I run Gentoo on some of my computers, the worst distribution in the world when it comes to breakage across the updates (that is, it's the only major distribution that has such a thing happening). Things improved greatly over the last years.
I wish Linux advocates weren't so firmly in denial about the serious shortcomings of Linux distros. Being tediously pedantic instead of trying to address any criticism doesn't win anyone over either.
Never in my life I have seen, or heard of, any deficiency of hardware support in kernel that could be solved by installing another Linux distribution.
I understand how "copyleft" licenses hack the concept of copyright, but how does that mean copyright is UNETHICAL?
It enables kinds of abuse that can't be avoided without fundamentally changing its nature, at least for software in particular.
If there was no copyright, we would be living in a brave new world indeed. I'm still not sure if that would be a good or bad thing, but it would certainly be momentously different.
Whatever there should be (for example, there must be still defense against plagiarism -- it has nothing to do with commerce and control and everything about fraud), it should not apply a concept created exclusively for artistic expression to functional items that contain nothing but expressed thought.
Do you know how much money I didn't steal from society through abuse of monopoly that I didn't obtain because I am a decent person? How many projects I didn't destroy? How many areas of human thought I didn't shit up by forcing thoughts-destroying frameworks on people involved there?
Any reasonably decent person, myself included, contributed to the development of society hundreds of billions dollars more than Gates ever will. Hell, even Jobs counts, and he is only a half-decent person.
...on par with Catholic Church and its Inquisition. His little "charity" is nothing but a continuation of his attempts to control people who are superior to him in every imaginable aspect.
As a person who works for a company that develops primarily OSS, and as one who has only worked on OSS software personally and professionally for the last 5 years (yes, *everything* I've written in the last 5 years is open source and free as in beer), this self-serving argument smells and looks every bit of the offal it is.
The author also overlooks another very important aspect with regards to open vs. closed source. In almost every case you take open-source "as is" because the author will almost every time free himself from any kind of responsibility with regards to running his software. You take it "as is" and when something goes wrong then you should have foreseen it.
Closed source otoh. often has loopholes attached to it. Even embedded in law. If I buy software and that software suddenly decides to erase my hard drive and I can prove this behavior then there's nothing stopping me to file a complaint at the nearest police station and have the author of said malware picked up for (for starters) destruction of my property. I can even file a suit for damages.
No, you can't. You can't sue the developer, either.
Metro is immediately recognized by user as "Fuck you!" from the developers, so user will try to avoid it. Unity is just good enough to keep the user from installing MATE, XFCE or KDE.
So how is Wine better than having companies make native ports?
Adobe will NEVER port Photoshop to Linux, so one of those possibilities does not exist.
I dunno, manufacturers who do CAD and CAE would go to Linux if you had Solidworks and other CAE/CAD/CAM software on Linux. Wouldn't they?
No, they would find some other excuse to insist on using Windows. They would demand that stupid Windows ball logo buttons or something. I had no problems using VariCAD (proprietary CAD that runs on Linux just fine already) and having perfectly usable workflow with manufacturing company that used Solidworks. In any case, DSS can have Solidworks port to Linux tomorrow if they decided to do so today -- there is nothing to stop them but their own capricious will.
No he didn't, he just branded it, now he talks as though he created all of it.
Actually yes, he did. Eric Raymond "branded" Open Source and made the term accessible for businesses, however the whole reason for it was businesses' fear of Free Software as defined by Stallman. Richard Stallman is responsible for defining Free Software as something different from implied assumption about software being available for distribution, and created a way to define it in a legally-enforceable way.
No software produces data logs in Excel formats. The author of message you are replying to, has Microsoft Office stuck somewhere inside his data flow, and then he bitches that he has to use the same Microsoft Office everywhere else because it locks up data in formats accessible only by itself.
I hope, he will die in a fire, along with all copies of that VBA script.
Those licenses use rights given to the author by copyright to enforce rules that are the opposite of ones intended by copyright law. If there was no copyright, those licenses would be unnecessary.
While Flash is a rare piece of crap, the worst thing it ever did was crashing, being full of security holes (on all platrforms), being slow with video in 10.x versions, and having this idiotic "blue faces" pallette bug on Nvidia, that you have to turn off some "acceleration" to fix. It does not make things unusable, it just looks like shit by itself (version 10.x) and has security holes (on all platforms).
Slashdot Mirror
Pointing out that you are a moron because you don't recognize the current condition of technology development, is not an ad hominem attack.
Learn plumbing. Your "Enterprise Products" days are over.
How any of that is relevant to supposed "random breakages between updates"?
I run Gentoo on some of my computers, the worst distribution in the world when it comes to breakage across the updates (that is, it's the only major distribution that has such a thing happening). Things improved greatly over the last years.
There is only one X implementation that makes new versions of X.
I wish Linux advocates weren't so firmly in denial about the serious shortcomings of Linux distros. Being tediously pedantic instead of trying to address any criticism doesn't win anyone over either.
Never in my life I have seen, or heard of, any deficiency of hardware support in kernel that could be solved by installing another Linux distribution.
People do have problems with Linux you know.
Those who do, don't bitch about it on Slashdot, with all Microsoft talking points copypasta right after vague description of their supposed problems.
I actually use Linux, and seen no such thing.
Therefore you are lying.
We ARE in the dark ages of technology, you moron!
I understand how "copyleft" licenses hack the concept of copyright, but how does that mean copyright is UNETHICAL?
It enables kinds of abuse that can't be avoided without fundamentally changing its nature, at least for software in particular.
If there was no copyright, we would be living in a brave new world indeed. I'm still not sure if that would be a good or bad thing, but it would certainly be momentously different.
Whatever there should be (for example, there must be still defense against plagiarism -- it has nothing to do with commerce and control and everything about fraud), it should not apply a concept created exclusively for artistic expression to functional items that contain nothing but expressed thought.
50 years from now
50 years from destruction of Microsoft, not from now.
Do you know how much money I didn't steal from society through abuse of monopoly that I didn't obtain because I am a decent person? How many projects I didn't destroy? How many areas of human thought I didn't shit up by forcing thoughts-destroying frameworks on people involved there?
Any reasonably decent person, myself included, contributed to the development of society hundreds of billions dollars more than Gates ever will. Hell, even Jobs counts, and he is only a half-decent person.
...on par with Catholic Church and its Inquisition. His little "charity" is nothing but a continuation of his attempts to control people who are superior to him in every imaginable aspect.
As a person who works for a company that develops primarily OSS, and as one who has only worked on OSS software personally and professionally for the last 5 years (yes, *everything* I've written in the last 5 years is open source and free as in beer), this self-serving argument smells and looks every bit of the offal it is.
That's obviously a lie.
The author also overlooks another very important aspect with regards to open vs. closed source. In almost every case you take open-source "as is" because the author will almost every time free himself from any kind of responsibility with regards to running his software. You take it "as is" and when something goes wrong then you should have foreseen it.
Closed source otoh. often has loopholes attached to it. Even embedded in law. If I buy software and that software suddenly decides to erase my hard drive and I can prove this behavior then there's nothing stopping me to file a complaint at the nearest police station and have the author of said malware picked up for (for starters) destruction of my property. I can even file a suit for damages.
No, you can't. You can't sue the developer, either.
Also die in a fire.
Metro is immediately recognized by user as "Fuck you!" from the developers, so user will try to avoid it. Unity is just good enough to keep the user from installing MATE, XFCE or KDE.
Game artwork and scripting is expensive to develop. Game engines are not, at least not anymore.
You can't be friends with a company.
You can't even appease a company, so nothing is lost by accusing them.
So how is Wine better than having companies make native ports?
Adobe will NEVER port Photoshop to Linux, so one of those possibilities does not exist.
I dunno, manufacturers who do CAD and CAE would go to Linux if you had Solidworks and other CAE/CAD/CAM software on Linux. Wouldn't they?
No, they would find some other excuse to insist on using Windows. They would demand that stupid Windows ball logo buttons or something.
I had no problems using VariCAD (proprietary CAD that runs on Linux just fine already) and having perfectly usable workflow with manufacturing company that used Solidworks. In any case, DSS can have Solidworks port to Linux tomorrow if they decided to do so today -- there is nothing to stop them but their own capricious will.
No he didn't, he just branded it, now he talks as though he created all of it.
Actually yes, he did. Eric Raymond "branded" Open Source and made the term accessible for businesses, however the whole reason for it was businesses' fear of Free Software as defined by Stallman. Richard Stallman is responsible for defining Free Software as something different from implied assumption about software being available for distribution, and created a way to define it in a legally-enforceable way.
Why is it that I don't seem to have any of the problems others do with Linux?
You are not a Microsoft astroturfer.
No software produces data logs in Excel formats. The author of message you are replying to, has Microsoft Office stuck somewhere inside his data flow, and then he bitches that he has to use the same Microsoft Office everywhere else because it locks up data in formats accessible only by itself.
I hope, he will die in a fire, along with all copies of that VBA script.
Those licenses use rights given to the author by copyright to enforce rules that are the opposite of ones intended by copyright law. If there was no copyright, those licenses would be unnecessary.
While Flash is a rare piece of crap, the worst thing it ever did was crashing, being full of security holes (on all platrforms), being slow with video in 10.x versions, and having this idiotic "blue faces" pallette bug on Nvidia, that you have to turn off some "acceleration" to fix. It does not make things unusable, it just looks like shit by itself (version 10.x) and has security holes (on all platforms).
That's the crappy Firefox "OS-independent" graphics layers.
I call bullshit on this. Shut up.