It's no special power of observation -- anyone can notice you seem to like pissing and moaning about the terrible police state, yet don't show any indication it's actually hurt you.
But then again, if it's that bad, in both states, neither one seems to be keeping you from leaving them or the country and moving to almost any place on Earth that can do better.
At least both places let you whine about how nasty they are. You seem to enjoy that.
I notice you stop short of telling us what rights you don't have in those states and what it was you wanted to do in your own life that was restricted.
Actually, I do have that kind of cash laying around and what copying I'm doing comes under fair use. But it took me a lot of work in front of a computer to get to having that cash laying around and now I'd much rather enjoy LIFE than spend more and more time staring at an LCD screen. When I'm on my deathbed, am I going to look back and say, "Wow. I loved re-compiling this program and patching that one and getting this to work so I could import my HD camcorder files?" Not bloody well likely. But if I spend my life with friends and doing things I that keep me moving and teach others and see other countries, then when I'm on my death bed, I probably won't be wondering why I pissed away so much of my life alone, in a small room, with 5-7 computers and several monitors clustered around me.
if rebuilding libraries from glibc up is your idea of living, that's fine. Mine is that I'd rather sit at the computer and get my work done quickly, then go out and ride my bike or walk the dog and spend the evening dancing something like tango and foxtrot with a pretty woman.
I spent a number of years as a developer, seeing how one program can get bigger and bigger and working on it can take more and more time out of life. I don't know how long I'll be on this green Earth before I get buried in it, but I'd rather spend what time I have left to be vertical and above ground doing the tango to some sexy music than rebuilding dependencies. A computer is a tool and when it gets to the point that I have to spend more time fixing tools than using them to do what I want, something is wrong.
I've done programming in C++ and released it as FOSS before. Yet, for some reason, EVERY time I ever try compiling someone else's project from source, I run into problems with it.
As for several days, well, you go down one path and hope it'll be solved in 5 minutes and it isn't. If I started trying to compile it, then I might run into other issues that could take me just as long. It's easy to say that in hindsight, but not when you're solving the problem.
Plus, as I stated in another reply, this is part of the issue that many people on the development side don't see: End users should not have to put up with that. It's why Linux has such a small market share and until that is understood, the market share will always be small.
I LOVE open source and could not have started my business with it. I've noticed, though, that whenever I or anyone else says, "This is an issue here," nobody wants to figure out how to keep it from being an issue. The answer is usually, "Do this, this and this." That stuff is easy for someone who is trained, but not for others. I've seen "/.configure && make & make install" go wrong more times than I've seen it go right and sometimes when it goes wrong, it can really screw up the package that was there.
And there's one other issue with that path: When you build it yourself, it can be wiped out with the next set of updates if that's a package that was updated.
That's part of the overall issue, though. It's as bad as "The Great Driver Hunt" I have to do whenever I put together a new Windows machine and have to either download the latest drivers for each piece of hardware or go through all my CDs to pull out what I need and so on.
Linux on the desktop has come a LONG way. But it's still only "almost there," and won't be "there" until you can do the things a lot of "Joe Users" want to do without having to add extra repositories or jump through hoops to make it happen.
That could cause problems. VLC is crippled in the latest Ubuntu. While the VLC people blame Ubuntu on their mailing lists, it turns out that the FFMpeg library uses different names for some codes in their newer version -- and on the latest Ubunut (Intrepid), that version of VLC doesn't use the newer names.
I was on both mailing lists for a while (VLC, FFMpeg) and the latter admitted to changing the names but did have all the codecs available under Ubunut. The VLC people claim some of those codecs are not available under Ubuntu (even with extra repositories), but they're there -- just with different names.
Until Ubuntu gets this straightened out, anyone using Intrepid or following versions will have trouble with video codecs, including ripping DVDs and, in my case, trying to read files from my HD camcorder that were easily readable in Ubuntu Hardy, but which nobody was quite sure how to read (or what settings to use) in Intrepid.
After wasting several days of my life on this issue, I gave up, ordered an iMac, and since switching, have spent more time doing what I want on my computer and less time at the computer overall. I no longer have to spend time trying to make sure the tools taht are supposed to help me are set up properly or if I'm using the right settings.
It's nice to have more time for real life than to be spending time adjusting my tools.
Yes, that's why I'm out of this. I saw this all the time when I worked in residential treatment. Patients always got mad at staff who could think clearly and follow an argument. It's called projection: blame the other person for what you aren't strong enough to see in yourself.
See, the difference here is that I was trained and have years of experience in dealing with people who can't accept when they're wrong and in understanding when it's me or them and all you seem to have is anger and a need to prove others wrong.
Yes, my life is wonderful -- because I've made it so and learned not to waste my time on angry people who have to prove themselves right because they can't listen to or accept what they don't want to hear.
Yes, I know it sounds funny to you. That's always the way it is to the person that simply can't accept they might be in the wrong because they have too much emotional involvement in being right (note your cursing and anger in the previous post).
So please, for your own sake, deal with the anger, find a way to let go of something like this, and, for heaven's sake, get a life.
This is the last post you'll get from me, since it's clear at some level you'll just have to keep pushing and saying, "You're wrong, I'm right, my Daddy can beat up your Daddy," and so on.
Why don't you reply when you can focus more on the content of a discussion and less on venting anger, swearing. I refuse to get drawn into something that is just too much like the confrontations the patients I had to deal with when I worked in residential treatment centers.
You're more into name calling, insulting, and long lists of whatever words you can think of to sound nasty and insulting. I have a full life that doesn't leave me much time for arguments on Slashdot, so I really don't want to spend time telling someone who wants to, essentially, create a confrontational situation, why years of working in treatment, teaching logic and logical thought, and doing similar work make it clear that he does not grasp what he things he does.
And yes, you've proven a number of points I've made in my comments about developers who are too busy being right to listen to anyone without judging them, calling them names, or just responding in anger. If I hadn't touched on something close to home, you would not have gotten so angry.
I've got a formal spring ball a nice lady has invited me to because she likes the way I tango, and I'd much rather get ready for that than sit here, writing back and forth with someone full of sound and fury who seems to think he can make a point by calling names and ranting and raving.
Please, go on with the discussion. You seem to need the chance to vent and deal with your anger -- but don't expect me to play that game. I've got too many upbeat things to do with my life than to point out to someone with poor anger management skills what they can't see themselves.
Good point, but the other side to it is that if we go back to the idea that if you don't like it you can fix it. Whereas the coding can be a heavy time investment, hiring developers can be a heavy financial investment, perhaps costing even more than buying a proprietary program to do the same thing. So, again, for many people, other than large corporations, the barrier to creating a change can be quite high.
Yes, there are issues with proprietary software, but issues in that field do not mean that this one is the best. I still use Linux on 2 of my computers, BSD on one, but ditched Ubuntu on my main desktop for OS X. Nothing's perfect, but I've noticed that many FOSS people are angry at Windows users who say Windows is better, yet the "angry" FOSS people often behave the same way about FOSS.
Don't get me wrong. I love FOSS, but there are limits. One day there won't be as many. I'm amazed at the changes I've seen in FOSS over the past 10 years. I've seen a real office suite appear and mature rather rapidly and I think a lot of other types of software will do the same thing (and when there's a REAL professional FOSS video editing system, I might switch back to a 100% FOSS environment). We've watched most types of software reach the mature stage where the new features in each succeeding version are less and less helpful. While that's gone on, FOSS has caught up in many areas. I think in another 10 years, FOSS will be much more mature all over and there will be less of a need for individuals or small companies to need more features or changes in their software.
Until then, though, the "if you don't like it you can change it" argument does not work for many people. I'm lucky. If I have to, I can dig in and do the coding in most languages and if I don't have the time, I have the resources to put a bounty on a feature or pay for it, but I also know I'm in the minority.
Thank you for a good laugh. I haven't seen such a clear example of someone stuck in a hole thinking they understand the whole world since I worked in residential treatment and saw addicts saying, "I understand it all, it's you guys who don't know what you're doing!" Yet they're the ones who couldn't stay out of treatment for more than a week.
"It is you the one that expects some kind of magics just because a software distribution license being this or that"
No. I'm not expecting magic, never said I was. You're indulging in extremist thinking -- it's either one way or the other and there's no in between. Thank you for proving part of my point, or one of them.
I've been pointing out that many of us cannot make the investment of fixing code and in many cases, making the investment of even filing a bug report is a lost cause. While the, "If you don't like something you can change it" argument I was responding to sounds good, my point is that is often not an option. I'm not saying there should be magic, I'm pointing out that it isn't always so black and white (but in your posts, you've used several examples that show you see things as either/or, this or that, black or white.
Guess what? Life isn't that way and the issue is more complex. What I find funny is that you say you see the forest through the trees, then go on and on, basically showing with the following statements, that you see only certain options and it all fits into specific categories. You go so far as to say that the options fit in ONLY 3 possibilities.
"I was justificating nobody or anything. What for? I don't own Red Hat shares. I was *explaining* to you your options."
First, yes, you were saying the other side was worse, you were comparing and using that comparison to build up one side, basically justifying it. I don't see how owning Red Hat shares or not has anything to do with it. You've bought into an ideology and basically don't want to see any faults in it, any potential issues, and that goes so far as to miss my point and reply by focusing on other points.
I said I haven't seen someone so stuck in a limited view since I stopped working in residential treatment. I made a mistake. I have seen that in one person since then (and her friends). They were all spending hours telling me how wonderful their system was and how there were no faults and if anyone challenged a word they said, they went into a convoluted logic to say they were wrong. This woman and her friends were in a system called Amway.
"More often than not, that feature request from the 1% of a vocal minority want, which requires 80% effort"
If you're going to make statements like that, then it's more than an appropriate expectation you cite examples, instead of just making a broad, sweeping generalization. Remember, on many of these programs the staff is asking for suggestions. In such a case, accepting only the ones they want and ignoring the ones they don't won't is an indication that, again, they care more about it meeting their needs than anyone else's.
"More often than not, that feature request from the 1% of a vocal minority want, which requires 80% effort"
Thank you for proving my point by making such a self centered "inside looking out with no clue as to how one looks to the rest of the world" statements. Many times the goal of the project is to provide the "mostest." OOo is trying to be the "be all" and "end all" in office suites, trying to do all Office can do and more. Amarok has been trying to be THE music player and is moving beyond KDE to OS X and Windows (as is much of KDE) and has not made statements like, "We want this to be simple and fast, not feature laden." There are many other case, but the point is that often projects are trying to get out there and be used by as many people as possible and actively do things like ask for suggestions or make efforts to reach a wider audience.
If the case is that the development group is trying to reach more people and wants wider acceptance, then it's time to listen to constructive criticism. It may not match the goals of the project, but often such criticism touches on points that intertwine with the project and what it does and ways that the project veers away from the stated goals.
When developers stop feeling entitled and elitist and realize that when projects try to sell themselves to users, they create an atmosphere where users expect more, then we see that the developers and their lack of understanding of human nature leads right to many of these problems.
But notice the time frames you're talking about. And notice that when you're talking about WYSIWYG, how many Linuxers keep telling people how vi and emacs blow away OOo and Abiword.
The change happens when there are so many people that want the change that they overwhelm those who say, "It's good enough for me, it should be good enough for you and would be if you weren't so stupid about computers."
When you write some code and want people to use it and create a website for your FOSS program and make a big deal about how it's just wonderful and everyone should use it, then get back to us and weigh in.
If doesn't even count in horseshoes and atom bombs. It just says that's what you think you'd do, but also tells us you don't have that experience.
Generally those arguments are not applicable. For instance, the issue with vehicles: Almost every one of us, and I'm just talking the U.S. here, have had driver's ed as part of high school. So we can buy a new vehicle without investing weeks of time learning how to run it.
As for housing and such, those are tasks we learn while growing up and along the way. These are simple to learn.
You try to make a point, but the problem is that learning to use Linux requires a high learning curve compared to Mac or Windows and learning to fix FOSS programs requires a VERY steep learning curve that can take months or years, spending hours daily, before one can contribute. That is time outside of everyday life, whereas the other tasks you mention require knowledge learned in everyday life.
Also, as far as learning to drive, there really isn't an alternative for most of us (unless we're in NY or Boston with easy to use public transit). When it comes to FOSS, there are always alternatives and often they do not require anywhere near the learning curve needed for FOSS.
So, as you said, we have to specialize and FOSS is for those who specialize in FOSS.
I worked for years as a developer, now I'm starting a film production company to produce the dramatic scripts I write. I just changed from Linux to an iMac. Why? Because I have to specialize on USING the tools to get other work done. I can no longer specialize in setting up the tools as a profession. A carpenter does not have to build his hammer or put it together and update it and reconfigure it and a writer or video editor shouldn't have to do that either, but my experience is that on Linux, even with the latest Ubuntu, I did have to. It took me a week, a whole week of my time, just to get Ubuntu to be able to import video files from my HD camcorder to something I could use -- and from there, well video editing on Linux is pathetic for professionals. So I switched to something that wasn't FOSS, but where I can specialize in doing the work, not in maintaining the tools to do that work.
Thank you for ignoring completely my comment upstream. Many of us have kids, elder parents, and other responsibilities. Linus is paid to work full time on the kernel. So it's not limited by what one is willing to learn, but also by the constraints of having a life.
Few people are programmers in the first place or have the time to learn to program or program in the language of whatever they'd like to add to or fix and even the programmers have limited time.
Adopting this attitude would basically be like saying, "You shouldn't use this bridge unless you want to learn to build it and repair it as well." It's short sighted, which is exactly the point I've been making about those in the development world being on the inside looking out and not hearing legitimate comments of those on the outside looking in.
You and the poster you're responding to assume the agenda of the coders that contribute have an agenda that helps other users -- often it doesn't. I know I am guilty of this and have contributed fixes or add-ons to FOSS projects that helped me but were features few others would ever care about. I've seen that case many times.
Oh, good idea. I'll pay a few bucks to Red Hat and be a supported user. Then when I need a change in Amarok, I'm sure they'll jump in and add that patch immediately. Or when I find a small issue with writing to an FS, yep, because I paid a few bucks they're gong to write that patch just because I'm a supported user.
You're so deep in the forest, you can't see the forest through the trees.
As for comparisons to MS, that's an old trick in the FOSS community, and it proves the point about criticism -- and the point in my other post that the FOSS community can't take criticism unless they agree with it. When someone comes up with an honest point that indicates FOSS is less than perfect, one of the most common responses is, "But try MS and see how bad THEY are."
That another way is bad is no justification for not improving what one is involved in. That's just a logical fallacy, but if you consider it a good excuse, then keep using it -- or, instead, you could step in and pay a few bucks or contribute, as you suggest, and make it better instead of being an apologist.
That assumes that you either know the language the kernel or a program is written in, AND have the time to investigate and make the change. Often even professional coders don't have the time to make all the changes to FOSS programs they'd like.
I know it sounds like a good argument for FOSS, but in reality, only a small, and I mean very small, percentage of users, actually have the resources to make changes in a FOSS program.
That's like saying, "This is great for 3% of all users out there so EVERYONE should use it because of that." It totally ignores the needs of 97% of all users.
No wonder there's a problem with criticism for Linux and FOSS: those involved are too busy being right and making statements that make sense to themselves to take time to listen to what most users can actually use or would need.
Developers may be critical of their own code, but they see it from their view, not from the view of the users. I've seen many cases where bug reports were "written off" or were closed and the developers' responses were either, "We're not going to implement that because it's too much work," (even when the bug or issue or request has a lot of votes) or some other excuse that indicates they're trying to just write it off, but don't see how important it is to others.
It's the case that those inside looking out are talking about how great they are, but often they refuse to listen to those outside looking in. It's the same issue with Windows. Linuxers wonder how people can think Windows is so good, but it's because people in that world ignore external criticism. Linux and FOSS developers are they same way, they just pretend they aren't: They listen to the criticisms that match their views and ignore or write off those they don't want to hear.
I'm no expert, but on a general reading, it sounds like Aries was designed by people trying to meet the specs on paper and this was designed by people who know the astronauts and know what they're doing and want to protect the people and do their job -- not just meet the specs and make a profit.
But I have to admit, calling any spacecraft a Jupiter makes me uneasy. I'd risk a ride in the first one and anything from the third on, but there's no way I'd trust any vehicle referenced at all as the Jupiter II.
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry, I have a life, read through parts, but I guess I just don't get into /. rant fests as seriously as you do.
And you dodge the chance again.
It's no special power of observation -- anyone can notice you seem to like pissing and moaning about the terrible police state, yet don't show any indication it's actually hurt you.
But then again, if it's that bad, in both states, neither one seems to be keeping you from leaving them or the country and moving to almost any place on Earth that can do better.
At least both places let you whine about how nasty they are. You seem to enjoy that.
Free as in beer or free as in speech?
Hey, I've had HAL 9000 in Virginia for over 20 years. Nobody made a big deal over that one.
I notice you stop short of telling us what rights you don't have in those states and what it was you wanted to do in your own life that was restricted.
Actually, I do have that kind of cash laying around and what copying I'm doing comes under fair use. But it took me a lot of work in front of a computer to get to having that cash laying around and now I'd much rather enjoy LIFE than spend more and more time staring at an LCD screen. When I'm on my deathbed, am I going to look back and say, "Wow. I loved re-compiling this program and patching that one and getting this to work so I could import my HD camcorder files?" Not bloody well likely. But if I spend my life with friends and doing things I that keep me moving and teach others and see other countries, then when I'm on my death bed, I probably won't be wondering why I pissed away so much of my life alone, in a small room, with 5-7 computers and several monitors clustered around me.
Man, you REALLY need a girlfriend.
if rebuilding libraries from glibc up is your idea of living, that's fine. Mine is that I'd rather sit at the computer and get my work done quickly, then go out and ride my bike or walk the dog and spend the evening dancing something like tango and foxtrot with a pretty woman.
I spent a number of years as a developer, seeing how one program can get bigger and bigger and working on it can take more and more time out of life. I don't know how long I'll be on this green Earth before I get buried in it, but I'd rather spend what time I have left to be vertical and above ground doing the tango to some sexy music than rebuilding dependencies. A computer is a tool and when it gets to the point that I have to spend more time fixing tools than using them to do what I want, something is wrong.
I've done programming in C++ and released it as FOSS before. Yet, for some reason, EVERY time I ever try compiling someone else's project from source, I run into problems with it.
As for several days, well, you go down one path and hope it'll be solved in 5 minutes and it isn't. If I started trying to compile it, then I might run into other issues that could take me just as long. It's easy to say that in hindsight, but not when you're solving the problem.
Plus, as I stated in another reply, this is part of the issue that many people on the development side don't see: End users should not have to put up with that. It's why Linux has such a small market share and until that is understood, the market share will always be small.
I LOVE open source and could not have started my business with it. I've noticed, though, that whenever I or anyone else says, "This is an issue here," nobody wants to figure out how to keep it from being an issue. The answer is usually, "Do this, this and this." That stuff is easy for someone who is trained, but not for others. I've seen "/.configure && make & make install" go wrong more times than I've seen it go right and sometimes when it goes wrong, it can really screw up the package that was there.
And there's one other issue with that path: When you build it yourself, it can be wiped out with the next set of updates if that's a package that was updated.
That's part of the overall issue, though. It's as bad as "The Great Driver Hunt" I have to do whenever I put together a new Windows machine and have to either download the latest drivers for each piece of hardware or go through all my CDs to pull out what I need and so on.
Linux on the desktop has come a LONG way. But it's still only "almost there," and won't be "there" until you can do the things a lot of "Joe Users" want to do without having to add extra repositories or jump through hoops to make it happen.
That could cause problems. VLC is crippled in the latest Ubuntu. While the VLC people blame Ubuntu on their mailing lists, it turns out that the FFMpeg library uses different names for some codes in their newer version -- and on the latest Ubunut (Intrepid), that version of VLC doesn't use the newer names.
I was on both mailing lists for a while (VLC, FFMpeg) and the latter admitted to changing the names but did have all the codecs available under Ubunut. The VLC people claim some of those codecs are not available under Ubuntu (even with extra repositories), but they're there -- just with different names.
Until Ubuntu gets this straightened out, anyone using Intrepid or following versions will have trouble with video codecs, including ripping DVDs and, in my case, trying to read files from my HD camcorder that were easily readable in Ubuntu Hardy, but which nobody was quite sure how to read (or what settings to use) in Intrepid.
After wasting several days of my life on this issue, I gave up, ordered an iMac, and since switching, have spent more time doing what I want on my computer and less time at the computer overall. I no longer have to spend time trying to make sure the tools taht are supposed to help me are set up properly or if I'm using the right settings.
It's nice to have more time for real life than to be spending time adjusting my tools.
"LOL. This is dripping of irony. LOL!"
Yes, that's why I'm out of this. I saw this all the time when I worked in residential treatment. Patients always got mad at staff who could think clearly and follow an argument. It's called projection: blame the other person for what you aren't strong enough to see in yourself.
See, the difference here is that I was trained and have years of experience in dealing with people who can't accept when they're wrong and in understanding when it's me or them and all you seem to have is anger and a need to prove others wrong.
Yes, my life is wonderful -- because I've made it so and learned not to waste my time on angry people who have to prove themselves right because they can't listen to or accept what they don't want to hear.
Yes, I know it sounds funny to you. That's always the way it is to the person that simply can't accept they might be in the wrong because they have too much emotional involvement in being right (note your cursing and anger in the previous post).
So please, for your own sake, deal with the anger, find a way to let go of something like this, and, for heaven's sake, get a life.
This is the last post you'll get from me, since it's clear at some level you'll just have to keep pushing and saying, "You're wrong, I'm right, my Daddy can beat up your Daddy," and so on.
Why don't you reply when you can focus more on the content of a discussion and less on venting anger, swearing. I refuse to get drawn into something that is just too much like the confrontations the patients I had to deal with when I worked in residential treatment centers.
You're more into name calling, insulting, and long lists of whatever words you can think of to sound nasty and insulting. I have a full life that doesn't leave me much time for arguments on Slashdot, so I really don't want to spend time telling someone who wants to, essentially, create a confrontational situation, why years of working in treatment, teaching logic and logical thought, and doing similar work make it clear that he does not grasp what he things he does.
And yes, you've proven a number of points I've made in my comments about developers who are too busy being right to listen to anyone without judging them, calling them names, or just responding in anger. If I hadn't touched on something close to home, you would not have gotten so angry.
I've got a formal spring ball a nice lady has invited me to because she likes the way I tango, and I'd much rather get ready for that than sit here, writing back and forth with someone full of sound and fury who seems to think he can make a point by calling names and ranting and raving.
Please, go on with the discussion. You seem to need the chance to vent and deal with your anger -- but don't expect me to play that game. I've got too many upbeat things to do with my life than to point out to someone with poor anger management skills what they can't see themselves.
Good point, but the other side to it is that if we go back to the idea that if you don't like it you can fix it. Whereas the coding can be a heavy time investment, hiring developers can be a heavy financial investment, perhaps costing even more than buying a proprietary program to do the same thing. So, again, for many people, other than large corporations, the barrier to creating a change can be quite high.
Yes, there are issues with proprietary software, but issues in that field do not mean that this one is the best. I still use Linux on 2 of my computers, BSD on one, but ditched Ubuntu on my main desktop for OS X. Nothing's perfect, but I've noticed that many FOSS people are angry at Windows users who say Windows is better, yet the "angry" FOSS people often behave the same way about FOSS.
Don't get me wrong. I love FOSS, but there are limits. One day there won't be as many. I'm amazed at the changes I've seen in FOSS over the past 10 years. I've seen a real office suite appear and mature rather rapidly and I think a lot of other types of software will do the same thing (and when there's a REAL professional FOSS video editing system, I might switch back to a 100% FOSS environment). We've watched most types of software reach the mature stage where the new features in each succeeding version are less and less helpful. While that's gone on, FOSS has caught up in many areas. I think in another 10 years, FOSS will be much more mature all over and there will be less of a need for individuals or small companies to need more features or changes in their software.
Until then, though, the "if you don't like it you can change it" argument does not work for many people. I'm lucky. If I have to, I can dig in and do the coding in most languages and if I don't have the time, I have the resources to put a bounty on a feature or pay for it, but I also know I'm in the minority.
"I see quite well through the trees, thank you."
Thank you for a good laugh. I haven't seen such a clear example of someone stuck in a hole thinking they understand the whole world since I worked in residential treatment and saw addicts saying, "I understand it all, it's you guys who don't know what you're doing!" Yet they're the ones who couldn't stay out of treatment for more than a week.
"It is you the one that expects some kind of magics just because a software distribution license being this or that"
No. I'm not expecting magic, never said I was. You're indulging in extremist thinking -- it's either one way or the other and there's no in between. Thank you for proving part of my point, or one of them.
I've been pointing out that many of us cannot make the investment of fixing code and in many cases, making the investment of even filing a bug report is a lost cause. While the, "If you don't like something you can change it" argument I was responding to sounds good, my point is that is often not an option. I'm not saying there should be magic, I'm pointing out that it isn't always so black and white (but in your posts, you've used several examples that show you see things as either/or, this or that, black or white.
Guess what? Life isn't that way and the issue is more complex. What I find funny is that you say you see the forest through the trees, then go on and on, basically showing with the following statements, that you see only certain options and it all fits into specific categories. You go so far as to say that the options fit in ONLY 3 possibilities.
"I was justificating nobody or anything. What for? I don't own Red Hat shares. I was *explaining* to you your options."
First, yes, you were saying the other side was worse, you were comparing and using that comparison to build up one side, basically justifying it. I don't see how owning Red Hat shares or not has anything to do with it. You've bought into an ideology and basically don't want to see any faults in it, any potential issues, and that goes so far as to miss my point and reply by focusing on other points.
I said I haven't seen someone so stuck in a limited view since I stopped working in residential treatment. I made a mistake. I have seen that in one person since then (and her friends). They were all spending hours telling me how wonderful their system was and how there were no faults and if anyone challenged a word they said, they went into a convoluted logic to say they were wrong. This woman and her friends were in a system called Amway.
"More often than not, that feature request from the 1% of a vocal minority want, which requires 80% effort"
If you're going to make statements like that, then it's more than an appropriate expectation you cite examples, instead of just making a broad, sweeping generalization. Remember, on many of these programs the staff is asking for suggestions. In such a case, accepting only the ones they want and ignoring the ones they don't won't is an indication that, again, they care more about it meeting their needs than anyone else's.
"More often than not, that feature request from the 1% of a vocal minority want, which requires 80% effort"
Thank you for proving my point by making such a self centered "inside looking out with no clue as to how one looks to the rest of the world" statements. Many times the goal of the project is to provide the "mostest." OOo is trying to be the "be all" and "end all" in office suites, trying to do all Office can do and more. Amarok has been trying to be THE music player and is moving beyond KDE to OS X and Windows (as is much of KDE) and has not made statements like, "We want this to be simple and fast, not feature laden." There are many other case, but the point is that often projects are trying to get out there and be used by as many people as possible and actively do things like ask for suggestions or make efforts to reach a wider audience.
If the case is that the development group is trying to reach more people and wants wider acceptance, then it's time to listen to constructive criticism. It may not match the goals of the project, but often such criticism touches on points that intertwine with the project and what it does and ways that the project veers away from the stated goals.
When developers stop feeling entitled and elitist and realize that when projects try to sell themselves to users, they create an atmosphere where users expect more, then we see that the developers and their lack of understanding of human nature leads right to many of these problems.
But notice the time frames you're talking about. And notice that when you're talking about WYSIWYG, how many Linuxers keep telling people how vi and emacs blow away OOo and Abiword.
The change happens when there are so many people that want the change that they overwhelm those who say, "It's good enough for me, it should be good enough for you and would be if you weren't so stupid about computers."
When you write some code and want people to use it and create a website for your FOSS program and make a big deal about how it's just wonderful and everyone should use it, then get back to us and weigh in.
If doesn't even count in horseshoes and atom bombs. It just says that's what you think you'd do, but also tells us you don't have that experience.
Generally those arguments are not applicable. For instance, the issue with vehicles: Almost every one of us, and I'm just talking the U.S. here, have had driver's ed as part of high school. So we can buy a new vehicle without investing weeks of time learning how to run it.
As for housing and such, those are tasks we learn while growing up and along the way. These are simple to learn.
You try to make a point, but the problem is that learning to use Linux requires a high learning curve compared to Mac or Windows and learning to fix FOSS programs requires a VERY steep learning curve that can take months or years, spending hours daily, before one can contribute. That is time outside of everyday life, whereas the other tasks you mention require knowledge learned in everyday life.
Also, as far as learning to drive, there really isn't an alternative for most of us (unless we're in NY or Boston with easy to use public transit). When it comes to FOSS, there are always alternatives and often they do not require anywhere near the learning curve needed for FOSS.
So, as you said, we have to specialize and FOSS is for those who specialize in FOSS.
I worked for years as a developer, now I'm starting a film production company to produce the dramatic scripts I write. I just changed from Linux to an iMac. Why? Because I have to specialize on USING the tools to get other work done. I can no longer specialize in setting up the tools as a profession. A carpenter does not have to build his hammer or put it together and update it and reconfigure it and a writer or video editor shouldn't have to do that either, but my experience is that on Linux, even with the latest Ubuntu, I did have to. It took me a week, a whole week of my time, just to get Ubuntu to be able to import video files from my HD camcorder to something I could use -- and from there, well video editing on Linux is pathetic for professionals. So I switched to something that wasn't FOSS, but where I can specialize in doing the work, not in maintaining the tools to do that work.
Thank you for ignoring completely my comment upstream. Many of us have kids, elder parents, and other responsibilities. Linus is paid to work full time on the kernel. So it's not limited by what one is willing to learn, but also by the constraints of having a life.
Few people are programmers in the first place or have the time to learn to program or program in the language of whatever they'd like to add to or fix and even the programmers have limited time.
Adopting this attitude would basically be like saying, "You shouldn't use this bridge unless you want to learn to build it and repair it as well." It's short sighted, which is exactly the point I've been making about those in the development world being on the inside looking out and not hearing legitimate comments of those on the outside looking in.
You and the poster you're responding to assume the agenda of the coders that contribute have an agenda that helps other users -- often it doesn't. I know I am guilty of this and have contributed fixes or add-ons to FOSS projects that helped me but were features few others would ever care about. I've seen that case many times.
Oh, good idea. I'll pay a few bucks to Red Hat and be a supported user. Then when I need a change in Amarok, I'm sure they'll jump in and add that patch immediately. Or when I find a small issue with writing to an FS, yep, because I paid a few bucks they're gong to write that patch just because I'm a supported user.
You're so deep in the forest, you can't see the forest through the trees.
As for comparisons to MS, that's an old trick in the FOSS community, and it proves the point about criticism -- and the point in my other post that the FOSS community can't take criticism unless they agree with it. When someone comes up with an honest point that indicates FOSS is less than perfect, one of the most common responses is, "But try MS and see how bad THEY are."
That another way is bad is no justification for not improving what one is involved in. That's just a logical fallacy, but if you consider it a good excuse, then keep using it -- or, instead, you could step in and pay a few bucks or contribute, as you suggest, and make it better instead of being an apologist.
That assumes that you either know the language the kernel or a program is written in, AND have the time to investigate and make the change. Often even professional coders don't have the time to make all the changes to FOSS programs they'd like.
I know it sounds like a good argument for FOSS, but in reality, only a small, and I mean very small, percentage of users, actually have the resources to make changes in a FOSS program.
That's like saying, "This is great for 3% of all users out there so EVERYONE should use it because of that." It totally ignores the needs of 97% of all users.
No wonder there's a problem with criticism for Linux and FOSS: those involved are too busy being right and making statements that make sense to themselves to take time to listen to what most users can actually use or would need.
Developers may be critical of their own code, but they see it from their view, not from the view of the users. I've seen many cases where bug reports were "written off" or were closed and the developers' responses were either, "We're not going to implement that because it's too much work," (even when the bug or issue or request has a lot of votes) or some other excuse that indicates they're trying to just write it off, but don't see how important it is to others.
It's the case that those inside looking out are talking about how great they are, but often they refuse to listen to those outside looking in. It's the same issue with Windows. Linuxers wonder how people can think Windows is so good, but it's because people in that world ignore external criticism. Linux and FOSS developers are they same way, they just pretend they aren't: They listen to the criticisms that match their views and ignore or write off those they don't want to hear.
He's in quite a happy reality.
It just has nothing to do with the reality most humans are experiencing.
But that's why his reality is so happy: He doesn't have to deal with anyone else's.
I'm no expert, but on a general reading, it sounds like Aries was designed by people trying to meet the specs on paper and this was designed by people who know the astronauts and know what they're doing and want to protect the people and do their job -- not just meet the specs and make a profit.
But I have to admit, calling any spacecraft a Jupiter makes me uneasy. I'd risk a ride in the first one and anything from the third on, but there's no way I'd trust any vehicle referenced at all as the Jupiter II.