Remember this while the government works hard to eliminate all anonymous speech on the Internet.
How about learning to read?
District Judge Denise Reilly threw out four of the five statements, saying they were either opinion or the COMMENTS of others ON THE BLOG. With respect to the remaining statement, the JURY agreed with Clark's claim that Hoff had committed "tortious interference" by meddling with Moore's employment. Clark pointed out to the jury that Hoff, in a later blog post, took partial credit for Moore's firing.
Don Allen was originally named as a co-defendant because he sent a letter to the U of M urging Moore's termination, then copied the letter to Hoff's blog. Before the case went to trial, he settled with Moore and testified against Hoff. Allen, who operates his own blog, "The Independent Business News Network," applauded the verdict.
"It's unfortunate for all bloggers, but you have to have some sense of responsibility," he said. "You have to attack the issues, not the individuals."
There's the truth, then there's The Truth (TM)**
** Bill_the_Engineer wears smelly socks and should be banned from Slashdot because he stinks.
GNOME has a long history of "NIH" (not invented here), and Canonical has developed a reputation for trying to boss developers around (like when they wanted all the major projects to sync their release schedule with Ubuntu). In the end, they're both going to be irrelevant. GNOME shell is too late, and doing it their own way, going further away from what most people want in a desktop, and Unity is already outdated when you compare it to what's happening in the tablet world.
So a pox on both their houses. They sort of deserve each other.
Errrrrrmm.. *SHUDDER* Listen, "NIH" might be a real problem.. somewhere.. in some circles where engineers are spending too much time reinventing the wheel.
NIH was a big thing I've heard thrown at Sun a lot, and Gnome, and other OSS projects even. "Maintain the status quo" is unfortunately not a strategy for long term success. Building frankensystems out of existing parts isn't going to move anything forward. You wind up with "Linux" which is hard to define because it has so many discrete parts moving in every different direction. If Sun had heeded everyone's advice on "NIH", Solaris 10 might look like Debian with SunOS kernel I imagine. Hardly innovative.
I cringe when I see it tossed around at Unix systems. I know we're all proud of its decades old way of doing things, and I'm wary of the "throwing the baby out with the bath water" type problem that plagues reinvention, but come on already. The "Unix Way of Doing Things" (TM) is not enough by itself. There are huge parts of the typical Linux distro and Solaris that need do-overs. We can keep the everything is a file mantra, the under the covers openness, and the online documentation and still wind up with a totally different system.
Look at how Unix systems have evolved from a few multi-purpose, multi-user to very many, single purpose, isolated, very few user systems. Flat files are OK, but we need programatic interfaces to them, and standardized syntax. Applications should be segregated, exportable, versioned, and out of that, WAY more protected. Services need more than a standard start, stop, status. They need export configuration, edit configuration, import configuration, quiesce, and instead of merely syslogd, they need real performance metric reporting - work/latency. Then, remote instrumentation of all the above. These are pretty basic. These are all blindingly obvious things we need. Maybe these aren't suitable for the desktop, but I'll remind you that I'm talking about UNIX here. There is no part of UNIX tradition that is worth beans on the desktop, and we can't have a serious discussion of UNIX fundamentals while raising "but, the desktop".
I really, really hate to say this to the Unix fanclub, but try to Think Different, please.
The one issue I had with BluRay from day one is that too many of the distributors put required ADs for other movies on the disc which play without your intervention and do their best to prevent you from skipping them. HDDVD did not allow this, it required discs to proceed to the menu or just play. I think this one of the bigger reasons Sony used to convince the other distributors to switch to their model.
I read this as "same as DVD", and it sort of explains why BD had the support of most major movie studios.
ZOMG movie theaters are encumbered by mandatory ads too!
Microsoft gives away plenty of "free" software like internet explorer, visual studio express, security essentials, etc. They also have free email, search, etc. Bing has ads; hotmail has ads. What's so different from what Google does other than Google does it better?
Whoa, nobody said Microsoft isn't dumping. Look at the PC software market over the last twenty years. There's what, a computer or two in damn near every household now, and I don't have numbers, but think to yourself how much money each household spends on software to run on said computers. Subtract money paid to Apple and Microsoft. This is pure speculation.. I don't think there's very much money moving around for home PC software. Probably a rather large part of that is in games, and we know how that compares to other markets the same games are available in.
Home PC software has been dumped on - to death! FOSS isn't exactly contributing to a healthy market either... Don't be so quick to point fingers at any one group, everyone has had a turn at this.
The right to speak anonymously in order to protect one's self from retaliation from individuals or oppressive, tyrannical or vengeful governments is an ESSENTIAL part of the first amendment protection. So the judge is simply wrong about this. Having the right to speech is only part of the first amendment. Having the right to free speech without fear is the rest of it.
Sure, I'll bite, so to what extent is your anonymity protected? If I find out who you are, can I tell the rest of the world? If you speak something anonymously (what?) can I give a description of you later? What identifiable aspects do you think are protected? What WOULD you have protected? Should you be able to prosecute me for identifying you? How would you demarcate "anonymous" speech so that I know to "hide/make believe/look the other way" for any information I know about the speaker?
IP address - W.T.F. really? The Internet is not, and should not be a giant anonymous playground. It is not, because you have undeniable issues with privacy protections. It shouldn't be because it's not a fucking TOY anymore. Your "anonymity" is just a feel good construct for little minded geeks. If it requires legal protections, then what exactly does that do towards protecting oneself from "oppressive, tyrannical or vengeful governments"? If you want some anonymous fuck-fuck land, built it yourself, then see how ridiculous the notion of _protected_ anonymity is. You have to actually work at being anonymous, it's not GIVEN to you. Ask any god damned criminal on the face of the earth what it means to do something - anything anonymously, in THE FUCKING REAL WORLD.
In this case, stolen bits doesn't == lost sale. In this case, stolen bits == sale for the publisher. Microsoft has to pay the publisher of the game with real money that was bought with stolen bits. Also, congratulations on your ethics, that allows you to rationalize your behavior to this degree.
I don't get the "stolen bits" argument at all, but an even better comparison is generating gift card activation codes. Plain and simple fraud, bit or no bits.
My brother, who isn't averse to saying "you can fix my computer", is a truck driver. Next time he comes to visit me while on vacation I'm going to get him to haul some furniture for me. I wonder if that will be enough to make him get the point.
^ This is why iPads, iPhones, game consoles, computing appliances, etc are popular.
Most people don't actually _like_ computers because they are so fragile and require a lot of overhead to solve problems that are not really well defined.
It's gradually getting to the point that networks of "smart" friends & family will not be enough to keep the PC afloat. You're speeding up the transition to the point where people like your brother say "fuck it." If you stop helping him fix things, do you think he would pick up the slack? I bet he, like most, is already there.
I love your mentality. It is, unfortunately, being adopted by those on the left in the US. Has been adopted, I should say.
"Money from the government is free! Yay!"
It is if you get out more than you paid in. Isn't that really what your problem is, all the poor people making you slightly less rich with their greedy health concerns and ugly children? If we don't let money flow like water in a shallow pan, zomg teh economy will stop!
You can't disarm trolls, the whole point is to derail a conversation and/or waste your time. Trying to politely take the conversation in the direction a troll wants only sets him up for better trolling. Do try though, that will make for some truly EPIC trolls for me to amuse myself with [| execute].
There are all forms of criticism, good, bad, and ugly and then there are direct attacks at the coherency of online discussion for malice or amusement....
Actually, back in the day Apple was a very NICE company. Their products even came with circuit diagrams and hacking instructions. It was later on that they took on this whole BS "You don't own anything you buy" attitude.
Yah I know, the electric shocks you get when disassembling Apple hardware it a tad much.
There are all sorts of physical limitations built into any physical product, and you are OK to go ahead and grind those away if you desire.
You are OK to do _whatever_the_fuck_you_want_ with the Apple device you own, baring the illegal, and the violate your license agreement stuff. One is not Apple, the other... you don't own something if you signed a license to use it, so what is the argument now? We know that's not true of the device itself, so.... is anyone compelled to provide you with a service you didn't sign on for? I'm not going there.
Which is it you have a problem with, the software you only own a copy of, the hardware you can do whatever you want with, or the fact that turing complete machines cannot be mandated to allow - no, DO whatever you possibly could wish them to do without you doing it yourself?
Your hardware you bought doesn't _enable_ you to run custom software easily? Fine, my shovel doesn't let me ride it like a bicycle either. Get out a soldering gun or STFU the next time you get one of these "don't really own it" kicks. Until you get off your fucking ass and try to do real work on it, what gives you the right to complain about not "owning" something you bought?
If something doesn't do what you want, don't buy it and what do you care if others do?
That makes Android a totally kosher Linux distro, even if it is an unusual one with a special Java-based UI by default. It can't be suggested that lack of X11 means that it's not a Linux distro, since there are lots of other Linux distros without X11 too.
Sorry, Android is a "kosher Linux distro" as much as Phelps & WBC are "good christians".
I miss not having 42 daemons running in the background to do stuff that could simply be a library or utility loaded/run when needed.
Daemons provide shared services with privilege separation, you know, that old school unix thing./points at sendmail
I miss having the init system being a robust, straight-forward process of calling shell scripts in sequence.
Robust? With uncoupled running & enabled states? In sequence in the good old tradition of single core, single disk unix servers? No response to hung or dead services?
I miss only needing to reboot for kernel updates.
This is a flat out lie. The reason every other OS makes or tells you to reboot for changes to system code to take effect is because neither they nor Linux have any mechanism in place to guarantee all loaded/running code stays consistent with the replaced code on disk. When the heck did you think a libc patch fully goes into effect? What does "lsof | grep 'path inode'" say on these "no reboot" systems? What do you do with a whole data center that just got openssl patched? Hope for the best? What do you do, reload every single process on your system to feel better about not rebooting? Although it's theoretically possible - on a small scale, how is that in any way ideal in terms of uptime, stability, security, etc, compared to rebooting? It's an absolute shame that this myth is allowed to perpetuate.. You yourself mentioned using shared libraries (to access common data I presume, else it would not be a daemon replacement), running processes could wind up with different versions of that library for an indeterminate amount of time. This leaves leaves the shared data in a really FUN state!
I miss having one sound subsystem that never worked, rather than countless sound daemons which never work.
I don't miss screwing around with sound on Linux _at_ _all_
I miss having my immediately-after-logon process list fit in a single 80x25 terminal window.
Whats in your way?
I miss not having everything complain that DBUS isn't running.
If your init system didn't suck it would be [re]running.
I miss the Unix philosophy.
Which one? How to build a good OS 40 years ago?
It seems like Linux is just as good as MS Windows these days. Too bad. I liked it when Linux was an improvement over MS Windows.
Linux really has catching up to do, still, and always. It's pretty obvious to one that isn't completely oblivious to the last fifteen years of OS evolution outside Linux. It has reached the "good enough, cheap, unix-like server OS" goalpost and stood still for lack of leadership or vision.
I absolutely abhor the phrase "dumbing down" when used in this context.
Linux used to be something used by a tiny minority of people who were primarily interested in hard-core computer science testing and research. It was their playground in which they could work their art. By making it more user-friendly, it has gotten it into the hands of people who are brilliant in other ways so that they can work their art. Are you a graphics guru? A UI wiz? A scripting genius? A music prodigy? A 3D design master? A business star? A poet laureate? If so, then Linux is now for you, too!
It hasn't been "dumbing down" anything. If anything, it has been dumbing up--more and more people using it in smarter and smarter ways.
And the beauty of the situation? If you're a hard-core computer scientist wanting to do testing and research with new stuff, it's still there for you, too.
Yah, I get it. I get what you and others here are saying. Dumbing up with Linux, dumbing down for OS X & Windows, because user friendliness magically attracts smart non-IT people to Linux and dumb non-IT people to OS X and Windows.
I'd be happy with a real maximize button. For Windows users, what logically should be the maximize button (green +) is actually a "right size" button that performs application dependent actions.The response on all the Mac forums to requests for how to change the behavior to a maximize button is that nobody should ever need or want to maximize an application, because it is not the "Apple Way".
Uh, make your application fill the screen on the green + then. Lots do this, Java apps do this, almost any cross platform Mac port does this. It IS app specific as you said, and your friendly app developers made the call. Apple never blocked anything from running full screen, or full window size.
I want to hear a real argument for providing users with a button that makes a _window_ take every available pixel it can, regardless if the UI was designed for that amount of space, as opposed to letting the application's designer decide what the maximum window size should be, and when fullscreen is appropriate.
Then further justify it knowing that all shipping Apple displays have 16:10 or 16:9 aspect ratio.
The argument goes like this "but, but it's just always been that way" Not good enough.
The same thing could be said about public places. "Since we have built this new park three years ago, there have been 83 people mugged, 8 murders, 125 cases of lewd conduct, 20 cases of prostitution.... etc. etc.". Really, craigslist is just a public forum for commerce and other needs, although it exists on the web.
Exactly, so if you knew there was a significant amount of monetary transactions happening in the park, what would your gut reaction be? That's pretty much how I view craigslist.
Shorter version of TFA "Don't use the crime infested, but generally free Craigslist, pay our customers to place your classifieds safely, without the fear of VIOLENT RAPE!"
You don't suppose there might be really basic issues with free, anonymous, classified ads?
You all can pick on the study all you want, but I find it hard to believe anyone can reject the basic premise that anonymity with zero cost advertising is an unnecessarily high risk environment in which to do your business. Unless your into crime, then it's awesome.
a developer who is creating a new engine who said that graphics are no longer important (nor AI or anything else, presumably, since the following is the only item he stressed importance of) -- only the ease of use of the development tools was.
No, that was over years ago, even before Doom III and it's look how pretty I can make Doom I gameplay mechanics engine. The PC gaming industry has shown that shoving more crap into the same or lower average framerate does not a more fun game make.
only the ease of use of the development tools was
That's very biased and developer centric. If the technology is not really a concern, then what's next is designing good, fun, balanced gameplay. Go find a developer who will tell you that's in the bag.
*gasp*a filmmaker says his prime concern is doing awesome stuff more quickly. Doesn't really address the good effects vs. good movie issue does it?
The PC market does fine without subsidies, let console players pay the full price of their hardware so they stop saying how cheap their hardware is compared to a PC, while typing said message from a PC.
Have you really thought that through? That despite there being a PC or several in almost every house with a gaming console, and in those without, and the PC being the bigger purchase of the two, consoles both move higher volumes of games, and carry consistently higher prices for them?
What do you mean "does fine"? Just how big do you think the PC's slice of the software entertainment pie is?
I know it's strange to a geek who feels really good about him/herself for knowing as much as they do about some complex machine the average person does not, but the real truth is that the average person, and most people, do _not_ _really_ _like_ computers.
You might still be in denial, but most people do not have an emotional attachment to computers and will drop them in a second, given a better alternative. A phone, a tablet, an ereader, mp3 player, game console, anything. Sure, general purpose computers will be around long a long while still, but there is no love for them, computer geeks have squandered that.
But apparently they blamed the performance of.NET/Windows or the cost benefit of.NET/Windows otherwise they wouldn't have embarked on an expensive rip and replace operation in the first place.
Or instead of saying geez, we need to replace our OS, they said, we need to replace our trading platform, and got a good quote for one that happened to use Linux.
It's hard to believe that peace lovers would be opposed to the very kind of weapon that would reduce the bloodshed and put pressure on the very causes of wars...
That's because it isn't. If you start assassinating the enemy's leadership (whether it be with baseball bats or orbiting laser projectors), you're going to start World War III. And, because you've killed off all the people who had the power to say "stop", it will continue until we're all dead.
I hope you are kidding. We're talking about reality here, not Command and Conquer.
The logistics involved with keeping a flying megawatt laser operational are nearly ridiculous. Lifting all that to space doesn't make anything easier, and then you have, yay, more atmosphere to deal with. Maybe someday, but hey, maybe someday we'll all have autonomous flying cars too.
Not to mention the fact that the topic today is the NAVY's directed energy program. N_A_V_Y. Those are the dudes with boats, dude.
Anyway, I think something like THE ENTIRE RECORDED HISTORY OF HUMAN CONFLICTS is proof that constantly evolving weapons don't make war more or less peaceful. What an insane concept, you're both nuts.
Is this a silly way to say Oracle is not commercializing Sun's open source versions of the projects Oracle _owns_ and is selling? Isn't that kind of good for open source? I would think more distance between Oracle and OpenDS/OpenSSO would be a GOOD thing for the health of the open source projects?
Oh.. this is a slashvertisement, shit, and I fell for it.
They say "oh you didn't buy the (insert movie/game/CD) you bought a license to use it!" (and thus getting around first sale). Okay, I'll play. That means I get to replace it for free
If you buy a piece of hardware with a license to use the copyrighted content within and the hardware breaks, no you are not entitled to a free replacement. And because you own a physical copy of a copyrighted work, that does not entitle you with the same rights as the copyright holder.
I don't get whats so hard to understand about this.
Especially since the computer code has copyright protection anyway.
Why, lacking patent protection would someone feel encouraged to give you the source to a valuable algorithm? The natural response from those losing wanted patent protection is going to be increased secrecy.
Sure, you can eventually reverse engineer most things, but I fail to see how that advances the state of the art more than full disclosure. I can see how the patent systems needs some reforms, but not protecting software at all is going to evolve valuable software into "hardware", appliances and such.
And uhh, sorry, but the impedance of patents is not holding free software back enough for it to spring up and supplant these black boxes once they come.
Slashdot Mirror
The title says it all.
Remember this while the government works hard to eliminate all anonymous speech on the Internet.
How about learning to read?
District Judge Denise Reilly threw out four of the five statements, saying they were either opinion or the COMMENTS of others ON THE BLOG. With respect to the remaining statement, the JURY agreed with Clark's claim that Hoff had committed "tortious interference" by meddling with Moore's employment. Clark pointed out to the jury that Hoff, in a later blog post, took partial credit for Moore's firing.
Don Allen was originally named as a co-defendant because he sent a letter to the U of M urging Moore's termination, then copied the letter to Hoff's blog. Before the case went to trial, he settled with Moore and testified against Hoff. Allen, who operates his own blog, "The Independent Business News Network," applauded the verdict.
"It's unfortunate for all bloggers, but you have to have some sense of responsibility," he said. "You have to attack the issues, not the individuals."
There's the truth, then there's The Truth (TM)**
** Bill_the_Engineer wears smelly socks and should be banned from Slashdot because he stinks.
GNOME has a long history of "NIH" (not invented here), and Canonical has developed a reputation for trying to boss developers around (like when they wanted all the major projects to sync their release schedule with Ubuntu).
In the end, they're both going to be irrelevant. GNOME shell is too late, and doing it their own way, going further away from what most people want in a desktop, and Unity is already outdated when you compare it to what's happening in the tablet world.
So a pox on both their houses. They sort of deserve each other.
Errrrrrmm.. *SHUDDER* Listen, "NIH" might be a real problem.. somewhere.. in some circles where engineers are spending too much time reinventing the wheel.
NIH was a big thing I've heard thrown at Sun a lot, and Gnome, and other OSS projects even. "Maintain the status quo" is unfortunately not a strategy for long term success. Building frankensystems out of existing parts isn't going to move anything forward. You wind up with "Linux" which is hard to define because it has so many discrete parts moving in every different direction. If Sun had heeded everyone's advice on "NIH", Solaris 10 might look like Debian with SunOS kernel I imagine. Hardly innovative.
I cringe when I see it tossed around at Unix systems. I know we're all proud of its decades old way of doing things, and I'm wary of the "throwing the baby out with the bath water" type problem that plagues reinvention, but come on already. The "Unix Way of Doing Things" (TM) is not enough by itself. There are huge parts of the typical Linux distro and Solaris that need do-overs. We can keep the everything is a file mantra, the under the covers openness, and the online documentation and still wind up with a totally different system.
Look at how Unix systems have evolved from a few multi-purpose, multi-user to very many, single purpose, isolated, very few user systems. Flat files are OK, but we need programatic interfaces to them, and standardized syntax. Applications should be segregated, exportable, versioned, and out of that, WAY more protected. Services need more than a standard start, stop, status. They need export configuration, edit configuration, import configuration, quiesce, and instead of merely syslogd, they need real performance metric reporting - work/latency. Then, remote instrumentation of all the above. These are pretty basic. These are all blindingly obvious things we need. Maybe these aren't suitable for the desktop, but I'll remind you that I'm talking about UNIX here. There is no part of UNIX tradition that is worth beans on the desktop, and we can't have a serious discussion of UNIX fundamentals while raising "but, the desktop".
I really, really hate to say this to the Unix fanclub, but try to Think Different, please.
The one issue I had with BluRay from day one is that too many of the distributors put required ADs for other movies on the disc which play without your intervention and do their best to prevent you from skipping them. HDDVD did not allow this, it required discs to proceed to the menu or just play. I think this one of the bigger reasons Sony used to convince the other distributors to switch to their model.
I read this as "same as DVD", and it sort of explains why BD had the support of most major movie studios.
ZOMG movie theaters are encumbered by mandatory ads too!
Microsoft gives away plenty of "free" software like internet explorer, visual studio express, security essentials, etc. They also have free email, search, etc. Bing has ads; hotmail has ads. What's so different from what Google does other than Google does it better?
Whoa, nobody said Microsoft isn't dumping. Look at the PC software market over the last twenty years.
There's what, a computer or two in damn near every household now, and I don't have numbers, but think to yourself how much money each household spends on software to run on said computers. Subtract money paid to Apple and Microsoft. This is pure speculation.. I don't think there's very much money moving around for home PC software. Probably a rather large part of that is in games, and we know how that compares to other markets the same games are available in.
Home PC software has been dumped on - to death! FOSS isn't exactly contributing to a healthy market either...
Don't be so quick to point fingers at any one group, everyone has had a turn at this.
The right to speak anonymously in order to protect one's self from retaliation from individuals or oppressive, tyrannical or vengeful governments is an ESSENTIAL part of the first amendment protection. So the judge is simply wrong about this. Having the right to speech is only part of the first amendment. Having the right to free speech without fear is the rest of it.
Sure, I'll bite, so to what extent is your anonymity protected? If I find out who you are, can I tell the rest of the world? If you speak something anonymously (what?) can I give a description of you later? What identifiable aspects do you think are protected? What WOULD you have protected? Should you be able to prosecute me for identifying you? How would you demarcate "anonymous" speech so that I know to "hide/make believe/look the other way" for any information I know about the speaker?
IP address - W.T.F. really? The Internet is not, and should not be a giant anonymous playground. It is not, because you have undeniable issues with privacy protections. It shouldn't be because it's not a fucking TOY anymore.
Your "anonymity" is just a feel good construct for little minded geeks. If it requires legal protections, then what exactly does that do towards protecting oneself from "oppressive, tyrannical or vengeful governments"? If you want some anonymous fuck-fuck land, built it yourself, then see how ridiculous the notion of _protected_ anonymity is. You have to actually work at being anonymous, it's not GIVEN to you. Ask any god damned criminal on the face of the earth what it means to do something - anything anonymously, in THE FUCKING REAL WORLD.
In this case, stolen bits doesn't == lost sale. In this case, stolen bits == sale for the publisher. Microsoft has to pay the publisher of the game with real money that was bought with stolen bits. Also, congratulations on your ethics, that allows you to rationalize your behavior to this degree.
I don't get the "stolen bits" argument at all, but an even better comparison is generating gift card activation codes. Plain and simple fraud, bit or no bits.
My brother, who isn't averse to saying "you can fix my computer", is a truck driver. Next time he comes to visit me while on vacation I'm going to get him to haul some furniture for me. I wonder if that will be enough to make him get the point.
^ This is why iPads, iPhones, game consoles, computing appliances, etc are popular.
Most people don't actually _like_ computers because they are so fragile and require a lot of overhead to solve problems that are not really well defined.
It's gradually getting to the point that networks of "smart" friends & family will not be enough to keep the PC afloat. You're speeding up the transition to the point where people like your brother say "fuck it." If you stop helping him fix things, do you think he would pick up the slack? I bet he, like most, is already there.
I love your mentality. It is, unfortunately, being adopted by those on the left in the US. Has been adopted, I should say.
"Money from the government is free! Yay!"
It is if you get out more than you paid in. Isn't that really what your problem is, all the poor people making you slightly less rich with their greedy health concerns and ugly children? If we don't let money flow like water in a shallow pan, zomg teh economy will stop!
You can't disarm trolls, the whole point is to derail a conversation and/or waste your time. Trying to politely take the conversation in the direction a troll wants only sets him up for better trolling. Do try though, that will make for some truly EPIC trolls for me to amuse myself with [| execute].
There are all forms of criticism, good, bad, and ugly and then there are direct attacks at the coherency of online discussion for malice or amusement. ...
Did Slashdot just get trolled?
Actually, back in the day Apple was a very NICE company. Their products even came with circuit diagrams and hacking instructions. It was later on that they took on this whole BS "You don't own anything you buy" attitude.
Yah I know, the electric shocks you get when disassembling Apple hardware it a tad much.
There are all sorts of physical limitations built into any physical product, and you are OK to go ahead and grind those away if you desire.
You are OK to do _whatever_the_fuck_you_want_ with the Apple device you own, baring the illegal, and the violate your license agreement stuff. One is not Apple, the other... you don't own something if you signed a license to use it, so what is the argument now? We know that's not true of the device itself, so.... is anyone compelled to provide you with a service you didn't sign on for? I'm not going there.
Which is it you have a problem with, the software you only own a copy of, the hardware you can do whatever you want with, or the fact that turing complete machines cannot be mandated to allow - no, DO whatever you possibly could wish them to do without you doing it yourself?
Your hardware you bought doesn't _enable_ you to run custom software easily? Fine, my shovel doesn't let me ride it like a bicycle either. Get out a soldering gun or STFU the next time you get one of these "don't really own it" kicks. Until you get off your fucking ass and try to do real work on it, what gives you the right to complain about not "owning" something you bought?
If something doesn't do what you want, don't buy it and what do you care if others do?
That makes Android a totally kosher Linux distro, even if it is an unusual one with a special Java-based UI by default. It can't be suggested that lack of X11 means that it's not a Linux distro, since there are lots of other Linux distros without X11 too.
Sorry, Android is a "kosher Linux distro" as much as Phelps & WBC are "good christians".
What they really need is a free upgrade path from the pirated versions of Windows.
Why does the upgrade path need to be free? Surely it's worth _something_.
I miss not having 42 daemons running in the background to do stuff that could simply be a library or utility loaded/run when needed.
Daemons provide shared services with privilege separation, you know, that old school unix thing. /points at sendmail
I miss having the init system being a robust, straight-forward process of calling shell scripts in sequence.
Robust? With uncoupled running & enabled states? In sequence in the good old tradition of single core, single disk unix servers? No response to hung or dead services?
I miss only needing to reboot for kernel updates.
This is a flat out lie. The reason every other OS makes or tells you to reboot for changes to system code to take effect is because neither they nor Linux have any mechanism in place to guarantee all loaded/running code stays consistent with the replaced code on disk.
When the heck did you think a libc patch fully goes into effect? What does "lsof | grep 'path inode'" say on these "no reboot" systems? What do you do with a whole data center that just got openssl patched? Hope for the best?
What do you do, reload every single process on your system to feel better about not rebooting? Although it's theoretically possible - on a small scale, how is that in any way ideal in terms of uptime, stability, security, etc, compared to rebooting?
It's an absolute shame that this myth is allowed to perpetuate.. You yourself mentioned using shared libraries (to access common data I presume, else it would not be a daemon replacement), running processes could wind up with different versions of that library for an indeterminate amount of time. This leaves leaves the shared data in a really FUN state!
I miss having one sound subsystem that never worked, rather than countless sound daemons which never work.
I don't miss screwing around with sound on Linux _at_ _all_
I miss having my immediately-after-logon process list fit in a single 80x25 terminal window.
Whats in your way?
I miss not having everything complain that DBUS isn't running.
If your init system didn't suck it would be [re]running.
I miss the Unix philosophy.
Which one? How to build a good OS 40 years ago?
It seems like Linux is just as good as MS Windows these days. Too bad. I liked it when Linux was an improvement over MS Windows.
Linux really has catching up to do, still, and always. It's pretty obvious to one that isn't completely oblivious to the last fifteen years of OS evolution outside Linux. It has reached the "good enough, cheap, unix-like server OS" goalpost and stood still for lack of leadership or vision.
I absolutely abhor the phrase "dumbing down" when used in this context.
Linux used to be something used by a tiny minority of people who were primarily interested in hard-core computer science testing and research. It was their playground in which they could work their art. By making it more user-friendly, it has gotten it into the hands of people who are brilliant in other ways so that they can work their art. Are you a graphics guru? A UI wiz? A scripting genius? A music prodigy? A 3D design master? A business star? A poet laureate? If so, then Linux is now for you, too!
It hasn't been "dumbing down" anything. If anything, it has been dumbing up--more and more people using it in smarter and smarter ways.
And the beauty of the situation? If you're a hard-core computer scientist wanting to do testing and research with new stuff, it's still there for you, too.
Yah, I get it. I get what you and others here are saying. Dumbing up with Linux, dumbing down for OS X & Windows, because user friendliness magically attracts smart non-IT people to Linux and dumb non-IT people to OS X and Windows.
If there ever was a RDF...
I'd be happy with a real maximize button. For Windows users, what logically should be the maximize button (green +) is actually a "right size" button that performs application dependent actions.The response on all the Mac forums to requests for how to change the behavior to a maximize button is that nobody should ever need or want to maximize an application, because it is not the "Apple Way".
Uh, make your application fill the screen on the green + then. Lots do this, Java apps do this, almost any cross platform Mac port does this. It IS app specific as you said, and your friendly app developers made the call. Apple never blocked anything from running full screen, or full window size.
I want to hear a real argument for providing users with a button that makes a _window_ take every available pixel it can, regardless if the UI was designed for that amount of space, as opposed to letting the application's designer decide what the maximum window size should be, and when fullscreen is appropriate.
Then further justify it knowing that all shipping Apple displays have 16:10 or 16:9 aspect ratio.
The argument goes like this "but, but it's just always been that way"
Not good enough.
The same thing could be said about public places. "Since we have built this new park three years ago, there have been 83 people mugged, 8 murders, 125 cases of lewd conduct, 20 cases of prostitution.... etc. etc.". Really, craigslist is just a public forum for commerce and other needs, although it exists on the web.
Exactly, so if you knew there was a significant amount of monetary transactions happening in the park, what would your gut reaction be? That's pretty much how I view craigslist.
Shorter version of TFA "Don't use the crime infested, but generally free Craigslist, pay our customers to place your classifieds safely, without the fear of VIOLENT RAPE!"
You don't suppose there might be really basic issues with free, anonymous, classified ads?
You all can pick on the study all you want, but I find it hard to believe anyone can reject the basic premise that anonymity with zero cost advertising is an unnecessarily high risk environment in which to do your business. Unless your into crime, then it's awesome.
A lot of crime happens on the streets. What conclusion does that draw?
The street is a fscking stupid place to conduct your business?
a developer who is creating a new engine who said that graphics are no longer important (nor AI or anything else, presumably, since the following is the only item he stressed importance of) -- only the ease of use of the development tools was.
No, that was over years ago, even before Doom III and it's look how pretty I can make Doom I gameplay mechanics engine. The PC gaming industry has shown that shoving more crap into the same or lower average framerate does not a more fun game make.
only the ease of use of the development tools was
That's very biased and developer centric. If the technology is not really a concern, then what's next is designing good, fun, balanced gameplay. Go find a developer who will tell you that's in the bag.
*gasp*a filmmaker says his prime concern is doing awesome stuff more quickly. Doesn't really address the good effects vs. good movie issue does it?
The PC market does fine without subsidies, let console players pay the full price of their hardware so they stop saying how cheap their hardware is compared to a PC, while typing said message from a PC.
Have you really thought that through? That despite there being a PC or several in almost every house with a gaming console, and in those without, and the PC being the bigger purchase of the two, consoles both move higher volumes of games, and carry consistently higher prices for them?
What do you mean "does fine"? Just how big do you think the PC's slice of the software entertainment pie is?
I know it's strange to a geek who feels really good about him/herself for knowing as much as they do about some complex machine the average person does not, but the real truth is that the average person, and most people, do _not_ _really_ _like_ computers.
You might still be in denial, but most people do not have an emotional attachment to computers and will drop them in a second, given a better alternative. A phone, a tablet, an ereader, mp3 player, game console, anything. Sure, general purpose computers will be around long a long while still, but there is no love for them, computer geeks have squandered that.
But apparently they blamed the performance of .NET/Windows or the cost benefit of .NET/Windows otherwise they wouldn't have embarked on an expensive rip and replace operation in the first place.
Or instead of saying geez, we need to replace our OS, they said, we need to replace our trading platform, and got a good quote for one that happened to use Linux.
It's hard to believe that peace lovers would be opposed to the very kind of weapon that would reduce the bloodshed and put pressure on the very causes of wars...
That's because it isn't. If you start assassinating the enemy's leadership (whether it be with baseball bats or orbiting laser projectors), you're going to start World War III. And, because you've killed off all the people who had the power to say "stop", it will continue until we're all dead.
I hope you are kidding. We're talking about reality here, not Command and Conquer.
The logistics involved with keeping a flying megawatt laser operational are nearly ridiculous. Lifting all that to space doesn't make anything easier, and then you have, yay, more atmosphere to deal with. Maybe someday, but hey, maybe someday we'll all have autonomous flying cars too.
Not to mention the fact that the topic today is the NAVY's directed energy program. N_A_V_Y.
Those are the dudes with boats, dude.
Anyway, I think something like THE ENTIRE RECORDED HISTORY OF HUMAN CONFLICTS is proof that constantly evolving weapons don't make war more or less peaceful. What an insane concept, you're both nuts.
Oracle trashed a lot of former Sun technologies â" not the least of which is Sun's open source identity platform which included OpenSSO and OpenDS.
Uh.. I don't get it. Oracle still sells these, the DS anyway, maybe Sun's SSO was tossed, but Oracle had their own identity platform too. It's surprising enough that Sun's DS is still available and prominently listed.
http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/middleware/id-mgmt/overview/index-085178.html?ssSourceSiteId=ocomen
And, the corresponding open source projects are still here http://www.opends.org/ and here http://java.net/projects/opensso
Is this a silly way to say Oracle is not commercializing Sun's open source versions of the projects Oracle _owns_ and is selling? Isn't that kind of good for open source? I would think more distance between Oracle and OpenDS/OpenSSO would be a GOOD thing for the health of the open source projects?
Oh.. this is a slashvertisement, shit, and I fell for it.
They say "oh you didn't buy the (insert movie/game/CD) you bought a license to use it!" (and thus getting around first sale). Okay, I'll play. That means I get to replace it for free
If you buy a piece of hardware with a license to use the copyrighted content within and the hardware breaks, no you are not entitled to a free replacement.
And because you own a physical copy of a copyrighted work, that does not entitle you with the same rights as the copyright holder.
I don't get whats so hard to understand about this.
Especially since the computer code has copyright protection anyway.
Why, lacking patent protection would someone feel encouraged to give you the source to a valuable algorithm? The natural response from those losing wanted patent protection is going to be increased secrecy.
Sure, you can eventually reverse engineer most things, but I fail to see how that advances the state of the art more than full disclosure. I can see how the patent systems needs some reforms, but not protecting software at all is going to evolve valuable software into "hardware", appliances and such.
And uhh, sorry, but the impedance of patents is not holding free software back enough for it to spring up and supplant these black boxes once they come.