A German magazine did a similar thing a while ago, only they included MSIE.
They did? I'd love to see the article. Especially the part how they ran IE under Linux. You did notice that the article is about browsers under Linux, right? Suggesting a browser not available for Linux is as silly as a Windows magazine including reviews of MacOS and Linux software.
And what's up with testing on a ridiculously outdated machine? P166, no MMX, 32 MB RAM?
Sure, it's a bit old, but machines like that are still pervasive. School labs and libraries are full of computers like this. I'd rather not have my local library make a decision between providing usable web access and purchasing more books. It should be perfectly reasonable to browse the web on these old computers, saving money for other uses.
Actually, I think the Playstation mod chip scene more accurately demonstrates pure capitalism in action. You want a mod chip. A hardware company in a country non-restrictive laws wants your money. If necessary, the transaction will go black market, but so long as the amount you're willing to pay exceeds to cost to produce, someone will be happy to help you.
C++ may not be "timeless," but it's here now, and will be here for many years. Besides, improving yourself in one language helps reveal patterns and designs in other languages. C++ will be influencing language design for a long time.
So, here are a few C++ oriented books that I'm very fond of. All of them helped me improve as a programmer, not just in C++.
If you're working in C++, you probably want The Design and Evolution of C++ by Bjarne Stroustrup. If you're a C programmer considering C++, you need this book. It really helps get your mind wrapped around the language. C++ may be a mess, but at least you'll understand why it's a mess, and why it really couldn't have succeeded any other way. By understanding why C++ is C++ (and not, say, Java or C#), you'll write faster, cleaner C++. Even if you don't see C++ as the future, armed with the knowledge in this book you can better judge other languages.
For useful ways to improve your coding right away, I'm fond of Steve Maguire's Writing Solid Code and Scott Meyer's pair
Effective C++ and More Effective C++. Both will give you little improvements that will improve your code tomorrow, next year, and in five years. Parts of all of these books apply to any language. (My copy of Effective C++ is going on 10 years old, and I still find it helpful to reread occasionally.)
I don't believe that napster ever was *really* used to find new music by bands users had never heard of...
Actually, I know several people who did exactly this. (To be fair, I didn't, I used it for sampling.) They didn't "type some random words", they used other techniques. One friend would type in "jpop" to find Japanese Pop music and discovered a number of artists. Other friends would search for an artist I liked, find a user sharing that file, and look for unknown artists the user also shared. Neither technique worked great, but they did work, and my friends found new music.
Most users don't really need to recompile, they just need
to put binary modules together.
You're right. This is why most distros just install a typically configured kernel and make the kernel source optional. Your average user doesn't need to compile a kernel any more.
I've been happily and lazily running stock Red Hat kernels for several years now.
Keep the kernel ultra-configurable. It's useful for the people who really compile their own kernels. Make it easier for non-geeks by simply giving them working kernels. Sometimes you will need to compile a kernel, especially for unusual or very new hardware, but it's improving. Distro makers have alot of incentive to keep improving the quality of their stock kernels.
Tivo may have made a mistake, but they are letting you have a free ride they don't have any obligation to give you.
If I gather correctly, non-subscribers plugged their TiVos into the phone line to set the clock. Without the ability to set the clock, the TiVo is varely functional. TiVo promised certain functionality to non-subscribers when they purchased the unit, and that functionality included time based recording. TiVo didn't let users set their own clocks, so get this this functionality you must plug it into the phone line. Hacking around the clock is not a reasonable option. I shouldn't need to hack on the hardware (and void the warranty) to get basic functionality.
So, TiVo's upgrade took functionality away from users who paid for it. Of course people are going to complain!
You all sound like a bunch of fucking whiny kids that can't handle a couple months without TV.
Actually they sound like adults who spent $400 dollars on a piece of hardware which just lost functionality they paid for.
However, if you feel this is childish, presumably you're much more mature. I'd be perfectly happy to sell you any number of products that disable functionality without warning.
When reading these stories, I went to Amazon.com to see how much people liked their Tivos and its like freaking testimonials..."It has revolutionized my
life..." Have these people never heard of VCRs?
Yes, a TiVo is just a VCR at its core. But it is without a doubt vastly superior to most VCRs. If you want to watch a show you've recorded, just pick it from the menu, no hunting through tapes to find it. You can pick the show to record from a friendly GUI. You can tell it "Get me The Simpsons", and it will. Simply put, TiVo is easy. So easy that you stop managing your recording and viewing. You just watch what you want to watch when you want it. When you move from a 56k modem to broadband, you change how you interact with the internet, it becomes a utility you assume is present, like water. When you get a digital video recorder, you change how you interact with television, you watch at your convience.
You've done Mr. Finkelstein a great
disservice by quoting him out of
context. The bit about "underscoring
the important role lawyers can play in
society" is a quote from a lawyer's web
site. Mr. Finkelstein's article makes
it clear that he disagrees with that
interpretation. The title, and point of
the article is "'The
first thing we do, let's kill all the
lawyers' - it's a lawyer joke" It's
a good article, and I encourage everyone
to read
it.
And I thought one of the reasons to use
Free Software was to avoid complex
licensing issues? The GPL seems to have
as much controvery as any other license,
whether or not it is even enforceable
hasn't been proven yet in court. I hear
all the time that using Linux "avoids
all the licensing crap of MS". Well,
after reading this, I'm not so sure
about that. The GPL seems just as
complex and irritating, if not more,
than any of those lame EULA I click
"agreeing" to.
Compared to those EULA's, the GPL is
much simpler. You can use the
program, make copies for personal use,
reverse engineer the software, publish
reviews of the software, modify the
source, and use the modifications
yourself. All without agreeing to the
GPL at all. You only need to agree to
the GPL when you want to redistribute
the program to other people. So far,
without even agreeing to the GPL you've
avoided all sorts of complex licensing
issues. No legal weirdness at all.
Basic copyright law. Nothing legally
uncertain at all.
Now, for the privledge of
redistributing the software to others,
you have to start paying attention to
the GPL. Sure, it's a bit of a pain,
but with most software protected by
EULA, you can't redistribute it at all.
So, as an end user, using GPL
software is perfectly safe.
You're missing the point. RedHat ships binaries to users. They also ship source, but that's not really their focus. They may modify the source and ship modified binaries if they feel it improves their distribution. With Bernstein's license, they can't do this.
In addition, you're quoting the GNU project out of context when you say Bernstein's license matches freedom 2 "The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor."
the same page that lists the freedoms also clearly says, "The freedom to redistribute copies must include binary or executable forms of the program, as well as source code." Clearly Bernstein's license doesn't allow binary forms of modified code.
Fortunately, as you point out, Bernstein's code "NEVER" has holes in it, so we don't need to worry about it. Of course, I'm more impressed with your ability to travel into the future and confirm this. Unfortunately Red Hat is not able to visit to future to check this, so errs on the side or caution.
In addition, while Bernstein's software has never had any holes under Bernstein's narrow definition, Linux itself might have problems which require modifying qmail as a workaround. This is quite common, and while Bernstein can complain all he wants that it's the operating system's fault, the rest of us need to deal with the reality of the hole and find a workaround.
This has happened before, and under Bernstein's license, Red Hat can't ship patched binary to fix it.
What's the deal with every software project having to come up with a code name for each release.
Code names make it clear that the code is under development. If you always refer to it as "Bender", no one is going to mistakenly assume it's a stable release. No pointy haired boss is going to ask to have "Seawolf RedHat" installed on your mission critical server, but he might ask for Linux 2.5.
A codename lets you avoid picking a version number.
This is more common in commercial software, where you don't know if the next version is going to be 1.4, 2.0, 7.0, or 2000. While marketing bickers over the name, the development team needs something to call it. This is even more useful when you're talking about long term timelines.
Humor value. "I am Bender, insert alcohol!" The world needs more reasons to smile.
What's wrong with using open source as a weapon against another company? In any case where a free price, open source product can be used to kill another product, a free price, closed source product could do the same thing. Your example (Microsoft's attack on Quarterdeck), shows this. Microsoft's release of a free price web browser to attack Netscape is indentical. This is common practice between businesses. At least if the attack is made with open source, the public wins by getting software they can modify and upgrade.
The 20-year term it may be true that the particular embodiment will be obsolete, but the idea could well still be very valuable.
Patents aren't supposed to expire when they cease to be valuable. Patents should still be valuable when they expire. In exchange for granting a brief monopoly now, the public get access to the useful invention later. With the rapid rate of technological advance, many patents only expire when they are worthless. So what exactly is the public gaining? That's not the spirit of the agreement.
(Reposted because Slashdot got confused and decided I was an Anonymous Coward.)
What was the father doing while Sean was
being bullied? Did he go to the school then? Did
he report the bullying? Did he demand that the
bullies (if they actually touched Sean) be
charged with assault?
What can the father do? Sure, he can
report it to the school. Will the school do
anything? Can the school do anything? If no
adults saw the incidents, they effectively didn't
happen. It becomes a "he hit me" "no I didn't"
disagreement, which kid do you believe? Similar
for pressing assault charges, without evidence or
credible (adult) witnesses, it will never fly.
If you try (and fail) to stop the bullies through
these methods, you've simply encouraged the
bullies to continue their behavior.
Worse, often these victims are being singled
out by the system for engaging the "disruptive"
behavoir. Not fighting, or threats, but
publishing independent student newspapers,
complaining about other students behavoir,
protesting school attitudes. The only crime is
thinking against the system. Soon it becomes
clear that the school, the teachers and staff,
and in some cases your parents, are a danger to
be avoided, not allies to seek out.
I lived through this. I was lucky, my
experiences weren't as harsh as many reports I've
heard, but it still hurt at the time. There are
several teachers and administrators from my high
school for whom I still hold grudges against.
It's hard to feel that a school will support you
when the principal threatens you with lawsuits
for printing (with your own money) an independent
student newspaper (Hi Robert G.!) It's hard to
approach a teacher who threatens fail you if you
continue to question the value of their tests
(even though you scored excellently on the tests)
(Hi Ms D!).
Schools are trying to deal with the perception
of increased violence in the simplest, easiest,
cheapest manner. Actually solving the problem
requires more adults keeping watch and
investigations of reports. These take time and
money, most schools have neither available.
Until these fundamental problems are addressed,
the bullies have an edge. The best we can do is
support the victims.
Sure, it's great and all that it's running on linux, but why ELSE would I wanna buy your machine over someone else's?
Because there are plenty of cool games for it.
Of course, for there to be plenty of cool games for it, you'll need lots of mainstream developers excited about the system and wanting to develop for it.
What would excite a developer? How about little to no licensing fees? Right now, developing a console title means you give big bucks to console manufacter for the initial development kit and licensing rights for every copy you produce. You're kissing a healthy chunk of potential profit goodbye. In fact, if your game only does modestly well, the console manufacterer can get rich off of your licensing fees while you make nothing.
How about never waiting for the console manufacturer to help you. Development teams often beat their heads against bugs black box libraries from the console manufacturer. Open source means you have freedom to solve your own problems.
Will this work? I have no idea. But I think it's possible.
The KDE/Gnome competition isn't as horrible as Microsoft believes or portrays. All mainstream distributions are shipping supporting libraries for both. Just pick the one you prefer and get on with life, most of your users will be able to use your software. Maybe your program won't mesh elegantly with their desktop environment choice, but it will be usable.
I can't think of any reason why
you would want to break the
encryption on copyrighted materials.
Eventually the copyrighted materials will enter the public domain. DVDs of old movies will do so in the forseeable future. When this happens, I will want to be able to produce copies at that point.
I find encryption fascinating, and am interested in pushing the state of the art in encryption technologies. Studying the weaknesses of existing systems for myself is a good way to learn.
I want to show portions of several movies from DVD as part of a presentation on special effects techniques. I need the high quality DVD provides to show little details often lost in a VHS copy. I want to be assemble short clips I can show side by side.
All of these are legal (in terms of copyright) and ethical. All of these are important freedoms and rights. All are effectively prohibited due to anti-circumvention laws.
I always thought the NSA handled this... or at least they would have the most input into any
of the things related to security....
enhance digital information security by publishing an advanced encryption standard and guidance for federal agencies on its use;
[snip]
The NSA is not terribly well know for sharing secrets, especially encryption secrets. We need an openly developed and studied encryption system. The advanced encryption standard discussed above is the Advanced Encryption Standard,
which NIST chose last October. The AES will be a boon for government and private industry, giving the world a trustworthy, peer-reviewed encryption system that everyone can agree on. Government needs an encryption system and wants the best one possible. The American people deserve to know what system our government is using so that we can check it's quality ourselves. Someone needed to make this decision, and it was NIST's job. I'm quite happy with their effort. The world's top cryptographer all agreed that Rijndael (AES) is something they would be comfortable.
People, even non-technical people, love customizing their systems. In doing so, they make the machine "theirs." They spend hours messing with the backgrounds, the icons, and the sounds. Given an easy interface, the like messing with themes and skins. People love putting pictures of their children or dog on their background, having a dinosaur for their cursor, and skinning Winamp with a picture of their favorite TV show. The easier it is, the more likely they are to do it.
I personally feel it is too bad that
the Linux community can't agree to build on
one graphical environment.
Yes, Linux needs to grow up and have a
single, consistant interface, just like
Windows. Look at the many products which
accept the need for conformance under
Windows. Products like
Softimage
(example)
(though they may have an advantage, being
owned by Microsoft for a while),
LightWave [6]
(example,
check out the conforming buttons and tabs), and
Kai's Power Tools
(example)
Media players naturally conform to the
standard Windows look and feel.
Winamp
led the way. Soon there were competitors like
K-Jofol
and
Sonique
which felt that they could make their mp3
players conform even better to Windows GUI
standards.
RealPlayer
quickly followed. Apple realized they
couldn't rehash the Macintosh interface for
QuickTime,
and delivered a version that perfectly
matched the Windows standard. Not to be out
done, Microsoft released a new version of the
Windows Media Player
which perfectly complied with the Windows
standards for interfaces.
Thank you, Microsoft, for getting the
world to agree on one graphical environment.
Thanks to your efforts to end competition,
there is no risk of the Windows platform
fragmenting into a pile of inconsistent
applications, each making their own rules.
*Complete* fluency in C++ and Perl? If you mean "solid knowledge of the practical working set of the language and a good idea of where to look for the less common stuff," sure, I'm fluent in both and I have several friends who are. If you mean "knows every little detail and interaction," no. Of course, do you know anyone who could claim complete fluency in english under that definition.
Perl was designed to mirror human languages, not computer languages.
(C++ may not have been designed in this way, but it certainly has evolved in a very similar direction.)
You're not expected to completely understand the language, you're expected to quickly learn a fairly small working set of features, then slowly grow that knowledge as you grow in the language. Like english, or any other human language, both you and the language constantly grow to handle new problems and solutions. This is part of the reason Perl and C++ are so popular, they're living languages with practical goals. They don't force certain designs and strategies on you, they try to let you work with them as you will.
I prefer to have hate speech out in the open. It makes it easier to spot those likely to engage in violence. If the site is censored, do you really believe that those people considering violence will stop?
Slashdot Mirror
A German magazine did a similar thing a while ago, only they included MSIE.
They did? I'd love to see the article. Especially the part how they ran IE under Linux. You did notice that the article is about browsers under Linux, right? Suggesting a browser not available for Linux is as silly as a Windows magazine including reviews of MacOS and Linux software.
And what's up with testing on a ridiculously outdated machine? P166, no MMX, 32 MB RAM?
Sure, it's a bit old, but machines like that are still pervasive. School labs and libraries are full of computers like this. I'd rather not have my local library make a decision between providing usable web access and purchasing more books. It should be perfectly reasonable to browse the web on these old computers, saving money for other uses.
Actually, I think the Playstation mod chip scene more accurately demonstrates pure capitalism in action. You want a mod chip. A hardware company in a country non-restrictive laws wants your money. If necessary, the transaction will go black market, but so long as the amount you're willing to pay exceeds to cost to produce, someone will be happy to help you.
C++ may not be "timeless," but it's here now, and will be here for many years. Besides, improving yourself in one language helps reveal patterns and designs in other languages. C++ will be influencing language design for a long time.
So, here are a few C++ oriented books that I'm very fond of. All of them helped me improve as a programmer, not just in C++.
If you're working in C++, you probably want The Design and Evolution of C++ by Bjarne Stroustrup. If you're a C programmer considering C++, you need this book. It really helps get your mind wrapped around the language. C++ may be a mess, but at least you'll understand why it's a mess, and why it really couldn't have succeeded any other way. By understanding why C++ is C++ (and not, say, Java or C#), you'll write faster, cleaner C++. Even if you don't see C++ as the future, armed with the knowledge in this book you can better judge other languages.
For useful ways to improve your coding right away, I'm fond of Steve Maguire's Writing Solid Code and Scott Meyer's pair Effective C++ and More Effective C++ . Both will give you little improvements that will improve your code tomorrow, next year, and in five years. Parts of all of these books apply to any language. (My copy of Effective C++ is going on 10 years old, and I still find it helpful to reread occasionally.)
I don't believe that napster ever was *really* used to find new music by bands users had never heard of...
Actually, I know several people who did exactly this. (To be fair, I didn't, I used it for sampling.) They didn't "type some random words", they used other techniques. One friend would type in "jpop" to find Japanese Pop music and discovered a number of artists. Other friends would search for an artist I liked, find a user sharing that file, and look for unknown artists the user also shared. Neither technique worked great, but they did work, and my friends found new music.
You're right. This is why most distros just install a typically configured kernel and make the kernel source optional. Your average user doesn't need to compile a kernel any more. I've been happily and lazily running stock Red Hat kernels for several years now.
Keep the kernel ultra-configurable. It's useful for the people who really compile their own kernels. Make it easier for non-geeks by simply giving them working kernels. Sometimes you will need to compile a kernel, especially for unusual or very new hardware, but it's improving. Distro makers have alot of incentive to keep improving the quality of their stock kernels.
Tivo may have made a mistake, but they are letting you have a free ride they don't have any obligation to give you.
If I gather correctly, non-subscribers plugged their TiVos into the phone line to set the clock. Without the ability to set the clock, the TiVo is varely functional. TiVo promised certain functionality to non-subscribers when they purchased the unit, and that functionality included time based recording. TiVo didn't let users set their own clocks, so get this this functionality you must plug it into the phone line. Hacking around the clock is not a reasonable option. I shouldn't need to hack on the hardware (and void the warranty) to get basic functionality.
So, TiVo's upgrade took functionality away from users who paid for it. Of course people are going to complain!
You all sound like a bunch of fucking whiny kids that can't handle a couple months without TV.
Actually they sound like adults who spent $400 dollars on a piece of hardware which just lost functionality they paid for.
However, if you feel this is childish, presumably you're much more mature. I'd be perfectly happy to sell you any number of products that disable functionality without warning.
When reading these stories, I went to Amazon.com to see how much people liked their Tivos and its like freaking testimonials..."It has revolutionized my life..." Have these people never heard of VCRs?
Yes, a TiVo is just a VCR at its core. But it is without a doubt vastly superior to most VCRs. If you want to watch a show you've recorded, just pick it from the menu, no hunting through tapes to find it. You can pick the show to record from a friendly GUI. You can tell it "Get me The Simpsons", and it will. Simply put, TiVo is easy. So easy that you stop managing your recording and viewing. You just watch what you want to watch when you want it. When you move from a 56k modem to broadband, you change how you interact with the internet, it becomes a utility you assume is present, like water. When you get a digital video recorder, you change how you interact with television, you watch at your convience.
You've done Mr. Finkelstein a great disservice by quoting him out of context. The bit about "underscoring the important role lawyers can play in society" is a quote from a lawyer's web site. Mr. Finkelstein's article makes it clear that he disagrees with that interpretation. The title, and point of the article is "'The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers' - it's a lawyer joke" It's a good article, and I encourage everyone to read it.
Compared to those EULA's, the GPL is much simpler. You can use the program, make copies for personal use, reverse engineer the software, publish reviews of the software, modify the source, and use the modifications yourself. All without agreeing to the GPL at all. You only need to agree to the GPL when you want to redistribute the program to other people. So far, without even agreeing to the GPL you've avoided all sorts of complex licensing issues. No legal weirdness at all. Basic copyright law. Nothing legally uncertain at all.
Now, for the privledge of redistributing the software to others, you have to start paying attention to the GPL. Sure, it's a bit of a pain, but with most software protected by EULA, you can't redistribute it at all.
So, as an end user, using GPL software is perfectly safe.
Because Mandrake may be easy to install, but it's even easier to just keep the Windows 9x that was installed when you bought your computer.
Hoping to capture the desktop in a sudden coup is overly optimistic.. Slow and steady progress will earn Linux's share, just like the last ten years.
You're missing the point. RedHat ships binaries to users. They also ship source, but that's not really their focus. They may modify the source and ship modified binaries if they feel it improves their distribution. With Bernstein's license, they can't do this.
In addition, you're quoting the GNU project out of context when you say Bernstein's license matches freedom 2 "The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor." the same page that lists the freedoms also clearly says, "The freedom to redistribute copies must include binary or executable forms of the program, as well as source code." Clearly Bernstein's license doesn't allow binary forms of modified code.
Fortunately, as you point out, Bernstein's code "NEVER" has holes in it, so we don't need to worry about it. Of course, I'm more impressed with your ability to travel into the future and confirm this. Unfortunately Red Hat is not able to visit to future to check this, so errs on the side or caution.
In addition, while Bernstein's software has never had any holes under Bernstein's narrow definition, Linux itself might have problems which require modifying qmail as a workaround. This is quite common, and while Bernstein can complain all he wants that it's the operating system's fault, the rest of us need to deal with the reality of the hole and find a workaround. This has happened before, and under Bernstein's license, Red Hat can't ship patched binary to fix it.
A good summary of Larry Walter's lawn chair flight is available at Snopes.
What's wrong with using open source as a weapon against another company? In any case where a free price, open source product can be used to kill another product, a free price, closed source product could do the same thing. Your example (Microsoft's attack on Quarterdeck), shows this. Microsoft's release of a free price web browser to attack Netscape is indentical. This is common practice between businesses. At least if the attack is made with open source, the public wins by getting software they can modify and upgrade.
Patents aren't supposed to expire when they cease to be valuable. Patents should still be valuable when they expire. In exchange for granting a brief monopoly now, the public get access to the useful invention later. With the rapid rate of technological advance, many patents only expire when they are worthless. So what exactly is the public gaining? That's not the spirit of the agreement.
Fair warning: I learned my harsh and pointless lesson in private school.
(Reposted because Slashdot got confused and decided I was an Anonymous Coward.)
What was the father doing while Sean was being bullied? Did he go to the school then? Did he report the bullying? Did he demand that the bullies (if they actually touched Sean) be charged with assault?
What can the father do? Sure, he can report it to the school. Will the school do anything? Can the school do anything? If no adults saw the incidents, they effectively didn't happen. It becomes a "he hit me" "no I didn't" disagreement, which kid do you believe? Similar for pressing assault charges, without evidence or credible (adult) witnesses, it will never fly. If you try (and fail) to stop the bullies through these methods, you've simply encouraged the bullies to continue their behavior.
Worse, often these victims are being singled out by the system for engaging the "disruptive" behavoir. Not fighting, or threats, but publishing independent student newspapers, complaining about other students behavoir, protesting school attitudes. The only crime is thinking against the system. Soon it becomes clear that the school, the teachers and staff, and in some cases your parents, are a danger to be avoided, not allies to seek out.
I lived through this. I was lucky, my experiences weren't as harsh as many reports I've heard, but it still hurt at the time. There are several teachers and administrators from my high school for whom I still hold grudges against. It's hard to feel that a school will support you when the principal threatens you with lawsuits for printing (with your own money) an independent student newspaper (Hi Robert G.!) It's hard to approach a teacher who threatens fail you if you continue to question the value of their tests (even though you scored excellently on the tests) (Hi Ms D!).
Schools are trying to deal with the perception of increased violence in the simplest, easiest, cheapest manner. Actually solving the problem requires more adults keeping watch and investigations of reports. These take time and money, most schools have neither available. Until these fundamental problems are addressed, the bullies have an edge. The best we can do is support the victims.
Because there are plenty of cool games for it.
Of course, for there to be plenty of cool games for it, you'll need lots of mainstream developers excited about the system and wanting to develop for it.
What would excite a developer? How about little to no licensing fees? Right now, developing a console title means you give big bucks to console manufacter for the initial development kit and licensing rights for every copy you produce. You're kissing a healthy chunk of potential profit goodbye. In fact, if your game only does modestly well, the console manufacterer can get rich off of your licensing fees while you make nothing.
How about never waiting for the console manufacturer to help you. Development teams often beat their heads against bugs black box libraries from the console manufacturer. Open source means you have freedom to solve your own problems.
Will this work? I have no idea. But I think it's possible.
The KDE/Gnome competition isn't as horrible as Microsoft believes or portrays. All mainstream distributions are shipping supporting libraries for both. Just pick the one you prefer and get on with life, most of your users will be able to use your software. Maybe your program won't mesh elegantly with their desktop environment choice, but it will be usable.
All of these are legal (in terms of copyright) and ethical. All of these are important freedoms and rights. All are effectively prohibited due to anti-circumvention laws.
The NSA is not terribly well know for sharing secrets, especially encryption secrets. We need an openly developed and studied encryption system. The advanced encryption standard discussed above is the Advanced Encryption Standard, which NIST chose last October. The AES will be a boon for government and private industry, giving the world a trustworthy, peer-reviewed encryption system that everyone can agree on. Government needs an encryption system and wants the best one possible. The American people deserve to know what system our government is using so that we can check it's quality ourselves. Someone needed to make this decision, and it was NIST's job. I'm quite happy with their effort. The world's top cryptographer all agreed that Rijndael (AES) is something they would be comfortable.
People, even non-technical people, love customizing their systems. In doing so, they make the machine "theirs." They spend hours messing with the backgrounds, the icons, and the sounds. Given an easy interface, the like messing with themes and skins. People love putting pictures of their children or dog on their background, having a dinosaur for their cursor, and skinning Winamp with a picture of their favorite TV show. The easier it is, the more likely they are to do it.
I personally feel it is too bad that the Linux community can't agree to build on one graphical environment.
Yes, Linux needs to grow up and have a single, consistant interface, just like Windows. Look at the many products which accept the need for conformance under Windows. Products like Softimage (example) (though they may have an advantage, being owned by Microsoft for a while), LightWave [6] (example, check out the conforming buttons and tabs), and Kai's Power Tools (example)
Media players naturally conform to the standard Windows look and feel. Winamp led the way. Soon there were competitors like K-Jofol and Sonique which felt that they could make their mp3 players conform even better to Windows GUI standards. RealPlayer quickly followed. Apple realized they couldn't rehash the Macintosh interface for QuickTime, and delivered a version that perfectly matched the Windows standard. Not to be out done, Microsoft released a new version of the Windows Media Player which perfectly complied with the Windows standards for interfaces.
Even the next version of Windows, Windows XP, has been carefully crafted to conform to existing standards. With such strong and unwavering leadership, no one would even think of using an alternate shell or replacing the entire widget set.
Thank you, Microsoft, for getting the world to agree on one graphical environment. Thanks to your efforts to end competition, there is no risk of the Windows platform fragmenting into a pile of inconsistent applications, each making their own rules.
Perl was designed to mirror human languages, not computer languages. (C++ may not have been designed in this way, but it certainly has evolved in a very similar direction.) You're not expected to completely understand the language, you're expected to quickly learn a fairly small working set of features, then slowly grow that knowledge as you grow in the language. Like english, or any other human language, both you and the language constantly grow to handle new problems and solutions. This is part of the reason Perl and C++ are so popular, they're living languages with practical goals. They don't force certain designs and strategies on you, they try to let you work with them as you will.
I prefer to have hate speech out in the open. It makes it easier to spot those likely to engage in violence. If the site is censored, do you really believe that those people considering violence will stop?