everyone else uses. Of course a researcher also often needs multiple versions of the same product. Therefore, it does not surprise me that such a company would commit copyright infringement in order to get some piece of software they will only use for a short time while testing something.
I was wondering when this issue would raise its ugly head. After all how many amateur bug finders have the bucks to properly license all of the software they test. It seems natural to me that large companies seeking retribution against a leaked 0-day might investigate such a thing.
Searching for bugs and researching the exploitation of same pays off in the following ways:
It can be interesting and it improves ones ability to read, write, and understand code.
Doing so in a public forum can create reputation capital for ones consulting services or products. In some cases may lead to employment.
Some folks are truly motivated by the desire to see vendors patch their software. This is sometimes a result as well.
The companies involved in the OIS have already established their reputation. They aren't doing this for fun. It is to their advantage to prevent others from competing with them. The idea here is to keep interesting research and discussions closed while charging naive corporations thousands of dollars to attend talks which provide little to no real information.
Look the goal here is to make money and that is noble and good. In order to do this people shouldn't just give away all of their hard work and research. The problem here is that these guys are protecting their bottom line under the guise of Internet Safety. It is a bit disgusting but I think might be irrelevant in the long run. Since SecurityFocus is part of this plan though I bet the mailing lists over there will be short lived. Oh well nothing lasts forever.
Slashdot Mirror
It is designed solely as a "time bomb" to ensure Microsoft can cripple computers, hold user data hostage, to ensure compliance with forced upgrades and nebulous, unnecessary license restrictions on how many times you can replace the video card in the computer infected with this crap. I could use the same argument and say that iTunes uses DRM therefore it is bad software This is entirely different. The iTunes software supports media encoded with a form of DRM. An iTunes user can use the software without ever encountering the DRM. The analogy would be a freeware DVD player. This DVD player also "contains" DRM in the sense that it must decode the DVD. It does not however mean the application uses DRM.
The iTunes Music Store does use DRM. That would be the appropriate outlet for derision in this case. or that linux does not support my ATI graphics card features therefore it is a bad kernel This has no relation to the preceding examples.
As you yourself pointed out, besides the features that windows offers, KDE adds some features of Mac OS X and some of it's own. I don't like Gnome much, finding it too much like a Mac OS X. But at least it is free&open. So if you don't see the point, you haven't been looking. Not that I am forcing you to, but if you don't know, and don't want to know, could you not spread wrong information about it?
:)
I'm not spreading anything, least of all wrong information. We're both just stating opinions here. We're not dealing with document formats, there is no particular disadvantage to using closed proprietary desktop if you like them. Even if Apple died tomorrow I could pick right up using fluxbox, or Windows, or heaven help me KDEGNOME without missing a beat.
More importantly without OS X there would be no Beryl, or features to copy. They just wouldn't exist. The actual useful, innovative desktops have been ignored by most of the major distributions. Fluxbox, WindowMaker, swept aside for Windows abortions. That is my real point. As a system Linux's strong point is its command line. Those of us who have used Linux forever were ignored for the "we have to make it easy for new users crowd" that gnome and KDE were built for. Built to make the transition from Windows easier, taskbars and the like. I don't care about any of that crap.
This sounds very windows like. So you have to get a physical medium from the vendor? How quaint. I suppose you can download it from some developers too, if you trust them, and click to install? Sounds exactly like the windows you abhor. Myself, I prefer to have all applications nearly instantly available, without having to have anything but an internet connection. The source is trusted, and the package cryptographically signed by people I know care. It doesn't get much better than this.
Are you being ironic? Do you really not know what a disk image is? I'll say again since you seem to keep glossing over the point. Just about all non-kernel dependent software can be compiled and run on OS X. I can run X (and I do for several apps) and KDE (I have parallels if I need Windows) if I desire. The exact same code as availble on Linux.
Beryl will be usable soon enough.
Heh. Any day now I'm sure.
Even if what you said that KDE is a copy of windows were true, which it is not, the "copy" is neither closed, IP infected or limited.
Of course it is. Its feature set is limited to what is released by the closed IP infected versions it copies.
What you use is your own business, but you asked what I dislike about Mac OS X, and I think I have answered in full, and also deflected every single criticism you had.
No, actually I did not ask. I responded to one of your posts is all. As far as deflecting criticism, if my gripes were not still valid I would likely not have them.
Not that KDE is perfect... far from it, there is lots of works to do.... but it is still a darn fine desktop, and for people like me, far superior to Mac OS X. Or windows, for that matter.
No skin off my back.
I have room for about 30 applications in my taskbar... it is vertical, remember? So it has plenty room for all windows I have opened. If push comes to shove, it will group windows, but I have yet to see that happen. It is not small... it covers about 10% of the screen size when it is up. Not that you have to use one in KDE, of course... whether you want 0, 1 or 100 panels is, of course, configurable. Empowerment is the watchword. Not sure about new users, they are getting to be a rare species indeed.
:)
Again you have a bunch of applications cramed into a taskbar with no way to identify them. The taskbar is Windows construct that needs to die. Maybe Expose isn't the answer but at least I can get to just about any windows without the mouse, and with two button presses.
The break down is wrong, as already mentioned. I hate hunting for the right window with expose, and am not a big fan of this feature, but if you want it, it is available on Linux. (Not using KWin yet, though, you will have to go to Beryl). Expose breaks down at about 16 windows, at which point the grid becomes hideously large. The taskbar could probably handle 60 with grouping, and 30 without.
Of course Linux has various copies and implmentations of what is on OS X. That's the point though I don't feel like messing with it anymore. In '95 it was alright, now I have other things to do. Expose easily handles 20+ windows on my 13 inch MacBook. Plus I can instantly see what the windows are and I don't have to use a mouse to get to them.
Again this is my main beef with KDGNOME. They simply freakin' copied Windows. I don't like working in Windows. It's anoying. WindowMaker was the high point of the Linux desktop. Fluxbox is pretty nice and has some good features. But KDEGNOME is simply a Windows interface on Linux. I don't see the point.
Where do you drag and drop from? Drag&drop is another interface concept that I do not like much. It has some huge usability flaws, like not being discoverable.
There is nothing to discover. I drag an application from the developer supplied disk image to wherever I want it to live. That's it. None of this fourty seven different package manager crap to deal with.
This is just ridiculous. Where is the multiple desktops on windows? The multiple panels? The Beryl cube? Stay on top? Shading? Max OS X shares much with windows; as does KDE (and Gnome). That is not the point, and in any case a non-issue. What I meant was that Mac OS X is all about "our way or the high way", which is also a mantra in Gnome. I do not like this, nor do a lot of other people. So when someone says that Mac OS X is the one and only, I tend to point out to them that this is not, in fact, the case.
I believe you stated that only base desktop software was acceptable. No add ons or "3rd party apps". Everything you mention on Linux is a third party app. Kwin, Beryl most of that crap is not stable, up and working on an initial install. The very same people that write that crap write crap for OS X that allows for shading and taskbars and what have you. There really is pretty much nothing on the Linux desktop that can't be installed on OS X using the exact same software.
Don't get me wrong. You are more than welcome to use that proprietary, closed, IP infected, limited and locked down desktop, if that is what you want. But I prefer freedown, power and flexibility. Thus, I use KDE, and I am quite happy about it
Well, I guess I'm just glad at the end of the day the damn thing works. Besides the choice here is between a proprietary, closed, IP infected, limited and locked desktop or a copy of a proprietary, closed IP infected, limited and locked desktop. And really my time is worth enough not to bother with the later any longer unless I'm getting paid.
No obvious, configurable taskbar (Has to go to the right, be coverable, about 120px wide, pop to front if the mouse hits the right lower left or I press a key).
:)
Yep. Fundamental difference between Windows and OS X. I hate the taskbar. Too small to represent the number of windows open at a given time or provide useful information or features. It's slow, but I guess, easy to understand for new users. Not really sure of the point. The fact that all Linux/BSD window managers except WindowMaker copied this glaring flaw is lamentable.
This is nicely handled by Expose. One key-press and all applications or windows within a single application are available and recognizable. Combined with keyboard cycling of application groups and windows within application groups it is easy to get where I need to go. Using 20+ windows at a time is easy. Taskbars break down long before this point.
I need at least 4 desktops. 6 is ideal for me.
Virtual desktops are badly needed in OS X. Fortunately they will be in the next release.
The application menu was on the desktop. Not sure if this is configurable, but that is one horrible idea. That means, to use a menu, you first have to activate the application, and then click the menu.
Sort of. In Windows if an application is minimized or otherwise obscured you will still have to activate or click on it to get to the menu. Same with Gnome, KDE, fluxbox. But this is not really something worth arguing about. Now that I'm used to it, it is quite nice especially if have a lot of windows open for a single application, like terminals.
The emphasis on icons rather than text. Icons are fine for browser buttons and decorations, but it's the text that makes something instantanously recognisable.
I don't know what this means.
I never did find the package manager. If I need an application, I want to bring up an app, and search for the apps using keywords, tags or whatever. Then click to install.
Again, nonsensical. There is no need for packages because app installation removal is handled by drag and drop. There are package management systems (fink/ports) if they are wanted/needed.
I didn't see how to get buttons for "stay in front", "shade" and similar on the window decorations. That is of course, a must.
Yep. Shading is not part of OS X. Stay in front is up to the application programmer.
I didn't find an easy way to make any application fullscreen. I am pretty sure I just missed that one though, noone would make a desktop environment where this wasn't easy *somehow*.
Third button from the left on every window.
Maybe it was an old version, but for some reason I couldn't get the background image to be an SVG. Of course, it might just have been a defective svg. Not that important, just a small thing.
No clue.
I'm happy to hear it works for you. Not that I ever use windows, nor do I "screw" around with config files unless it takes my fancy to do so. I just find Mac OS X a very limiting desktop environment, and worse OS.
Again nothing listed here could be considered limiting. The principal difference outlined is the taskbar. This is a Windows abortion that unfortunately so many people are used to they don't realize how ridiculous it is. If the taskbar is that important than OS X is definitely not for you.
It is true that everything just works, but you pay with both money, flexibility and power. Not worth the price, I find.
No, you don't pay with flexibility or power. There is not a single thing that can be done on a linux desktop that can't be done with OS X. Principally because I can run any window manager available for Linux on top of OS X if I choose. (I don't)
Still, I occasionally recommend Mac OS to some people. As sort of like a Gnome, extreme edition
Gnome and its ilk
There is no such thing as a tax on business. That cost will always be passed to consumers.
Apparently you haven't seen it enough. It's four hours. Three hours is perfectly normal.
I didn't mean to suggest that the people of the Middle East should be particularly grateful to anyone. Although I was being flip so it was understandably inferred. I was trying to point out that the West's thirst for oil is typically not satiated with the tactics so often atributed to the United States.
Well, obviously they provided Osama with aid, comfort, and support and had no intention of stopping. They made their choice; backed the wrong horse. The Taliban were both stupid and evil.
But Osama's a Saudi, and his hatred for America comes from America's behaviour in the middle east - their unwelcome military presence in the holy land of Saudi Arabia
And we are there against the will of Saudi Arabia? Or perhaps Osama is just an evil, fundamentalist lunatic looking for an excuse to attack non-combatents.
, their failure to force Israel to stop murdering Palestinians,
So it is alright to use force in the Middle East? Which is it? You are speaking out of both sides of your ignorant face.
their greed for oil,
Yeah aren't we terrible. Enriching countries that would otherwise be eating dirt while paying monopolistic prices. The West are just a bunch of devils.
their percieved negative attitude to Islam.
Gee. It's shocking that such an attitude would exist. Islam has done so much good in the last 100 years.
So basically you are completely incapable of providing evidence that the United States has done anything to provoke these, according to you, noble terrorists like Bin Laden. Thanks for playing.
Please explain how, with specific cited examples, the United States oppressed, or as you elegantly put "fucked over" Taliban controlled Afghanistan. Thank you for your cooperation.
All PO Box providers are required to demand a picture I.D. to rent a box. They have been for quite a while now. So, it wouldn't be terribly hard to find you Phantom.
Not really the original poster made a statement I have heard often. That statement being that the government is not a moral watchdog. Well, of course it is. Whether all pure speech/information is legal and whether murder is legal are both questions of morality. It just so happens that the answer to one question is agreed upon more that the other.
Not entirely true. While some laws serve the master of political expediency many, especially the biggies, are based on a moral code derived from (take your pick). Murder, theft, assault, rape and so forth are all punishable based on the assumption that they are morally wrong.
Now one might argue that most societies punish the above crimes because it promotes the health and happiness of the populace as a whole, regardless of morality. I would respond that shame, guilt, and morality exist to promote the health and happiness of the populace and therefore enforcement of laws against the above is support of a de facto morality.
This is all irrespective of my opinion on gay marriage. Just felt like I needed to comment on that one part.
Well, unlike Europe the US has only been around for a couple hundred years or so. Many of the western states were developed after the advent of the automobile. There is no workable public transportation. One does not have the choice to walk or ride a bicycle. It is just not possible. This means with rare exceptions if one wishes to be successfully, gainfully employed one must purchase and use an auto. The freedom to find employment is one some Americans actually hold dear.
it is legal to drive a five times the legal intoxication limit of many european countries
Well, then Europe must have zero tolerance because I know many places here where the limit is .05. The end goal of groups like MADD is modern day prohibition. They know that there is no way to get to and from a bar after work except to drive. By forcing the limits to a zero tolerance level they effectively force their moral code on the rest of society.
, while shaving, watching TV, reading a book, fiddling with the GPS, talking on the phone, etc... meanwhile we have a relatively high road mortality rate?
This is true but again look how many and how much Americans have to drive.
It seems many people regard any laws aimed at safety to somehow be inconvenient (even seat-belts). We do not even have mandatory vehicle safety inspections (closest thing are emissions tests).
These safety laws are designed to ensure that everyone in public is doing something illegal at all times. Really. It is along the same lines as the Patriot acts and other .gov grabs for freedom. If the state ensures that all citizens are guilty of something at all times than it can arrest and detain suspects at their leisure. Watch I promise these nickel and dime laws will coincide complete DNA and fingerprints during traffic stops. Did you hide your Atlas? You didn't leave it out did you? Your briefcase looks a lot like a computer better put it under the seat. Wait how fast are you going? Do you think that single beer on your breath will make you blow positive on the new zero tolerance breathalyzers? Did you remember to put on the seat-belt? You're not driving while black are you? Careful now! Have a safe day!!
Personal safety laws like seat belt laws are especially heinous as they are symptoms of the mommy state. They just can't be justified in a free society.
Safety is a low priority in the US.
As it should be in a free society.
Resist change!
If the group trying to change something starts with "Mothers against..." or "Fathers against..." that's a good call.
Keep the government out of our vehicles!
Absolutely.
(sorry the sarcasm font did not properly display in your browser)
No problem we agree swimmingly.
No. The GPL only applies to the redistribution of the software it licenses. There are 0 stipulations on the use of GPLd software. GPL is copyright EULAs are bullshit. That's the difference.
What do you mean? Most motorcyclists brake exclusively with the front brake.
What reason is this?
Very little political debate in the US seems to ever be influenced by science, it is mostly prejudice and emotion.
That is because "science" is wholly inadequate to determine the rules by which a society interacts. For example, you sight gun control in your opening. One side feels gun ownership is fundamental to a free and prosperous society. The other side not so much. Both sides can present "scientific" evidence proving their case. But, really, who cares? These are issues of the fundamental rights of man in a free state. Silly soft social science (that is what we're talking about) has no real place here.
Further, social scientists are notorious for not being impartial when testing their hypothesis, thus the ability of two antithetical parties being able to prove their points with the same data. Additionally before such science can be used to determine policy both parties would have to agree that the hypothesis is one worth testing. This is usually not possible.
For example, my hypothesis is that woman who are covered head to toe in a burka are safer. I do my study and determine there is less violence against women in countries with such a policy. Therefore, we can now state scientifically that all women in the United States should be covered head to toe in a burka. There of course can be no argument against this policy as that would be prejudicial and emotional.
The people have learned instinctively to run like hell from "scientists" attempting to determine policy. There is a reason for that.
Mind you, things are not necessarily that much better in science.
You got that part right for sure.
Flamebait? How so? Everything there is true. As for paying taxes of course you go to jail for not paying them. Where did I say otherwise? I was countering someone who called a 75% tax rate donations and charity. Seriously. And they are doing it as an AC. I think there might be a little baiting going on there don't you? Jeez this place cracks me up.
Yes, it does. Socialism is defined by its central planning. Otherwise you still basically have a free market. Besides all of this is moot in that we are not talking about government here. We are talking about people developing software for individual reasons. Governments have a monopoly on violence, the FSF does not.
As I said, there is no compulsion. Additionally, there is no centralized distribution. We are not talking about government here we are talking about individuals who have made choices.
Socialism is on the road to Communism. It is a stop on the way.
Mainly, socialism consists of making sure
1) Those who work for an employer can't be abused (e.g. summarily dismissed, locked out, paid different rates - trades unions stuff)
2) Ensuring the better off in society take care of those at the lower end of the scale.
How, pray tell, is any of this achieved except through the threat of violence on which the state maintains a monopoly? What if I disagree that it is good to "take care of those at the lower end of the scale"? Am I exempt from participating in these programs?
The most successfully socialist countries are in Scandanavia where taxes are huge (up to 75%) but things like dental care and hosptials are free for all, drugs are subsidised by the government, there are adult education schemes, the whole lot of it. And while people are being gouged in terms of tax, their standard of living is nonetheless increased as it all gets returned to them in kind.
The standard of living is increased? How? What if I want to create a private company to explore the outer reaches of space? Will I be exempt from the crushing taxes preventing such a thing? No, of course not. If one refuses to participate in the socialist paradise one is either shot, or reeducated.
This is the big difference between socialism and capitalism, socialism you give up significant funds to better society, which will in turn better your life.
What is better? You assume we all have the same sense of a better life. The possibility of greatness, of being able to engineer, cure, or discover might be one persons idea of a better life. For others it might be sitting on their butts watching television all day. In a socialist society these decisions are made for you by committee. It rots the sole. These systems are designed to demoralize.
By and large the core policy of socialism is donating to society for the benefit of all. In one sense it's a form of charity, except more reasoned, and engineered so you get something back from your donation.
This is not charity. Charity typically improves ones moral condition. Paying taxes at gunpoint does not. Reasoned, engineered these are of course code words. Socialists and communists consider themselves social scientists. The idea being to create a perfectly secular society which needn't concern itself with the human spirit. The Khmer Rouge, for example, considered themselves scientists. Is this really what you want? Do you want a bunch of self appointed scientists determining what path your life will take? Where you are most useful to society? It is abhorrent on its face. It is also integral to a socialist society.
It is has nothing to do with communism (which incidentally has nothing to do with the totalitarian regimes practised in China, Cuba and formerly (presently?!) the USSR).
Don't kid yourself. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, its probably a duck. If the examples you give are not communism, what is? If someone claims to be a communist, who are you or I to call them a liar? If so many societies have implemented communism and it comes out totalitarianistic as you say, what does that tell us?
P.S. Read your Hayek.
These are important distinctions to make. Claiming free software is socialist is akin to claiming that a traditional family unit is communist.
Luxury taxes are stupid and wrong headed. Just ask New England boat builders who have yet to recover from the implementation of such foolishness in years past. See, the wealthy are typically so because they are not foolish with money.
No, these taxes are purpose built to starve the independent artisan class and furnish the ranks of the demoralized, downtrodden, and dependent. Marginalizing the independent craftsmen is a good step in quashing the individuality so derided by mass production and mechanization. Both of which are indispensable to the central planner.
Instead of lauding the efforts of those who would commodify the manifestation of man's need to create, how about supporting your local artist with a donation not taken by force of government.
I agree. I wasn't paticularly defending Foundstone just commenting on copyright infringement which is a problem I suspect is endemic in the field of security research.
These are not amateur bug finders though, they are a "professional" company.
Of course, but, I suspect there will be various pots and kettles having a go at Foundstone for this. Although they are a member of OIS so they probably deserve it.
I was wondering when this issue would raise its ugly head. After all how many amateur bug finders have the bucks to properly license all of the software they test. It seems natural to me that large companies seeking retribution against a leaked 0-day might investigate such a thing.
It can be interesting and it improves ones ability to read, write, and understand code.
Doing so in a public forum can create reputation capital for ones consulting services or products. In some cases may lead to employment.
Some folks are truly motivated by the desire to see vendors patch their software. This is sometimes a result as well.
The companies involved in the OIS have already established their reputation. They aren't doing this for fun. It is to their advantage to prevent others from competing with them. The idea here is to keep interesting research and discussions closed while charging naive corporations thousands of dollars to attend talks which provide little to no real information.
Look the goal here is to make money and that is noble and good. In order to do this people shouldn't just give away all of their hard work and research. The problem here is that these guys are protecting their bottom line under the guise of Internet Safety. It is a bit disgusting but I think might be irrelevant in the long run. Since SecurityFocus is part of this plan though I bet the mailing lists over there will be short lived. Oh well nothing lasts forever.
Dave Aitel makes some rather lucid observations.