In very low end(cell phones, PDAs, etc.) this doesn't hold and in some high performance or high reliability scenarios(mainframes, exotic supercomputer architectures) it is also not the case
x86 accounts for 429 of the fastest 500 computers in the world. I think it's pretty well suited to high-end computing.
"When did it become the car lot's right to profit more than the manufacturer?"
"If used is virtually equal in value to new, and used is slightly cheaper - then many people will choose used - particularly if it is pushed strongly by the seller right alongside the new product"
My car and my house are both second-hand. I don't feel the least bit of remorse for either's builders who failed to earn a penny on the second transaction. They made their profit on the first sale, so why should they continue to get money down the line?
Mail, iTunes and iCal don't quit when you close their main window even though these are basically single-window applications. iPhoto, Disk Utility and Calculator do.
I think the logic here is that iTunes can play music even with the window closed, and Mail and iCal show useful information in their status icons. On the other hand, iPhoto, Disk Utility, and Calculator are basically pointless without their windows.
Keep spending your life obsessing over DRM restrictions that will never affect you, and license minutiae that never effect you.
If DRM didn't affect me, it wouldn't be DRM. If licenses didn't affect me, it'd be because I was doing so little work that I didn't have to worry about it.
I run Linux and have a PS2 and a Wii. I don't have an problem with this, nor do I imagine even RMS would. While I would never recommend a proprietary solution to my boss unless there was no other option, it's not exactly a big deal if my video games stop working. Annoying, sure, but hardly the end of the world.
Really? That's your counterargument? I guarantee I'd when a more-conservative-than-thou contest with you, but I believe RMS to right. Wow. No one has ever called me a hippie before.
Here's the flaw in that argument: almost everyone who buys a computer for personal use does so in order to run programs. Word processor, accounting, email, games, whatever...if there weren't compelling things to do with their computer, they wouldn't buy one.
Then I reciprocate with the flaw in yours: every single one of those has FOSS alternatives. Furthermore, gaming is moving from PCs to consoles (don't blame me - I'm the messenger), so your future game selection will have a lot more to do with Nintendo than Dell.
i give control of my money to a bank, and control of the contents of my food to the people who grow, harvest and package it. I give control of the materials used to build my house to the builders and architect and so on....
None of those are true. When you make a deposit, you have a government-backed guarantee that you can withdraw it later. The food example makes no sense in this context, so we can ignore it. You absolutely do not cede control of your building supplies; as the owner you can micromanage to your heart's content (although you probably won't be able to get them to violate code, and you'll pay for the privilege of annoying the help). More to the point, once you have your house (or food), you can do whatever you want with it.
Contrast with, say, Word. You have no rights to it other than to execute a single copy on your computer. You especially do not have the write to alter or redistribute it. For all intents and purposes, it's a rental.
Whats so special about *data* that its wrong to work in partnership with people who manage things for you?
What's so special about *software* that you'll willing accept such a tiny subset of your normal rights? You wouldn't put up with restrictions on the money you earn, food you buy, or house you live in (outside those imposed by the law), but toss it on a computer and people are happy with shackles and arbitrary limits.
So, it took Moore's law 14 years to consume the first 32 bits and another 19 to consume the next 32. By my very crude estimate, 64 bit computing should be good for another 30 years.
We're just supposed to go get bent and take stifling corporate jobs like everybody else who writes ridiculous, boring "internal software" instead of building awesome things that people love?
Word processors and image editors fun to develop! All FOSS is boring and stifling, and no one gets paid to write it anyway!
Meanwhile, in the real world, FOSS develops are getting nice salaries to develop fun projects. Your position is more of a commentary on your insular worldview than the reality of the situation.
has always sucked, and in all likelyhood will always suck, 32 or 64 bit.
Your opinion (and mine) of Flash doesn't matter. The important part is that a major software developer just told the world that Linux is a good platform for testing and to support. Even if I'm indifferent to Flash outside of Youtube, I can be excited about Adobe's announcement.
You give up no freedom in choosing to use proprietary software.
Except for the freedom to modify it to suit your own needs. The freedom to maintain it if the company goes out of business. The freedom to know how it stores your data so you can migrate to something else if your needs change. The freedom to move it onto a replacement machine if your current one dies. Yeah, except for, well, everything, you give up nothing.
Linux users asked, and adobe listened. Great stuff.
Other considerations:
There are fewer Linux users and the average technical skill is higher than with other operating systems. This means that if there are problems, the pool of affected users is smaller than with Windows, the users are more likely to be able to recover without Adobe's help, and they're more likely to file bug reports.
This sounds like a big win for everyone involved. Nicely played, Adobe!
Wait a minute...Dell (and HP, and Lenovo, and Toshiba, ad infinitum) already tell me what software I can run on my new computer. And that's always Windows.
No they don't. They tell you what software you're required to buy if you want to purchase one of their computers, but they don't (nor could they) prevent you from wiping the drive the second it arrives. There's a Dell next to my desk with the remains of Vista license sticker on it. That computer has never been booted into the shipped operating system. Do you think Dell actually cares?
iceweasel was kind of a dick move from developers that didn't want to live up to the same expectations as everybody else.
While it was uncool for Firefox developers to require Debian to take special steps when distributing their software, especially when almost no one else imposed the same conditions, I wouldn't actually write them off as malicious.
Since you would choose whether or not to use proprietary software, developers choosing to create proprietary software is hardly dictating how you use your computer.
"Since you would choose whether or not to enter into indentured servitude, masters choosing to offer indentured servitude is hardly dictating how you use your life."
No, there's so substantial similarity between proprietary software and slavery, but both statement do have the same logical flaw. Freedom to give up your own freedom is not considered very important by most people.
It's ok to get some other sap to commit unconscionable behavior on your behalf?
He had the "sap" delete the offending software and replace it with something he wanted to use.
He is not able to install Linux? (Possibly because he keeps looking in the library under 'G'.) Installing Linux is not worth his time, but he has a sap with less worthy time to do these things?
I promise you RMS is capable of installing Linux. I imagine the conversation went something like this: "This thing doesn't have a CD-ROM. I have three speeches in the next two days - could you figure out how to get Linux onto it while I'm packing?"
How does he expect software developers to make a living?
By writing software, obviously. Here's the thing: only a tiny portion of programs write code for sale outside their organization. Almost everyone else writes programs directly for use by their own company. Honestly, most of it is redundant and unproductive. This is a problem that FOSS addresses like nothing else by providing incentives to share work so that the next guy doesn't have to reinvent the wheel you've already perfected.
Isn't idealism just pragmatism with an eye to the future?
Pretty much, yes. RMS's point - with which I agree entirely - is that it's impractical to give control of your data to someone else. If you go with proprietary software, that's exactly what you're doing. The other party may very well treat you respectfully, and it may even be in their best business interest to do so, but that says nothing about whether they'll stay in business or whether the giant corporation buying them will be so customer-oriented.
People talk about using proprietary solutions for their practicality. That might be true in the extreme short term, but in the long term that just doesn't make sense. Idealism is pragmatism. The two are inseparable.
PickupPal is for profit. The drivers are making money.
Got evidence of that? Reimbursement for expenses is a lot different than payment. For instance, if I let you ride along on a trip and we split the $20 gas bill, then I did not profit $10. Rather, I cut my losses by $10. I didn't make money except in the sense of not losing as much.
If you have evidence to the contrary - that people were using it to make actual net profit - then feel free to share.
Slashdot Mirror
Bush's pardons could be fun to watch.
No kidding! Will he play it close, or follow Clinton's example of clearing his family and campaign donors?
each operation requires at least kT/2 = 2*10^-23J under ideal conditions
Reference? Not that I don't believe you, but that I'd like to read up on how a number like that is computed.
In very low end(cell phones, PDAs, etc.) this doesn't hold and in some high performance or high reliability scenarios(mainframes, exotic supercomputer architectures) it is also not the case
x86 accounts for 429 of the fastest 500 computers in the world. I think it's pretty well suited to high-end computing.
Very informative summary, considering I was unaware IBM even offered AIX on the desktop. That alone should tell you how much they cared about it.
"When did it become the car lot's right to profit more than the manufacturer?"
"If used is virtually equal in value to new, and used is slightly cheaper - then many people will choose used - particularly if it is pushed strongly by the seller right alongside the new product"
My car and my house are both second-hand. I don't feel the least bit of remorse for either's builders who failed to earn a penny on the second transaction. They made their profit on the first sale, so why should they continue to get money down the line?
Mail, iTunes and iCal don't quit when you close their main window even though these are basically single-window applications. iPhoto, Disk Utility and Calculator do.
I think the logic here is that iTunes can play music even with the window closed, and Mail and iCal show useful information in their status icons. On the other hand, iPhoto, Disk Utility, and Calculator are basically pointless without their windows.
Keep spending your life obsessing over DRM restrictions that will never affect you, and license minutiae that never effect you.
If DRM didn't affect me, it wouldn't be DRM. If licenses didn't affect me, it'd be because I was doing so little work that I didn't have to worry about it.
Other people get work done.
Says my fellow Slashdotter. ;-)
I run Linux and have a PS2 and a Wii. I don't have an problem with this, nor do I imagine even RMS would. While I would never recommend a proprietary solution to my boss unless there was no other option, it's not exactly a big deal if my video games stop working. Annoying, sure, but hardly the end of the world.
hippies
Really? That's your counterargument? I guarantee I'd when a more-conservative-than-thou contest with you, but I believe RMS to right. Wow. No one has ever called me a hippie before.
Here's the flaw in that argument: almost everyone who buys a computer for personal use does so in order to run programs. Word processor, accounting, email, games, whatever...if there weren't compelling things to do with their computer, they wouldn't buy one.
Then I reciprocate with the flaw in yours: every single one of those has FOSS alternatives. Furthermore, gaming is moving from PCs to consoles (don't blame me - I'm the messenger), so your future game selection will have a lot more to do with Nintendo than Dell.
i give control of my money to a bank, and control of the contents of my food to the people who grow, harvest and package it. I give control of the materials used to build my house to the builders and architect and so on....
None of those are true. When you make a deposit, you have a government-backed guarantee that you can withdraw it later. The food example makes no sense in this context, so we can ignore it. You absolutely do not cede control of your building supplies; as the owner you can micromanage to your heart's content (although you probably won't be able to get them to violate code, and you'll pay for the privilege of annoying the help). More to the point, once you have your house (or food), you can do whatever you want with it.
Contrast with, say, Word. You have no rights to it other than to execute a single copy on your computer. You especially do not have the write to alter or redistribute it. For all intents and purposes, it's a rental.
Whats so special about *data* that its wrong to work in partnership with people who manage things for you?
What's so special about *software* that you'll willing accept such a tiny subset of your normal rights? You wouldn't put up with restrictions on the money you earn, food you buy, or house you live in (outside those imposed by the law), but toss it on a computer and people are happy with shackles and arbitrary limits.
So, it took Moore's law 14 years to consume the first 32 bits and another 19 to consume the next 32. By my very crude estimate, 64 bit computing should be good for another 30 years.
We're just supposed to go get bent and take stifling corporate jobs like everybody else who writes ridiculous, boring "internal software" instead of building awesome things that people love?
Word processors and image editors fun to develop! All FOSS is boring and stifling, and no one gets paid to write it anyway!
Meanwhile, in the real world, FOSS develops are getting nice salaries to develop fun projects. Your position is more of a commentary on your insular worldview than the reality of the situation.
has always sucked, and in all likelyhood will always suck, 32 or 64 bit.
Your opinion (and mine) of Flash doesn't matter. The important part is that a major software developer just told the world that Linux is a good platform for testing and to support. Even if I'm indifferent to Flash outside of Youtube, I can be excited about Adobe's announcement.
More like "could you figure out how to get a GNU-based operating system onto it while I'm packing?" This is Stallman we're talking about. :)
That's why I just said "Linux". He'll run M-x butterfly to install the rest later.
You give up no freedom in choosing to use proprietary software.
Except for the freedom to modify it to suit your own needs. The freedom to maintain it if the company goes out of business. The freedom to know how it stores your data so you can migrate to something else if your needs change. The freedom to move it onto a replacement machine if your current one dies. Yeah, except for, well, everything, you give up nothing.
his life exists for the sole purpose of promoting freedom, he never talks about anything else.
What an asshole. Can you imagine the gall of him working for the betterment of society as he sees it, instead of on things I find shinier?
Linux users asked, and adobe listened. Great stuff.
Other considerations:
There are fewer Linux users and the average technical skill is higher than with other operating systems. This means that if there are problems, the pool of affected users is smaller than with Windows, the users are more likely to be able to recover without Adobe's help, and they're more likely to file bug reports.
This sounds like a big win for everyone involved. Nicely played, Adobe!
Wait a minute...Dell (and HP, and Lenovo, and Toshiba, ad infinitum) already tell me what software I can run on my new computer. And that's always Windows.
No they don't. They tell you what software you're required to buy if you want to purchase one of their computers, but they don't (nor could they) prevent you from wiping the drive the second it arrives. There's a Dell next to my desk with the remains of Vista license sticker on it. That computer has never been booted into the shipped operating system. Do you think Dell actually cares?
iceweasel was kind of a dick move from developers that didn't want to live up to the same expectations as everybody else.
While it was uncool for Firefox developers to require Debian to take special steps when distributing their software, especially when almost no one else imposed the same conditions, I wouldn't actually write them off as malicious.
Since you would choose whether or not to use proprietary software, developers choosing to create proprietary software is hardly dictating how you use your computer.
"Since you would choose whether or not to enter into indentured servitude, masters choosing to offer indentured servitude is hardly dictating how you use your life."
No, there's so substantial similarity between proprietary software and slavery, but both statement do have the same logical flaw. Freedom to give up your own freedom is not considered very important by most people.
It's ok to get some other sap to commit unconscionable behavior on your behalf?
He had the "sap" delete the offending software and replace it with something he wanted to use.
He is not able to install Linux? (Possibly because he keeps looking in the library under 'G'.) Installing Linux is not worth his time, but he has a sap with less worthy time to do these things?
I promise you RMS is capable of installing Linux. I imagine the conversation went something like this: "This thing doesn't have a CD-ROM. I have three speeches in the next two days - could you figure out how to get Linux onto it while I'm packing?"
How does he expect software developers to make a living?
By writing software, obviously. Here's the thing: only a tiny portion of programs write code for sale outside their organization. Almost everyone else writes programs directly for use by their own company. Honestly, most of it is redundant and unproductive. This is a problem that FOSS addresses like nothing else by providing incentives to share work so that the next guy doesn't have to reinvent the wheel you've already perfected.
Isn't idealism just pragmatism with an eye to the future?
Pretty much, yes. RMS's point - with which I agree entirely - is that it's impractical to give control of your data to someone else. If you go with proprietary software, that's exactly what you're doing. The other party may very well treat you respectfully, and it may even be in their best business interest to do so, but that says nothing about whether they'll stay in business or whether the giant corporation buying them will be so customer-oriented.
People talk about using proprietary solutions for their practicality. That might be true in the extreme short term, but in the long term that just doesn't make sense. Idealism is pragmatism. The two are inseparable.
What part of this is not-profit?
All of it.
PickupPal is for profit. The drivers are making money.
Got evidence of that? Reimbursement for expenses is a lot different than payment. For instance, if I let you ride along on a trip and we split the $20 gas bill, then I did not profit $10. Rather, I cut my losses by $10. I didn't make money except in the sense of not losing as much.
If you have evidence to the contrary - that people were using it to make actual net profit - then feel free to share.