All your "solutions" place the burden on the person, whereas the organisation should be free to harass people. The person has already told that he does not want to be called, by placing his number on DNC-list. Why is it so damn difficult for you and your henchmen to honor that request? "Oh, he didn't tell it to us personally, therefore he might be interested in our political propaganda!". Bullshit!
Seriously, respect the wishes of the person. Placing his number on the DNC-list should be a pretty clear hint to anyone, even to political sock-puppets like you. If he explisitly and knowingly places his number of a "Do Not Call"-list, I would guess that he wants that he will not be, you know, called? Seriously, what part of "Do Not Call" you do NOT understand?
hey, I'll come stand on your front-yard and start shouting my message with a megaphone. Don't want to listen? Buy some earbuds.
I guess the key issue between us here is whether telephone is a public or private medium, and to what extent free speech should be limited in either case.
You want a public medium? Get a soapbox, make sure you are required permits and start talking in such a location that allows it. But I REALLY can't understand why you think that my personal telephone which I'm paying for, is a "public medium"? For starters, there is no "public", it's personal communications between two people. Second, the phone-numbers are individual, and the person is paying for the service. Telephone is clearly a form of private communication.
And this is not a case of free-speech. I have no right to start shouting in front of your front-door, why should you have the right to harass me through my personal telephone? Because for some reason you think that personal telephone is a "public medium"? Sorry, but that does not fly.
I should be able to send messages via either system, provided you have not specifically asked me not to.
So, when the person tells YOU not to call him, you just tell your co-worker to call instead? And so forth and so forth.
You may disagree about this foundation to my argument, but that's what I believe.
I most certainly do! What makes you think that a 1-to-1 service provided by a private corporation, paid by private individual is a "public medium"? Seriously? Because it makes things convenient for you and your henchmen?
You are just annoyed because one universal Do Not Call-list is the most convenient way for regular people to let their wishes to be heard. it's very easy for them to have their number added to that list, and that is why you oppose it. The government is not "enforcing" anything here, the list is 100% voluntary, and people use it because they want to. Government does not force people on (or off) the list, they merely maintain it. Government is not "restricting free speech" with that list. And the fact that you think that they are, shows that you are living in La-La land. they are maintaining a 100% voluntary list that people can add their number in to.
If people had to individually tell everyone not to call them, it would be A LOT more inconvenient for people. And there would be ways to go around those requests. Company could change his name, and then they could just claim that "oh, you told company A to not call you, we are company B".
Seriously, why do you oppose a simple solution to the problem? WHy are you advocating a "solution" that would be a lot more inconvenient and complicated for people?
Telemarketing is not an issue of free speech. Not even when it's about politics.
And about the 1st amendment not guaranteeing the right to an audience, that still applies here. Hang up the phone.
So, if some asshole decides to come to my house, and start selling me his politics, my only alternative is to throw him out of the house? I mean, laws that prohibit trespassing on private property are violating their rights to "spread the word"? If I don't want to listen to what they have to say, I can't rely on laws against trespassing, but I would have to manually throw them out of the house?
No, companies or organisations do not have the RIGHT to call me whenever they choose. They should not have that right. I mean, if they have that right, then I have the right to march to your living-room and start preacing? Don't like it? fine, throw me out of the house. But FYI: I'll be back the next day. And the next. And the next. And every single time you have to throw me out of the house. If you don't let me in, you are violating my right to free speech.
of course you could pay some locks at your own expence. But then I would just stand in front of your front door and grab a megaphone. And don't you dare to limit my rights to free speech! I have some important things to say!
There's a distinct possibility that this guy is standing in a soup kitchen somewhere slinging food or handing out supplies.
It would be stupid for FEMA to use him for that kind of tasks. Anyone could do those tasks, but not everyone could fix their portal. And yes, having the portal up & running IS important! Right now it's not functioning and it's making the relief-efforts more difficult!
Or, the web developer normally has a lot on his plate that got even more complicated with the requirement of a high visibility, disaster-specific site. His boss probably paged him and said, "Get something up ASAP. It doesn't have to be perfect. Just get as much done as fast as you can."
Well, AFAIK, this website was there long before the hurricane. It's not like they created it in a rush just for this particular disaster. So there really is no excuse to actively stop non-IE users from accessing the website! None at all! they are making the relief-efforts harder, when they should be making them as easy as possible.
Is it a reasonable response in this amount of time? Yes, I think so.
What is "this amount of time"? Close to 1 year? According to archive.org, this website has been in existence October 2004!
Why do you think that re-designing the portal somehow reduces the amount of help they can give to the people? Do you assume that FEMA-webmaster is in New Orleans helping people out? No, he's propably in FEMA headquarters, sitting on his ass. If he spent half a day fixing the website, how would it reduce the resources that are being spent in New Orleans?
The problem here is that the aid-workers wanted to set up computers that the victims could use to access the FEMA site. The simplest way to do that was to use Linux Live-CD's. Pop in the CD and you are good to go. But because of the idiotic design of the portal, that plan would not work. So it's the AID-WORKERS who are complaining!
The purpose of the portal is to help people. But if people can't access the portal, it's not helping, now is it? No, it's not "quite OK", to deny lots of people from accessing the portal. It's not "quite OK" to make the work of the aid-workers harder.
The iPod nano offers flash memory, increased battery life, a color display, ability to play photos, in a much smaller package. There's tons of added functionality.
AFAIK, the Nano has less battery life than the Mini did. Nano has 14 hours of playback-time, whereas the Mini it replaced had 18 hours.
How exactly? because it has a taskbar? menu's? Windows? Icons?
Here's a newsflash for you: Just about ALL GUI's out there "look like Windows". Hell, even OS X looks like Windows (and vice versa of course) when you really think about it! If you designed something completely different, it would be so different to use that it would not gain widespread usage.
No-one else is allowed to add a GPLed library to KDE. Seems rather obvious really.
So? KDE can not determine the license of Qt, that's up to TT. KDE-folks obviously have no problem with Qt as it is, since they are using it at this very moment.
You have no case here.
How so? you make comments that make no sense. Then you comment how I have been "proven wrong", when the only thing you have proven is your rabid anti-KDE/TT-extremeism and general stupidity.
"Of course KDE can provide others the infrastructure to create proprietary apps."
Why?
Because they can? Because they choose to do so? Why shouldn't they do so?
You blather on without even thinking through your own argument. GNOME is not in the business of creating proprietary apps, but they are realists.
So go ahead and have a GNOME circle-jerk. I'm not stopping you from using GNOME, nor am I whining about others using GNOME/GTK+. I would appreciate if you and other extended the courtecy to those who use KDE/Qt. Obviously that's too much to ask these days...
Really? So why did they pick a totally non-free toolkit on which to build in the first place? Hypocrite. P.S. You might want to look into Qt history before replying.
When KDE was born, Qt was not "totally non-free". It wasn't free software, but it wasn't "totally non-free" either.
Why did they choose Qt? Because it was free for free-software developers and because it was the best thing available.
The "fucking problem here" is people like you, who do not even understand the basics of the licensing regime to which you have subjected yourself.
Well, isn't that my problem then, and not yours? Why don't you just care about your own business, and let me suffer in this terrible "licensing regime"?
Perhaps you'll realise one day that the licensing of Qt is the reason that KDE is dead duck in the commercial world.
It is? And even if it were, it doesn't seem to be hurting KDE one bit. It's more popular today than it has ever been, most distros use it by default, it has more apps and more developers then ever before. If KDE is dying, I would love to see what it would be like when it's thriving!
According to you, Gnome/GTK+ has better licensing. Well, even with that "superior" licensing they are not mopping the floor with KDE. Why is that?
Eh? Non-sequitur since in the FUCKING message to which you replied I discussed licensing issues and why Trolltech is creaming off money built on other people's free software.
How exactly does TT "cream off money" from others free software? if you write free software, you do not have to pay one dime. If you refuse to share the code, you have to pay. I really, REALLY fail to see the problem here.
although I find Qt rather braindamaged in many ways
Your comments have made it clear that you hate TT, Qt, KDE and everything they represent. Tell me something I don't know.
Who said they were against free software?
you said (and I quote): "You cheer Trolltech and KDE as a free software champion... and yet you refuse to admit, and will jump through hoops to avoid reading and understanding, the facts that prove otherwise."
Trolltech sees KDE as a nice little loss-leader for its commercial Qt licenses.
If TT offerred only a commercial Qt-license, you propably wouldn't care one bit. But now that they offer GPL'ed version as well as commercial-version, you whine. Strange.....
Again, haven't you wondered why no other GPLed libraries are allowed in KDE?
KDE-libraries are not the same thing as TT-libraries. TT can license their library any
Uh-huh. So what is it about? Free software has always been at the very core of Linux. In recent years Linux has gained attention of proprietary software, but that doesn't change the fact that Linux has freedom imprinted deep in it's genes.
Ummmm... that doesn't answer the question. Go back and read it again. "Why is Trolltech the only one allowed to have a GPLed library in the KDE project?" I realise you want to dodge this question because it goes right to the heart of your blindness on this matter.
What do you mean "allowed"? KDE chose to license their libraries under the LGPL, while TT decided to use GPL. And KDE apparently agreed to that. I fail to see the problem here.
Again, you misrepresent what was said
No I didn't. You claimed that TT charges money for the right to use Qt. If you use GPL, you do not have to pay ine dime. If you do KDE-developement, you do not have to pay one dime.
It's not my problem that you make no sense at all.
I want to write a proprietary app... why is Trolltech the only part of KDE that is allowed to charge for using its code.
*sigh* because TT wrote the toolkit and they can therefore license it as they see fit. KDE-folks decided to use LGPL instead. TT is not part of KDE, they merely created the toolkit that KDE uses.
Why is Trolltech different from the rest of the KDE libs
Trolltech is the company, Qt is the library. And Qt is not a "KDE-library". It's used by KDE, but it's not KDE-library. kdelibs would be a KDE-library, among others. Qt is a library that is not developed by KDE, it's merely used by KDE.
And, in case you didn't know, he who writes the code, decide on the license. TT wrote Qt, KDE wrote the KDE-libs. Each get to choose what license to use. TT chose GPL, KDE chose LGPL.
why is Qt different from the Linux kernel, or glibc... upon which the linux desktop is entirely dependant.
Linux-desktop is not "entirely dependant" on Qt. There are plenty of desktops that do not use Qt at all. Xfce, Gnome, Fluxbox, etc. etc. Take your pick.
READ THE MESSAGE. Fork it under the GPL, you dolt.
Why should they? Qt is pouring manpower and resources in to it, and licence their work under the GPL. What would KDE gain by forking it? They would have only fraction of the resources at their disposal. What would they gain?
Your English comprehension skills and understand of basic licensing are right down there with every other KDE zealots I've every had the misfortune to come into contact with.
It seems to me that you are biased against Qt, TT and KDE right from the start, so I fail to see what could be gained from this discussion. You hate KDE and TT. Duly noted. Go right ahead and use something else then. there are plenty of alternatives, so I don't understand why you have to whine about KDE and Qt. Simply make both of those a non-issue for you, problem solved.
Wrong... if all KDE cared about was free software, then the KDE libraries would be GPL too.
You just don't "get it" it seems. Of course KDE can provide others the infrastructure to create proprietary apps. What I meant by KDE caring only about free software is that they create free software themselves. They are not in the business of creating proprietary software.
In short, so even morons like you understand: KDE cares only about free software in that they create free software themselves.
I said that it's not suitable for building a free software stack upon that will be competitive with other desktops.
Well, it HAS been used to write the very thing you said it's unsuitable for. So you are obviously wrong.
That the end result of a Qt/KDE linux desktop is a control be Trolltech and a toll, charged by Trolltech, for building upon a stack of software including such such huge contributions as the Linux kernel and glibc.
If you don't like Qt, USE SOMETHING ELSE YOU FUCKING IDIO
Re:So what happens to Qt
on
TrollTech to IPO?
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
why is only TrollTech allowed to have a GPLed library in KDE
Because TT created the toolkit, and KDE decided to use it in their desktop? And since TT created the toolkit, they have the right to license it as they see fit?
and charge money for its use?
What? you have to pay TT in order to use their GPL'ed toolkit? That's news to me! Here I have been deluding myself that you can freely use GPL'ed stuff without having to pay anyone one dime. I know that the KDE-folks don't pay any money to TT, so I guess we should turn them in? My Linux-distro is GPL'ed as well, yet I didn't pay one dime for it. I guess I'm a pirate or something....
Oh, you are talking about using the toolkit for proprietary developement? So what gives them the right to charge money for it? Ummmm, the fact that THEY CREATED THE FUCKING TOOLKIT AND THEY THEREFORE HAVE THE RIGHT TO LICENSE IT AS THEY SEE FIT? If you don't want to pay for it, then DON'T USE IT! Seriously, this is not rocket-science!!
If you are such a hardcore non-proprietary guy, why aren't you pushing for the KDE project to fork Qt under the GPL
Uh, it's already under the GPL, you fucking asshat. Only thing KDE and others care is that is the toolkit available to them as free software. And it is. it doesn't matter to them at all if TT also sell the toolkit under a different license. It's not relevant to KDE at all, they care about the Qt they use.
Am I going to tell TT not to sell Qt? Of course not! I don't care if they sell it, since it has exactly zero relevance to me. I care about the free version of the toolkit. if TT decides to sell is under a different license as well, more power to them! That doesn't take away from KDE in any shape or form.
That you should not have the choice of license forced upon you just because you chose the use a library?
Like I said, you are NOT forced to use Qt. Don't like it's license? Fine, use something else and quit your moronic whining. TT is under no obligation to satisfy your whims.
What makes you think that you have somekind of god-given right to use Qt in any way you choose? I mean, you have lots of toolkits at your disposal. You can freely choose to use any of them. Then why this tirade against Qt? Since you are not forced to use it, then surely it's not your problem how they decide to license their toolkit? just use some other toolkit and be done with it.
or do you also want a pony and whine when you are not given one?
Do you realise that it costs more to develop Qt apps than it does to develop Windows apps
Yet many people use Qt for their developement-tasks. why is that? But hey, if what you are saying is true, then TT is surely on it's way to destruction, right? I mean, why would anyone pay one dime for Qt? But the strange thing is that many companies DO pay for Qt! Strange, huh? I guess they see some value in it which makes it worth the money?
Calm down Jihad-boy.
Funny, considering that it's you who is making moronic comments and demands. you seem to be on a Jihad to force others to give you more free stuff, which you could use to earn lots of money.
Just because you've had your hypocrisy exposed for all to see is no reason to get all upset.
So how much does it cost to write a proprietary app that runs on top of the Linux kernel -- compared to a proprietary app that runs on top of Qt. Oh right... I see. You were mixing your examples in order to cover up the fact that you are talking out of your arse
No I wasn't. Why should we give a flying fuck about proprietary software? Why should we help them create even more proprietary crap, and expect them to give nothing in return? Like I said: when did Linux change from being about free software in to being about benefitting and sucking up to makers of proprietary software? Was there a memo saying "from now on we must do everything we can to help makers of proprietary software. Forget this "free software"-crap!" that I missed?
"But companies can't write proprietary software using Qt without paying TrollTech!". Watch me as I don't give a flying fuck. Why should we suck up to them? Seriously? I value freedom, even when it extends to software. I have no inclination to suck up to makers of proprietary software. If you care so much for that software, stick to Windows.
Also, your understanding of the Free Qt foundation is laughably naive.
How so?
The use of the GPL for a library infects every single application that must link to it... which means every single KDE app, for a start.
Oh the humanity! Those poor developers of proprietary software! We must run to the Batmobile and save them! Those developers and companies are dying because the dirty commies at Trolltech are infecting them with that virus known as GPL!
I don't give a flying fuck about proprietary software. Linux is not about proprietary software. Free software is not about proprietary software. yet some people are crying because developers of proprietary software must pay to TT in order to use Qt. well, if they don't want to pay, they are free to USE SOMETHING ELSE! No-one is forcing them to use Qt! yet many do. Many use it to write free software, and many use it to write proprietary software (regardless of the fact that they have to pay). They don't obviously see any problem with it.
Seriously, what the fuck is this sucking up to proprietary software about? Or is it that some people want others to write free software so those people could then use that software to create proprietary software? Hypocrisy of the highest order in my opinion. "You must give me free stuff that I can use to earn lots and lots of money for myself!" STFU already!
Re:So what happens to Qt
on
TrollTech to IPO?
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
The problem with doing an IPO is that you lose a lot of control of your company. You might end up being taken over by someone else without your original vision.
Not necessarily. The old owners (in this case: mostly TT-employees) could still hold majority of the shares. You do not have to sell all your shares, you could just sell some shares.
What happens to KDE if the major shareholders decides to stop developing Linux/Qt and discontinue it, while keeping Windows/Qt and Mac/Qt.
Previous version of Qt would get re-licensed under BSD-license, as per agreement between KDE and TT. Also, KDE_folks (and anyone else interested) would pick up the lates free version of Qt, and start working on it. So there would be to Qt's: the commercial Qt provided by TT available on Mac/Windows only, and free-software Qt, developed by KDE and others, available for Linux, Mac and Windows.
Yes, but where does that leave proprietary applications?
If TT did what you fear, those proprietary applications would do just fine. In fact, they would flourish, since Qt would be under the BSD-license. That said, I don't care about proprietary apps. I find it strange that people are pushing free software. But when Qt and TrollTech is concered, those same people get their panties in a bunch because you can't write proprietary apps with it for free. Tough luck I say. Why don't you also whine because you can't take Linux-kernel and turn it in to something proprietary?
This is why having ONE company have complete control over the desktop APIs is a bad idea.
Huh? The toolkit is GPL'ed! I really can't believe when I see people whine because some piece of software is licensed under the GPL! I can see why someone would complain when some sofdtware is proprietary and you are dependant on it, but this is GPL'ed software! But if you don't like it, go use GTK+ and Gnome. No-one is stopping you.
Since when did free software and Linux turn from being about *gasp* free software, in to "we must satisfy the whims of companies who want to write proprietary software!". With attitude like that, why don't you people just stick to Windows?
The message these companies are sending is you can't, you will not, make money from *my* GPLed stuff.
That is not the idea of the GPL. You are welcome to make money, the oonly condition is that you redistribute the code and the moddifications to it.
That is a complete bullshit. They are saying that "if you base your product on our GPL'ed product, your product must be licenced under the GPL. If that is unacceptable to you, you can buy a commercial license from us, or use some other product". They are NOT saying "you must not earn any money from our GPL'ed product!". They are merely requiring the user to adhere to the GPL, nothing more, nothing less. If you use their GPL'ed product, and find a way to earn money by distributing GPL'ed software, great! No-one is stopping you! TrollTech is not stopping you! If the user does not want to use GPL, they can buy a commercial license, and license their software as he sees fit. it really is that simple. By offering a commercial license, they are not denying others from making money from the GPL'ed version.
I wonder if the restrictions put in place by these companies are not actually a violation of the GPL?
If you are really wondering about that, then I guess it's safe to say that you have no idea what this thing is about, and you are generally clueless about this issue. He who writes the code can decide the license. And the creator can use multiple license if he want's to. Trolltech (and MySQL) have a product that they are selling for money. So what they are doing is similar to what many other companies are doing. But they are also distributing their product under the GPL. So their customers have MORE choice and freedoms than they would normally have. Yet some people complain and whine about it! What the hell is wrong with you people?!
I mean it goes something like this:
TrollTech: Hey folks! We have created this kick-ass toolkit. It costs a bit if you want to use it in your commercial closed-source products.
Fanatics: *yawn*
TrollTech: Oh, we are also offering it under the GPL if you are interested.
Fanatics: What the hell is this shit?! You offer it under the GPL? You suck! How dare you offer us this toolkit for free?!?!
Really, have I entered the Twilight Zone or something? Offering software under the GPL is a bad thing?
Another product that uses the GPL + proprietary lock-in licensing scheme is Qt, by Trolltech. They also use their GPL'd edition as a loss-leader, in order to promote sales of the proprietary edition of Qt...
... Even those who trust MySQL and Trolltech must realize that their GPL + proprietary licensing schemes lead to future lock-in, and should be avoided for that reason alone.
Oh, not THIS crap again! I guess you would be happy if TT didn't offer ANY free toolkit at all? I mean, they are under no obligation to do so. But since they offer their library as free software, people whine. And that whining smells like hypocrisy. they basically want to use their software to earn money, but they think that the creators of the library have no right to earn money themselves. "Do as I say, not as I do!"
How exactly would TT make money? I mean, right now they earn money by selling their toolkit. And that money gets funneled in to developement of Qt. They also offer it as free software. What exactly is the problem here? You don't want to GPL your software? Fine, use something else then. You are not forced to use Qt in any shape or form. TT is under no obligation to satisfy your whims.
And what exactly is this "lock-in" crap you talk about? If TT started acting like MS or SCO, community would stop using their toolkit. KDE-folks would propably fork the last free version of Qt, and continue from there. How exactly could TT screw anyone over here? The moment they try to screw the free-software developers, they will screw themselves. Free-software developers would simply move to some other toolkit and/or fork the GPL'ed version of Qt. Where it the "lock in"? The toolkit if free, there can be no lock in. Of course TT can change the license to something else, but the software that was GPL'ed, will stay GPL'ed. They can't suddenly decide that "Qt 4.0 will have a different license", since Qt 4.0 has already been released and distributed under the GPL!
And I REALLY fail to see the problem with using free Qt as a "loss leader". This way developers can see what it has to offer for free. If they decide it's good enough for their proprietary work as well, they can buy a license, which carries some additional bell & whistles (support and ability to use non-free license). I fail to see the problem here. I mean, why exactly is it a bad thing when TT offers the community a kick-ass toolkit under the GPL? Would it be better if they didn't offer GPL-version at all? You are given kick-ass software for free, and all you can do is to whine and moan about it!
Seriously: grow the fuck up already! if you dislike Qt and/or GPL, use some other toolkit! The world is full of toolkits! wxWindows, GTK+, you name it. use those instead.
If they're not selling it (by which I mean actively promoting its use), why are you surprised when people don't use it?
Am I surprised? And last time I checked, that software IS widely used. And most users are grateful when they get that kick-ass software for free. then we do have those "Fix this! Now!"-types who feel that the developers are required to crawl at their feet and kiss their asses.
they will simply buy commercial software where they KNOW that the developer owes them something.
Well, the commercial developers don't really owe them anything either. If you have a problem with Windows for example, and complain to MS, you will most likely be ignored.
If you open more than 5 intensive programs on a p4 machine and swap between them you'll end up with lag which does not occur on a g5.
Are you using a SMP-G5? That would explain it. Lagging and stuttering does occur on uniprocessor-systems (all P4-systems are uniprocessor-systems), but SMP-systems the problem is practically eliminated (yes, that includes Xeons and Opterons, as well as G5's).
G4 itself is a fine processor. It's just crippled by crappy FSB. It's amazing how far they have managed to bring that CPU, using that crappy FSB.
But what would happen if you took that G4, increased the FSB to around 667MHz, added a integrated dual-channel DDR-mem-controller, PCI-E interface and integrated GigE and increased the amount of L2-cache from 512KB to 1MB? And on hi-end models, it would be dual-core. clock-speeds would start at 1.5GHz.
I wouldn't call that a bad CPU by any stretch of the imagination. That CPU is called MPC8641(D). And it would mop the floor with G5 on many occasions.
They should use a product that they don't understand and that we refuse to improve for them
The software IS improved. But it's not improved so that some AC on/. would feel better. If there is a way to make the system better, they will do it. But if someone comes along and demands (for example) that "I think it would be great if kernel handled the GUI as well! Do it!", he's not going to get very far. And when his suggestion is show down, he starts whining that the developers "don't care about the users".
Because THAT'S a good sales pitch...
But they are not "selling" anything. They are writing software. It just happens that many people find that software to be good and useful. But that doesn't mean that the developers owe the users anything.
I mean, really! The developers write kick-ass software and give it away to users. And still some people think that it's the DEVELOPERS who owe something to the users, and not vice versa?!?!
I don't think Linux-folks are really concerned about that. Sure, they would like more people using the software. But that doesn't mean that the users are "entitled" to something. If the user switches to OS X (for example), they wouldn't really care, since the people writing the software are doing it mostly for themselves. If someone else find their software useful as well, good!
But, the argument that Linux is free and that "the developers don't owe you anything" is getting old
No it doesn't get old, because they really don't owe anyone anything! Well, they DO owe something to their employers, buut some anonymous coward on/. is not Linus Torvalds's or Andrew Mortons employer.
This isn't helping anyone's cause. Learn to take and use criticism to make a better OS.
there is valid criticism, and then there are unreasonable demands. To me the GP sounded like one of those users who shout "This doesn't work like I want it to work! Fix it! NOW!". He MIGHT have something to argue about if he was a paying customer. And even then he should be complaining to his distributor.
Seriously, where does this idea that users are entitled to something come from. Yes, it's great when things work really well, and everyone tries to make it work. But that doesn't mean that developers are required to bend over backwards because some almighty user feels that he's "entitled" to something.
I care about the results, and so far the 2.6 tree has produced a grand total of one kernel that actually works for me (2.6.11). And the obvious cause, rightly or wrongly, seems to be Linus messing around with the development process.
if you have a kernel that work, why upgrade? And why use the vanilla-kernels at all? Vendor-kernels are the ones that are considered stable these days. And there IS a "stable"-branch of the kernel (the 2.6.x.y).
believe in experimentation but the kernel is such an important project that a bit more conservatism is called for.
In that case you should't be using bleeding-edge kernels, stick to the vendor-kernels. I mean, we are being conservative here?
I don't want to have to compile anything, ever. Just to make this clear, never.
You don't have to. years ago when I used SuSE, I never ever compiled anything, and I had no problems
Come up with either something akin to Windows where I click on a standard installer, or make it like Mac where I just drag and drop the folder.
Linux does have something similar. How about Yast or Synaptic or up2date? True, it's not identical to way things are done in Windows or OS X. But Linux is not Windows or OS X.
Any time I'm forced to drop to a command line, you as a developer have failed.
I don't think the kernel-developers are to blame if some GUI-tool doesn't do the job. They work on the kernel, not on the GUI.
Again, you have failed.
Failed at what? To satisfy the whims of some random user who propably hasn't paid one dime for the software he's using? Here's a hint to you: they (the developers) don't owe you anything.
Slashdot Mirror
All your "solutions" place the burden on the person, whereas the organisation should be free to harass people. The person has already told that he does not want to be called, by placing his number on DNC-list. Why is it so damn difficult for you and your henchmen to honor that request? "Oh, he didn't tell it to us personally, therefore he might be interested in our political propaganda!". Bullshit!
Seriously, respect the wishes of the person. Placing his number on the DNC-list should be a pretty clear hint to anyone, even to political sock-puppets like you. If he explisitly and knowingly places his number of a "Do Not Call"-list, I would guess that he wants that he will not be, you know, called? Seriously, what part of "Do Not Call" you do NOT understand?
hey, I'll come stand on your front-yard and start shouting my message with a megaphone. Don't want to listen? Buy some earbuds.
You want a public medium? Get a soapbox, make sure you are required permits and start talking in such a location that allows it. But I REALLY can't understand why you think that my personal telephone which I'm paying for, is a "public medium"? For starters, there is no "public", it's personal communications between two people. Second, the phone-numbers are individual, and the person is paying for the service. Telephone is clearly a form of private communication.
And this is not a case of free-speech. I have no right to start shouting in front of your front-door, why should you have the right to harass me through my personal telephone? Because for some reason you think that personal telephone is a "public medium"? Sorry, but that does not fly.
So, when the person tells YOU not to call him, you just tell your co-worker to call instead? And so forth and so forth.
I most certainly do! What makes you think that a 1-to-1 service provided by a private corporation, paid by private individual is a "public medium"? Seriously? Because it makes things convenient for you and your henchmen?
You are just annoyed because one universal Do Not Call-list is the most convenient way for regular people to let their wishes to be heard. it's very easy for them to have their number added to that list, and that is why you oppose it. The government is not "enforcing" anything here, the list is 100% voluntary, and people use it because they want to. Government does not force people on (or off) the list, they merely maintain it. Government is not "restricting free speech" with that list. And the fact that you think that they are, shows that you are living in La-La land. they are maintaining a 100% voluntary list that people can add their number in to.
If people had to individually tell everyone not to call them, it would be A LOT more inconvenient for people. And there would be ways to go around those requests. Company could change his name, and then they could just claim that "oh, you told company A to not call you, we are company B".
Seriously, why do you oppose a simple solution to the problem? WHy are you advocating a "solution" that would be a lot more inconvenient and complicated for people?
Telemarketing is not an issue of free speech. Not even when it's about politics.
So, if some asshole decides to come to my house, and start selling me his politics, my only alternative is to throw him out of the house? I mean, laws that prohibit trespassing on private property are violating their rights to "spread the word"? If I don't want to listen to what they have to say, I can't rely on laws against trespassing, but I would have to manually throw them out of the house?
No, companies or organisations do not have the RIGHT to call me whenever they choose. They should not have that right. I mean, if they have that right, then I have the right to march to your living-room and start preacing? Don't like it? fine, throw me out of the house. But FYI: I'll be back the next day. And the next. And the next. And every single time you have to throw me out of the house. If you don't let me in, you are violating my right to free speech.
of course you could pay some locks at your own expence. But then I would just stand in front of your front door and grab a megaphone. And don't you dare to limit my rights to free speech! I have some important things to say!
It would be stupid for FEMA to use him for that kind of tasks. Anyone could do those tasks, but not everyone could fix their portal. And yes, having the portal up & running IS important! Right now it's not functioning and it's making the relief-efforts more difficult!
Well, AFAIK, this website was there long before the hurricane. It's not like they created it in a rush just for this particular disaster. So there really is no excuse to actively stop non-IE users from accessing the website! None at all! they are making the relief-efforts harder, when they should be making them as easy as possible.
What is "this amount of time"? Close to 1 year? According to archive.org, this website has been in existence October 2004!
Well, there WAS a smiley in the GP-post, in case you missed it...
Why do you think that re-designing the portal somehow reduces the amount of help they can give to the people? Do you assume that FEMA-webmaster is in New Orleans helping people out? No, he's propably in FEMA headquarters, sitting on his ass. If he spent half a day fixing the website, how would it reduce the resources that are being spent in New Orleans?
The problem here is that the aid-workers wanted to set up computers that the victims could use to access the FEMA site. The simplest way to do that was to use Linux Live-CD's. Pop in the CD and you are good to go. But because of the idiotic design of the portal, that plan would not work. So it's the AID-WORKERS who are complaining!
The purpose of the portal is to help people. But if people can't access the portal, it's not helping, now is it? No, it's not "quite OK", to deny lots of people from accessing the portal. It's not "quite OK" to make the work of the aid-workers harder.
This is simply inexcusable incompetence.
AFAIK, the Nano has less battery life than the Mini did. Nano has 14 hours of playback-time, whereas the Mini it replaced had 18 hours.
How exactly? because it has a taskbar? menu's? Windows? Icons?
Here's a newsflash for you: Just about ALL GUI's out there "look like Windows". Hell, even OS X looks like Windows (and vice versa of course) when you really think about it! If you designed something completely different, it would be so different to use that it would not gain widespread usage.
How exactly are those different from SuperKaramba on KDE?
So? KDE can not determine the license of Qt, that's up to TT. KDE-folks obviously have no problem with Qt as it is, since they are using it at this very moment.
How so? you make comments that make no sense. Then you comment how I have been "proven wrong", when the only thing you have proven is your rabid anti-KDE/TT-extremeism and general stupidity.
Because they can? Because they choose to do so? Why shouldn't they do so?
So go ahead and have a GNOME circle-jerk. I'm not stopping you from using GNOME, nor am I whining about others using GNOME/GTK+. I would appreciate if you and other extended the courtecy to those who use KDE/Qt. Obviously that's too much to ask these days...
When KDE was born, Qt was not "totally non-free". It wasn't free software, but it wasn't "totally non-free" either.
Why did they choose Qt? Because it was free for free-software developers and because it was the best thing available.
Well, isn't that my problem then, and not yours? Why don't you just care about your own business, and let me suffer in this terrible "licensing regime"?
It is? And even if it were, it doesn't seem to be hurting KDE one bit. It's more popular today than it has ever been, most distros use it by default, it has more apps and more developers then ever before. If KDE is dying, I would love to see what it would be like when it's thriving!
According to you, Gnome/GTK+ has better licensing. Well, even with that "superior" licensing they are not mopping the floor with KDE. Why is that?
How exactly does TT "cream off money" from others free software? if you write free software, you do not have to pay one dime. If you refuse to share the code, you have to pay. I really, REALLY fail to see the problem here.
Your comments have made it clear that you hate TT, Qt, KDE and everything they represent. Tell me something I don't know.
you said (and I quote): "You cheer Trolltech and KDE as a free software champion... and yet you refuse to admit, and will jump through hoops to avoid reading and understanding, the facts that prove otherwise."
If TT offerred only a commercial Qt-license, you propably wouldn't care one bit. But now that they offer GPL'ed version as well as commercial-version, you whine. Strange.....
KDE-libraries are not the same thing as TT-libraries. TT can license their library any
Uh-huh. So what is it about? Free software has always been at the very core of Linux. In recent years Linux has gained attention of proprietary software, but that doesn't change the fact that Linux has freedom imprinted deep in it's genes.
Fucking asshat.
What do you mean "allowed"? KDE chose to license their libraries under the LGPL, while TT decided to use GPL. And KDE apparently agreed to that. I fail to see the problem here.
No I didn't. You claimed that TT charges money for the right to use Qt. If you use GPL, you do not have to pay ine dime. If you do KDE-developement, you do not have to pay one dime.
It's not my problem that you make no sense at all.
*sigh* because TT wrote the toolkit and they can therefore license it as they see fit. KDE-folks decided to use LGPL instead. TT is not part of KDE, they merely created the toolkit that KDE uses.
Trolltech is the company, Qt is the library. And Qt is not a "KDE-library". It's used by KDE, but it's not KDE-library. kdelibs would be a KDE-library, among others. Qt is a library that is not developed by KDE, it's merely used by KDE.
And, in case you didn't know, he who writes the code, decide on the license. TT wrote Qt, KDE wrote the KDE-libs. Each get to choose what license to use. TT chose GPL, KDE chose LGPL.
Linux-desktop is not "entirely dependant" on Qt. There are plenty of desktops that do not use Qt at all. Xfce, Gnome, Fluxbox, etc. etc. Take your pick.
Why should they? Qt is pouring manpower and resources in to it, and licence their work under the GPL. What would KDE gain by forking it? They would have only fraction of the resources at their disposal. What would they gain?
It seems to me that you are biased against Qt, TT and KDE right from the start, so I fail to see what could be gained from this discussion. You hate KDE and TT. Duly noted. Go right ahead and use something else then. there are plenty of alternatives, so I don't understand why you have to whine about KDE and Qt. Simply make both of those a non-issue for you, problem solved.
You just don't "get it" it seems. Of course KDE can provide others the infrastructure to create proprietary apps. What I meant by KDE caring only about free software is that they create free software themselves. They are not in the business of creating proprietary software.
In short, so even morons like you understand: KDE cares only about free software in that they create free software themselves.
Well, it HAS been used to write the very thing you said it's unsuitable for. So you are obviously wrong.
If you don't like Qt, USE SOMETHING ELSE YOU FUCKING IDIO
Because TT created the toolkit, and KDE decided to use it in their desktop? And since TT created the toolkit, they have the right to license it as they see fit?
What? you have to pay TT in order to use their GPL'ed toolkit? That's news to me! Here I have been deluding myself that you can freely use GPL'ed stuff without having to pay anyone one dime. I know that the KDE-folks don't pay any money to TT, so I guess we should turn them in? My Linux-distro is GPL'ed as well, yet I didn't pay one dime for it. I guess I'm a pirate or something....
Oh, you are talking about using the toolkit for proprietary developement? So what gives them the right to charge money for it? Ummmm, the fact that THEY CREATED THE FUCKING TOOLKIT AND THEY THEREFORE HAVE THE RIGHT TO LICENSE IT AS THEY SEE FIT? If you don't want to pay for it, then DON'T USE IT! Seriously, this is not rocket-science!!
Uh, it's already under the GPL, you fucking asshat. Only thing KDE and others care is that is the toolkit available to them as free software. And it is. it doesn't matter to them at all if TT also sell the toolkit under a different license. It's not relevant to KDE at all, they care about the Qt they use.
Am I going to tell TT not to sell Qt? Of course not! I don't care if they sell it, since it has exactly zero relevance to me. I care about the free version of the toolkit. if TT decides to sell is under a different license as well, more power to them! That doesn't take away from KDE in any shape or form.
Like I said, you are NOT forced to use Qt. Don't like it's license? Fine, use something else and quit your moronic whining. TT is under no obligation to satisfy your whims.
What makes you think that you have somekind of god-given right to use Qt in any way you choose? I mean, you have lots of toolkits at your disposal. You can freely choose to use any of them. Then why this tirade against Qt? Since you are not forced to use it, then surely it's not your problem how they decide to license their toolkit? just use some other toolkit and be done with it.
or do you also want a pony and whine when you are not given one?
Yet many people use Qt for their developement-tasks. why is that? But hey, if what you are saying is true, then TT is surely on it's way to destruction, right? I mean, why would anyone pay one dime for Qt? But the strange thing is that many companies DO pay for Qt! Strange, huh? I guess they see some value in it which makes it worth the money?
Funny, considering that it's you who is making moronic comments and demands. you seem to be on a Jihad to force others to give you more free stuff, which you could use to earn lots of money.
What "hypocrisy" are you talking about here?
No I wasn't. Why should we give a flying fuck about proprietary software? Why should we help them create even more proprietary crap, and expect them to give nothing in return? Like I said: when did Linux change from being about free software in to being about benefitting and sucking up to makers of proprietary software? Was there a memo saying "from now on we must do everything we can to help makers of proprietary software. Forget this "free software"-crap!" that I missed?
"But companies can't write proprietary software using Qt without paying TrollTech!". Watch me as I don't give a flying fuck. Why should we suck up to them? Seriously? I value freedom, even when it extends to software. I have no inclination to suck up to makers of proprietary software. If you care so much for that software, stick to Windows.
How so?
Oh the humanity! Those poor developers of proprietary software! We must run to the Batmobile and save them! Those developers and companies are dying because the dirty commies at Trolltech are infecting them with that virus known as GPL!
I don't give a flying fuck about proprietary software. Linux is not about proprietary software. Free software is not about proprietary software. yet some people are crying because developers of proprietary software must pay to TT in order to use Qt. well, if they don't want to pay, they are free to USE SOMETHING ELSE! No-one is forcing them to use Qt! yet many do. Many use it to write free software, and many use it to write proprietary software (regardless of the fact that they have to pay). They don't obviously see any problem with it.
Seriously, what the fuck is this sucking up to proprietary software about? Or is it that some people want others to write free software so those people could then use that software to create proprietary software? Hypocrisy of the highest order in my opinion. "You must give me free stuff that I can use to earn lots and lots of money for myself!" STFU already!
Not necessarily. The old owners (in this case: mostly TT-employees) could still hold majority of the shares. You do not have to sell all your shares, you could just sell some shares.
Previous version of Qt would get re-licensed under BSD-license, as per agreement between KDE and TT. Also, KDE_folks (and anyone else interested) would pick up the lates free version of Qt, and start working on it. So there would be to Qt's: the commercial Qt provided by TT available on Mac/Windows only, and free-software Qt, developed by KDE and others, available for Linux, Mac and Windows.
If TT did what you fear, those proprietary applications would do just fine. In fact, they would flourish, since Qt would be under the BSD-license. That said, I don't care about proprietary apps. I find it strange that people are pushing free software. But when Qt and TrollTech is concered, those same people get their panties in a bunch because you can't write proprietary apps with it for free. Tough luck I say. Why don't you also whine because you can't take Linux-kernel and turn it in to something proprietary?
Huh? The toolkit is GPL'ed! I really can't believe when I see people whine because some piece of software is licensed under the GPL! I can see why someone would complain when some sofdtware is proprietary and you are dependant on it, but this is GPL'ed software! But if you don't like it, go use GTK+ and Gnome. No-one is stopping you.
Since when did free software and Linux turn from being about *gasp* free software, in to "we must satisfy the whims of companies who want to write proprietary software!". With attitude like that, why don't you people just stick to Windows?
That is a complete bullshit. They are saying that "if you base your product on our GPL'ed product, your product must be licenced under the GPL. If that is unacceptable to you, you can buy a commercial license from us, or use some other product". They are NOT saying "you must not earn any money from our GPL'ed product!". They are merely requiring the user to adhere to the GPL, nothing more, nothing less. If you use their GPL'ed product, and find a way to earn money by distributing GPL'ed software, great! No-one is stopping you! TrollTech is not stopping you! If the user does not want to use GPL, they can buy a commercial license, and license their software as he sees fit. it really is that simple. By offering a commercial license, they are not denying others from making money from the GPL'ed version.
If you are really wondering about that, then I guess it's safe to say that you have no idea what this thing is about, and you are generally clueless about this issue. He who writes the code can decide the license. And the creator can use multiple license if he want's to. Trolltech (and MySQL) have a product that they are selling for money. So what they are doing is similar to what many other companies are doing. But they are also distributing their product under the GPL. So their customers have MORE choice and freedoms than they would normally have. Yet some people complain and whine about it! What the hell is wrong with you people?!
I mean it goes something like this:
TrollTech: Hey folks! We have created this kick-ass toolkit. It costs a bit if you want to use it in your commercial closed-source products.
Fanatics: *yawn*
TrollTech: Oh, we are also offering it under the GPL if you are interested.
Fanatics: What the hell is this shit?! You offer it under the GPL? You suck! How dare you offer us this toolkit for free?!?!
Really, have I entered the Twilight Zone or something? Offering software under the GPL is a bad thing?
Oh, not THIS crap again! I guess you would be happy if TT didn't offer ANY free toolkit at all? I mean, they are under no obligation to do so. But since they offer their library as free software, people whine. And that whining smells like hypocrisy. they basically want to use their software to earn money, but they think that the creators of the library have no right to earn money themselves. "Do as I say, not as I do!"
How exactly would TT make money? I mean, right now they earn money by selling their toolkit. And that money gets funneled in to developement of Qt. They also offer it as free software. What exactly is the problem here? You don't want to GPL your software? Fine, use something else then. You are not forced to use Qt in any shape or form. TT is under no obligation to satisfy your whims.
And what exactly is this "lock-in" crap you talk about? If TT started acting like MS or SCO, community would stop using their toolkit. KDE-folks would propably fork the last free version of Qt, and continue from there. How exactly could TT screw anyone over here? The moment they try to screw the free-software developers, they will screw themselves. Free-software developers would simply move to some other toolkit and/or fork the GPL'ed version of Qt. Where it the "lock in"? The toolkit if free, there can be no lock in. Of course TT can change the license to something else, but the software that was GPL'ed, will stay GPL'ed. They can't suddenly decide that "Qt 4.0 will have a different license", since Qt 4.0 has already been released and distributed under the GPL!
And I REALLY fail to see the problem with using free Qt as a "loss leader". This way developers can see what it has to offer for free. If they decide it's good enough for their proprietary work as well, they can buy a license, which carries some additional bell & whistles (support and ability to use non-free license). I fail to see the problem here. I mean, why exactly is it a bad thing when TT offers the community a kick-ass toolkit under the GPL? Would it be better if they didn't offer GPL-version at all? You are given kick-ass software for free, and all you can do is to whine and moan about it!
Seriously: grow the fuck up already! if you dislike Qt and/or GPL, use some other toolkit! The world is full of toolkits! wxWindows, GTK+, you name it. use those instead.
Am I surprised? And last time I checked, that software IS widely used. And most users are grateful when they get that kick-ass software for free. then we do have those "Fix this! Now!"-types who feel that the developers are required to crawl at their feet and kiss their asses.
Well, the commercial developers don't really owe them anything either. If you have a problem with Windows for example, and complain to MS, you will most likely be ignored.
Are you using a SMP-G5? That would explain it. Lagging and stuttering does occur on uniprocessor-systems (all P4-systems are uniprocessor-systems), but SMP-systems the problem is practically eliminated (yes, that includes Xeons and Opterons, as well as G5's).
G4 itself is a fine processor. It's just crippled by crappy FSB. It's amazing how far they have managed to bring that CPU, using that crappy FSB.
But what would happen if you took that G4, increased the FSB to around 667MHz, added a integrated dual-channel DDR-mem-controller, PCI-E interface and integrated GigE and increased the amount of L2-cache from 512KB to 1MB? And on hi-end models, it would be dual-core. clock-speeds would start at 1.5GHz.
I wouldn't call that a bad CPU by any stretch of the imagination. That CPU is called MPC8641(D). And it would mop the floor with G5 on many occasions.
The software IS improved. But it's not improved so that some AC on
But they are not "selling" anything. They are writing software. It just happens that many people find that software to be good and useful. But that doesn't mean that the developers owe the users anything.
I mean, really! The developers write kick-ass software and give it away to users. And still some people think that it's the DEVELOPERS who owe something to the users, and not vice versa?!?!
I don't think Linux-folks are really concerned about that. Sure, they would like more people using the software. But that doesn't mean that the users are "entitled" to something. If the user switches to OS X (for example), they wouldn't really care, since the people writing the software are doing it mostly for themselves. If someone else find their software useful as well, good!
No it doesn't get old, because they really don't owe anyone anything! Well, they DO owe something to their employers, buut some anonymous coward on
there is valid criticism, and then there are unreasonable demands. To me the GP sounded like one of those users who shout "This doesn't work like I want it to work! Fix it! NOW!". He MIGHT have something to argue about if he was a paying customer. And even then he should be complaining to his distributor.
Seriously, where does this idea that users are entitled to something come from. Yes, it's great when things work really well, and everyone tries to make it work. But that doesn't mean that developers are required to bend over backwards because some almighty user feels that he's "entitled" to something.
if you have a kernel that work, why upgrade? And why use the vanilla-kernels at all? Vendor-kernels are the ones that are considered stable these days. And there IS a "stable"-branch of the kernel (the 2.6.x.y).
In that case you should't be using bleeding-edge kernels, stick to the vendor-kernels. I mean, we are being conservative here?
You don't have to. years ago when I used SuSE, I never ever compiled anything, and I had no problems
Linux does have something similar. How about Yast or Synaptic or up2date? True, it's not identical to way things are done in Windows or OS X. But Linux is not Windows or OS X.
I don't think the kernel-developers are to blame if some GUI-tool doesn't do the job. They work on the kernel, not on the GUI.
Failed at what? To satisfy the whims of some random user who propably hasn't paid one dime for the software he's using? Here's a hint to you: they (the developers) don't owe you anything.