Yeah. I know where you come from and I used to think like you.
Then I realized that none of it is worth fighting for. Yeah, more strict copyright laws might be a shame, nonintuitive and cumbersome, but it's really not the end of the world. It's not important. Not even if I can't lend a book to a friend anymore as in Stallman's dystopia.
Couple that with extremely long-lasting copyright terms, and it becomes difficult if not impossible to find/be able to play music from lesser known bands 30, 50 or 100 years down the line.
I don't see why a consumer should care about the items you listed. For instance, you seem to place a specific emphasis on DRM, but the fact is that it won't affect most consumers who just want to be able to watch a movie on their dedicated, licensed device.
Yeah, it's really hard to do couple of clicks and get the key from a key server. Or upload it there. Or export to clipboard and paste it to a mail and send it to the person, or...
And explain to people how to install encryption plug-ins, how to download/upload a key, how to revoke a key and that yes, they have to remember a pass phrase which has got to be a bloody long one if they want things to be secure. All that after you've convinced them that you're not a bloody tin-foil hat wearing lunatic for insisting on the use of encryption in the first place.
And when I can't remember my pass phrase anymore, I'll have to create another one, mail it to my contacts and ask them to trust me. Furthermore, I can't revoke the old key. Nice.
No thanks. I'll keep sending my mails in plain text. My e-mails aren't that interesting anyway.
The EU recommends European citizens use cryptography in all communications
Too bad (public key) cryptography is too difficult for most people to use. Heck, even I don't encrypt my e-mail because it's a pain in the ass to do. The key-management, in particular, is cumbersome.
who wanted to see how people would react to an absence of information, and he was disappointed that people expected the worst
I don't see why that should be a surprise or a disappointment. Is he trying to make a case that people should trust people more? Bollocks. In the absence of valid information during a decision making process it would be foolish not to assume the worst.
...yet I am a member of the state church. Furthermore, I'm happy to pay the small church tax. Why?
Political reasons. A functioning state church attracts religiously inspired people into one flock and under one "official" Lutheran doctrine that's very, very stable - and dare I say pseudo-secular in its tolerance towards minorities and other religions - in the long run.
This marginalizes the influence of the more miltant lunatic (evangelical) fringe and enhances the stability of our society. I would go as far as atttributing the complete absence of a credible religious right in Finland to the existence state church.
Those who seek the destruction of the one, monolithic state church should think about what they're wishing for.
But that means that you have to hire "pilots" so there's always someone sitting in the cockpit... maybe I should apply for such a job. Board the plane, spend several hours just sitting there and watching the clouds, get out, have fun at the exotic location you just arrived at and then "fly" back.
Uh... I was disappointed after the MacBook Pro release since they didn't make a small screen (12") version available.
For some people like me the screen size is not a priority. I'd rather have a lightweight (2 kg or less) laptop with a crystal clear 12" 1024x768 screen than a monster "laptop" with a heavy, energy sucking 15"-17" screen. Why? Because I like to actually carry my laptop around instead of using it as a fancy and expensive desktop replacement.
It is warfare, and it sucks, but it is how it needs to be done.
Ok. So, what's the next step? "It is warfare, and it sucks, but we need to torture people for information that may save our soldiers' lives - it is how it needs to be done".
"Lightspeed fits today's active life style, whether you're on the job or having fun. Lightspeed Briefs - style and comfort for the discriminating crotch."
1+1 = 2. So, that already makes two desktops for Linux. And that's just counting KDE and GNOME. Can you count how many different widget sets there are for *nix systems? Saying that Mac or Windows desktops are worse than that is ridiculous.
Yes, GNOME applications do run under KDE if you have both installed, but it doesn't look pretty nor are the application menus/dialogs consistent.So, I don't understand where you get your idea of "only one GUI for Linux".
To me a standard desktop is a desktop which forces every application to conform to the same look and feel - yes, one and one desktop only. If you want Linux desktop to gain wider popularity, that's what has got to happen first. The order and content of menus (where, for instance, you can find the preferences) as well as the look and feel of windows/buttons/etc. must be the same from one application to other. Mac is not perfect in this sense, Windows is worse but Linux desktop is the worst. There is too much freedom to tweak the GUI and, hence, every distro and every machine seems to have a slightly different setup. That is my point. I can handle it because I used to like working on such fast-and-loose systems, but such a variety of will confuse and annoy most people.
But the original topic of this thread was about distributions, not about the GUI. Nevertheless, the same concept applies to distributions as well: if you want corporations to accept Linux as a desktop platform, you will have to have a standard (in the sense that I am using the word here) distro, too. One and one distro only.
Common core platform for Linux will never happen. Developers and the core user community are too afraid of standardization - just see what's holding Linux desktop GUI back: there is no standard GUI (at least when it comes to widgets, menus, style and configuration) in the same way as on Mac. Why is there no standardized desktop? Because developers and the core user community abhor any idea of such a lockdown that limits their ability to tweak the system. Imagine a situation like this: "That's a fine application there, Mr. Developer, but its user interface doesn't conform to the distribution regulations and hence we cannot include it in the distro". It's exactly the same thing with distros.
Ah yes. It has to be a Microsoft conspiracy, because people's unwillingness to use Linux can't have anything to do with the Linux desktop itself now can it?
What happened to your faith in the markets? If Linux desktop is truly equivalent to the Windows desktop, or even better than Windows, people will want to get a machine with it. Right?
Slashdot Mirror
Then I realized that none of it is worth fighting for. Yeah, more strict copyright laws might be a shame, nonintuitive and cumbersome, but it's really not the end of the world. It's not important. Not even if I can't lend a book to a friend anymore as in Stallman's dystopia.
And you should be able to do that because...?
The same answer applies. Think vinyl vs. CD.
They buy another one - just like they'd do every few years anyway.
I don't see why a consumer should care about the items you listed. For instance, you seem to place a specific emphasis on DRM, but the fact is that it won't affect most consumers who just want to be able to watch a movie on their dedicated, licensed device.
And explain to people how to install encryption plug-ins, how to download/upload a key, how to revoke a key and that yes, they have to remember a pass phrase which has got to be a bloody long one if they want things to be secure. All that after you've convinced them that you're not a bloody tin-foil hat wearing lunatic for insisting on the use of encryption in the first place.
And when I can't remember my pass phrase anymore, I'll have to create another one, mail it to my contacts and ask them to trust me. Furthermore, I can't revoke the old key. Nice.
No thanks. I'll keep sending my mails in plain text. My e-mails aren't that interesting anyway.
Too bad (public key) cryptography is too difficult for most people to use. Heck, even I don't encrypt my e-mail because it's a pain in the ass to do. The key-management, in particular, is cumbersome.
I don't see why that should be a surprise or a disappointment. Is he trying to make a case that people should trust people more? Bollocks. In the absence of valid information during a decision making process it would be foolish not to assume the worst.
Are you implying that with a state church you can't have democracy?
Political reasons. A functioning state church attracts religiously inspired people into one flock and under one "official" Lutheran doctrine that's very, very stable - and dare I say pseudo-secular in its tolerance towards minorities and other religions - in the long run.
This marginalizes the influence of the more miltant lunatic (evangelical) fringe and enhances the stability of our society. I would go as far as atttributing the complete absence of a credible religious right in Finland to the existence state church.
Those who seek the destruction of the one, monolithic state church should think about what they're wishing for.
So, what's the average reaction time of the flight marshals?
But that means that you have to hire "pilots" so there's always someone sitting in the cockpit... maybe I should apply for such a job. Board the plane, spend several hours just sitting there and watching the clouds, get out, have fun at the exotic location you just arrived at and then "fly" back.
Most people today would probably refuse to board a plane that flies without a human pilot, yet the development is inevitable. It will just take time.
For some people like me the screen size is not a priority. I'd rather have a lightweight (2 kg or less) laptop with a crystal clear 12" 1024x768 screen than a monster "laptop" with a heavy, energy sucking 15"-17" screen. Why? Because I like to actually carry my laptop around instead of using it as a fancy and expensive desktop replacement.
Ok. So, what's the next step? "It is warfare, and it sucks, but we need to torture people for information that may save our soldiers' lives - it is how it needs to be done".
I refuse to sign to the idea of "they don't deserve justice" simply because it is inconvenient.
"Lightspeed fits today's active life style, whether you're on the job or having fun. Lightspeed Briefs - style and comfort for the discriminating crotch."
Nonsense. Everybody deserves a trial.
Uh... OK. He should plead insanity.
What good is theoretical physics for if you can't compare the theories with experimental results?
Now that even Google has been ordered to hand over all the search data, you can bet that the government will want access to all S3 data, too.
As an experimentalist, it's refreshing to see someone making such a comment.
1+1 = 2. So, that already makes two desktops for Linux. And that's just counting KDE and GNOME. Can you count how many different widget sets there are for *nix systems? Saying that Mac or Windows desktops are worse than that is ridiculous.
Yes, GNOME applications do run under KDE if you have both installed, but it doesn't look pretty nor are the application menus/dialogs consistent.So, I don't understand where you get your idea of "only one GUI for Linux".
To me a standard desktop is a desktop which forces every application to conform to the same look and feel - yes, one and one desktop only. If you want Linux desktop to gain wider popularity, that's what has got to happen first. The order and content of menus (where, for instance, you can find the preferences) as well as the look and feel of windows/buttons/etc. must be the same from one application to other. Mac is not perfect in this sense, Windows is worse but Linux desktop is the worst. There is too much freedom to tweak the GUI and, hence, every distro and every machine seems to have a slightly different setup. That is my point. I can handle it because I used to like working on such fast-and-loose systems, but such a variety of will confuse and annoy most people.
But the original topic of this thread was about distributions, not about the GUI. Nevertheless, the same concept applies to distributions as well: if you want corporations to accept Linux as a desktop platform, you will have to have a standard (in the sense that I am using the word here) distro, too. One and one distro only.
That is, if you want Linux on Dell computers.
Common core platform for Linux will never happen. Developers and the core user community are too afraid of standardization - just see what's holding Linux desktop GUI back: there is no standard GUI (at least when it comes to widgets, menus, style and configuration) in the same way as on Mac. Why is there no standardized desktop? Because developers and the core user community abhor any idea of such a lockdown that limits their ability to tweak the system. Imagine a situation like this: "That's a fine application there, Mr. Developer, but its user interface doesn't conform to the distribution regulations and hence we cannot include it in the distro". It's exactly the same thing with distros.
What happened to your faith in the markets? If Linux desktop is truly equivalent to the Windows desktop, or even better than Windows, people will want to get a machine with it. Right?