It's not that people bitching about the UI are modded down because of "NUH UH" factor, it's because they're completely unsubstantiated. What we're asking for here is hard data from Munich saying "X is wrong, Y gave us trouble, we need Z to be effective with these rollouts." Just saying "The UI is clumsy hurr hurr hurr" does no good at all. Even being specific doesn't matter because you aren't in charge of the Munich rollout. I'd like to hear from them on exactly what's wrong.
Where this falls down is that true freedom must necessarily include the freedom to do things that piss others off, so long as it does not harm them. Stallman's version explicitly excludes the freedom to reuse code unless you buy in to his utopia. This is not freedom; it's a weak counterfeit. That is why I object to his redefinition of the term.
This is merely your redefinition of the term "free". You're touting hippie freedom, do whatever you want man, we wont stop you. Stallman touts speech freedom, do whatever you want with this code, but you can't stop anybody from doing the same thing to your code. His is closer to the traditional American idea of freedom, everybody has the same rights as anybody else and your freedom stops the second you try to infringe those rights. So again, yours is the redefinition. Yours has no concept of rights or limits on freedom, which is intrinsic to the traditional idea of consitutional freedom in America.
By caving in to his SCO-like demand to call the system "GNU/Linux", for starters. They also use his misdefinition of the term "freedom" as applied to software, and then there's their idiotic mishandling of KDE a few years back. They're more Stallmanite than any other distribution group out there.
You realize he's the one that invented the term "free software" right? I mean seriously, how can his be a misdefinition when he's the one that came up with it in the first place?
Or did you come up with a definition of free software and then pretend it's the real one?
And I think at some point we have to look at the Linux platform and ask: Where is our effort better spent? The answer is not necessarily in making Windows software work on Linux, but rather making Linux a better platform for software development. If there is one thing that Loki's short life bought the Linux world, it was a significant investment in the infrastructure on which future games have been built: SDL, OpenGL, and OpenAL. (For example, I believe that Unreal Tournament 2003 on Linux uses all of these libraries. I'm guessing the same is true of Unreal Tournament 2004, although I haven't asked Ryan or Daniel to be sure.) By comparison, it seems unlikely that all the money and effort expended on WineX will have any benefit except to a handful of users for whom a modest number of Windows-only games work well. Linux, as a platform on which to build software, will become no more attractive from even widespread use of WineX.
When will people quit parading around this tired old strawman? "Why have two GUI Desktops, you could spend all that energy on one desktop? Why have more than one X Server, one is good enough! Why have several sound systems, OSS works just fine!" Repeat after me, competition is good. WineX can't hurt the Linux community, only offer incentive for Windows users. If the only game someone plays is Half-Life and WineX lets them play Half-Life in Linux, that's somebody who now uses a Linux desktop. How does that hurt anybody else? One more Linux desktop means one more number to point to when making news games, begging for a Linux port. Numbers are the only thing that matters to publishers when it comes to ports.
How the hell did this get modded insightful? Your distro chooses for you. You could say the same thing about any application
Ok, and how the "dumb" user know which program is the one to use ? HE DOESNT CARE! He wants to "do X" ONE time, not 2. Not even 3 times when he founds out his first try went smoother than the third.
Competition is good, if you don't want to learn about what's out there and what you feel like using then just use what your distro gives you. Just like Windows or Macs. You could download 3rd party programs, but if you don't care you can just use what comes with it.
Except you're not forced to run it. Or download it. Or even read it. Whereas on Windows you don't have a choice to download this stuff and if you're lucky you have to turn it off. Also, the latest alpha release of any software would not be used on production servers or desktops, this would.
3. If you think DRM is a bitch, you must be wanting to break the copyrights. iTMS goes you playback on up to three windows and/or mac machines, unlimited iPods, and you can burn a track as many times as you want to CD (the restriction being you can't burn the same playlist more than 10 times - who does this anyway?)
You obviously never formatted and didn't back up your encryption keys. Or had your encryption keys corrupted. With a CD? You could just rerip. With DRMed media you have to buy it again. Your argument amounts to "DRM isn't a problem because I let it dictate what I can do"
So the Atheist Fascists never did anything bad without Religon? That's his point, people will find an excuse to be horrible monsters with or without Religon.
Announcing that WineX 3.3 has support for Valve games that were written on the Quake 2 engine back when the 3DFX Voodoo2 was new and nVidia was pushing their soon to be released TNT2 cards really isn't that amazing to me. In fact, it kind of underwhelms me.
Then you really haven't been paying attention. Half-Life has been supported for a very long time. Steam, you know, the part that wasn't based on Quake 2 and didn't come out with the Voodoo2 was king, that is now supported.
I'm just disappointed these improvements didn't add PunkBuster support, since I've stopped caring about Half-Life anyway.
Then even that fails to take into account what was said above, that most of the Windows installations in the world weren't chosen. 90% of them are either mandated by their job or come preinstalled. Nobody really chooses Windows, it's just there already so why not?
If you read my post, you'll see that I did address that. It's definitely a possibility, but people often seem to charge ridiculous amounts. And it's a bit annoying considering everyone else is getting it for nothing. I'm not saying sharing stuff is bad, I just want it to be fair.
Okay, so let me get this straight. You feel that explicit licensing is clunky and that people seem to charge ridiculous amounts. Yet you also are arguing this for including free code into your proprietary code? Are you serious? "Properietary licenses are clunky and ridiculously priced. I want to be able to take your code for free and then charge you a ridiculous price through a clunky proprietary license! GPL isn't free if it won't let me do that!"
I can see arguments for the BSD license but it just sounds like you want to have your cake and eat it too. You're fighting for your right to release a proprietary product but when the GPL guys do it it's clunky and overpriced. Sure.
So you've never ran the 2.6 kernel up until now? Have you never had trouble with the binary drivers because you wait until the binary drivers won't give you any trouble? Sort of self fullfilling don't you think?
The Windows developers aren't complaining about the lack of user control; they don't want user control
There are alot of Windows users saying "please give me control, any control!" but I think those people should ask themselves if it's a good idea to use an OS when they have such a fundamental disagreement with the developers of that OS.
In this case he was talking about software patents. Though it's rather naive to believe those modems wouldn't have been invented without patents.
"Let's see, we could make several million selling modems but we won't be given a government granted monopoly on designing and producing our certain type of modem. Why bother? In the end we'll just make money, who wants that? I want to sue people instead!"
As soon as companies realized they could make money off internet access they were going to make modems faster and better with or without patents. Patents end up being icing on the cake for most companies, without it you still need a faster modem to beat your competitor. What're you going to do? Sit around and cry about not having patents while someone else spends some money in R&D and makes the modem before you? That puts you several months/years behind thier technology and leaves you spending just as much money reverse engineering thier product. In the end its the same thing, you have to spend money to make money. Patents don't change that.
Slashdot Mirror
It's not that people bitching about the UI are modded down because of "NUH UH" factor, it's because they're completely unsubstantiated. What we're asking for here is hard data from Munich saying "X is wrong, Y gave us trouble, we need Z to be effective with these rollouts." Just saying "The UI is clumsy hurr hurr hurr" does no good at all. Even being specific doesn't matter because you aren't in charge of the Munich rollout. I'd like to hear from them on exactly what's wrong.
This is merely your redefinition of the term "free". You're touting hippie freedom, do whatever you want man, we wont stop you. Stallman touts speech freedom, do whatever you want with this code, but you can't stop anybody from doing the same thing to your code. His is closer to the traditional American idea of freedom, everybody has the same rights as anybody else and your freedom stops the second you try to infringe those rights. So again, yours is the redefinition. Yours has no concept of rights or limits on freedom, which is intrinsic to the traditional idea of consitutional freedom in America.
You realize he's the one that invented the term "free software" right? I mean seriously, how can his be a misdefinition when he's the one that came up with it in the first place?
Or did you come up with a definition of free software and then pretend it's the real one?
When will people quit parading around this tired old strawman? "Why have two GUI Desktops, you could spend all that energy on one desktop? Why have more than one X Server, one is good enough! Why have several sound systems, OSS works just fine!" Repeat after me, competition is good. WineX can't hurt the Linux community, only offer incentive for Windows users. If the only game someone plays is Half-Life and WineX lets them play Half-Life in Linux, that's somebody who now uses a Linux desktop. How does that hurt anybody else? One more Linux desktop means one more number to point to when making news games, begging for a Linux port. Numbers are the only thing that matters to publishers when it comes to ports.
Competition is good, if you don't want to learn about what's out there and what you feel like using then just use what your distro gives you. Just like Windows or Macs. You could download 3rd party programs, but if you don't care you can just use what comes with it.
Except that it's illegal to do so in closed-source development.
So you're saying, if you want to be secure .... upgrade?
:)
Basically arguing the parent's point for them, thanks!
Except you're not forced to run it. Or download it. Or even read it. Whereas on Windows you don't have a choice to download this stuff and if you're lucky you have to turn it off. Also, the latest alpha release of any software would not be used on production servers or desktops, this would.
Nice try Trolly McTroll.
You obviously never formatted and didn't back up your encryption keys. Or had your encryption keys corrupted. With a CD? You could just rerip. With DRMed media you have to buy it again. Your argument amounts to "DRM isn't a problem because I let it dictate what I can do"
Only on Slashdot can we get 4 replies deep and still not get the joke :)
Try getting a security clearance for somebody without US citizenship that doesn't even live in the US.
So the Atheist Fascists never did anything bad without Religon? That's his point, people will find an excuse to be horrible monsters with or without Religon.
Then you really haven't been paying attention. Half-Life has been supported for a very long time. Steam, you know, the part that wasn't based on Quake 2 and didn't come out with the Voodoo2 was king, that is now supported.
I'm just disappointed these improvements didn't add PunkBuster support, since I've stopped caring about Half-Life anyway.
How many Company Cars exist? Rental cars?
Then even that fails to take into account what was said above, that most of the Windows installations in the world weren't chosen. 90% of them are either mandated by their job or come preinstalled. Nobody really chooses Windows, it's just there already so why not?
Yeah Valve hired him in October ...
Maybe the source code theft was a wake up call.
Not if you're just viewing ...
Okay, so let me get this straight. You feel that explicit licensing is clunky and that people seem to charge ridiculous amounts. Yet you also are arguing this for including free code into your proprietary code? Are you serious? "Properietary licenses are clunky and ridiculously priced. I want to be able to take your code for free and then charge you a ridiculous price through a clunky proprietary license! GPL isn't free if it won't let me do that!"
I can see arguments for the BSD license but it just sounds like you want to have your cake and eat it too. You're fighting for your right to release a proprietary product but when the GPL guys do it it's clunky and overpriced. Sure.
So you've never ran the 2.6 kernel up until now? Have you never had trouble with the binary drivers because you wait until the binary drivers won't give you any trouble? Sort of self fullfilling don't you think?
The Windows developers aren't complaining about the lack of user control; they don't want user control
There are alot of Windows users saying "please give me control, any control!" but I think those people should ask themselves if it's a good idea to use an OS when they have such a fundamental disagreement with the developers of that OS.
Hard Drive Cache?
On Linux it's built into the filesystem, mounting a CD image is exactly the same as mounting a CD.
;)
Not that most Linux games bother with copy protection anyway
How many minidisc players do you see in cars (in the US at least)? I haven't seen any.
How many portable hard drive MP3 players support OGG? All of them except the iPod.
Must be a bigger market than you think
In this case he was talking about software patents. Though it's rather naive to believe those modems wouldn't have been invented without patents.
"Let's see, we could make several million selling modems but we won't be given a government granted monopoly on designing and producing our certain type of modem. Why bother? In the end we'll just make money, who wants that? I want to sue people instead!"
As soon as companies realized they could make money off internet access they were going to make modems faster and better with or without patents. Patents end up being icing on the cake for most companies, without it you still need a faster modem to beat your competitor. What're you going to do? Sit around and cry about not having patents while someone else spends some money in R&D and makes the modem before you? That puts you several months/years behind thier technology and leaves you spending just as much money reverse engineering thier product. In the end its the same thing, you have to spend money to make money. Patents don't change that.
Or use Linux for that matter
Like what?