but in reality these companies are just as money hungry as Microsoft
But they can't exploit it asif they where a single company, nor they can have exclusive rights to be members: everyone can join and support it.
It's MUCH better, can't you see that? If this passport thing is going to happen, then i'd preffer a lot of members and not a single provider, single technology.
Why would a 1 company monopoly be any better than this? I am totaly in for Liberty Alliance.
and communism would be the blocks that have already joined their brethren, no?
Nope. Under socialism, you have to do whatever the central goverment wants you to do. Under comunism, everyone can do whatever they like. Magically, all goods are shared and everyone is free, as individuals. So in practice, we've never seen comunism (except for some african tribes where members are free to do as they like, but they share everything).
But yes, we talk of comunism as socialism. But it's completely different (comunism = NO central goverment and NO central planning of the economy).
Comunism looks more than capitalism but with a perfect distribution of wealth. Imposible. Who'd want to save or even work? But that's what one day may happen. What if some day we can have whatever we need? (say everything is 100% automated, self-reparing and self-improving). Nobody sees it, but comunism may be practical in the future, if for the wrong reasons.
Comunism is as individualistic as liberalism. Comunism focus on abolition of private property of the means of production. The oposite of both these is true socialism: where humans are seen as a society and that is more important than the individuals.
So, all the blocks coming togheter would be socialism and _not_ comunism. This includes the church view, the "third way" and many other supporters of this view.
What? You think you'll never ever save enough to buy a Apple? What you didn't get an education or what? You don't have hopes? Come on, you can have the dream of making a lot of money by just studing, beign nice, making friends, making an effort in every job you take and then pushing your area of knowledge into the fields you are weak (and the ones that you specially don't like or that you think you are not endowed enough).
You could probably by 10 macs a month if you really really wanted and had a bit of luck (and a lot of persistence).
Beign said that, you shouln't but a mac just because you afford it. I don't think I will buy one!
I don't think I agree with everything you said. For example, you can't hide the fact that permissions per users, and having different users do different stuff are usefull (and complex). You may not need it yet, but you will at some point. Everything in your home dir is your, so mama shouldn't know. But if they want to delete/sbin, they will find out they can't and that's good.
I mean, you can use Lindows, but I don't think it's usefull. For he 2.6 or 2.8 kernel they will be trying to finegrain the "root" user concept. So you don't always need to be root for lot of stuff.
Regarding the.whatever files, I preffer that system than to hide everything in the Registry or in GConf. Why? Because I can really backup my users data and config, and if want, i can take a look at what's there. Maybe everything could have been placed under a ~/.config/ so as to not mess the home dir.
As for the frontend stuff, it pretty much depends on ho the frontend is done. If the core part is not really meant to be frontended you can have a problem. Core app should take into account that they may need to be frontended. I mean, it would be close to have an interface to EVERY program. Where ONE frontend would be a command line utility and there could be other frontends (differet commandline, a KDE GUI, a GTK GUI, a Gnome gui). That alone would be a great adition.
There are some apps that deal with this sucessfully. For example Xine has completely separated the GUI stuff from the core program, and you have a lot of "quality" frontends.
It is caos. Unless you don't want to selfmaintain the system (and just use redcarpet, rpm2date or the suse updater).
So yes, the directory structure is a mess (completelly agree). I'd love to see everything moved to/system, except for the/home dir.
It's complicated (too much legacy). But the user doesn't need to see/understand all that mess. At least, that's how I think! Only his home dir is relevant.
Linux is choice. Once you have _chosen_, then it can be anything you had wanted it to be (depending on previous choices).
For a company making a software app. it can be a trouble (for support especially) since many people can run different stuff.
But from a users perspective well, you can have a decent grass playground with NO sand whatsoever. Granted, you'll have to tidy it yourself once you screw it:)
I don't me to contradict you, but the problem is i am very tidy, and have chosen a lot (meaning have to discard a lot so to keep the thing "windows wise" consistent).
The common standards that should make them use the same clipboard?
Being discussed already I think
The common standards that should allow to define a set of icons you want to have on your desktop and when you switch from KDE to Gnome, they are still there?
Use one or the other! They are NOT complementary. Same as with Windows, OSX, OS/2 and every DE
The common standards that make them use the same start menu?
Use one or the other! They are NOT complementary. Same as with Windows, OSX, OS/2 and every DE
The common standards that make it so simple to write a configuration program that can be used with every distro - after all they are all called Linux, so what?
Valid point:) (though beign addressed)
The common standards that allow having to configure one aspect of the system at a single place instead of two or three (what was it, fonts?).
Well, mostly everything is configured at one place, the diversity comes mostlyfrom frontends (except when using different stuff like lpd or CUPS)
The common standards that allow setting a "default browser" in one single central place? Did I miss anything?
It's already there for Gnome and KDE!
Your complaint seem to be more that there are multiple possibilities or too much variants of everything to have standarized products. The point is valid! But that does not mean Linux is crap.
Now it all looks like low level "programming". How long until there's enough research so that scientists can start using high level languages for this?
It may sound stupid, but that's also what some hackers though about C or anything 20 years ago. Or even now (compiled vs. interpreted).
If someone steals my software, then they are liable to me under the law-- not to the feds. The feds have no rights to my code and no rights to lock people up for violating my rights in this way.
In certain way, big companies allowing piracy (bad protection, negligence) are hurting you and they are in reality using discriminatory price policies.
Because they know they are better off letting piracy go on (college kidz, home users), so that whoever call/will pay wil use their better product. And whoever can't (or won't and can't be enforced to pay (note: forcing them to pay != forcing them to not use the product)) will use the pirated version.
So you get NO revenues from a product that say has "95% of the features of the big player", and they get all that's enforceable.
And MS and others (Adobe) knew and know piracy is their #1 ALLY. They never inluded real anti piracy. The companies that included strong anti-piracy suffered like hell (because of MS and the like policies).
Bottom line: anti-piracy can only work if EVERYONE PLAYS A FAIR GAME (ie: everyone uses strong anti-piracy). If there are some "cheaters" with no anti-piracy, they're just doing it to kill your revenue and get a decent userbase. After all we already know a huge userbase means money.
How can you call this copying Microsoft when it has been available years before they included the "feature". I mean PCAnyware and the likes...
Come on, they implement things as they see fit, when they like it and of course, everyone can contribute.
You've see some people begging for file upload progress bars in the browser? So? I've seen hundreds if not thouthands of people begging for different stuff. The thing is doing them, and doing only the ones than make sense.
I think we have a point. What's the point on adding a single password to validate all transactions with all credit cards (as well as you hotmail login!)?
It's dangerous. For once, stores will have to pay to yet another company for the "service" yet take all costs (in case the password is stolen). And probably will open the door for bigger frauds ("hey, they had the password and credit card number!").
Also, it's really NOT like a signature. In real life you sign the piece of papers, it's you. But a single password is not even nearly as close.
What would be good is to have a really secure way that cards can't be exploited. This aint the solution, yet we'll have a hard time trying to get rid of it after it's proven unsatisfactory.
One time pads could be a solution (ie: kind of digital bill). We need good ideas...
When was the last time merchants got to choose what the buyer options are (or even their very OWN options)? Remember, Microsoft will leverage wisely and chain an unavoidable upgrade path...as they always did (and they never did fail when determined). They only need some time...
Paladium detected you are trying to submit a credit card number over the unsecure Internet. Submiting this information in this channel cannot be allow, to protect your security. Please choose one of the secure alternatives:
Wrong. Stop "extending" until you have the system "secured". They are going for world monopolization before they actually earned the chance from a technical perspective.
Is this good for us? Theyr shreholders interests don't cope well with what Must Be Done...
Ok, i know you where probably trolling, but you can configure whatever you like ctrl-tab under Gnome. If you want it for a specific app, then that's app dependant (like Galeon ctrl-left means Back())
Step 1: 95% don't care or don't/can't know. 5% do care (including you). Step 2: Monopoly Step 3: Profits (from you pocket)
What is the problem here? The problem is running a huge leverageable monopoly and a huge shit load of money to pressure everyone. 'We got "this much", you better jump on the wagon early or that will cost you!'.
Now, you think Microsoft is the same as any other company. Like if Rehat, Corel or Apple could push something like Password with any degree of success. Well, they CAN'T, so you solution is _not_ fine.
Microsoft should prove in court they are not leveraging their Monopoly for EVERY product they plan to release. They should carefully explain how and why there will be competition for every product which leverages their monopoly.
If something is not done, then the world will have a war to fight. It will be the fight against Microsoft. On the one had, you'll have the biggest company in the world and the greatest economy. On the other hand well, all the other companies and countries.
Will it help the USA economy in the long run? That's what remains to be seen. Because countries are losing Money (as in capital outflows), Privacy & Security (spyware) and Independance (propietary formats, termns). And they will begin to understand what's going on pretty soon (hopefully, before it's too late).
Yes, after 7 hours of straight play (except for some quick food) you really become relaxed. I know it must be true, but somehow, it didn't work for the times I've done that...I must be special!
Slashdot Mirror
Would you trust Microsoft? Also, bear in mind AOL is not producing any code here.
but in reality these companies are just as money hungry as Microsoft
But they can't exploit it asif they where a single company, nor they can have exclusive rights to be members: everyone can join and support it.
It's MUCH better, can't you see that? If this passport thing is going to happen, then i'd preffer a lot of members and not a single provider, single technology.
Why would a 1 company monopoly be any better than this? I am totaly in for Liberty Alliance.
and communism would be the blocks that have already joined their brethren, no?
Nope. Under socialism, you have to do whatever the central goverment wants you to do. Under comunism, everyone can do whatever they like. Magically, all goods are shared and everyone is free, as individuals. So in practice, we've never seen comunism (except for some african tribes where members are free to do as they like, but they share everything).
But yes, we talk of comunism as socialism. But it's completely different (comunism = NO central goverment and NO central planning of the economy).
Comunism looks more than capitalism but with a perfect distribution of wealth. Imposible. Who'd want to save or even work? But that's what one day may happen. What if some day we can have whatever we need? (say everything is 100% automated, self-reparing and self-improving). Nobody sees it, but comunism may be practical in the future, if for the wrong reasons.
Comunism is as individualistic as liberalism. Comunism focus on abolition of private property of the means of production. The oposite of both these is true socialism: where humans are seen as a society and that is more important than the individuals.
So, all the blocks coming togheter would be socialism and _not_ comunism. This includes the church view, the "third way" and many other supporters of this view.
Just a small corretion (I though I could share)!
What? You think you'll never ever save enough to buy a Apple? What you didn't get an education or what? You don't have hopes? Come on, you can have the dream of making a lot of money by just studing, beign nice, making friends, making an effort in every job you take and then pushing your area of knowledge into the fields you are weak (and the ones that you specially don't like or that you think you are not endowed enough).
You could probably by 10 macs a month if you really really wanted and had a bit of luck (and a lot of persistence).
Beign said that, you shouln't but a mac just because you afford it. I don't think I will buy one!
I don't think I agree with everything you said. For example, you can't hide the fact that permissions per users, and having different users do different stuff are usefull (and complex). You may not need it yet, but you will at some point. Everything in your home dir is your, so mama shouldn't know. But if they want to delete /sbin, they will find out they can't and that's good.
.whatever files, I preffer that system than to hide everything in the Registry or in GConf. Why? Because I can really backup my users data and config, and if want, i can take a look at what's there. Maybe everything could have been placed under a ~/.config/ so as to not mess the home dir.
I mean, you can use Lindows, but I don't think it's usefull. For he 2.6 or 2.8 kernel they will be trying to finegrain the "root" user concept. So you don't always need to be root for lot of stuff.
Regarding the
As for the frontend stuff, it pretty much depends on ho the frontend is done. If the core part is not really meant to be frontended you can have a problem. Core app should take into account that they may need to be frontended. I mean, it would be close to have an interface to EVERY program. Where ONE frontend would be a command line utility and there could be other frontends (differet commandline, a KDE GUI, a GTK GUI, a Gnome gui). That alone would be a great adition.
There are some apps that deal with this sucessfully. For example Xine has completely separated the GUI stuff from the core program, and you have a lot of "quality" frontends.
It is caos. Unless you don't want to selfmaintain the system (and just use redcarpet, rpm2date or the suse updater).
/system, except for the /home dir.
So yes, the directory structure is a mess (completelly agree). I'd love to see everything moved to
It's complicated (too much legacy). But the user doesn't need to see/understand all that mess. At least, that's how I think! Only his home dir is relevant.
Linux is choice. Once you have _chosen_, then it can be anything you had wanted it to be (depending on previous choices).
:)
For a company making a software app. it can be a trouble (for support especially) since many people can run different stuff.
But from a users perspective well, you can have a decent grass playground with NO sand whatsoever. Granted, you'll have to tidy it yourself once you screw it
I don't me to contradict you, but the problem is i am very tidy, and have chosen a lot (meaning have to discard a lot so to keep the thing "windows wise" consistent).
The standards KDE apps follow?
:) (though beign addressed)
KDE Standards.
The standards Gnome apps follow?
KDE Standards.
The common standards that should make them use the same clipboard?
Being discussed already I think
The common standards that should allow to define a set of icons you want to have on your desktop and when you switch from KDE to Gnome, they are still there?
Use one or the other! They are NOT complementary. Same as with Windows, OSX, OS/2 and every DE
The common standards that make them use the same start menu?
Use one or the other! They are NOT complementary. Same as with Windows, OSX, OS/2 and every DE
The common standards that make it so simple to write a configuration program that can be used with every distro - after all they are all called Linux, so what?
Valid point
The common standards that allow having to configure one aspect of the system at a single place instead of two or three (what was it, fonts?).
Well, mostly everything is configured at one place, the diversity comes mostlyfrom frontends (except when using different stuff like lpd or CUPS)
The common standards that allow setting a "default browser" in one single central place? Did I miss anything?
It's already there for Gnome and KDE!
Your complaint seem to be more that there are multiple possibilities or too much variants of everything to have standarized products. The point is valid! But that does not mean Linux is crap.
I really meant "high level". As an example (imposibly simple and uneducated, but to ilustrate the point):
// As high level as it gets
<?php
include "ebola.db";
include "hapinnes.db";
$replication = grow(stablilize(splice(ebola.dna, 5, 7, soup(5,7,12))));
if($hash = confirm($replication)) {
simplify($replication, MatterLaw_Method5(4,$hash));
} else {
echo dump_analisis($replication);
}
$done = complement(replication => $replication, * => $hapinness);
package($done);
print($done, "DNA_Printer1", 50);
?>
Or nothing at all can be abstracted?
Well, it should not. That's probably why he was hired in the first place, as everyone else in the sector :)
Now it all looks like low level "programming". How long until there's enough research so that scientists can start using high level languages for this?
It may sound stupid, but that's also what some hackers though about C or anything 20 years ago. Or even now (compiled vs. interpreted).
If someone steals my software, then they are liable to me under the law-- not to the feds. The feds have no rights to my code and no rights to lock people up for violating my rights in this way.
In certain way, big companies allowing piracy (bad protection, negligence) are hurting you and they are in reality using discriminatory price policies.
Because they know they are better off letting piracy go on (college kidz, home users), so that whoever call/will pay wil use their better product. And whoever can't (or won't and can't be enforced to pay (note: forcing them to pay != forcing them to not use the product)) will use the pirated version.
So you get NO revenues from a product that say has "95% of the features of the big player", and they get all that's enforceable.
And MS and others (Adobe) knew and know piracy is their #1 ALLY. They never inluded real anti piracy. The companies that included strong anti-piracy suffered like hell (because of MS and the like policies).
Bottom line: anti-piracy can only work if EVERYONE PLAYS A FAIR GAME (ie: everyone uses strong anti-piracy). If there are some "cheaters" with no anti-piracy, they're just doing it to kill your revenue and get a decent userbase. After all we already know a huge userbase means money.
Desktop = Windows?? With that definition of course you'll reach the conclusion (which is the premise anyway)....
Also, under Linux most things are developed after common standards unlike Windows, which are propietary non-standards.
How can you call this copying Microsoft when it has been available years before they included the "feature". I mean PCAnyware and the likes...
Come on, they implement things as they see fit, when they like it and of course, everyone can contribute.
You've see some people begging for file upload progress bars in the browser? So? I've seen hundreds if not thouthands of people begging for different stuff. The thing is doing them, and doing only the ones than make sense.
I had to do it at least once
You know you can use Windows with just a keyboard. Wish I could say the same for Gnome. You just can't. You can do some thing at best.
I think we have a point. What's the point on adding a single password to validate all transactions with all credit cards (as well as you hotmail login!)?
It's dangerous. For once, stores will have to pay to yet another company for the "service" yet take all costs (in case the password is stolen). And probably will open the door for bigger frauds ("hey, they had the password and credit card number!").
Also, it's really NOT like a signature. In real life you sign the piece of papers, it's you. But a single password is not even nearly as close.
What would be good is to have a really secure way that cards can't be exploited. This aint the solution, yet we'll have a hard time trying to get rid of it after it's proven unsatisfactory.
One time pads could be a solution (ie: kind of digital bill). We need good ideas...
Sorry but ...
...
HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAH AHAHH HAHAHAHAHHA
Erhmm...
When was the last time merchants got to choose what the buyer options are (or even their very OWN options)? Remember, Microsoft will leverage wisely and chain an unavoidable upgrade path...as they always did (and they never did fail when determined). They only need some time
What if:
Paladium detected you are trying to submit a credit card number over the unsecure Internet. Submiting this information in this channel cannot be allow, to protect your security. Please choose one of the secure alternatives:
[Submit it though your Passport] [Close Browser]
Wrong. Stop "extending" until you have the system "secured". They are going for world monopolization before they actually earned the chance from a technical perspective.
Is this good for us? Theyr shreholders interests don't cope well with what Must Be Done...
* alt-tab (sorry, i have way too many apps loaded, and need to switch quickly)
Settings -> Control Settings -> Sawfish -> Shortcuts:
[Global] M-TAB : Cycle Windows
Modifier key: ALT
* taskbar (I even has a taskbar on my amiga before windows)
Well...we know both have
* window placement alignment (nice feature, snap alignment in windows)
Both have.
* Cut and paste (icewm supports windows keys)
For mostly every app: defaults to ctrl-c, ctrl-v, ctrol-x (MS like)
For HTML browsing: Settings -> Control Settings -> Document Handlers -> HTML Viewer -> ShortCuts: [MS Like]
Ok, i know you where probably trolling, but you can configure whatever you like ctrl-tab under Gnome. If you want it for a specific app, then that's app dependant (like Galeon ctrl-left means Back())
Anyway...
Look at the results from your line of thought:
Step 1: 95% don't care or don't/can't know. 5% do care (including you).
Step 2: Monopoly
Step 3: Profits (from you pocket)
What is the problem here? The problem is running a huge leverageable monopoly and a huge shit load of money to pressure everyone. 'We got "this much", you better jump on the wagon early or that will cost you!'.
Now, you think Microsoft is the same as any other company. Like if Rehat, Corel or Apple could push something like Password with any degree of success. Well, they CAN'T, so you solution is _not_ fine.
Microsoft should prove in court they are not leveraging their Monopoly for EVERY product they plan to release. They should carefully explain how and why there will be competition for every product which leverages their monopoly.
If something is not done, then the world will have a war to fight. It will be the fight against Microsoft. On the one had, you'll have the biggest company in the world and the greatest economy. On the other hand well, all the other companies and countries.
Will it help the USA economy in the long run? That's what remains to be seen. Because countries are losing Money (as in capital outflows), Privacy & Security (spyware) and Independance (propietary formats, termns). And they will begin to understand what's going on pretty soon (hopefully, before it's too late).
Yes, after 7 hours of straight play (except for some quick food) you really become relaxed. I know it must be true, but somehow, it didn't work for the times I've done that...I must be special!