AFAIK, the Moonlight project is not GPL'd, it will be available as a binary only plugin, and only from Novell.
It's more complicated than that. Moonlight itself is free software licensed under the LGPL. However, support for Microsoft's anti-free audio and video formats will indeed be binary-only and restrictively licensed.
You're glossing over a pretty big detail here. Pretty much compatable != compatiable. How many projects work on RH, only to be discovered that, opps, it doesn't install right or compile properly on Deb?
I don't know - you tell me. You do have the figures, right? I'd hate to think you were spreading FUD or anything.
(Speaking anecdotally, all the Linux code I've ever written has not only worked perfectly on every version of Linux I've tried it on, but also compiled with only minimal adjustments on Solaris and several flavours of BSD. So there is clearly a very significant difference indeed between that and Silverlight, which does not even pretend it's going to try to be remotely compatible with Flash.)
I would say the incompatibilities are the benefit of competition. If both sides are totally compatable, what's the point of choosing one over the other?
Price, performance, security, support, and design, just to name five things off the top of my head. "Compatible" doesn't mean "identical"; it just means that things designed to work with one also work with the other.
Well, AMD isn't stiving to make the CPU world a better place, they are trying to beat Intel. AMD would love to get all of Intel's marketshare, I'm sure, and Intel feels the same way. What exactly is wrong with that?
Nothing at all. It's good. But one of the reasons it's good is that, you will observe, AMD's products are pretty much compatible with Intel's products, in exactly the way that varieties of Linux are pretty much compatible with each other, and in exact opposition to the situation with Silverlight.
You know your argument is in trouble when even your own examples are undermining it.
Which isn't to say I'm a raytracing fanboy. The blacksmith might well be right, if the car in question is powered by steam. But the blacksmith's opinion still isn't exactly news...
Unless you're high enough up the ladder, in which case you can lose your company billions and still walk away with a "golden parachute" consisting of more money than most people will earn in a lifetime.
Indeed, this is doubly true for a plug-in API. There should not be restrictions for who can write code to a public specification, period. There are far too many people who say that the GPL should have this right and still decry Microsoft for their shady, intentionally non-GPL-compatible licenses. That is the height of hypocrisy.
It's not hypocritical at all, because the two things are not remotely comparable.
Microsoft is saying "here are some specifications for a document format, and here is a vague 'promise'. You might be able to use these specifications, but if you do, we might sue you, but we won't tell you how we'll actually decide that, or what parts of the specification we think we could sue you over."
Linus is saying "here is an API for kernel modules, and here is the GNU GPL. You can use the whole specification if you place your code under a GPL-compatible license; otherwise you can use this, this, and this, but you cannot use this, this, or this. If that's not clear, ask us and we'll tell you whether we agree with what you're planning to do."
Can you see the difference? Because if you can't, then I suggest you take a deep breath, step back, suppress your dislike of the GPL for a moment, and think about it. You don't have to agree that Linus is being reasonable. All I'm asking is that you recognise that what Microsoft is doing is not the same as what Linus is doing, and therefore that people who approve of either activity but disapprove of the other are not being hypocrites.
(Lest you dismiss me as a mindless GPL fanboy, let me point out that when I've released software I've always made a point of choosing LGPL or MIT-style licenses for libraries, and in this instance I'm not at all convinced Linus is right. I just think the rhetoric needs toning down a bit. I'm sure you can argue against Linus' ideas without having to fling around blanket accusations of hypocrisy.)
Time will tell but it's times like these that tell us where people's loyalties are.
What? Are you trying to insinuate that everyone who welcomes this announcement is loyal to Microsoft? Because that's patently false. I dislike Microsoft's software, which is generally poorly designed and limiting, and avoid it at every opportunity. But I still welcome an announcement like this, because it indicates that there are humans within the organisation who are interested in making things better.
Why are people are so interested in what Microsoft has to say about their vaporware?
Because IE affects us all, even if we don't use it. And, um, because it isn't vapourware by any standard definition of that term. This is an announcement about a concrete bit of software that we have no reason to believe will be delayed. It's a plausible announcement that reveals an embarrassing U-turn in Microsoft's plans; why would they lie about that? And it's a positive announcement that shows us that even Microsoft is occasionally willing to admit that they've made a mistake; why should we not be happy about that?
No code, no proof, no credit, no exceptions? Apparently Microsoft gets another pass.
I, for one, am certainly not being inconsistent here. I haven't downloaded any Firefox nightlies either. I follow the principle of believing people unless there's some reason not to, and I see no reason not to believe this announcement, since it isn't claiming anything particularly implausible. If Microsoft had said "we will start bundling Firefox with Windows", I would have laughed in their face. If they'd said "we will stop trying to buy ISO certification for OOXML", I would have collapsed in hysterics. But when Microsoft says "we will change the default setting in IE8 to use a better renderer, and require people who want IE7 compatibility to ask for it explicitly", well, why should I demand proof? It's not an extraordinary claim by any stretch of the imagination.
Standards compliance is absolute, by _definition_.
Why? Please explain your reasoning here. "Because I said so" is not a valid argument.
Some attempts to comply with written standards may fail, and as such are not compliant. It may well be true that no browsers exist that are standards compliant, as the standards are written. However, please don't go waving around poisonous ideas like "standards compliance is a relative term".
Sorry, but to the vast majority of people - even the vast majority of techies - it is a relative term, whether that fits with your ideology or not. Ask anyone (who cares about web standards) to name a standards-compliant browser, and they will. They'll name Opera, or Safari, or Firefox. Because, while none of those browsers complies absolutely 100% with every pertinent web standard, they are standards-compliant: they take absolute compliance as a goal, they treat instances of non-compliance as bugs, every new release is more compliant, and the vast majority of real-world pages that have been written to web standards work perfectly in all of them.
To declare arbitrarily that "either you comply or you don't" is nonsensical: it lumps these browsers together in the same "non-compliant" bucket as IE6. It is obvious to anyone who tries using a range of browsers that some comply more with web standards than others, i.e. some are more standards-compliant. It follows from the fact that I can make that statement that standards-compliance is relative.
I can think of a few reasons why Microsoft going bankrupt would be a concern for you. For example, it would probably become a concern if you were no longer provided any support or security updates for your operating system.
If Microsoft went bankrupt, you could pretty much guarantee that the Windows business would be bought up in an instant. What company wouldn't leap at the chance to pick up their very own monopoly at a bargain price?
Microsoft said, "trust us," and the shoppers who did got fucked.
Sucks to be them, but I still don't see where they deserve my sympathy. Trusting Microsoft is a sign of either wilful ignorance or terminal negligence. There's nothing wrong with choosing Vista if you decide after consideration that it's the OS that meets your needs best, but if you buy a computer without doing the research first, you deserve everything you get.
But you can't control when and where the people who cause fatal accidents drive.
I cannot control when and where a terrorist will attack.
But you can control whether you go anywhere that is likely to be the target of a terrorist attack or not. Visiting a crowded market in Baghdad the day after an American pilot accidentally bombs an orphanage: high risk. Visiting a Wal*Mart in Nowheresville, Idaho: zero risk.
Seems to me you actually have just as much control in either situation - you just perceive that you have more control when you're driving, largely because you have not sat back and actually thought about the relative risks.
Why the hell does this need legislation? If Utah's parents want to use ISPs that block certain kinds of material, then they can surely just choose to use ISPs that block those kinds of material, regardless of whether there's a law like this in place or not. We live in a capitalist society - if there's demand for that kind of blocking, then the market will provide it, without any need for the government to stick its nose in.
And of course the market will provide a better solution, because different ISPs can try different kinds of blocking, and give their customers more choice and more control, and see what there's actually a market for, instead of trying to force a single government-mandated standard on everyone.
This kind of issue is a situation where there is no need, and no place, for a one-size-fits-all government-coercion approach; this is about personal choice and personal morality, not the provision of essential services. On many issues (notably healthcare) I come down on the side of government involvement, but this is just ridiculous.
It doesn't make sense because the only thing I've ever used that scrolled using a circular gesture is an iPod and even that didn't make a lot of sense. Making one motion to create a different motion makes no sense.
Ever reeled in a fishing line? Hmm, I do believe you do it by using a circular motion to cause another object to move linearly. Sounds crazy, I know, but most people manage to grasp the idea eventually.
Really? That's strange, as I use software almost every day that hasn't been updated since the early 1990s, and it's doing a damn good job at pretending to work.
Don't let the marketers trick you into thinking you need to upgrade constantly. It's a lie. If what you've got works, you are actually allowed to keep using it. And you can run old software on new hardware by using virtualisation and/or emulation.
What the hell are you talking about? Netscape gave away the Netscape Navigator browser for free, so they never really had the ability to make a good profit on it.
What the hell are you talking about? Netscape wasn't free to start with, at least for commercial use. I can't remember exactly when they stopped selling it, but I do rather think it was probably round about the time Microsoft started bundling Internet Explorer with Windows.
You obviously do not use any 3D modeling software. Hundreds of commands. Many of which are used only occasionally. And frequent switching between software packages/versions.
Dude, I use emacs, and I still don't see the point of this.
'Optimus Maximus' dosen't make a whole lot of sense
Um, we're talking about one of the most common epithets for the god Jupiter. If you're really feeling confident in your Latin skills, feel free to go back in time 2000 years or so and explain to the Romans that their pathetic attempts at using their native language "don't make a whole lot of sense", but if you'll forgive me I'll just go on accepting it as standard Latin and translating it "Best and Greatest" like everyone else...
Violating copyright is a crime, but you'll never convince me that it's immoral.
Actually, violating copyright is generally not a crime,* which is why pirates are being sued by the recording industry, not arrested by the police.
It is always illegal, but it is generally a violation of civil law rather than criminal law, which is a very important distinction. In countries like the USA and UK, some forms of copyright infringement are indeed crimes, but IIRC that's generally reserved for cases where someone is actually running a commercial counterfeiting operation or something along those lines. The exact threshold varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.
* Unlike theft, which is always a crime. You may draw your own conclusions.
You seem to be misreading him; he isn't arguing that "open source" should not be used as a verb, but that it shouldn't be used as a verb meaning "to make software available under an open source license". His argument is that something is not "real" open source software unless it has a thriving community around it, and therefore people should not say things like "we open sourced this code" when they have merely released the code, rather than creating a community.
It's a nice thought, but he's basically completely wrong, because his highly restrictive definition does not match the way the term "open source" is actually used in the real world. Most people who actually use it do not use popularity as a criterion. If you accept that fact, his argument collapses rather.
Windows and OS X may be very different, but both have drag&drop that works everywhere, Linux doesn't.
Yeah? You can drag-and-drop a file onto a taskbar button in Windows, can you? You can drag-and-drop an application from the dock to the desktop in OS X, can you?
I suspect you are using "works everywhere" to mean "works everywhere I've ever wanted it to work", which is a perfectly valid definition for you personally to use when deciding which operating system to use, but isn't very useful as a means of comparing them in general.
Windows and OS X might be hard to switch from, but both still have working copy&paste. (And before some geek tries to correct me, copy&paste between *every* type of data and *every* application-- not just text!)
Could you please give some examples of where this doesn't work in Linux? I don't copy and paste between applications much, but I just tried something I thought seemed quite likely to fail (copying part of an image from GIMP and pasting it into the completely unrelated OpenOffice.org Writer), and it worked perfectly.
Even if there are common cases where copy-and-paste doesn't work, it's always possible to get your data from one app to another. It's just a case of learning the operating system... maybe it's a bit more awkward, maybe you need more temporary files than you like, but it's technically possible. (Hmm, those words sound strangely familiar. I do hope you don't have double standards.)
Linux's GUI simply isn't there yet. When you have feature parity with Mac OS circa 1998, give me a call... and I mean 100% feature parity.
That's unfair. Neither OS X nor Windows has feature parity with MacOS circa 1998. (Seriously, Apple, FTFF. This is not funny any more.)
You can, however, stop the automatic-updates service, which disables that nagging until you reboot in your own time, at which point the service is restarted. This trick saved my sanity in the days before I made the switch to Linux.
I don't think that Linux is mature as an easy to use and CONSISTENT desktop environment at this point in its life.
You think Linux is inconsistent? What do you think is consistent, then? Surely not Windows!
Common Unix/Linux things that critics often call inconsistent:
Multiple installer technologies. (On Windows there are also many different installer technologies. If it's not a problem on Windows, why is it a problem on Linux?)
Multiple widget toolkits, so different applications use different open/save dialog boxes and generally look slightly different. (On Windows, the world's most successful productivity suite has refused to use standard UI elements and standard open/save dialogs for over 10 years now. Many other popular applications, from Media Player to iTunes to PhotoShop to Visual Studio, do the same. If it's not a problem on Windows, why is it a problem on Linux?)
Multiple copy/paste methods. On Windows, the world's most successful productivity suite has not used the platform's standard copy/paste method for almost 10 years, and Excel has never used the platform's standard copy/paste method. If it's not a problem on Windows, why is it a problem on Linux?)
Pardon me if I have started to view "Linux is inconsistent!" as basically meaning "Linux is unfamiliar, so I don't like it, so I am searching for an excuse to reject it!"
Firstly, why does Joe User even care whether Linux is case-sensitive or not? He selects files by pointing and clicking, not by typing their names. Case sensitivity only becomes an issue when you're working with the command line, and Joe User doesn't do that.
Secondly, that is not the kind of advice you get when you ask for Linux help in an appropriate venue. In my experience the Ubuntu forums, for example, generally provide beginners with clear, step-by-step instructions.
Slashdot Mirror
(Speaking anecdotally, all the Linux code I've ever written has not only worked perfectly on every version of Linux I've tried it on, but also compiled with only minimal adjustments on Solaris and several flavours of BSD. So there is clearly a very significant difference indeed between that and Silverlight, which does not even pretend it's going to try to be remotely compatible with Flash.)Price, performance, security, support, and design, just to name five things off the top of my head. "Compatible" doesn't mean "identical"; it just means that things designed to work with one also work with the other.Nothing at all. It's good. But one of the reasons it's good is that, you will observe, AMD's products are pretty much compatible with Intel's products, in exactly the way that varieties of Linux are pretty much compatible with each other, and in exact opposition to the situation with Silverlight.
You know your argument is in trouble when even your own examples are undermining it.
Which isn't to say I'm a raytracing fanboy. The blacksmith might well be right, if the car in question is powered by steam. But the blacksmith's opinion still isn't exactly news...
Microsoft is saying "here are some specifications for a document format, and here is a vague 'promise'. You might be able to use these specifications, but if you do, we might sue you, but we won't tell you how we'll actually decide that, or what parts of the specification we think we could sue you over."
Linus is saying "here is an API for kernel modules, and here is the GNU GPL. You can use the whole specification if you place your code under a GPL-compatible license; otherwise you can use this, this, and this, but you cannot use this, this, or this. If that's not clear, ask us and we'll tell you whether we agree with what you're planning to do."
Can you see the difference? Because if you can't, then I suggest you take a deep breath, step back, suppress your dislike of the GPL for a moment, and think about it. You don't have to agree that Linus is being reasonable. All I'm asking is that you recognise that what Microsoft is doing is not the same as what Linus is doing, and therefore that people who approve of either activity but disapprove of the other are not being hypocrites.
(Lest you dismiss me as a mindless GPL fanboy, let me point out that when I've released software I've always made a point of choosing LGPL or MIT-style licenses for libraries, and in this instance I'm not at all convinced Linus is right. I just think the rhetoric needs toning down a bit. I'm sure you can argue against Linus' ideas without having to fling around blanket accusations of hypocrisy.)
To declare arbitrarily that "either you comply or you don't" is nonsensical: it lumps these browsers together in the same "non-compliant" bucket as IE6. It is obvious to anyone who tries using a range of browsers that some comply more with web standards than others, i.e. some are more standards-compliant. It follows from the fact that I can make that statement that standards-compliance is relative.
No, even better.
Seems to me you actually have just as much control in either situation - you just perceive that you have more control when you're driving, largely because you have not sat back and actually thought about the relative risks.
Why the hell does this need legislation? If Utah's parents want to use ISPs that block certain kinds of material, then they can surely just choose to use ISPs that block those kinds of material, regardless of whether there's a law like this in place or not. We live in a capitalist society - if there's demand for that kind of blocking, then the market will provide it, without any need for the government to stick its nose in.
And of course the market will provide a better solution, because different ISPs can try different kinds of blocking, and give their customers more choice and more control, and see what there's actually a market for, instead of trying to force a single government-mandated standard on everyone.
This kind of issue is a situation where there is no need, and no place, for a one-size-fits-all government-coercion approach; this is about personal choice and personal morality, not the provision of essential services. On many issues (notably healthcare) I come down on the side of government involvement, but this is just ridiculous.
Really? That's strange, as I use software almost every day that hasn't been updated since the early 1990s, and it's doing a damn good job at pretending to work.
Don't let the marketers trick you into thinking you need to upgrade constantly. It's a lie. If what you've got works, you are actually allowed to keep using it. And you can run old software on new hardware by using virtualisation and/or emulation.
It is always illegal, but it is generally a violation of civil law rather than criminal law, which is a very important distinction. In countries like the USA and UK, some forms of copyright infringement are indeed crimes, but IIRC that's generally reserved for cases where someone is actually running a commercial counterfeiting operation or something along those lines. The exact threshold varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.
* Unlike theft, which is always a crime. You may draw your own conclusions.
You seem to be misreading him; he isn't arguing that "open source" should not be used as a verb, but that it shouldn't be used as a verb meaning "to make software available under an open source license". His argument is that something is not "real" open source software unless it has a thriving community around it, and therefore people should not say things like "we open sourced this code" when they have merely released the code, rather than creating a community.
It's a nice thought, but he's basically completely wrong, because his highly restrictive definition does not match the way the term "open source" is actually used in the real world. Most people who actually use it do not use popularity as a criterion. If you accept that fact, his argument collapses rather.
I suspect you are using "works everywhere" to mean "works everywhere I've ever wanted it to work", which is a perfectly valid definition for you personally to use when deciding which operating system to use, but isn't very useful as a means of comparing them in general.Could you please give some examples of where this doesn't work in Linux? I don't copy and paste between applications much, but I just tried something I thought seemed quite likely to fail (copying part of an image from GIMP and pasting it into the completely unrelated OpenOffice.org Writer), and it worked perfectly.
Even if there are common cases where copy-and-paste doesn't work, it's always possible to get your data from one app to another. It's just a case of learning the operating system... maybe it's a bit more awkward, maybe you need more temporary files than you like, but it's technically possible. (Hmm, those words sound strangely familiar. I do hope you don't have double standards.)That's unfair. Neither OS X nor Windows has feature parity with MacOS circa 1998. (Seriously, Apple, FTFF. This is not funny any more.)
You can, however, stop the automatic-updates service, which disables that nagging until you reboot in your own time, at which point the service is restarted. This trick saved my sanity in the days before I made the switch to Linux.
Common Unix/Linux things that critics often call inconsistent:
(On Windows there are also many different installer technologies. If it's not a problem on Windows, why is it a problem on Linux?)
(On Windows, the world's most successful productivity suite has refused to use standard UI elements and standard open/save dialogs for over 10 years now. Many other popular applications, from Media Player to iTunes to PhotoShop to Visual Studio, do the same. If it's not a problem on Windows, why is it a problem on Linux?)
On Windows, the world's most successful productivity suite has not used the platform's standard copy/paste method for almost 10 years, and Excel has never used the platform's standard copy/paste method. If it's not a problem on Windows, why is it a problem on Linux?)
Pardon me if I have started to view "Linux is inconsistent!" as basically meaning "Linux is unfamiliar, so I don't like it, so I am searching for an excuse to reject it!"
If you want to convince me that I have no idea what I'm missing, maybe you could come up with an example of something that I'm actually missing?
Firstly, why does Joe User even care whether Linux is case-sensitive or not? He selects files by pointing and clicking, not by typing their names. Case sensitivity only becomes an issue when you're working with the command line, and Joe User doesn't do that.
Secondly, that is not the kind of advice you get when you ask for Linux help in an appropriate venue. In my experience the Ubuntu forums, for example, generally provide beginners with clear, step-by-step instructions.