People don't realize that cheap service comes with no guarantees. Step up to business-class service (from any carrier, or cable company) and get Service Level Agreements in writing -- and you get money back in your pocket every time the line goes down.
Has nothing to do with can't -- has to do with wasting my time. I'm a fan of Linux from all the way back to the early 90's.
I've put in my time (wasted) constantly screwing with the configuration, trying to make things work, filing bug reports no one cares about, and it's old.
It's not going anywhere but sideways. Show me the break-out desktop for Linux that's better than all the others for real users? It doesn't exist.
The massive amounts of "choice" and no one caring much about USEABILITY mean the Linux desktop still sucks, and hasn't gotten any better since the lead developer on Enlightenment left RedHat, how many years ago?
GNOME/KDE are shining examples of how all this choice doesn't work.
And of course, this is Slashdot, so instead of reading the founding principals of the distro and trying to hold the distro to their word, I got moderated "Troll".
Yep. No one cares about usability in open-source. All that's important is "choice". Which leads to fractured ABI's, broken upgrades, and general mayhem all the time.
No wonder people who have lives and things to get done, go straight for other closed OSs.
Live up to your promise, open-source. Write for the USERS and dump the badly written crap in all but a "developer only" version of the distro.
Adults are waiting for y'all to live up to your hype. Seriously. Not a troll. Get on with it.
Runs on any platform, doesn't have a heavy-handed license, and Linux fans constantly use it as an example of the BEST application to ever run on Linux servers.
But those same fans conveniently forget to mention that it, along with Mozilla/Firefox, refuse to play the "pure" open-source games that cause the majority of the problems in Linux.
The real quality open-source projects like Apache and Firefox, have real business models and real licenses that work for those models...
The Linux OS open-source fans have constant breakage and forks. Go figure.
Mod me Troll... this is Slashdot, and a real discussion about usability and putting the end-user's desires first, won't fly. I know.
It won't succeed, because the devs simply don't care about usability -- they care about things only developers care about and 99% of the rest of the world doesn't.
(Thus, Linux has 1% market share on the desktop. Funny how that works.)
I'll get marked as a Troll for this, but it's true. I'm a Linux fan, but I'll take a working desktop (Windows, Mac, doesn't matter) over the Linux desktop any day of the week, and DEFINITELY on patch/upgrade release day.
Gee, maybe the root-cause problem is having so many distros and not the ISVs for wanting to build only ONE way to install their software so they can test and fix ONE system instead of debugging all the distros screwed up package managers?
Think what you like. Sometimes you have no choice if you have to protect a child from a violent individual.
I know he is in a difficult situation, and if you read further, we continued to discuss it.
But if his daughter ends up dead, he will never forgive himself. Only he is close enough to the situation to know if the situation is mortally dangerous to the child or not, I give you that.
He's trying very hard, and I wish him the best of luck in wresting his daughter away from the abusive parent.
It just must be done as quickly as possible if there's signs that the violence is escalating. Unstable people snap, and often hurt others.
He's doing what he has to do -- my comment was simply a reminder that one can get caught up in the red tape and minutiae of such a case, and forget to step back and realize that things are getting far too "hot".
When they do, you get the child away, even if you can't take custody either... saving the child comes before all else.
I've had a friend who was beaten to within an inch of her life by an abusive father. If someone had come and taken her out of the situation before that happened, yeah there would have been hell to pay in court, but the beating wouldn't have happened.
All I'm saying is... often-times people feel powerless to ACT to save an abused child. They shouldn't. Save the child. Let the courts figure it out later.
In your community perhaps smoking bans in restaurants make sense.
Or PERHAPS the owners of those restaurants WANT to allow smoking, and make more money off of smokers than non-smokers, and don't care if you come in or not? (I'm just saying... it could be true. Especially for some bar owners.)
Giving into your whim to ban smokers from their bar, isn't what they want -- and why should it be law?
In my community, where there's plenty of bars, restaraunts, and establishments... there are owners who would LIKE to cater to smokers, but you short-sighted "ban everything" type folks, didn't leave them a way to do so.
There's a tiny loop-hole right now... if the establishment had a cigar-selling business and a place to smoke those, they can keep it. No new ones will ever be allowed to be built.
That's fascism on the part of non-smokers. (It also creates an interesting monopoly.) The owners of the establishments should be able to do what they want with them.
You are quite riled up over this but all you've said is that I'm evil for wanting to do what I want to do. You haven't answered why the U.S. should make this particular behavior ILLEGAL, even amongst CONSENTING adults.
I have carefully and always stated that my problem with the current situation is that OVERALL bans on behavior are stupid.
I have not stated that every restaraunt owner should allow smoking. I have not said that every bar should. I've just said that those who WANT TO should. Some won't, and people who don't want to smoke, can go there.
If there are people who wish to partake of a certain behavior and everyone involved says, "Yes, we're fine with that..." the morality police shouldn't be making more and more of those things ILLEGAL.
No non-smoker has to set one foot in any of the establishments I would frequent, if a few could have their smoking back. Have smoking and non-smoking establishments.
(You're correct... mixing smoking and non-smoking SECTIONS in a single establishment doesn't work. Banning that wishy-washy behavior by owners is fine by me. Make the owners MAKE A DECISION. But leave the decision up to THEM, not the government.)
You act like there's only one restaurant in the world, or bar. Maybe your world is that small, but around here if the ban were lifted, just as before... we'd have some smoking, and some non-smoking establishments...
Just like it should be with consenting adults all 'round.
Don't like the smoking establishment, don't go there.
Choice #3 DID exist here. What back-woods dumb-ass place do you live?
Did you and your friends try asking the establishments to ban smoking themselves BEFORE taking it to full blown facism?
I'm saying exactly what you are in your 2nd to last paragraph. A business owner who WANTS their core business to be smokers, is no longer allowed to by law.
Freedom in the United States, baby. Only as long as you don't want to do anything interesting, dangerous, or fun.
Yeah because Thomas Jefferson shared his knowledge of everything he knew with all his fellow competitors in the slave-run plantation business.
You're right, it's a monopoly for a time. People like to get paid for things they come up with.
So what? Don't want it? Don't buy it. Want it? Buy it. Free trade with the restriction that you get to sell it for a while first before people copy it.
"Designed by Apple in California", printed on every box. Yeah, they're proud of it. Go build something as good and compete if you can.
I stopped arguing it because you're a nut-case. Companies make business deals of all sorts, with people wanting to buy their product.
If the deal isn't mutually acceptable, the parties (adults anyway) WALK AWAY, and the deal doesn't happen.
You don't like the terms of their sale, so you act like the world's coming to an end and get all dramatic about the "precedent" it might set... when none of Apple's millions of customers care.
Guess what? Apple doesn't care if you don't like it, either.
They offer a product and a license. If you don't like it, they offer to hold the door so it doesn't hit you in the ass on the way out of the store.
The real problem here seems to be that you WANT their product. Want the product, buy it under their license. Don't want the product, don't. Pretty simple.
Want a similar product that has better licensing that you like? Go fucking make one.
p.s. Boats are money holes in the water. To be honest, I'll be throwing money into the sky into an aircraft instead -- but you don't have that skill, flying airplanes, I suppose...
Your attitude would take an instructor a LONG time to feel comfortable in signing you off as a safe, competent, pilot.
Seriously... if the car came with a contract like that, I'd toss the keys back to the guy who sold it to me and return it immediately. If they wouldn't take my money back I'd sue the piss out of them in court.
Since you asked.
Feel free to spend that much time and energy on $130 worth of software if you're that retarded. The rest of us can piss away $130 and really not worry about it. Get a job.
Don't want Apple fucking with your "rights", don't buy shit from them. Problem solved. Move along.
You're making shit up. I said smoking shouldn't be ILLEGAL -- IN PLACES WHERE THE OWNER, THE PATRONS AND THE WAIT STAFF AGREE they don't mind.
You guys have made it illegal even where ALL RESPONSIBLE ADULTS INVOLVED AGREE THEY WANT TO DO SOMETHING.
That's wrong.
And you're over-reacting and bullshit attitude is typical of what you called me. A self-centered asshole.
I never asked for smoking back where people don't want it. I want THE OWNERS OF THE ESTABLISHMENTS AND THEIR STAFF to decide.
Not you, the self-centered non-smoking asshole who thinks we need laws to protect people from doing WHAT THEY WANT TO DO.
Someone says, "Hey guys, put those out." We do.
Someone says, "Hey guys, it's my bar, my wait staff have agreed it's okay -- many of them are smokers too -- and we want to provide a place for you guys to enjoy smoking, chatting, and drinking a beer or two... so light up." We would.
Someone says, "No owner of any establishment anywhere, no matter how many people are in it, no matter if they properly warned their wait staff and/or asked them to sign waivers (hell, or even offered to pay for their cancer treatments... if you like), no matter WHAT the circumstances are... we won't allow you to do that evil smoking thing."
We say... fuck you. And we find the owners of establishments who will run the risk of breaking the mommy-law.
You want people to suddenly give up all rights to something they created and worked hard on, because you think ONE COMPANY selling ONE PRODUCT and retaining COPYRIGHT on that product -- is a MONOPOLY?
Uh-huh. Whatever.
Pick your OS, any OS. Don't like Apple's, don't buy it.
Oh good lord. The thing stopping Ford from doing silly shit like that is the market.
DON'T LIKE OSX, DON'T BUY IT.
All this hand-waving about rights and horse-shit theoretical crap about how it somehow changes underlying laws is just that... crap.
If people don't like Apple's product, they can feel free not to buy it. Same with the FordShell mobile.
If there's no COMPETITION in the computer (or car) markets, the SEC steps in. e.g. Microsoft.
You're freaking out about something the MARKET doesn't care about -- and never will.
Operating Systems galore are out there. All the open/freedom freaks are using this thing called Linux, or so I hear...
They don't seem to mind if Apple sells stuff. They ignore Apple, in fact. Since they make up about 1% of the desktop market, Apple ignores them too. It's a great way to go for both parties.
"OMG! The sky is falling, the sky is falling, someone's LEASING me something instead of selling it to me!"
Slashdot Mirror
Uh, yeah... so he'll also be proposing tax cuts? Since it's actual responsibilities will be LESS then, right?
You're an idiot if you think government will get smaller or less intrusive, under EITHER party.
All you have to do is "follow the money" and see if you get any of yours back. (Hint: You won't.)
People don't realize that cheap service comes with no guarantees. Step up to business-class service (from any carrier, or cable company) and get Service Level Agreements in writing -- and you get money back in your pocket every time the line goes down.
Firefox works as well as it does because it has a real business model and avoided the GPL and runs on ANY platform.
It's just true... I know the whiners will mod me "Troll" for that comment.
Firefox doesn't require Linux.
Same thing as Apache, Perl, lots of others... no GPL requirement, runs on anything. Shining examples of open-source code that works.
Drives the GNUtards nuts, too... when they really think about it. Don't need "GNU/Linux" to run these things.
The developers of these projects GET IT. Their users aren't running Linux. In fact, to get the most users you support ALL platforms, open and closed.
And you focus on USEABILITY, like TFA says to do.
Has nothing to do with can't -- has to do with wasting my time. I'm a fan of Linux from all the way back to the early 90's.
I've put in my time (wasted) constantly screwing with the configuration, trying to make things work, filing bug reports no one cares about, and it's old.
It's not going anywhere but sideways. Show me the break-out desktop for Linux that's better than all the others for real users? It doesn't exist.
The massive amounts of "choice" and no one caring much about USEABILITY mean the Linux desktop still sucks, and hasn't gotten any better since the lead developer on Enlightenment left RedHat, how many years ago?
GNOME/KDE are shining examples of how all this choice doesn't work.
And of course, this is Slashdot, so instead of reading the founding principals of the distro and trying to hold the distro to their word, I got moderated "Troll".
Yep. No one cares about usability in open-source. All that's important is "choice". Which leads to fractured ABI's, broken upgrades, and general mayhem all the time.
No wonder people who have lives and things to get done, go straight for other closed OSs.
Live up to your promise, open-source. Write for the USERS and dump the badly written crap in all but a "developer only" version of the distro.
Adults are waiting for y'all to live up to your hype. Seriously. Not a troll. Get on with it.
... unlike most other open-source software.
Runs on any platform, doesn't have a heavy-handed license, and Linux fans constantly use it as an example of the BEST application to ever run on Linux servers.
But those same fans conveniently forget to mention that it, along with Mozilla/Firefox, refuse to play the "pure" open-source games that cause the majority of the problems in Linux.
The real quality open-source projects like Apache and Firefox, have real business models and real licenses that work for those models...
The Linux OS open-source fans have constant breakage and forks. Go figure.
Mod me Troll... this is Slashdot, and a real discussion about usability and putting the end-user's desires first, won't fly. I know.
Ahh this seems like such a good time to mention this again: Too many CHOICES in software not always a good thing, kids.
LSB is trying to remedy the Fallacy of Choice.
It won't succeed, because the devs simply don't care about usability -- they care about things only developers care about and 99% of the rest of the world doesn't.
(Thus, Linux has 1% market share on the desktop. Funny how that works.)
I'll get marked as a Troll for this, but it's true. I'm a Linux fan, but I'll take a working desktop (Windows, Mac, doesn't matter) over the Linux desktop any day of the week, and DEFINITELY on patch/upgrade release day.
Gee, maybe the root-cause problem is having so many distros and not the ISVs for wanting to build only ONE way to install their software so they can test and fix ONE system instead of debugging all the distros screwed up package managers?
Blame it on the user... the Linux way.
Think what you like. Sometimes you have no choice if you have to protect a child from a violent individual.
I know he is in a difficult situation, and if you read further, we continued to discuss it.
But if his daughter ends up dead, he will never forgive himself. Only he is close enough to the situation to know if the situation is mortally dangerous to the child or not, I give you that.
He's trying very hard, and I wish him the best of luck in wresting his daughter away from the abusive parent.
It just must be done as quickly as possible if there's signs that the violence is escalating. Unstable people snap, and often hurt others.
He's doing what he has to do -- my comment was simply a reminder that one can get caught up in the red tape and minutiae of such a case, and forget to step back and realize that things are getting far too "hot".
When they do, you get the child away, even if you can't take custody either... saving the child comes before all else.
I've had a friend who was beaten to within an inch of her life by an abusive father. If someone had come and taken her out of the situation before that happened, yeah there would have been hell to pay in court, but the beating wouldn't have happened.
All I'm saying is... often-times people feel powerless to ACT to save an abused child. They shouldn't. Save the child. Let the courts figure it out later.
I wish the best of luck to you my friend. Abuse can turns deadly so quickly it's scary.
I also hope there are people in your community who are willing to assist you in monitoring your ex-wife's behavior, etc. Her neighbors, whoever.
Quite frankly, if you know she's being abused you have a duty to remove her from the situation, my friend.
Legal battles, criminal charges, whatever. Get her the hell out of there. She's your child. You are responsible for her.
TFA says "doubling down" and then says a "30 percent increase"... nowhere do I see any real numbers.
Yeah, I spent $1 last year and I'm spending $1.30 this year! Whooo a 30% increase.
Whatever...
I'm sorry you live out in the styx.
In your community perhaps smoking bans in restaurants make sense.
Or PERHAPS the owners of those restaurants WANT to allow smoking, and make more money off of smokers than non-smokers, and don't care if you come in or not? (I'm just saying... it could be true. Especially for some bar owners.)
Giving into your whim to ban smokers from their bar, isn't what they want -- and why should it be law?
In my community, where there's plenty of bars, restaraunts, and establishments... there are owners who would LIKE to cater to smokers, but you short-sighted "ban everything" type folks, didn't leave them a way to do so.
There's a tiny loop-hole right now... if the establishment had a cigar-selling business and a place to smoke those, they can keep it. No new ones will ever be allowed to be built.
That's fascism on the part of non-smokers. (It also creates an interesting monopoly.) The owners of the establishments should be able to do what they want with them.
You are quite riled up over this but all you've said is that I'm evil for wanting to do what I want to do. You haven't answered why the U.S. should make this particular behavior ILLEGAL, even amongst CONSENTING adults.
I have carefully and always stated that my problem with the current situation is that OVERALL bans on behavior are stupid.
I have not stated that every restaraunt owner should allow smoking. I have not said that every bar should. I've just said that those who WANT TO should. Some won't, and people who don't want to smoke, can go there.
If there are people who wish to partake of a certain behavior and everyone involved says, "Yes, we're fine with that..." the morality police shouldn't be making more and more of those things ILLEGAL.
No non-smoker has to set one foot in any of the establishments I would frequent, if a few could have their smoking back. Have smoking and non-smoking establishments.
(You're correct... mixing smoking and non-smoking SECTIONS in a single establishment doesn't work. Banning that wishy-washy behavior by owners is fine by me. Make the owners MAKE A DECISION. But leave the decision up to THEM, not the government.)
You act like there's only one restaurant in the world, or bar. Maybe your world is that small, but around here if the ban were lifted, just as before... we'd have some smoking, and some non-smoking establishments...
Just like it should be with consenting adults all 'round.
Don't like the smoking establishment, don't go there.
Choice #3 DID exist here. What back-woods dumb-ass place do you live?
Did you and your friends try asking the establishments to ban smoking themselves BEFORE taking it to full blown facism?
I'm saying exactly what you are in your 2nd to last paragraph. A business owner who WANTS their core business to be smokers, is no longer allowed to by law.
Freedom in the United States, baby. Only as long as you don't want to do anything interesting, dangerous, or fun.
Well, Apple may have cause to sue you if you're breaking their software license. Or they may choose to ignore you in your parent's basement.
That's up to them and you and the words in the license and your actions.
You can bitch about it all day, but the only way to the Apple software you want, is through their EULA.
Fire your text editor up, and code something better if you don't want it by their rules.
Yeah because Thomas Jefferson shared his knowledge of everything he knew with all his fellow competitors in the slave-run plantation business.
You're right, it's a monopoly for a time. People like to get paid for things they come up with.
So what? Don't want it? Don't buy it. Want it? Buy it. Free trade with the restriction that you get to sell it for a while first before people copy it.
"Designed by Apple in California", printed on every box. Yeah, they're proud of it. Go build something as good and compete if you can.
I stopped arguing it because you're a nut-case. Companies make business deals of all sorts, with people wanting to buy their product.
If the deal isn't mutually acceptable, the parties (adults anyway) WALK AWAY, and the deal doesn't happen.
You don't like the terms of their sale, so you act like the world's coming to an end and get all dramatic about the "precedent" it might set... when none of Apple's millions of customers care.
Guess what? Apple doesn't care if you don't like it, either.
They offer a product and a license. If you don't like it, they offer to hold the door so it doesn't hit you in the ass on the way out of the store.
The real problem here seems to be that you WANT their product. Want the product, buy it under their license. Don't want the product, don't. Pretty simple.
Want a similar product that has better licensing that you like? Go fucking make one.
Fine. You have options.
Sue them for your money, or just DON'T BUY THEIR FUCKING PRODUCT.
I'm a fascist for providing you the same choices everyone else standing in the store has. Ha.
You're a wack-job. This is fun.
Follow the bouncy ball... ...You... ...Don't... ...Have... ...To... ...Buy... ...It...
YAY! Choice.
p.s. Boats are money holes in the water. To be honest, I'll be throwing money into the sky into an aircraft instead -- but you don't have that skill, flying airplanes, I suppose...
Your attitude would take an instructor a LONG time to feel comfortable in signing you off as a safe, competent, pilot.
Ahh, this goes nowhere. We're both successful sysadmins, we both do a good job for our companies.
You're just a people-hater in the process.
Don't care to discuss anymore. You're as Asperger's Syndrome head-case.
God, fate, karma, whatever... will kick your ass when you're old and lonely. If you ever get lonely.
I'll wave from the other boat.
Seriously... if the car came with a contract like that, I'd toss the keys back to the guy who sold it to me and return it immediately. If they wouldn't take my money back I'd sue the piss out of them in court.
Since you asked.
Feel free to spend that much time and energy on $130 worth of software if you're that retarded. The rest of us can piss away $130 and really not worry about it. Get a job.
Don't want Apple fucking with your "rights", don't buy shit from them. Problem solved. Move along.
You're making shit up. I said smoking shouldn't be ILLEGAL -- IN PLACES WHERE THE OWNER, THE PATRONS AND THE WAIT STAFF AGREE they don't mind.
You guys have made it illegal even where ALL RESPONSIBLE ADULTS INVOLVED AGREE THEY WANT TO DO SOMETHING.
That's wrong.
And you're over-reacting and bullshit attitude is typical of what you called me. A self-centered asshole.
I never asked for smoking back where people don't want it. I want THE OWNERS OF THE ESTABLISHMENTS AND THEIR STAFF to decide.
Not you, the self-centered non-smoking asshole who thinks we need laws to protect people from doing WHAT THEY WANT TO DO.
Someone says, "Hey guys, put those out." We do.
Someone says, "Hey guys, it's my bar, my wait staff have agreed it's okay -- many of them are smokers too -- and we want to provide a place for you guys to enjoy smoking, chatting, and drinking a beer or two... so light up." We would.
Someone says, "No owner of any establishment anywhere, no matter how many people are in it, no matter if they properly warned their wait staff and/or asked them to sign waivers (hell, or even offered to pay for their cancer treatments... if you like), no matter WHAT the circumstances are... we won't allow you to do that evil smoking thing."
We say... fuck you. And we find the owners of establishments who will run the risk of breaking the mommy-law.
Okay fine. Take 'em to court to get your $130 worth of software. Do it legally.
You really are a freakin' loon, aren't you?
You want people to suddenly give up all rights to something they created and worked hard on, because you think ONE COMPANY selling ONE PRODUCT and retaining COPYRIGHT on that product -- is a MONOPOLY?
Uh-huh. Whatever.
Pick your OS, any OS. Don't like Apple's, don't buy it.
Oh good lord. The thing stopping Ford from doing silly shit like that is the market.
DON'T LIKE OSX, DON'T BUY IT.
All this hand-waving about rights and horse-shit theoretical crap about how it somehow changes underlying laws is just that... crap.
If people don't like Apple's product, they can feel free not to buy it. Same with the FordShell mobile.
If there's no COMPETITION in the computer (or car) markets, the SEC steps in. e.g. Microsoft.
You're freaking out about something the MARKET doesn't care about -- and never will.
Operating Systems galore are out there. All the open/freedom freaks are using this thing called Linux, or so I hear...
They don't seem to mind if Apple sells stuff. They ignore Apple, in fact. Since they make up about 1% of the desktop market, Apple ignores them too. It's a great way to go for both parties.
"OMG! The sky is falling, the sky is falling, someone's LEASING me something instead of selling it to me!"
(Rolls eyes.)