Here's a rub. I can see why ordering agencies would *like* to have access to information of this nature. However, because I know they *will* lie, cheat, and steal as they are actually people not some form of God on Earth then it is *not* my duty to make it easy for them to get it. In fact, it is the opposite: if they want it they have to get through me to get it. Every me, and that means you too Citizen: stand up and be counted!
They think just because they can it's a good idea? Doesn't sabotage the principles of free and open societies at all?! Imagine if they did in real life half the things they already do online. I'd have already picked up a gun just because others already would have too.
I'm not talking about the monitoring, I'm talking about limited installs, installing crap-ware with no choice, and treating you as a thief in attitudes by default. On a console, I put the bloody disc in and I just play.
Microsoft paying when people use Ubuntu! Oooooh, my morning just became deliciously enriched. *Thank you* slashdot, these are the moments I know why I come here! =D
This is *exactly* the line of bullshit that made me buy a console. There is simply less of it there for now: compare GTA IV on PC and Xbox 360. PC is just a stupid situation. So, already bonehead decisions by stupid out-of-touch executives have already stopped me from purchasing PC games. Please don't extend that to the consoles because then I'd have to stop purchasing games altogether. Notice I said purchasing, I'm sure there will be versions available that aren't stupid. Way to go Ubisoft: you just connected yourself with "bullshit" in *my* mind, so *my* money is forever out of your grasp until you become less stupid.
Seriously, need to make a square filter fit in a round processing machine? Hell, with the followers of that twitter account: darn useful. Just because you don't understand it doesn't make real-time useless:P
Codeweavers has a good model going, older code merged back into WINE, cutting edge closed and sold for the moment! I *bought* *on Linux* Crossover because of its true value and to the lesser degree that contribution back as a responsible member of the community.
I love Ubuntu as well, it's nice to meet a kindred spirit;) Ubuntu allows you to ease in, bit by bit: I have more than one computer at hand so I can always use the second one to google for the fixes for the other when I make a drastic mistake! Most of the time, well, it's just *interesting* and the openness gives you a freedom to tinker that just isn't present to the degree with any Windows.
I ignore all moderation here, especially down moderation as that is always disagreement. There should only be positive mods and they should not be limited to 5. Set your threshold wherever you like with that. There are no consequences to moderation any more either as the only thing it used to affect, order of comments if you used that no longer really exists.
Windows has a unified installer. Of course there are alternatives like InstallShield there too. Overall for Linux, way back when I was using Suse 9 I would have killed for a consistent installer instead of the crapshoot of configure make make install and pray for the dependencies I was stuck with, and don't even look at rpm you peasant from that version of the OS. Just because it doesn't exist doesn't mean it's stupid to work towards it. The back-biting does need to go and it will take time.
My desktop was fine, one of the others was fine, the other one has an Ati HD2600 and Ubuntu's X hates it. Black screen on reboot with the proprietary drivers. So, new kernel, xorg-edgers ppa, lots of cursing - oops: reading, and radeonhd open source driver. Works, but not exactly what I wished. Someday, probably Lucid Lynx, HD2600 won't be a pain with Ubuntu.
I bought: Crossover Linux. And you know what? It does make closed-source Windows applications pretty darn easy. Everything is kept firmly in your ~ as it should be stability wise. There are many awesome package managers out there and with Ubuntu as an example because that is what I'm familiar with: any commercial developer could create their own PPA for end-users to add as a repository themselves. The issue is making the format for repositories a standard and adopting it across distributions. Perhaps, the package manager should be part of: Linux Standards Base if it already is not?
To continue, while I'm here;), Some things are: too important to patent if you believe Mr. Jefferson. And as a matter of fact in the founding of the United States of America it was a close call whether patents should be allowed at all. The promoting the progress bit won out narrowly. Today, I believe this should be re-examined. We have reached the critical mass where if someone does not do it, someone else will. Therefore, the promoting the progress bit is not as valid. But stagnation rules the day, the slow slide into irrelevance because of a lack of keeping up with the times. There are many vested interests who manipulate issues to their own ends so I doubt we'll see a honest look at the issue any time soon. Perhaps, in the mean-time, when it comes to patents just emulate ironically those who appear to have that little bit right: China. Hell, distribute your software out of nations that are not stupid and let the USA wallow in itself for this issue.
You read the article?! That's a cardinal sin, shame on you! To myself, this story fit enough for a comment that was pre-existing in my mind so it was wedged in to share what I could. You are right, patents are dumb. Physical things you can perhaps see a logic to patent but when you are in the abstract the issue is much less clear because at a fundamental nature is boils down to do you allow a patent on: 2 + 2 = 4? The abstract, or ideas, are not as tangible as machines and therefore should not suffer the same protections. The contrary logic is that the abstract algorithms represented in the patents are run in a physical processor. The particular configuration of logic gates to represent that algorithm is seen as the parallel of a physical machine, as if that configuration was a special-purpose machine. I happen to disagree with this interpretation because in a wider context I also see that restricting the commons to such a degree while beneficial to some is detrimental to all.
Functionality is king. Like you say, it just needs to work. From there you just don't tell them. A lot of new products are coming with cores based on Open and this is a good thing because it does spread the good. Most individuals fall into the thought trap of: "The devil I know is better than the one I don't." And will reject even something that is better in the actual simply because it saves thought. Those people you don't worry about giving the choice to, as a device maker you just use what is good and they will adopt it anyway, perhaps with a little whine as that is in their nature. Those who do think things through will also adopt what works and will be thankful for the efficiencies, or savings, along the way as well. I never thought I'd see it but when I'm starting to read more stories of companies such as Dell selling more and more systems preconfigured with Linux, well, I'm starting to see the fuzzy outline of the "tipping point." Microsoft must be fuming;)
Thought I should clarify further the special case that is Microsoft. Other corporations have no issues with working with Open because their products are not competing with the core operating system itself, they are complementing them so there is no profit motive conflict with interoperating with Linux. Microsoft as a special case of corporation makes a significant amount of money from a product that competes with the core of open source. This does conflict with their profit motive so, again, as a special case they need to be examined in a different light.
Many open-source applications have been recompiled for Windows and many Windows applications run on Linux using translation layers such as WINE or it's easier to use commercial counterpart, Crossover. So when it comes to interoperability I believe Linux is actually on top. Nothings perfect but one of these operating systems provides maximum value and the other extracts maximum value. Use your brain cell to figure out which is which.
I would like to see the relative market shares reversed. From today's mostly-closed with a little-open to instead, mostly-open with a little-closed. It is the right thing to happen and because the other side is playing dirty-tricks you have to focus on the "win" in the dows or they will screw you over old-boy style. Because, after all, the primary law of a corporation is that it must make a profit for the shareholders. This rule is above ethics in priority, Microsoft cannot choose to do the right thing and allow Open to "win." It is not an option, so treat them that way.
That is correct. The issue I am referring to is the fragmented beliefs throughout the Open community. That is where the appropriate tools for the appropriate people are poo-poo'd because of relative expertise with the systems. Also there is the matter of priorities, Open development does not lead where specific individuals would always like, as a concrete example: Photoshop alone would draw many more users to the Open sphere than the GIMP is capable of at this time. And if Adobe does not see fit to port Photoshop, then at the distribution level: create a package which when installed correctly configures WINE and copies the required files from the users media. Users do not care for all the reasons in the world when it does not do what they need it to do. Making it do is the responsibility of the distribution, and different ones are suited to different categories of users. So, more power to the Gentoo people but please do not poo-poo my Ubuntu as that will prevent me from joining the Gentoo camp at a later date.
Want Open to win? Stop being bloody purists. See, Ubuntu Software Commercial Survey for a pragmatic approach. Ubuntu is a bridge, get the Windows people over first and once they know what they're doing they can compile their own Gentoo. Commercial software on Linux is also such a bridge, let it in: as long as the core operating system is Open who gives a crap. If the commercial is amazingly good compared to the Open then it will survive while the Open matures. But don't deny your users the commercial because you're being a dick about it. Follow the Linux philosophy: Openness, including commercial. Then work with it yourself, I have converted two of my family-members desktops over to Ubuntu within the last month, not including my own. If I wasn't using a "stupid" distribution it wouldn't have happened because I have no idea of the required options while building your kernel. Support the bridges, they all lead into Open.
Slashdot Mirror
Here's a rub. I can see why ordering agencies would *like* to have access to information of this nature. However, because I know they *will* lie, cheat, and steal as they are actually people not some form of God on Earth then it is *not* my duty to make it easy for them to get it. In fact, it is the opposite: if they want it they have to get through me to get it. Every me, and that means you too Citizen: stand up and be counted!
What is especially funny is that *you* have to live in your own mind. ROFL!
You Sir, are delicious. Exactly the kind of thought in small adjustments that prevent the bloodshed of large.
They think just because they can it's a good idea? Doesn't sabotage the principles of free and open societies at all?! Imagine if they did in real life half the things they already do online. I'd have already picked up a gun just because others already would have too.
They are being idiots, please restore some sanity.
I'm not talking about the monitoring, I'm talking about limited installs, installing crap-ware with no choice, and treating you as a thief in attitudes by default. On a console, I put the bloody disc in and I just play.
Microsoft paying when people use Ubuntu! Oooooh, my morning just became deliciously enriched. *Thank you* slashdot, these are the moments I know why I come here! =D
This is *exactly* the line of bullshit that made me buy a console. There is simply less of it there for now: compare GTA IV on PC and Xbox 360. PC is just a stupid situation. So, already bonehead decisions by stupid out-of-touch executives have already stopped me from purchasing PC games. Please don't extend that to the consoles because then I'd have to stop purchasing games altogether. Notice I said purchasing, I'm sure there will be versions available that aren't stupid. Way to go Ubisoft: you just connected yourself with "bullshit" in *my* mind, so *my* money is forever out of your grasp until you become less stupid.
Seriously, need to make a square filter fit in a round processing machine? Hell, with the followers of that twitter account: darn useful. Just because you don't understand it doesn't make real-time useless :P
On the billion to one chance, what if that was one of the astronauts!? Then we'd have to have the first Troll from orbit... and.. Well, never mind ;)
Codeweavers has a good model going, older code merged back into WINE, cutting edge closed and sold for the moment! I *bought* *on Linux* Crossover because of its true value and to the lesser degree that contribution back as a responsible member of the community.
I love Ubuntu as well, it's nice to meet a kindred spirit ;) Ubuntu allows you to ease in, bit by bit: I have more than one computer at hand so I can always use the second one to google for the fixes for the other when I make a drastic mistake! Most of the time, well, it's just *interesting* and the openness gives you a freedom to tinker that just isn't present to the degree with any Windows.
Mine, suck it up. Contribute something to make me change my mind? ;)
I ignore all moderation here, especially down moderation as that is always disagreement. There should only be positive mods and they should not be limited to 5. Set your threshold wherever you like with that. There are no consequences to moderation any more either as the only thing it used to affect, order of comments if you used that no longer really exists.
Windows has a unified installer. Of course there are alternatives like InstallShield there too. Overall for Linux, way back when I was using Suse 9 I would have killed for a consistent installer instead of the crapshoot of configure make make install and pray for the dependencies I was stuck with, and don't even look at rpm you peasant from that version of the OS. Just because it doesn't exist doesn't mean it's stupid to work towards it. The back-biting does need to go and it will take time.
My desktop was fine, one of the others was fine, the other one has an Ati HD2600 and Ubuntu's X hates it. Black screen on reboot with the proprietary drivers. So, new kernel, xorg-edgers ppa, lots of cursing - oops: reading, and radeonhd open source driver. Works, but not exactly what I wished. Someday, probably Lucid Lynx, HD2600 won't be a pain with Ubuntu.
I bought: Crossover Linux. And you know what? It does make closed-source Windows applications pretty darn easy. Everything is kept firmly in your ~ as it should be stability wise. There are many awesome package managers out there and with Ubuntu as an example because that is what I'm familiar with: any commercial developer could create their own PPA for end-users to add as a repository themselves. The issue is making the format for repositories a standard and adopting it across distributions. Perhaps, the package manager should be part of: Linux Standards Base if it already is not?
To continue, while I'm here ;), Some things are: too important to patent if you believe Mr. Jefferson. And as a matter of fact in the founding of the United States of America it was a close call whether patents should be allowed at all. The promoting the progress bit won out narrowly. Today, I believe this should be re-examined. We have reached the critical mass where if someone does not do it, someone else will. Therefore, the promoting the progress bit is not as valid. But stagnation rules the day, the slow slide into irrelevance because of a lack of keeping up with the times. There are many vested interests who manipulate issues to their own ends so I doubt we'll see a honest look at the issue any time soon. Perhaps, in the mean-time, when it comes to patents just emulate ironically those who appear to have that little bit right: China. Hell, distribute your software out of nations that are not stupid and let the USA wallow in itself for this issue.
You read the article?! That's a cardinal sin, shame on you! To myself, this story fit enough for a comment that was pre-existing in my mind so it was wedged in to share what I could. You are right, patents are dumb. Physical things you can perhaps see a logic to patent but when you are in the abstract the issue is much less clear because at a fundamental nature is boils down to do you allow a patent on: 2 + 2 = 4? The abstract, or ideas, are not as tangible as machines and therefore should not suffer the same protections. The contrary logic is that the abstract algorithms represented in the patents are run in a physical processor. The particular configuration of logic gates to represent that algorithm is seen as the parallel of a physical machine, as if that configuration was a special-purpose machine. I happen to disagree with this interpretation because in a wider context I also see that restricting the commons to such a degree while beneficial to some is detrimental to all.
Functionality is king. Like you say, it just needs to work. From there you just don't tell them. A lot of new products are coming with cores based on Open and this is a good thing because it does spread the good. Most individuals fall into the thought trap of: "The devil I know is better than the one I don't." And will reject even something that is better in the actual simply because it saves thought. Those people you don't worry about giving the choice to, as a device maker you just use what is good and they will adopt it anyway, perhaps with a little whine as that is in their nature. Those who do think things through will also adopt what works and will be thankful for the efficiencies, or savings, along the way as well. I never thought I'd see it but when I'm starting to read more stories of companies such as Dell selling more and more systems preconfigured with Linux, well, I'm starting to see the fuzzy outline of the "tipping point." Microsoft must be fuming ;)
Thought I should clarify further the special case that is Microsoft. Other corporations have no issues with working with Open because their products are not competing with the core operating system itself, they are complementing them so there is no profit motive conflict with interoperating with Linux. Microsoft as a special case of corporation makes a significant amount of money from a product that competes with the core of open source. This does conflict with their profit motive so, again, as a special case they need to be examined in a different light.
Many open-source applications have been recompiled for Windows and many Windows applications run on Linux using translation layers such as WINE or it's easier to use commercial counterpart, Crossover. So when it comes to interoperability I believe Linux is actually on top. Nothings perfect but one of these operating systems provides maximum value and the other extracts maximum value. Use your brain cell to figure out which is which.
I would like to see the relative market shares reversed. From today's mostly-closed with a little-open to instead, mostly-open with a little-closed. It is the right thing to happen and because the other side is playing dirty-tricks you have to focus on the "win" in the dows or they will screw you over old-boy style. Because, after all, the primary law of a corporation is that it must make a profit for the shareholders. This rule is above ethics in priority, Microsoft cannot choose to do the right thing and allow Open to "win." It is not an option, so treat them that way.
That is correct. The issue I am referring to is the fragmented beliefs throughout the Open community. That is where the appropriate tools for the appropriate people are poo-poo'd because of relative expertise with the systems. Also there is the matter of priorities, Open development does not lead where specific individuals would always like, as a concrete example: Photoshop alone would draw many more users to the Open sphere than the GIMP is capable of at this time. And if Adobe does not see fit to port Photoshop, then at the distribution level: create a package which when installed correctly configures WINE and copies the required files from the users media. Users do not care for all the reasons in the world when it does not do what they need it to do. Making it do is the responsibility of the distribution, and different ones are suited to different categories of users. So, more power to the Gentoo people but please do not poo-poo my Ubuntu as that will prevent me from joining the Gentoo camp at a later date.
Want Open to win? Stop being bloody purists. See, Ubuntu Software Commercial Survey for a pragmatic approach. Ubuntu is a bridge, get the Windows people over first and once they know what they're doing they can compile their own Gentoo. Commercial software on Linux is also such a bridge, let it in: as long as the core operating system is Open who gives a crap. If the commercial is amazingly good compared to the Open then it will survive while the Open matures. But don't deny your users the commercial because you're being a dick about it. Follow the Linux philosophy: Openness, including commercial. Then work with it yourself, I have converted two of my family-members desktops over to Ubuntu within the last month, not including my own. If I wasn't using a "stupid" distribution it wouldn't have happened because I have no idea of the required options while building your kernel. Support the bridges, they all lead into Open.