It's not a question of MS wanting to make people who can't afford Vista happy. Most people can afford Vista, they just don't want it (for very good reasons).
What are these "very good reasons" that apply solely to Vista ?
And since MS has been wooing game developers and card manufacturers with the promise of DX10 being the greatest advance in gaming since texture and lighting engines, its safe to bet that MS will be forced to port DX10 back to XP due to the low uptake of Vista.
As GP said, Microsoft aren't going to spend major $$$ modifying XP so DX10 can be ported when the target audience is people playing games on relatively expensive hardware. If they can afford the hardware, they can afford Vista.
Vista, as a whole, is crap. It took over 5 years to complete and at most it's Windows with a prettier interface (Max OSX) with a very very annoying security system and no drivers (Linux). Why pay $250 - $500 for an operating system 5 years behind the times that doesn't give you anything over XP but DX10?
Ah, I see, you only know about Vista from the FUD on Slashdot. That explains your ignorance.
The default install of OpenBSD includes (from memory, so this is not exhaustive) SSHd, bind, apache and sendmail, all of which are included in the term 'Only two remote holes in the default install' [...]
They're "included" in that the binaries are there, but they are not enabled (except SSH). Ie: they're not part of "the default install" as far as remote vulnerabilities goes.
I think the one real advantage is that if an OEM could somehow get the general public to accept Linux on their PCs instead of Windows, then said OEM could eliminate the high price of licensing Microsoft's OS which would eliminate much of the cost of the PC.
Firstly, your assumption - and therefore your conclusion - is wrong.
Secondly, if you think Microsoft won't resort to "selling" OEM Windows for $5 a pop to major OEMs before ceding ground to "free" pre-installed Linux, I have some nice real estate you'll love.
The simple fact is that Windows is a negligible additional cost to the computer. Heck, even if you're looking at businesses buying volume-licensed copies for vastly more than the OEM pays, the amount is still an insignificant blip in the context of a machine's TCO.
I think the biggest complaint the OSS community has is not that we can't buy a preconfigured Linux box from a major vendor, but that we are forced to buy an OS we don't want.
No, you're not. It is - and always has been - easy to buy a PC without Windows.
It's marginally more difficult to buy an arbitrary *Dell* PC without Windows, but no-one "forces" you to buy a Dell (or a particular model of Dell machine), for any meaningful definition of the word "force".
As a "libertarian", how could you possibly take issue with Dell selling whatever products make them the most money, so long as Dell are not the only vendor on the market ?
By that time IE3 had been released. It sucked ROCKS. It sucked so hard that it was laughably being used to download the Netscape browser by people who for some reason also had IE3.
I think you've got your IE2 and your IE3 mixed up there. IE2 was, indeed, an atrocious browser. IE3, however, was quite comparable to Navigator 3. Not comprehensively better - certainly not better enough to get people switching - but definitely comparable and a massive leap over IE2.
IE3 was the warning shot and it was completely ignored.
One thing I don't like about MS is that they tend to abandon customers who can't or won't upgrade to the next version of a product.
Uh, compared to who ? Apple don't support OS X back more than 2 - 3 years (if that), most Linux distros won't go further back than $CURRENTVERSION-1 (12 months or so).
Microsoft's support lifecycle - 5 years of mainstream support, 10 years of maintenance support - is one of the longer ones in the industry. Not really something they can be criticised particularly harshly about. For comparison, Red Hat's is 2.5 - 3 years of mainstream support and 7 years of maintenance support.
Package managers are such an ingenious solution to handling software, and it is something that could only have come from the open source world.
Package managers are an ugly hack to work around the two biggest problems in the open source world: fragmentation and instability, both of which lead to dependency hell.
The link quoted was simply the only table which includes all of the countries passenger mile journeys in the one place.
That's not the point. The point is that the data doesn't offer even a shred of support for your assertion about *why* people don't use public transport. It only supports the assertion that they don't (something I have not disagreed with).
Why are massively greater distances covered in private vehicles?
Because they get used more. That wasn't the issue under discussion. I haven't disagreed that people use private vehicles more than public transport, merely with your assertion that public transport doesn't cover "85 - 90%" of destinations when it's patently ridiculous given at least half of the typical person's journeys are going to be between home and work, home and a shopping centre or home and school.
Because private vehicles provide a service which rail simply cannot for the overwhelming majority.
Firstly, public transport isn't just rail - at the very least it's buses as well (and I'd also include taxis, personally). While it may be true that public transport cannot deliver a service for the majority - although I find it hard to believe in light of the evidence - your evidence doesn't offer any support for that opinion.
Instead of spouting transport dogma at me perhaps you might want to actually find out the real stats, hell, look at the numbers for Sidney. You'll find that yes, like elsewhere 85% to 90% of passenger miles and journeys are made by private vehicles and you'll find that there are very good reasons that 85% to 90% of journeys and passenger miles are not and cannot be made by rail.
Great. What is that reason ? It's certainly not because public transport doesn't have decent coverage of the most common destinations, as any set of route maps will tell you. Heck, in somewhere like Paris the typical distance from any given point to a Metro station is less than 500 metres, so the "coverage" argument is a non-starter.
I'd hazard a guess it's because people are irrational (but a car gives me teh freedoms) and lazy (500m to the nearest bus stop and another 500m at the other end ? When the garage and work car park are 20m away ?).
I've done the research for myself and am satisfied that I'm right, I frankly can't be arsed doing the research again for you, you have been pointed in the right direction. Feel free to continue with your delusion, or enlighten yourself, I care not.
I've done the maths for both myself and other people. Public transport (+ car rental when required) is easily the cheaper transport option to a private vehicle for the average person living and working within about a 30km radius from the centre of Sydney. My decision to start regularly using public transport was purely one of economics (it's cheaper) and productivity (I can actually do something useful and/or interesting while I'm on the train or bus for half an hour), it had nothing to do with "dogma" and it certainly isn't "delusional". While I have no doubt they exist, I haven't met anyone else for which the same maths don't apply.
Data about passenger miles travelled isn't even close to "the right direction" for determining _why_ people don't use public transport. It merely tells you that they aren't, it doesn't have anything to say about the reasons.
If a developer wants to "open source" _their_ code, as they release it, they should use the BSDL.
The irrelevant response that it garnered:
False: if you want to use *my* code to leverage your efforts so you have to code *less* due to the existance of *my* code, the you will have to use *my* code under *my* terms. You can go as far as distribute your pure code (since its *yours*) under whatever license you want to, but as long as you distribute *my* code intermingled with yours, then you will have to do it under *my* own terms. You can go so far as to publish your code as a patch against my codebase; then you will only be distributing your code and you will be able to do it under whatever license you see fit. You please go read the damn GPL.
If you can see any way of connecting my comment about what the BSDL does to a rant about developers having to use code under the license it is supplied with, please share it. At no point did I even _suggest_ - let alone advocate - that developers should not respect the license that source code is available (or not) under.
So after all is not that you were non-knowledgeable about the GPL; it's not that you are one of those "minor trolls" that FUD about the GPL because they prefer BSD-like licenses (of course for *other's* work, not theirs); it simply you are a blatant troll.
Wow. Personal attacks. How surprising from the cult of GNU.
(FYI, I think the LGPL (or similar - the LGPL itself isn't the best example because RMS wants to make it unattractive) presents the best balance for open sourcing code. The BSDL doesn't provide sufficient incentive to efficiently generate a decent base of shared source. The GPL, OTOH, goes too far in the opposite direction and makes code - as a discrete product - pretty much worthless, thereby offering a discincentive to producing new and innovative software.)
Great, now I can watch all the legal stuff I have valid licenses for. What about my HD rips I make from my legally owned collection for viewing among any of the tv's in my house and for safe archiving of original content?
Unless you ripped it with DRM, you won't have a problem.
The answer to *all* the DRM FUD you hear - both on Slashdot an elsewhere - is very simple:
If you don't have DRM encumbered media, you have nothing to worry about.
Basically, our existing mass transit systems, the world over, including Germany, France with "integrated" mass transit systems are essentially expensive white elephants. Generally around 90% of journeys simply cannot be made by rail.
Your link doesn't even come close to supporting your claim. For starters, it's reporting distances travelled, not number of trips. Further, it makes no indication (nor attempts to) as to _why_ greater distances are covered in private vehicles.
Your link says nothing about the why, it merely reports the how.
And from the stats, around 90% of people don't.
Which does nothing to support your assertion about *why* they don't.
I live in Sydney, which has an adequate public transport system. About 18 months ago my fiance and I got rid of our car after running the numbers and seeing that the saving in fuel costs _alone_ would cover our public transport costs for ~80% of our journeys (to and from work, to and from the shops) - and that's without counting the subsequent fuel price increases (not to mention volatility - although we don't really need to budget strictly so it's a minor issue). Adding in registration, insurance, maintenance and depreciation easily covers the cost of the occasional taxi or car hire for those times that require something trains, buses, trams/light rail or ferries can't provide. For those it applies to, financing expenses and "housing costs" (an off-street park in Sydney adds about as much to your rent as another bedroom - and you'd be mad to leave any remotely valuable vehicle parked on the street if you had a choice) swing the numbers even further.
However, most people *won't* run those figures (although I have done it for a few people who asked why we got rid of the car and they were amazed at how much money they'd save - though they continued to keep their cars), because they love the "freedom" of a car. It never seems to get through that they use 90%+ of that "freedom" going to locations (well) serviced by public transport and, typically, taking more time (and, importantly, unproductive time) to do it than public transport would.
Now, I do have a motorcycle, which I use primarily for leisure (weekend rides). I'd cover ca. 300km most weekends, which is probably about 2x the distance I used to cover on public transport every week. Nowadays (I started riding my pushbike to and from work) it would represent probably 10x the distance I cover on public transport in a week, which lines up very roughly with the figures in that spreadsheet - but the important point here is that's got _zero_ to do with whether or not public transport is suitable for most of the journeys I want to do and everything to do with the type of journey it's used for. Of the 15 - 20 average "trips" I make a week, only one or two could not be easily undertaken on public transport, but they represent ~80%+ of the weekly "distance travelled".
I would find it difficult to believe a significant majority of people living in most cities are not in exactly the same situation I am, assuming it has at least an adequate public transport system (and, as I said, Sydney's is nothing especially flash - at least not compared to my experiences in places like London, Paris and Zurich). Further, given the mass-migration of people to major population centres in recent decades (>50% of Australia's population is located in the 10 largest cities and I'd expect most developed countries to be in a similar state), I'd have to argue that for the majority of the population, public transport is a very good deal, even though they frequently choose not to take advantage of it.
While you can certainly argue that people *don't use public transport*, your suggestion that public transport isn't suitable for "85% - 90%" of journeys, when it is *specifically designed* to service the places people spend "85 - 90%" of their time moving between (home, work, shops, school, etc) is ridiculous on its face, as is an attempt to "prove" that point by using statistics referring to passenger miles covered.
Bullshit. The GPL makes quite a few provisions so if your software is really unrelated you can use and even distribute your software, whatever its license is, along with GPL.
Unless, of course, you want to use your software in the most common, expected and useful ways.
I think I clearly understand RMS' objectives with the GPL, thanks. I even know better: I know to read the GPL itself.
Something I've done numerous times. The objective of the GPL - to "infect" codebases and thus create more GPLed code, is patently obvious from both its content and RMS's opinions. It's _clearly_ all about other people's code, largely because that objective is the only significant restriction it adds over the BSDL or LGPL (or similar).
False: if you want to use *my* code to leverage your efforts so you have to code *less* due to the existance of *my* code, the you will have to use *my* code under *my* terms. You can go as far as distribute your pure code (since its *yours*) under whatever license you want to, but as long as you distribute *my* code intermingled with yours, then you will have to do it under *my* own terms. You can go so far as to publish your code as a patch against my codebase; then you will only be distributing your code and you will be able to do it under whatever license you see fit. You please go read the damn GPL.
Congratulations. This rant has won Tuesday's Non-sequitor Of The Day award.
And that's again FUD. Open source is distributed under some license terms, closed source is distributed under some license terms.
This was also a strong contendor for the non-sequitor award.
Even more: if we talk about the GPL is about a lawsuit versus the choice to GPL the illegally distributed under closed-source terms -or- stop distribution of the offending code -or- reaching to a new agreement with the GPLed code copyright holder.
You need to step back for a few minutes between rants and take a deep breath. Your outrage is affecting your ability to elucidate your point.
The problem with reaching an agreement with the "GPLed code copyright holder" is that practicality frequently deems that nearly - if not completely - impossible due to the different sources the code in a GPLed codebase may come from.
You have more options, nore less, and more sane too (if you illegally distribute closed source code you will be against a lawsuit or... a lawsuit, where the GPL has an explicit provision that if you distribute GPLed code you can be OK by just stopping the distribution once demanded without further allievances -and still retain the "default options" of a lawsuit or reach a new distribution agreement off-courts with the copyright holder).
More "choices" indeed. They could be sued -or- have the revenue stream stopped -or- have the value of their product nullified.
Are you still wondering why lawyers prefer the known quantity of a simple lawsuit ?
And again, what kind of attorneys worth their salt has a company that even fail to read the damn license? It's everything right there!
Section 5 is probably the bit causing them concern, in particular an conclusion being drawn that if a comnpany is distributing a "GPL derived" product, said product represents implied acceptance of the GPL.
FUD, FUD and more FUD. Firstly you are mixing at your leisure talking about "open source" an talking about "GPL" as you see fit to your intentions. Secondly you are making blatantly false asertions about the GPL. Thirdly you are extending such assertions -in case they were true, and they don't, to open source in general. FUD, FUD and more FUD I say.
Yeah, Doom makes no sense to me either, it was neither the first: Wolfenstien came out long before, nor probably the most popular: Quake or Halo probably recieve that honor. Wolfenstien was a huge hit... maybe not as much as Doom, but still large enough to be recognized in its spawning of FPSs. I'd also argue that Marathon and Rise of the Triad, which came out nearly the same time as Doom, were far more advanced, if we want to talk about technical advancements in a series, and were huge influence on the genre as well. But the bottom line, for FPSs, I think the honor goes, unquestionably, to Wolfenstien 3D.
Maybe it was the multiplayer aspects of Doom that bumped it up over the others ?
I read through your posting history and it only left me with questions.
Perhaps you should concentrate more on the actual discussion, rather than trying to divine personality traits of someone based on random forum postings.
Are you a paid Microsoft shill, a fanboy or someone who gets a kick out of being contrary?
Why would it be relevant ? What difference does it make to my points ?
However, I generally make posts to Slashdot for the following reasons:
a) I see a factual error that needs correcting
b) I see poor reasoning that deserves criticism and/or requires correction (as in this thread)
c) I believe I have information or experiences that may help others
True. But it is hard to believe that all the talent in MS could spend $5bn and come up with so little.
Vista is easily the biggest update to Windows since Windows 3.0 -> Windows 95. It's on the order of Apple's transformation of NeXTSTEP into OS X 10.2 (and took about the same amount of time). Just how much more "stuff" were you expecting ?
I believe it was the brief threat of OS/2 that made MS and Apple get their acts partially together way back when. We saw both those companies put out products that were far more sturdy and usable in the period after OS/2 hit the market.
At the time when OS/2 "hit the market" (and for some years thereafter), it was a Microsoft product.
Slashdot Mirror
Interestingly, if MS had been able to release Vista two years ago, they probably would have gotten A LOT more adopters.
What makes you say that ?
It's not a question of MS wanting to make people who can't afford Vista happy. Most people can afford Vista, they just don't want it (for very good reasons).
What are these "very good reasons" that apply solely to Vista ?
And since MS has been wooing game developers and card manufacturers with the promise of DX10 being the greatest advance in gaming since texture and lighting engines, its safe to bet that MS will be forced to port DX10 back to XP due to the low uptake of Vista.
As GP said, Microsoft aren't going to spend major $$$ modifying XP so DX10 can be ported when the target audience is people playing games on relatively expensive hardware. If they can afford the hardware, they can afford Vista.
Vista, as a whole, is crap. It took over 5 years to complete and at most it's Windows with a prettier interface (Max OSX) with a very very annoying security system and no drivers (Linux). Why pay $250 - $500 for an operating system 5 years behind the times that doesn't give you anything over XP but DX10?
Ah, I see, you only know about Vista from the FUD on Slashdot. That explains your ignorance.
One of your customers sends you data in a Vista only format.
What's a "Vista only format" ?
The default install of OpenBSD includes (from memory, so this is not exhaustive) SSHd, bind, apache and sendmail, all of which are included in the term 'Only two remote holes in the default install' [...]
They're "included" in that the binaries are there, but they are not enabled (except SSH). Ie: they're not part of "the default install" as far as remote vulnerabilities goes.
Well done. It's not an easy feat to create an OS with so little exploits. The team and Microsoft should take a leaf out of your book.
It is when basically the only thing your OS does "in the default install" is allow SSH logins.
(Which is not to attack the excellent work of the OpenBSD team, but comparing it to Windows is in this fashion is just asinine.)
global-replace id:5:in with id:3:in
Actually it's "on the current line, replace the first instance of id:5:in with id:3:in".
"Global replace" (within the current file) would be:
%s/id:5:in/id:3:in/g
</PEDANTIC>
I think the one real advantage is that if an OEM could somehow get the general public to accept Linux on their PCs instead of Windows, then said OEM could eliminate the high price of licensing Microsoft's OS which would eliminate much of the cost of the PC.
Firstly, your assumption - and therefore your conclusion - is wrong.
Secondly, if you think Microsoft won't resort to "selling" OEM Windows for $5 a pop to major OEMs before ceding ground to "free" pre-installed Linux, I have some nice real estate you'll love.
The simple fact is that Windows is a negligible additional cost to the computer. Heck, even if you're looking at businesses buying volume-licensed copies for vastly more than the OEM pays, the amount is still an insignificant blip in the context of a machine's TCO.
I think the biggest complaint the OSS community has is not that we can't buy a preconfigured Linux box from a major vendor, but that we are forced to buy an OS we don't want.
No, you're not. It is - and always has been - easy to buy a PC without Windows.
It's marginally more difficult to buy an arbitrary *Dell* PC without Windows, but no-one "forces" you to buy a Dell (or a particular model of Dell machine), for any meaningful definition of the word "force".
As a "libertarian", how could you possibly take issue with Dell selling whatever products make them the most money, so long as Dell are not the only vendor on the market ?
By that time IE3 had been released. It sucked ROCKS. It sucked so hard that it was laughably being used to download the Netscape browser by people who for some reason also had IE3.
I think you've got your IE2 and your IE3 mixed up there. IE2 was, indeed, an atrocious browser. IE3, however, was quite comparable to Navigator 3. Not comprehensively better - certainly not better enough to get people switching - but definitely comparable and a massive leap over IE2.
IE3 was the warning shot and it was completely ignored.
One thing I don't like about MS is that they tend to abandon customers who can't or won't upgrade to the next version of a product.
Uh, compared to who ? Apple don't support OS X back more than 2 - 3 years (if that), most Linux distros won't go further back than $CURRENTVERSION-1 (12 months or so).
Microsoft's support lifecycle - 5 years of mainstream support, 10 years of maintenance support - is one of the longer ones in the industry. Not really something they can be criticised particularly harshly about. For comparison, Red Hat's is 2.5 - 3 years of mainstream support and 7 years of maintenance support.
Package managers are such an ingenious solution to handling software, and it is something that could only have come from the open source world.
Package managers are an ugly hack to work around the two biggest problems in the open source world: fragmentation and instability, both of which lead to dependency hell.
My only complaint is the size: are there really 350 megabytes of binary diffs to apply?
The original release of Windows 2003 ? Almost certainly - that was ~3.5 years ago.
The link quoted was simply the only table which includes all of the countries passenger mile journeys in the one place.
That's not the point. The point is that the data doesn't offer even a shred of support for your assertion about *why* people don't use public transport. It only supports the assertion that they don't (something I have not disagreed with).
Why are massively greater distances covered in private vehicles?
Because they get used more. That wasn't the issue under discussion. I haven't disagreed that people use private vehicles more than public transport, merely with your assertion that public transport doesn't cover "85 - 90%" of destinations when it's patently ridiculous given at least half of the typical person's journeys are going to be between home and work, home and a shopping centre or home and school.
Because private vehicles provide a service which rail simply cannot for the overwhelming majority.
Firstly, public transport isn't just rail - at the very least it's buses as well (and I'd also include taxis, personally). While it may be true that public transport cannot deliver a service for the majority - although I find it hard to believe in light of the evidence - your evidence doesn't offer any support for that opinion.
Instead of spouting transport dogma at me perhaps you might want to actually find out the real stats, hell, look at the numbers for Sidney. You'll find that yes, like elsewhere 85% to 90% of passenger miles and journeys are made by private vehicles and you'll find that there are very good reasons that 85% to 90% of journeys and passenger miles are not and cannot be made by rail.
Great. What is that reason ? It's certainly not because public transport doesn't have decent coverage of the most common destinations, as any set of route maps will tell you. Heck, in somewhere like Paris the typical distance from any given point to a Metro station is less than 500 metres, so the "coverage" argument is a non-starter.
I'd hazard a guess it's because people are irrational (but a car gives me teh freedoms) and lazy (500m to the nearest bus stop and another 500m at the other end ? When the garage and work car park are 20m away ?).
I've done the research for myself and am satisfied that I'm right, I frankly can't be arsed doing the research again for you, you have been pointed in the right direction. Feel free to continue with your delusion, or enlighten yourself, I care not.
I've done the maths for both myself and other people. Public transport (+ car rental when required) is easily the cheaper transport option to a private vehicle for the average person living and working within about a 30km radius from the centre of Sydney. My decision to start regularly using public transport was purely one of economics (it's cheaper) and productivity (I can actually do something useful and/or interesting while I'm on the train or bus for half an hour), it had nothing to do with "dogma" and it certainly isn't "delusional". While I have no doubt they exist, I haven't met anyone else for which the same maths don't apply.
Data about passenger miles travelled isn't even close to "the right direction" for determining _why_ people don't use public transport. It merely tells you that they aren't, it doesn't have anything to say about the reasons.
I see, Chewbacca Defense.
Uh, no. My original comment:
The irrelevant response that it garnered:
If you can see any way of connecting my comment about what the BSDL does to a rant about developers having to use code under the license it is supplied with, please share it. At no point did I even _suggest_ - let alone advocate - that developers should not respect the license that source code is available (or not) under.
So after all is not that you were non-knowledgeable about the GPL; it's not that you are one of those "minor trolls" that FUD about the GPL because they prefer BSD-like licenses (of course for *other's* work, not theirs); it simply you are a blatant troll.
Wow. Personal attacks. How surprising from the cult of GNU.
(FYI, I think the LGPL (or similar - the LGPL itself isn't the best example because RMS wants to make it unattractive) presents the best balance for open sourcing code. The BSDL doesn't provide sufficient incentive to efficiently generate a decent base of shared source. The GPL, OTOH, goes too far in the opposite direction and makes code - as a discrete product - pretty much worthless, thereby offering a discincentive to producing new and innovative software.)
The fact that everyone just up and built HDCP into their devices, and now virtually none come without it, screams collusion.
Right. Just like when all the hardware sellers switche to the newest CPUs in their machines, it "screams collusion".
Great, now I can watch all the legal stuff I have valid licenses for. What about my HD rips I make from my legally owned collection for viewing among any of the tv's in my house and for safe archiving of original content?
Unless you ripped it with DRM, you won't have a problem.
The answer to *all* the DRM FUD you hear - both on Slashdot an elsewhere - is very simple:
If you don't have DRM encumbered media, you have nothing to worry about.
Basically, our existing mass transit systems, the world over, including Germany, France with "integrated" mass transit systems are essentially expensive white elephants. Generally around 90% of journeys simply cannot be made by rail.
Your link doesn't even come close to supporting your claim. For starters, it's reporting distances travelled, not number of trips. Further, it makes no indication (nor attempts to) as to _why_ greater distances are covered in private vehicles.
Your link says nothing about the why, it merely reports the how.
And from the stats, around 90% of people don't.
Which does nothing to support your assertion about *why* they don't.
I live in Sydney, which has an adequate public transport system. About 18 months ago my fiance and I got rid of our car after running the numbers and seeing that the saving in fuel costs _alone_ would cover our public transport costs for ~80% of our journeys (to and from work, to and from the shops) - and that's without counting the subsequent fuel price increases (not to mention volatility - although we don't really need to budget strictly so it's a minor issue). Adding in registration, insurance, maintenance and depreciation easily covers the cost of the occasional taxi or car hire for those times that require something trains, buses, trams/light rail or ferries can't provide. For those it applies to, financing expenses and "housing costs" (an off-street park in Sydney adds about as much to your rent as another bedroom - and you'd be mad to leave any remotely valuable vehicle parked on the street if you had a choice) swing the numbers even further.
However, most people *won't* run those figures (although I have done it for a few people who asked why we got rid of the car and they were amazed at how much money they'd save - though they continued to keep their cars), because they love the "freedom" of a car. It never seems to get through that they use 90%+ of that "freedom" going to locations (well) serviced by public transport and, typically, taking more time (and, importantly, unproductive time) to do it than public transport would.
Now, I do have a motorcycle, which I use primarily for leisure (weekend rides). I'd cover ca. 300km most weekends, which is probably about 2x the distance I used to cover on public transport every week. Nowadays (I started riding my pushbike to and from work) it would represent probably 10x the distance I cover on public transport in a week, which lines up very roughly with the figures in that spreadsheet - but the important point here is that's got _zero_ to do with whether or not public transport is suitable for most of the journeys I want to do and everything to do with the type of journey it's used for. Of the 15 - 20 average "trips" I make a week, only one or two could not be easily undertaken on public transport, but they represent ~80%+ of the weekly "distance travelled".
I would find it difficult to believe a significant majority of people living in most cities are not in exactly the same situation I am, assuming it has at least an adequate public transport system (and, as I said, Sydney's is nothing especially flash - at least not compared to my experiences in places like London, Paris and Zurich). Further, given the mass-migration of people to major population centres in recent decades (>50% of Australia's population is located in the 10 largest cities and I'd expect most developed countries to be in a similar state), I'd have to argue that for the majority of the population, public transport is a very good deal, even though they frequently choose not to take advantage of it.
While you can certainly argue that people *don't use public transport*, your suggestion that public transport isn't suitable for "85% - 90%" of journeys, when it is *specifically designed* to service the places people spend "85 - 90%" of their time moving between (home, work, shops, school, etc) is ridiculous on its face, as is an attempt to "prove" that point by using statistics referring to passenger miles covered.
Bullshit. The GPL makes quite a few provisions so if your software is really unrelated you can use and even distribute your software, whatever its license is, along with GPL.
Unless, of course, you want to use your software in the most common, expected and useful ways.
I think I clearly understand RMS' objectives with the GPL, thanks. I even know better: I know to read the GPL itself.
Something I've done numerous times. The objective of the GPL - to "infect" codebases and thus create more GPLed code, is patently obvious from both its content and RMS's opinions. It's _clearly_ all about other people's code, largely because that objective is the only significant restriction it adds over the BSDL or LGPL (or similar).
False: if you want to use *my* code to leverage your efforts so you have to code *less* due to the existance of *my* code, the you will have to use *my* code under *my* terms. You can go as far as distribute your pure code (since its *yours*) under whatever license you want to, but as long as you distribute *my* code intermingled with yours, then you will have to do it under *my* own terms. You can go so far as to publish your code as a patch against my codebase; then you will only be distributing your code and you will be able to do it under whatever license you see fit. You please go read the damn GPL.
Congratulations. This rant has won Tuesday's Non-sequitor Of The Day award.
And that's again FUD. Open source is distributed under some license terms, closed source is distributed under some license terms.
This was also a strong contendor for the non-sequitor award.
Even more: if we talk about the GPL is about a lawsuit versus the choice to GPL the illegally distributed under closed-source terms -or- stop distribution of the offending code -or- reaching to a new agreement with the GPLed code copyright holder.
You need to step back for a few minutes between rants and take a deep breath. Your outrage is affecting your ability to elucidate your point.
The problem with reaching an agreement with the "GPLed code copyright holder" is that practicality frequently deems that nearly - if not completely - impossible due to the different sources the code in a GPLed codebase may come from.
You have more options, nore less, and more sane too (if you illegally distribute closed source code you will be against a lawsuit or... a lawsuit, where the GPL has an explicit provision that if you distribute GPLed code you can be OK by just stopping the distribution once demanded without further allievances -and still retain the "default options" of a lawsuit or reach a new distribution agreement off-courts with the copyright holder).
More "choices" indeed. They could be sued -or- have the revenue stream stopped -or- have the value of their product nullified.
Are you still wondering why lawyers prefer the known quantity of a simple lawsuit ?
And again, what kind of attorneys worth their salt has a company that even fail to read the damn license? It's everything right there!
Section 5 is probably the bit causing them concern, in particular an conclusion being drawn that if a comnpany is distributing a "GPL derived" product, said product represents implied acceptance of the GPL.
FUD, FUD and more FUD. Firstly you are mixing at your leisure talking about "open source" an talking about "GPL" as you see fit to your intentions. Secondly you are making blatantly false asertions about the GPL. Thirdly you are extending such assertions -in case they were true, and they don't, to open source in general. FUD, FUD and more FUD I say.
I am doing nothing of the sort.
I've ruled out fanboy. You're either a paid shill or you enjoy being contrary.
It's kind of hard to disgree or criticise without being "contrary".
Yeah, Doom makes no sense to me either, it was neither the first: Wolfenstien came out long before, nor probably the most popular: Quake or Halo probably recieve that honor. Wolfenstien was a huge hit... maybe not as much as Doom, but still large enough to be recognized in its spawning of FPSs. I'd also argue that Marathon and Rise of the Triad, which came out nearly the same time as Doom, were far more advanced, if we want to talk about technical advancements in a series, and were huge influence on the genre as well. But the bottom line, for FPSs, I think the honor goes, unquestionably, to Wolfenstien 3D.
Maybe it was the multiplayer aspects of Doom that bumped it up over the others ?
The real consequences to piracy are starting to be felt - producers are not producing.
Are you suggesting there is _less_ content being produced now than there has been in the past ?
I read through your posting history and it only left me with questions.
Perhaps you should concentrate more on the actual discussion, rather than trying to divine personality traits of someone based on random forum postings.
Are you a paid Microsoft shill, a fanboy or someone who gets a kick out of being contrary?
Why would it be relevant ? What difference does it make to my points ?
However, I generally make posts to Slashdot for the following reasons:
a) I see a factual error that needs correcting
b) I see poor reasoning that deserves criticism and/or requires correction (as in this thread)
c) I believe I have information or experiences that may help others
True. But it is hard to believe that all the talent in MS could spend $5bn and come up with so little.
Vista is easily the biggest update to Windows since Windows 3.0 -> Windows 95. It's on the order of Apple's transformation of NeXTSTEP into OS X 10.2 (and took about the same amount of time). Just how much more "stuff" were you expecting ?
Why? Such wasted effort to duplicate a flawed system of software.
Just like Linux was, you mean ?
I believe it was the brief threat of OS/2 that made MS and Apple get their acts partially together way back when. We saw both those companies put out products that were far more sturdy and usable in the period after OS/2 hit the market.
At the time when OS/2 "hit the market" (and for some years thereafter), it was a Microsoft product.
What timeframe are you actually thinking of ?