Why on earth do we need a unified desktop experience? Linux is by the hackers for the hackers. The reason why most OSS is written is to scratch a personal itch. Call me selfish, but I'm not going to lose my choice simply to get a few more users for Linux.
Again, how will you lose your choice? You can still use any app you desire, any window manager you wish. You've lost no choices at all. In fact, if a single Linux desktop helps popularize Linux, you may gain many more choices in the form of additional developer interest in Linux.
Internet Explorer on windows, Windows Media Player? Those are two examples of this. Maybe more so for OSS, if nobody is shipping it or using it, why bother? There's no kudos to be earnt from writing software that nobody uses.
IE and WMP prevent you from using alternatives how...? Does KDE shipping with Konqueror by default prevent KDE users from using Mozilla? Quick, better ship KDE with 20 different web browsers, some users aren't getting enough choices!
I think that your confusion reigns from being raised in a Microsoft world.
Number one, I have not been raised "in a Microsoft world". I used Linux for many years before switching over to FreeBSD (since I desire a consistent user experience -- just one distribution of FreeBSD!). All I'm saying is that if anyone wants Linux to be taken seriously in mainstream computing, these changes have to be made.
You are thinking in terms of single solution for all possible applications, which ends up catering to the lowest common denominator, creating the Windows monoculture that we know and hate.
What are you talking about? Sure there's just one "flavor" of Windows, that is, a desktop with a very minimal set of bundled applications. That's a good thing. It's less for Microsoft to have to support. Sure there isn't a "Developer" flavor of Windows, a "Graphics" flavor a Windows, a "Compile everything from source" flavor of Windows, but is that really a bad thing? If you want to use Ghost or similar software to take a snapshot of a Windows install with various pieces of software installed and deploy it on other machines, you can. In that manner, you can create your own "distro" of Windows. I mean really, all these Linux distros are are the Linux kernel with some emphasis on certain kinds of software pre-installed. You can do that with Windows (you just can't buy/download them, you have to make them yourself). Of course, the big problem I have with distros is the insistence on not keeping things like config files, libraries, and directory hierarchies consistent, creating lots of incompatibilities between distros. Those problems shouldn't exist, considering that they're all really the same operating system.
Well funded companies are all very well, but the strength of Open Source lies in doing things the opposite way to the traditional business model - your 'problems' are in fact the strengths of the system.
How so? Let's say I make, for instance, a text editor and it ships with no less than 17 different command syntaxes. Why would it be to my advantage to supply, document, and support those 17 syntaxes instead of just supporting one "default" and allowing third parties to create their own if they don't like the default? That is the mentality of the open source world that I don't understand. Having to support a nearly infinite set of configurations is not to the advantage of the person responsible for a product. It costs additional time and money. Just ship your product with some defaults and allow other people to extend the product if they want to. Users get their "choice" and you don't have to support but one configuration.
If Linux is to go ANYWHERE it has to address this problem because companies WILL want to write software for Linux and WILL NOT want to support an insane amount of configurations because it wouldn't be feasible.
The reason that no-one is saying 'X is the best one' is that there isn't a clearly defined consensus as to what is 'best'
That's why someone -- whoever is trying to break Linux into the desktop -- needs to take charge and make a decision. Compromises must be made and obviously not everyone is going be happy, but it's a necessity to promote a single, unified desktop experience for Linux.
Different tools work better in different circumstances, and people are quite right to use what works best for them.
Sure, and how does one company (or group of companies) promoting one tool as their "default" prevent anyone from seeking alternatives?
If you want something to happen, go forth and do it!
It's not going to be me calling the shots nor will it be you. For desktop Linux to be a reality, it's going to take a consortium of well-funded companies.
In many ways the duplication of effort towards a single end on seperate code lines is a good thing. because we are falliable, and acknowledged as such, each small team of coders works along its own lines.
Therefore it can be deduced that a greater number of the potential solutions to any given problems will be taken, and thus that there is a greater likelyhood that the best solution will be found (and a higher overall quality of product can be attained)
In this case it is very much that the duplication of effort, while seeming to waste effort, actually results in a better product, because more solutions can be investigated.
The important part that you're missing is that in the open source world no one is saying "okay, we have 38 different text editors but X is clearly the best one. We need to focus our efforts on X and put it forth as our 'standard' text editor." Instead, open source world is saying "okay, we have 38 different text editors... ship them all!"
The big thing Linux desperately needs but steadfastly refuses to do is come up with a "standard" Linux system in which one desktop is proposed, one text editor is proposed, one directory hierarchy is proposed, etc. That's not to say that you can't have "choice" in the components of your Linux system, but that Linux needs to propose a standard set of components so that users can be presented with a cohesive computing experience instead of a confusing mismash of unrelated programs and technologies. Windows works so well as a desktop because it proposes, e.g., a single desktop, single widget set, single window manager, etc. Obviously you have the "choice" to replace these, but the key point is that the standard set of components exists in the first place.
Actually, before I bought a new computer I was running Windows XP on a three year-old computer (PIII 550Mhz, 256MB RAM). It ran very nicely, believe it or not (and I'm sure you won't).
No, that's not the entire install. The text mode part is simply for disk partioning and copying the REST of the install to disk. After you reboot it copies the rest of the OS (didn't you notice the part in the GUI install where it said "copying files"?) and does some configuration. Even if you want to play the "that's not the installer" BS it's still part of the install process, and the longest part at that.
That's only a small part of the install (disk partitioning and copying setup files over). The rest is graphical. I'm curious as to how you invoked a completely text-based Windows install.
Linux users are at a point now that we can make or break a company
You don't say. Would you care to point out either a company that has been reduced to nothing (besides Loki -- ha!) or skyrocketed to success solely on the awesome strength of Linux users?
Re:Better served by a standard *nix shell
on
Microsoft's new CLI
·
· Score: 1
OK... so you're saying that Microsoft should switch to Bash and at some point someone will figure out how to make a better shell, which Microsoft should then adopt. And who, pray tell, gets to decide what the "better" shell is? Perhaps Microsoft is making the "better" shell right now, that is, they're giving you your "round friggin' wheels", although they happen to be better.
You're assuming that just because Microsoft is making it that it's somehow being done "wrong" and will be overloaded with features that no one wants.
Exactly. I didn't "get" it because my interpretation of your comment leads me to believe that you were interpreting "UI" to mean they wanted to slap a GUI on the CLI or something like that. Hence, I would like to know more about what you had in mind when you made your comment.
Care to elaborate on that? All the comment means is that they're working on the shell from the conceptual level right now and will worry about things like syntax and output formatting later (the "UI", if you will).
Re:Better served by a standard *nix shell
on
Microsoft's new CLI
·
· Score: 1
Wait, I'm confused. All I ever hear on Slashdot is how awful Microsoft is, how they never innovate, etc. It looks like in this case they're trying to make a shell that's radically different from what they already have and perhaps radically different than all other shells (in certain ways) and you're criticizing them for doing something that looks like it might resemble "innovation"? Why would you suggest that they adopt Bash? So you can turn around and criticize them for "stealing" something from the UNIX world (yet again)?
How many of these "Photoshop BadAsses", which you claim can absorb the $n/yr with no problem, do you think there are in the world?
Don't tell me. Cause you'll lie through your f'n teeth.
Come on, get real. It's a couple hundred dollars, not a king's ransom. If a graphics shop can't manage to make more than whatever $n is every year, they obviously aren't doing much business whatsoever.
How old are you? Thirteen? Perhaps a few hundred dollars seems like a lot to you because it took you two months of mowing lawns to save up $50.
The answer is NOT NEARLY ENOUGH to put Adobe in the position it's in now.
Huh? Obviously there are "enough" people willing to pay whatever $n is to put Adobe "in the position it's in now" because how else would Adobe have earned as much money as they have?
Yep, the software has to be recompiled for 64 bit before it will help you. If you're a linux user, you can get this benefit right now by compiling everything from source.
Wow, 64-bit grep, ls, bash, and xeyes -- imagine the possibilities!
Others thought it was cool, too. Wallace began winning contests -- local, state, national -- culminating in second place in the International Intel Science and Engineering Fair last May in Cleveland. He's now beginning work on a USU physics degree.
Wow, building a nuclear fusion reactor only gets you second place in Intel's science contest? What did the kid who got first place do, find a cure for cancer?
Do you honestly think he couldn't be? You apparently haven't been paying attention.
Well, the millions of liberals making accusations of the president being a Nazi and stealing oil haven't been carted off to jail yet, so I still have faith in free speech being respected.
I don't recall anything in the First Amendment about "except for information about how to make weapons." (In fact, I think I even recall something a little later on in the Bill of Rights about a right to keep and bear arms, and no "except for weapons you make yourself".)
Here's an idea: if you think free speech includes advocating the violent overthrow of the government, how about I make a website advocating the violent overthrow of you? I'll call for your blood on the website and oh, by the way, I'll link to Mapquest instructions to your house. I mean, after all, there's nothing wrong with linking to instructions to your house (publicly available information), right? Still think free speech should cover that?
I'm wary of any government which is so worried about being overthrown. Earning the respect of the majority of citizens is the way to stay in power
No matter how loved the government is there's always going to be a group of people calling for it to be overthrown. And, inciting others to overthrow ANY government is going to have a detrimental effect on a lot of people if it were to actually occur. Therefore, I think this case ties in to the whole "you can't yell 'fire' in a crowded theater" thing.
not locking people up for distributing already widely available information
It's all about context. He didn't say "here's how to make bombs, if you're interested", he said "let's overthrow the government, and a good way to do that is if you make your own bombs! Click here!" The effect is that he's not providing the information out of general interest but he's intending that the information be used to create tools overthrow the government. Big difference there.
I still think the decision was a good one. It's one thing to say "I don't like our leader, we should vote him out next election" and another to say "we should kill our leader, and here are directions to his house if you're interested." See what I mean?
The government has basically forbid this guy from criticizing the system.
See, I think there's a difference between "criticizing the system" and advocating the violent overthrow of the government and providing instructions on how to create weapons that will help you accomplish that goal. Do you honestly think this guy was locked up for merely saying "I disagree with this administration?"
The recording companies routinely push bands to crank out filler songs to pad the few good songs they spent time crafting. It's a fact of life. The album sells on the basis of one or two hits which is the whole basis of the current radio marketing game.
Really? It seems to me like record companies want to sell the most units they possibly can, hence they would encourage the group to be putting as many "hit" (good) songs on one album as possible (none of this "OK guys, you have ten songs that really look like they'll be smash hits. But we're only going to let you put on two and the rest of the songs HAVE TO BE SHIT, END OF DISCUSSION" crap that Slashdotters think is the reality of the music industry). The albums that have sold the best have always been the ones with multiple hit singles, not just one or two. Look at any album that's sold in the range of five to ten million and I guarantee that there were more than two hit singles on it.
I'm sure you're thinking "ah, but they want the band to string the hit singles along multiple albums so they can increase sales over a long period of time!" Well, I disagree. What do you think is going to rake in more cash for the company when you consider the cost of producing and marketing an album: five albums selling two million each or one album selling ten million? Obviously, it's the one album. To say that record companies aren't interested in letting artists put as many "good" (read: potential hit) singles on an album is bullshit.
I run a full-blown C compiler that's not emulated on my Tungsten. I also have a pascal compiler that was written using that C compiler. I tend to do my palm development in the scheme system I've got on it, though. Look around, though. There's python, a few C systems, smalltalk, etc...
All those languages have PocketPC ports as well. The point I was making was that it's really neat to be able to run a particular C compiler (a DOS-based one), in addition to all those old DOS utilities on the PDA. Emulating a real PC on your PDA is pretty cool.
Have you looked around at palm software? The last time I looked, there were too many to choose from. I'm a developer, so I dig that kinda thing. I've developed complete applications (GUI and all) directly on my palm that I used to use all the time (I don't use the one app I wrote anymore because I no longer need it).
I'm well aware of the available Palm software, since I still own a Palm and use it occasionally. I'm saying that PocketPC has a lot of dev software and, when you look at the total picture, I found the PocketPC offerings to be a better deal overall.
What do you mean? My books are in a separate directory from my movies, from my mp3s, from my applications, etc...
On my m130 I could make categories but couldn't nest them. On the PocketPC, I can have directory structure just as I would on the PC. I like that. What I meant by "no control" was my experience with the Palm hotsync program. You basically just select files to upload and the Palm puts them wherever it feels like (sometimes games would go to the "Games" category, but mostly went to "Unfiled", etc.). What I like about the PocketPC is that if I have a file I want to send over I can use explorer to create a folder in the appropriate place on the PDA and drag the file over. That's nice. I wish I could do that with Palm.
I have to imagine my card reader is more efficient than this.
Of course, that costs additional money and it only lets you access the SD card. When I cradle the PPC everything is available directly, including the system's storage RAM, internal flash, and SD card. Again, a nice touch, and I wish I could do that with Palm.
I'm pretty sure I've done this before, but I just do it over bluetooth lately. I only use the cradle for charging.
Couldn't do it with the m130, but perhaps the Zire will let you do it. Either way, I was quite happy when I found out that simply having the PPC in a cradle would allow the PPC to use the computer's internet connection with no extra configuration.
It came time for me to upgrade my Palm m130 and I decided on a PocketPC. Why? It was an issue of price and features. The cheapest Palm I would consider buying is the Zire 71 at $300. It didn't really seem to make any sense to buy it because the PocketPCs offered a lot more at lower prices. I decided on a PocketPC that cost $250 and came with 64MB RAM (36MB usable vs. Zire's 13MB usable) and a 300Mhz ARM processor (vs. 144Mhz ARM for the Zire). Seems pretty clear to me who's offering the better deal.
Yes, I know the PocketPC is Microsoft and therefore "evil", but I kinda like the thing. You can do some really neat things with it. You can emulate Nintendo games at full speed with sound, play Doom at a pretty good speed, play a fantastic port of Simcity 2000, there's even a program that emulates an 8086 at about 25Mhz and allows you to run a LOT of DOS software (I managed to get older games like Eye of the Beholder and Dune 2 running), including all the old DOS tools I've missed over the years, like the Turbo C compiler! Running a full-blown C compiler in an emulated x86 on your PDA... now THAT is cool. There's also a lot of good languages/dev tools/utilities/games/etc. that have been ported to the PocketPC platform, due mostly, I suppose, to how easy it is to port regular Windows software over to the PDA.
I particularly like the PocketPC's directory structure for files vs. Palm's "you have no control over where files go" structure. When I put the PocketPC in the USB cradle I can browse the PDA's memory like a normal disk and the internet connection for the PDA tunnels through the USB connection and uses the computer's internet connection seamlessly. This in particular is one thing I hated about my old Palm. You couldn't use the Palm's USB link for the internet connection... instead you had to buy a serial link and set up your computer to accept incoming connections to do SLIP and whatnot provided your Palm didn't have WiFi capabilities (which mine didn't).
I'd probably go back to Palm IF they lowered their prices to be closer to what PocketPCs cost. I think they're a tad bit overpriced at the moment considering what you get.
In my experience, you're only going to get picked up in a distribution if someone who happens to be a maintainer takes a liking to your program. I released a program about five years ago and not long after one of the package maintainers for Debian contacted me about clearing up the licensing because he wanted to add it to the next release. Some time later it was added to the ports tree for OpenBSD (though no one contacted me about that, not that I really care).
So basically, I think that if you want your software added to a distro, it's just going to "happen".
Now the RIAA is targeting copyright infringers and not the tools themselves. What's the problem? Isn't that what they're supposed to do? Does this somehow prevent you from sharing non-copyrighted files over P2P (which, as we all know, is the "primary" use of P2P)?
I mean, I just don't understand this mentality. Why do you feel like you're entitled to redistribute the copyrighted works of others? Why? When did this become a right? I can kind of understand downloading an MP3 of something you already own IF you can be sure it came from the copy of the album you own (i.e., none of this, "I bought the vinyl, now I'm entitled to the higher quality CD version" crap), but sharing the file to millions of people? I don't remember that being part of "Fair use".
Simple solution: stop sharing copyrighted materials over P2P. If P2P really is this wonderful tool for sharing Redhat ISOs and MP3s of lame garage bands, then put your money where you mouth is. Don't share anything copyrighted, don't download anything copyrighted, and fully support the RIAA and MPAA when they go after people that do either. No one has gone to jail or ever will for sharing non-copyrighted materials. There might be cases here and there of people getting hassled over misunderstandings (that professor who had "Usher" in his MP3 filenames), but no one is going to get charged with anything if they really are on the up and up.
Slashdot Mirror
Why on earth do we need a unified desktop experience? Linux is by the hackers for the hackers. The reason why most OSS is written is to scratch a personal itch. Call me selfish, but I'm not going to lose my choice simply to get a few more users for Linux.
Again, how will you lose your choice? You can still use any app you desire, any window manager you wish. You've lost no choices at all. In fact, if a single Linux desktop helps popularize Linux, you may gain many more choices in the form of additional developer interest in Linux.
Internet Explorer on windows, Windows Media Player? Those are two examples of this. Maybe more so for OSS, if nobody is shipping it or using it, why bother? There's no kudos to be earnt from writing software that nobody uses.
IE and WMP prevent you from using alternatives how...? Does KDE shipping with Konqueror by default prevent KDE users from using Mozilla? Quick, better ship KDE with 20 different web browsers, some users aren't getting enough choices!
I think that your confusion reigns from being raised in a Microsoft world.
Number one, I have not been raised "in a Microsoft world". I used Linux for many years before switching over to FreeBSD (since I desire a consistent user experience -- just one distribution of FreeBSD!). All I'm saying is that if anyone wants Linux to be taken seriously in mainstream computing, these changes have to be made.
You are thinking in terms of single solution for all possible applications, which ends up catering to the lowest common denominator, creating the Windows monoculture that we know and hate.
What are you talking about? Sure there's just one "flavor" of Windows, that is, a desktop with a very minimal set of bundled applications. That's a good thing. It's less for Microsoft to have to support. Sure there isn't a "Developer" flavor of Windows, a "Graphics" flavor a Windows, a "Compile everything from source" flavor of Windows, but is that really a bad thing? If you want to use Ghost or similar software to take a snapshot of a Windows install with various pieces of software installed and deploy it on other machines, you can. In that manner, you can create your own "distro" of Windows. I mean really, all these Linux distros are are the Linux kernel with some emphasis on certain kinds of software pre-installed. You can do that with Windows (you just can't buy/download them, you have to make them yourself). Of course, the big problem I have with distros is the insistence on not keeping things like config files, libraries, and directory hierarchies consistent, creating lots of incompatibilities between distros. Those problems shouldn't exist, considering that they're all really the same operating system.
Well funded companies are all very well, but the strength of Open Source lies in doing things the opposite way to the traditional business model - your 'problems' are in fact the strengths of the system.
How so? Let's say I make, for instance, a text editor and it ships with no less than 17 different command syntaxes. Why would it be to my advantage to supply, document, and support those 17 syntaxes instead of just supporting one "default" and allowing third parties to create their own if they don't like the default? That is the mentality of the open source world that I don't understand. Having to support a nearly infinite set of configurations is not to the advantage of the person responsible for a product. It costs additional time and money. Just ship your product with some defaults and allow other people to extend the product if they want to. Users get their "choice" and you don't have to support but one configuration.
If Linux is to go ANYWHERE it has to address this problem because companies WILL want to write software for Linux and WILL NOT want to support an insane amount of configurations because it wouldn't be feasible.
The reason that no-one is saying 'X is the best one' is that there isn't a clearly defined consensus as to what is 'best'
That's why someone -- whoever is trying to break Linux into the desktop -- needs to take charge and make a decision. Compromises must be made and obviously not everyone is going be happy, but it's a necessity to promote a single, unified desktop experience for Linux.
Different tools work better in different circumstances, and people are quite right to use what works best for them.
Sure, and how does one company (or group of companies) promoting one tool as their "default" prevent anyone from seeking alternatives?
If you want something to happen, go forth and do it!
It's not going to be me calling the shots nor will it be you. For desktop Linux to be a reality, it's going to take a consortium of well-funded companies.
In many ways the duplication of effort towards a single end on seperate code lines is a good thing. because we are falliable, and acknowledged as such, each small team of coders works along its own lines.
Therefore it can be deduced that a greater number of the potential solutions to any given problems will be taken, and thus that there is a greater likelyhood that the best solution will be found (and a higher overall quality of product can be attained)
In this case it is very much that the duplication of effort, while seeming to waste effort, actually results in a better product, because more solutions can be investigated.
The important part that you're missing is that in the open source world no one is saying "okay, we have 38 different text editors but X is clearly the best one. We need to focus our efforts on X and put it forth as our 'standard' text editor." Instead, open source world is saying "okay, we have 38 different text editors... ship them all!"
The big thing Linux desperately needs but steadfastly refuses to do is come up with a "standard" Linux system in which one desktop is proposed, one text editor is proposed, one directory hierarchy is proposed, etc. That's not to say that you can't have "choice" in the components of your Linux system, but that Linux needs to propose a standard set of components so that users can be presented with a cohesive computing experience instead of a confusing mismash of unrelated programs and technologies. Windows works so well as a desktop because it proposes, e.g., a single desktop, single widget set, single window manager, etc. Obviously you have the "choice" to replace these, but the key point is that the standard set of components exists in the first place.
Actually, before I bought a new computer I was running Windows XP on a three year-old computer (PIII 550Mhz, 256MB RAM). It ran very nicely, believe it or not (and I'm sure you won't).
No, that's not the entire install. The text mode part is simply for disk partioning and copying the REST of the install to disk. After you reboot it copies the rest of the OS (didn't you notice the part in the GUI install where it said "copying files"?) and does some configuration. Even if you want to play the "that's not the installer" BS it's still part of the install process, and the longest part at that.
That's only a small part of the install (disk partitioning and copying setup files over). The rest is graphical. I'm curious as to how you invoked a completely text-based Windows install.
Linux users are at a point now that we can make or break a company
You don't say. Would you care to point out either a company that has been reduced to nothing (besides Loki -- ha!) or skyrocketed to success solely on the awesome strength of Linux users?
OK... so you're saying that Microsoft should switch to Bash and at some point someone will figure out how to make a better shell, which Microsoft should then adopt. And who, pray tell, gets to decide what the "better" shell is? Perhaps Microsoft is making the "better" shell right now, that is, they're giving you your "round friggin' wheels", although they happen to be better.
You're assuming that just because Microsoft is making it that it's somehow being done "wrong" and will be overloaded with features that no one wants.
Exactly. I didn't "get" it because my interpretation of your comment leads me to believe that you were interpreting "UI" to mean they wanted to slap a GUI on the CLI or something like that. Hence, I would like to know more about what you had in mind when you made your comment.
Care to elaborate on that? All the comment means is that they're working on the shell from the conceptual level right now and will worry about things like syntax and output formatting later (the "UI", if you will).
Wait, I'm confused. All I ever hear on Slashdot is how awful Microsoft is, how they never innovate, etc. It looks like in this case they're trying to make a shell that's radically different from what they already have and perhaps radically different than all other shells (in certain ways) and you're criticizing them for doing something that looks like it might resemble "innovation"? Why would you suggest that they adopt Bash? So you can turn around and criticize them for "stealing" something from the UNIX world (yet again)?
How many of these "Photoshop BadAsses", which you claim can absorb the $n/yr with no problem, do you think there are in the world?
Don't tell me. Cause you'll lie through your f'n teeth.
Come on, get real. It's a couple hundred dollars, not a king's ransom. If a graphics shop can't manage to make more than whatever $n is every year, they obviously aren't doing much business whatsoever.
How old are you? Thirteen? Perhaps a few hundred dollars seems like a lot to you because it took you two months of mowing lawns to save up $50.
The answer is NOT NEARLY ENOUGH to put Adobe in the position it's in now.
Huh? Obviously there are "enough" people willing to pay whatever $n is to put Adobe "in the position it's in now" because how else would Adobe have earned as much money as they have?
Yep, the software has to be recompiled for 64 bit before it will help you. If you're a linux user, you can get this benefit right now by compiling everything from source.
Wow, 64-bit grep, ls, bash, and xeyes -- imagine the possibilities!
Others thought it was cool, too. Wallace began winning contests -- local, state, national -- culminating in second place in the International Intel Science and Engineering Fair last May in Cleveland. He's now beginning work on a USU physics degree.
Wow, building a nuclear fusion reactor only gets you second place in Intel's science contest? What did the kid who got first place do, find a cure for cancer?
Do you honestly think he couldn't be? You apparently haven't been paying attention.
Well, the millions of liberals making accusations of the president being a Nazi and stealing oil haven't been carted off to jail yet, so I still have faith in free speech being respected.
I don't recall anything in the First Amendment about "except for information about how to make weapons." (In fact, I think I even recall something a little later on in the Bill of Rights about a right to keep and bear arms, and no "except for weapons you make yourself".)
Here's an idea: if you think free speech includes advocating the violent overthrow of the government, how about I make a website advocating the violent overthrow of you? I'll call for your blood on the website and oh, by the way, I'll link to Mapquest instructions to your house. I mean, after all, there's nothing wrong with linking to instructions to your house (publicly available information), right? Still think free speech should cover that?
I'm wary of any government which is so worried about being overthrown. Earning the respect of the majority of citizens is the way to stay in power
No matter how loved the government is there's always going to be a group of people calling for it to be overthrown. And, inciting others to overthrow ANY government is going to have a detrimental effect on a lot of people if it were to actually occur. Therefore, I think this case ties in to the whole "you can't yell 'fire' in a crowded theater" thing.
not locking people up for distributing already widely available information
It's all about context. He didn't say "here's how to make bombs, if you're interested", he said "let's overthrow the government, and a good way to do that is if you make your own bombs! Click here!" The effect is that he's not providing the information out of general interest but he's intending that the information be used to create tools overthrow the government. Big difference there.
I still think the decision was a good one. It's one thing to say "I don't like our leader, we should vote him out next election" and another to say "we should kill our leader, and here are directions to his house if you're interested." See what I mean?
The government has basically forbid this guy from criticizing the system.
See, I think there's a difference between "criticizing the system" and advocating the violent overthrow of the government and providing instructions on how to create weapons that will help you accomplish that goal. Do you honestly think this guy was locked up for merely saying "I disagree with this administration?"
It's 4GB you pedantic nerd. It was fairly obvious to anyone who has the slightest capacity for understanding the context of what they are reading.
The recording companies routinely push bands to crank out filler songs to pad the few good songs they spent time crafting. It's a fact of life. The album sells on the basis of one or two hits which is the whole basis of the current radio marketing game.
Really? It seems to me like record companies want to sell the most units they possibly can, hence they would encourage the group to be putting as many "hit" (good) songs on one album as possible (none of this "OK guys, you have ten songs that really look like they'll be smash hits. But we're only going to let you put on two and the rest of the songs HAVE TO BE SHIT, END OF DISCUSSION" crap that Slashdotters think is the reality of the music industry). The albums that have sold the best have always been the ones with multiple hit singles, not just one or two. Look at any album that's sold in the range of five to ten million and I guarantee that there were more than two hit singles on it.
I'm sure you're thinking "ah, but they want the band to string the hit singles along multiple albums so they can increase sales over a long period of time!" Well, I disagree. What do you think is going to rake in more cash for the company when you consider the cost of producing and marketing an album: five albums selling two million each or one album selling ten million? Obviously, it's the one album. To say that record companies aren't interested in letting artists put as many "good" (read: potential hit) singles on an album is bullshit.
I run a full-blown C compiler that's not emulated on my Tungsten. I also have a pascal compiler that was written using that C compiler. I tend to do my palm development in the scheme system I've got on it, though. Look around, though. There's python, a few C systems, smalltalk, etc...
All those languages have PocketPC ports as well. The point I was making was that it's really neat to be able to run a particular C compiler (a DOS-based one), in addition to all those old DOS utilities on the PDA. Emulating a real PC on your PDA is pretty cool.
Have you looked around at palm software? The last time I looked, there were too many to choose from. I'm a developer, so I dig that kinda thing. I've developed complete applications (GUI and all) directly on my palm that I used to use all the time (I don't use the one app I wrote anymore because I no longer need it).
I'm well aware of the available Palm software, since I still own a Palm and use it occasionally. I'm saying that PocketPC has a lot of dev software and, when you look at the total picture, I found the PocketPC offerings to be a better deal overall.
What do you mean? My books are in a separate directory from my movies, from my mp3s, from my applications, etc...
On my m130 I could make categories but couldn't nest them. On the PocketPC, I can have directory structure just as I would on the PC. I like that. What I meant by "no control" was my experience with the Palm hotsync program. You basically just select files to upload and the Palm puts them wherever it feels like (sometimes games would go to the "Games" category, but mostly went to "Unfiled", etc.). What I like about the PocketPC is that if I have a file I want to send over I can use explorer to create a folder in the appropriate place on the PDA and drag the file over. That's nice. I wish I could do that with Palm.
I have to imagine my card reader is more efficient than this.
Of course, that costs additional money and it only lets you access the SD card. When I cradle the PPC everything is available directly, including the system's storage RAM, internal flash, and SD card. Again, a nice touch, and I wish I could do that with Palm.
I'm pretty sure I've done this before, but I just do it over bluetooth lately. I only use the cradle for charging.
Couldn't do it with the m130, but perhaps the Zire will let you do it. Either way, I was quite happy when I found out that simply having the PPC in a cradle would allow the PPC to use the computer's internet connection with no extra configuration.
... But I don't think IE uses DirectX to play those MIDI files, just like it doesn't use DirectX to blit JPEGs to the screen either.
It came time for me to upgrade my Palm m130 and I decided on a PocketPC. Why? It was an issue of price and features. The cheapest Palm I would consider buying is the Zire 71 at $300. It didn't really seem to make any sense to buy it because the PocketPCs offered a lot more at lower prices. I decided on a PocketPC that cost $250 and came with 64MB RAM (36MB usable vs. Zire's 13MB usable) and a 300Mhz ARM processor (vs. 144Mhz ARM for the Zire). Seems pretty clear to me who's offering the better deal.
Yes, I know the PocketPC is Microsoft and therefore "evil", but I kinda like the thing. You can do some really neat things with it. You can emulate Nintendo games at full speed with sound, play Doom at a pretty good speed, play a fantastic port of Simcity 2000, there's even a program that emulates an 8086 at about 25Mhz and allows you to run a LOT of DOS software (I managed to get older games like Eye of the Beholder and Dune 2 running), including all the old DOS tools I've missed over the years, like the Turbo C compiler! Running a full-blown C compiler in an emulated x86 on your PDA... now THAT is cool. There's also a lot of good languages/dev tools/utilities/games/etc. that have been ported to the PocketPC platform, due mostly, I suppose, to how easy it is to port regular Windows software over to the PDA.
I particularly like the PocketPC's directory structure for files vs. Palm's "you have no control over where files go" structure. When I put the PocketPC in the USB cradle I can browse the PDA's memory like a normal disk and the internet connection for the PDA tunnels through the USB connection and uses the computer's internet connection seamlessly. This in particular is one thing I hated about my old Palm. You couldn't use the Palm's USB link for the internet connection... instead you had to buy a serial link and set up your computer to accept incoming connections to do SLIP and whatnot provided your Palm didn't have WiFi capabilities (which mine didn't).
I'd probably go back to Palm IF they lowered their prices to be closer to what PocketPCs cost. I think they're a tad bit overpriced at the moment considering what you get.
In my experience, you're only going to get picked up in a distribution if someone who happens to be a maintainer takes a liking to your program. I released a program about five years ago and not long after one of the package maintainers for Debian contacted me about clearing up the licensing because he wanted to add it to the next release. Some time later it was added to the ports tree for OpenBSD (though no one contacted me about that, not that I really care).
So basically, I think that if you want your software added to a distro, it's just going to "happen".
Now the RIAA is targeting copyright infringers and not the tools themselves. What's the problem? Isn't that what they're supposed to do? Does this somehow prevent you from sharing non-copyrighted files over P2P (which, as we all know, is the "primary" use of P2P)?
I mean, I just don't understand this mentality. Why do you feel like you're entitled to redistribute the copyrighted works of others? Why? When did this become a right? I can kind of understand downloading an MP3 of something you already own IF you can be sure it came from the copy of the album you own (i.e., none of this, "I bought the vinyl, now I'm entitled to the higher quality CD version" crap), but sharing the file to millions of people? I don't remember that being part of "Fair use".
Simple solution: stop sharing copyrighted materials over P2P. If P2P really is this wonderful tool for sharing Redhat ISOs and MP3s of lame garage bands, then put your money where you mouth is. Don't share anything copyrighted, don't download anything copyrighted, and fully support the RIAA and MPAA when they go after people that do either. No one has gone to jail or ever will for sharing non-copyrighted materials. There might be cases here and there of people getting hassled over misunderstandings (that professor who had "Usher" in his MP3 filenames), but no one is going to get charged with anything if they really are on the up and up.