A little OT, but what is wrong with Walmart? I haven't read any bad crap on them. Haven anything good that I may add them to my ever growing boycott list?
What is the point in modding up an Anonymous Coward with no proof to back up his or hers claim? Red Hat does not put out beta code an call it production. In fact, RH has 6 of the top 10 Linux kernel developers working for them. They know what they are doing. I personally don't care if RH puts 16,000 patches in their kernel and calls it Red Hat's super duper kernel 99.7. What matters is that RHEL is stable, and in my experience, RHEL is damn stable.
RHEL is designed for enterprise use. RH just can't go and change the kernel. There are tons of software like Oracle and Peoplesoft that were coded against the 2.4.x kernel. Back porting allows Red Hat to add features without breaking those large enterprise packages. Even backporting has issues. Oracle had some install issues when NPTL came into REHL. Red Hat is using Fedora for testing. So the next version of Fedora Cora (2) will have the 2.6 kernel. Then Red Hat can take what they learned and put that into RHEL 4. RHEL is a much slower moving target then your typical Linux distro and that is exactly what the big enterprise software developers need/want.
Exactly. And I bet Apple will drop the ball on this. Think of Betamax vs. VHS. One format was guarded and expensive, the other was abundant. Guess which one was which. Apple can guarantee there music store will stay at #1 by letting it work on _any_ OS and making a public API to search and buy music. If Apple floods the market with their service, it will be very, very hard to knock them down. However, I bet Apple will say no and want to control everything just like their hardware and iTMS will eventaully fall into a niche market like Apple hardware. Especially once MS comes along with their music service that will work perfectly with an iPOD and tons of other players and be an "integrated" part of all future MS desktops.
I am not missing your point. However, the uber-geek Linux user is not picky and would be glad for any non-supported, un-offical client. It would look good on Apple's part and get a lot of OSS folks on the side of Apple, and maybe even get a few converts to Mac OS X. Yes, a full fledge port would be the most "Apple like" solution, though I bet the Linux/OSS community would love either a simple unsupported, unoffical client or even just an API spec and let us do it ourselves. Apple has to know that their iTMS will continually be reverse engineered and it will only require more work on their part to continually change iTMS on their end to try to make it incompatible again, which will cost them money. Then the uber-Linux geek will reverse engineer the changes and the cycle will continue. Never challenge a geek, especailly a Linux geek.
The thing is, is that Apple vs. Microsoft has been dead for a long time now. It is Linux vs. Microsoft. If Apple helped Linux, in the end they would be helping themselves. Anything that can bring down the Microsoft monopoly on the desktop would help Apple since Apple wants to sell desktops. If enough people think of something else then Microsoft for the desktop, some of those people will look over at Apple and become customers. As it stands now, Linux has about 25% of the server market and 2.8% of the desktop market. Apple has about 2.9% - 3% of the desktop market. Linux and Apple by themselves do not have much weight. However, together, 6% of a market is not bad. If Apple and Linux worked together, any gain in Linux desktop or Mac desktop would grow that combined total and make the MS monopoly on the desktop less effective. Apple has not been able to ever grab more then 3% or so of the desktop alone. Maybe they should make some stategic alliances with Linux on the desktop. It could work in favor for Apple.
You can use an iPOD with Linux. In fact, you can even run Linux on the iPOD.
Apple has it's pride in design and usability.
Huh?
Profit (tied tightly to the iPod of course)
So money from a Linux user != Profit?
Your bias works against you; unless you don't believe in thinking intelligently and instead suppose we should always turn first towards our biases and second to external evidence?
There is no bias. I don't hate Apple, I just think their tactics are not much different then those of MS. The only real difference is that Apple does not have the same massive amount of market share and money that MS does and thus, Apple's actions are not as harmful on the market.
It can create users. For example, I have a few Linux desktops and _ONE_ windows XP desktop at home. I don't use windows xp for much and don't install software on it. I also did not want to install Apple's iTunes application just to check it out to see if they have the songs I like. So I downloaded this app, did a quick search, and wham, iTMS does have the songs I like. I now will probably give iTMS a try to see how I like it. Though I doubt I personally will use it much since I purchased tons of CD's years ago and mostly listen to them. With this little app I can preview some newer material to see if there is anything I may be interested in buying. I personally don't want to use windows XP and I don't want to have to use it to browse music to see if there is anything new I may like. Linux has 25% of the server market and 2.8% of the desktop. Just about the same desktop share as Apple. So, Apple has the same potential market size that they get from their Mac OS X users. The only reason I can think of for Apple not to have even a non-supported Linux client is because they want a hardware monopoly. They have to support MS Windows if they want any success, and if it is not MS Windows, they want it to be their OS. That is just wrong to me and not any different then the tactics by MS. Thier iTMS should be platform agnostic and only exist to drive iPOD sales to _all_ consumers regardless of that consumers OS of choice.
Mac OS X contributes a tiny fraction of that 99% home system base. Apple could save themselves money and not support Mac OS X, since they are not making much money from those users. Linux has far more market share when you count all installations of the OS. Linux has 25% of the server market and 2.8% of the desktop, just 0.2 percent behind Apple on the desktop. Linux desktop installs should surpass Mac OS X desktop installs this year or next year at the latest. So Apple has an equal and very soon, larger market in Linux users then Mac OS X users. So why doesn't Apple even provide a non-supported iTMS client for Linux? Oh yeah, Apple wants a monopoly in hardware. They had to support MS Windows if they wanted to have any chance at grabbing the market in online music stores and portable players.
They wouldn't need to do any of that. All they would have to do is provide a simple front-end that could work with the web interface to search, display and purchase songs. That interface could be in GTK+ and use objective C, C, C++ or tons of other languages or even QT. When a user purchases the song, the front-end only need to decrypt it. There are plenty of ways to play AAC, mpeg4, etc under Linux that Apple could use, no reason to reinvent the wheel and port quicktime, carbon/macos toolkit, etc to Linux. Oh, and Quicktime already works under Linux, there is even an Open Quicktime. The proprietary Sorenson stuff is what is not ported or available. Though it does work with MPlayer, Xine or VLC and the windows DLL's under Linux just fine. There is no technical reason why iTMS does not run under Linux. The only reason is because Apple is like Microsoft. They want to force users to use thier products and not interoperate. We heard it out of the horses mouth the other day how Steve sees no reason why the number #1 music store and the #1 music player (by revenue not volume) should work with Real. So much code works between FreeBSD and Linux it is not even funny, so there is no reason Apple couldn't have a lot of their stuff running under Linux. The reason Apple doesn't do that is because they want a monopoly on hardware. When MS does something like this, the Apple fanboys soil their pants, yet when Appple does it, there is always an excuse made for Apple by their fanboys running to stand up for Steve. I am not trolling, this is just how it is.
You are correct. You have to buy the expensive Terminal server version of MS OS to have multiple logins and pay a pretty high price per user. MS Windows XP Pro only alows one user to connect in with RDP. If you are logged in, you will see a dialog about allowing someone to connect in and if you agree, the desktop is locked. If you unlock, the remote user is kicked off. The other thing you can do is connect in with Remote Assistance which will let the logged in user see what you are doing.
Linux and Unix OSes have had this for a long time. You can export a remote display and run programs remotely while displaying them locally or run programs locally and display them remotely. You can also run multiple VNC sessions and give each user their own KDE/Gnome desktop. The latest version of VNC has a vnc module for X that will let you export the desktop in the way people are used to with the MS Windows version of VNC. You just need to put a Load "vnc" option in your modules section of your XF86config file if your distro does not set it up for you.
Suggesting that DRM is a black/white right/wrong issue is pretty ridiculous. You no doubt would love to protect your own rights to things you have of value (you do lock up your valuables... right?). Are you suggesting that because I have a moral problem with the idea of things being locked up, and found a site that allows me to successfully pick any MasterLock, that it's now perfectly OK for me to come by when you're not home, pick the lock, and take what doesn't belong to me?
Man, you are brainwashed by the corporations. What you wrote is so far off-base. These people are not stealing. They are doing what they want with a product that they purchased since PlayFair only works on songs you have paid for! If you came to my house and I sold you a table, do I have the right to tell you when and how you can use it? What if I put DRM into the table and it would prevent you from using that table that you PURCHASED from me how and when you like? This example is what is happening with DRM crap. Copyright holders are not "letting" us use their work. They are SELLING us a copy of the work and that copy is now OUR property to use as we please and even sell. Apple's and other companies DRM implementations are trying to prevent that and prevent your Fair Use rights.
DRM is black or white. If you accept ANY DRM now, you are giving the green ligth to companies to continue to tighten the restrictions. Later versions will come out that have tighter control. For example, I bet MS's version will take away more rigths from the buyer then Apple's version and the RIAA will like that version more. So what does the RIAA do? They only let the "lattest/hottest" titles go to the MS music store. By accepting ANY DRM, you are giving control to the RIAA/MPAA and other companies that they are looking for and will use.
and people who are going out of their way to circumvent the MINIMAL DRM on iTunes are simply looking for a way to justify immoral/illegal behavior
How in the world do you come up with this crap? PlayFair does not allow a user to do anything that Apple's own DRM does not allow them to do. With a regular iTMS song, you can burn and rip to get a DRM free version. The PlayFair program does the same thing. PlayFair only works on songs that you have PAID FOR. So just what bad thing does it do? It saves a user from having to go through the long process of burning and ripping. To me that is a good thing.
DO you even know what PlayFair does? It does not "crack" Apple's DRM. It still requires you to purchase the song and then it will strip the DRM using valid keys. This is no different then what is allowed by Apple's DRM now. You can purchase a song and burn a music CD and then rip the CD to a non-DRMed format. Why should an end-user who paid for a song have to go through the process of burning and ripping to get thier non-DRMed song when they can use this program? I know, because Apple doesn't what any end user to shift the format from AAC to say MP3. That would allow an end-user to actually exercise choice and purchase a portable music player other then Apple's iPOD.
One other thing I just thought of. Why is Apple the one going after this program? They are not the ones who wrote the FairPlay DRM. Do they even own the copyrights? It would be kinda funny if they have no legal right to enforce the copyrights.
"IP" rights? Since when did "IP" rights extend to an end-user after purchase? Apple has no right to tell an end-user who legally purchases a song from their store how and where they can listen to that song. That has nothing to do with "IP" rights and everything to do with control. This application only works for songs that are legally purchased. It also does not allow any more use then Apple's own DRM. With a song from iTMS, you can burn it to a music CD and then rip it DRM-free. PlayFair does the same thing except for require the user to burn an CD. So how is Apple's method OK and PlayFair's method "stealing" or "piracy"?
Also, how in the world can you compare the GPL to this crap? The GPL is about giving end-users MORE rights then standard copyright laws allow. Apple's DRM is about taking away rights that standard copyright laws and Fair Use laws allow. There is no comparision.
What crap! Have you seen the numbers from Apple on the millions of songs they have sold? How is that just talk? Also, PlayFair is about an owner who doesn't want DRM. They have that right. PlayFair only works for songs you have purchased!!!! Again, where is there anything wrong with this? Without PlayFair, a user can still burn their iTMS songs to a CD and then rip those to non-DRMed audio files. So how is PlayFair allowing a user to do anything more then what Apple already allows a user to do? Once a song is sold, it belongs to the purchaser. Granted, the purchaser is still not allowed to distribute that song, however, they may do what they want with their copy. Apples own DRM allows the DRM crap to be removed just as easily as PlayFair does, so why is Apple's method OK? I guess just because it is from Apple?
A copyright holder has rights over distribution. They have no rights on usage and monitoring after they sell a copyrighted work. What right does Apple or the RIAA/MPAA have to control how you use their copyrighted work? They have none.
I personally have never used iTMS (or any other music store) and never will until DRM is removed (which may never happen). I cannot understand how people don't care about these companies telling them how they can use a product after they make a purchase. Do people put up with this for other industries? Would you buy a car from Ford that only allowed one person at a time and had security devices to try to enforce that rule? What if Ford sold a car that would only work on Sundays? Would you put up with that? I don't think most people would. Yet, they bend over for software and media companies and let their fair use right be stripped away. Now some end-user is fighting to keep their fair use rights and you call them a theif? How stupid of you.
300? Are you sure about that? Did you use apt 4 SuSE? No. If you did, it would have been one command or two GUI clicks to install VLC with all dependencies. Fedora comes with yum out-of-the box. Yum is almost the same thing as apt. You can also install apt 4 Fedora and have access to 1,000's of RPM's. Just because you don't use the right tools does not mean that Linux does not support what you want to do very easily.
Next time, do a quick search on google, and you should find just about anything you need for Linux. You should also join the Redhat Yahoo group which I am a moderator on. We answer every question with no nasty attitude toward new Linux users. You can also check out the Linux Yahoo group for all things Linux. We have the same attitude as the Redhat Yahoo group and have a few 1,000 members.
Linux OTOH, goes like this: Find the RPM you want. Try to install and get a list of dependencies. Go track down every dependency you need (because you should already have libart_gpl and libtheora, right?!) and then install the dependencies. After spending and hour or two just to install one piece of software, log out and log back in so the menus update. Then try to run the software and hope that you didn't accidently install an incompatible binary. ARRRGGGHHH!!!
Are you a moron? RPM dependencany problems have been gone for a while now. Debian has never had those problems. With Debian, you just select the application to install from a GUI and install it. Done. All needed dependencies are handled. This same functionality was brought to RPM based distros via apt for rpm some time ago. I know apt runs on SuSE and Fedora/Red Hat. It makes installing 1,000's of applications a snap, just select the application from a list and click install.
As things stand, a Linux virus or backdoor serves to only attack ~5% of the market.
What decade are you living in? While I do agree with the more market share an OS has, the more of a target it should be. However, your Linux numbers are way off. Linux accounted for 25% of the server shipments and 2.8% of the desktops back in 2002, so it should be even higher now in 2004. MS Windows obviously has 90%+ of the Desktop, and around 50% of the server market. Mac OS has around 3% of the desktop _and_ server market total, so it should be the smallest attack target.
However, there are things far more important then market share such as the systems architecture. Unix/Linux has a LOOOONG history of a clear separation from user files/directories and OS files/directories. That is why a normal user under Solaris, Linux, FreeBSD, etc can only install/modify things in their home directory or directories that they own (traditionally only their home directory). MS Windows on the other hand has no separation on what files a user can modify by default. Your average Joe User running MS Windows XP is running with Administrator rights and a virus/worm/etc can just kill the whole system. I believe Mac OS has this problem, though not as bad as MS Windows. The permissions on the Applications directory can be pretty loose.
but if you are anything like me you feel that in the scope of Open Source and Free Choice too many options are left open on the installation options
Compared to what? MS Windows? Come on now. When was the last time you used or admined Linux? Most come with just about everything off and a very powerful firewall that "Big Three Linux Distros" have on by default and block common things like SMB, SMTP in, etc. You could turn off _everything_ and really lock down Linux with things like SELinux, but usability would go way down. I think a balance needs to be made on every OS between what services/ports etc are on by default and a certain level of user responsibility to get updates.
Oh boy, can I, can I? How I would love to be able to write a ****very**** fancy jigsaw puzzle.
Jigsaw puzzle guru: Mr CEO, you should hire me
Mr. CEO: Why is that young man?
Jigsaw puzzle guru: Because I can program a *very* fancy jigsaw puzzle in Cocoa.
Mr. CEO: Well, in that case, your hired. $100,000 a year starting salary.
Jigsaw puzzle guru: Mr Game company manager, you should hire me
Mr Game company manager: Why is that young man?
Jigsaw puzzle guru: Because I can program a *very* fancy jigsaw puzzle in Cocoa.
Mr Game company manager: Well, in that case, your hired. $80,000 a year starting salary.
Jigsaw puzzle guru: Soup Nazi, you should hire me.
Soup Nazi: Why is that young man?
Jigsaw puzzle guru: Because I can program a *very* fancy jigsaw puzzle in Cocoa.
Soup Nazi: No soup for you, come back, two year.
1) Interface builder, to build similar UI's on a PC is very tedious. You want text boxes that expand with the window, tie a text box to one corner, place a button so it is always in the bottom right hand corner of a window. All of these things are a simple click away. No complex code to get all these things moving around.
You should change this to read: "to build similar UI's under _MS WINDOWS_". Under Linux there is no silliness about managing every stinking widget/control. I have been developing for over 10 years now under varied platforms and I could never stand all the tedious coding needed under MS Windows to make a stupid control/widget scale when the windows is resized. It was very brain dead on the part of MS to not include this. I cannot count how many hours I have wasted while doing MS Windows development just to get the damn GUI to look nice and consistent. Under Linux and Mac the widgets/controls are much smarter about scaling with the GUI without tons of lines of code to move 100 widgets around everytime the window is resized.
Slashdot Mirror
A little OT, but what is wrong with Walmart? I haven't read any bad crap on them. Haven anything good that I may add them to my ever growing boycott list?
What is the point in modding up an Anonymous Coward with no proof to back up his or hers claim? Red Hat does not put out beta code an call it production. In fact, RH has 6 of the top 10 Linux kernel developers working for them. They know what they are doing. I personally don't care if RH puts 16,000 patches in their kernel and calls it Red Hat's super duper kernel 99.7. What matters is that RHEL is stable, and in my experience, RHEL is damn stable.
RHEL is designed for enterprise use. RH just can't go and change the kernel. There are tons of software like Oracle and Peoplesoft that were coded against the 2.4.x kernel. Back porting allows Red Hat to add features without breaking those large enterprise packages. Even backporting has issues. Oracle had some install issues when NPTL came into REHL. Red Hat is using Fedora for testing. So the next version of Fedora Cora (2) will have the 2.6 kernel. Then Red Hat can take what they learned and put that into RHEL 4. RHEL is a much slower moving target then your typical Linux distro and that is exactly what the big enterprise software developers need/want.
Exactly. And I bet Apple will drop the ball on this. Think of Betamax vs. VHS. One format was guarded and expensive, the other was abundant. Guess which one was which. Apple can guarantee there music store will stay at #1 by letting it work on _any_ OS and making a public API to search and buy music. If Apple floods the market with their service, it will be very, very hard to knock them down. However, I bet Apple will say no and want to control everything just like their hardware and iTMS will eventaully fall into a niche market like Apple hardware. Especially once MS comes along with their music service that will work perfectly with an iPOD and tons of other players and be an "integrated" part of all future MS desktops.
I am not missing your point. However, the uber-geek Linux user is not picky and would be glad for any non-supported, un-offical client. It would look good on Apple's part and get a lot of OSS folks on the side of Apple, and maybe even get a few converts to Mac OS X. Yes, a full fledge port would be the most "Apple like" solution, though I bet the Linux/OSS community would love either a simple unsupported, unoffical client or even just an API spec and let us do it ourselves. Apple has to know that their iTMS will continually be reverse engineered and it will only require more work on their part to continually change iTMS on their end to try to make it incompatible again, which will cost them money. Then the uber-Linux geek will reverse engineer the changes and the cycle will continue. Never challenge a geek, especailly a Linux geek.
The thing is, is that Apple vs. Microsoft has been dead for a long time now. It is Linux vs. Microsoft. If Apple helped Linux, in the end they would be helping themselves. Anything that can bring down the Microsoft monopoly on the desktop would help Apple since Apple wants to sell desktops. If enough people think of something else then Microsoft for the desktop, some of those people will look over at Apple and become customers. As it stands now, Linux has about 25% of the server market and 2.8% of the desktop market. Apple has about 2.9% - 3% of the desktop market. Linux and Apple by themselves do not have much weight. However, together, 6% of a market is not bad. If Apple and Linux worked together, any gain in Linux desktop or Mac desktop would grow that combined total and make the MS monopoly on the desktop less effective. Apple has not been able to ever grab more then 3% or so of the desktop alone. Maybe they should make some stategic alliances with Linux on the desktop. It could work in favor for Apple.
It can create users. For example, I have a few Linux desktops and _ONE_ windows XP desktop at home. I don't use windows xp for much and don't install software on it. I also did not want to install Apple's iTunes application just to check it out to see if they have the songs I like. So I downloaded this app, did a quick search, and wham, iTMS does have the songs I like. I now will probably give iTMS a try to see how I like it. Though I doubt I personally will use it much since I purchased tons of CD's years ago and mostly listen to them. With this little app I can preview some newer material to see if there is anything I may be interested in buying. I personally don't want to use windows XP and I don't want to have to use it to browse music to see if there is anything new I may like. Linux has 25% of the server market and 2.8% of the desktop. Just about the same desktop share as Apple. So, Apple has the same potential market size that they get from their Mac OS X users. The only reason I can think of for Apple not to have even a non-supported Linux client is because they want a hardware monopoly. They have to support MS Windows if they want any success, and if it is not MS Windows, they want it to be their OS. That is just wrong to me and not any different then the tactics by MS. Thier iTMS should be platform agnostic and only exist to drive iPOD sales to _all_ consumers regardless of that consumers OS of choice.
Mac OS X contributes a tiny fraction of that 99% home system base. Apple could save themselves money and not support Mac OS X, since they are not making much money from those users. Linux has far more market share when you count all installations of the OS. Linux has 25% of the server market and 2.8% of the desktop, just 0.2 percent behind Apple on the desktop. Linux desktop installs should surpass Mac OS X desktop installs this year or next year at the latest. So Apple has an equal and very soon, larger market in Linux users then Mac OS X users. So why doesn't Apple even provide a non-supported iTMS client for Linux? Oh yeah, Apple wants a monopoly in hardware. They had to support MS Windows if they wanted to have any chance at grabbing the market in online music stores and portable players.
They wouldn't need to do any of that. All they would have to do is provide a simple front-end that could work with the web interface to search, display and purchase songs. That interface could be in GTK+ and use objective C, C, C++ or tons of other languages or even QT. When a user purchases the song, the front-end only need to decrypt it. There are plenty of ways to play AAC, mpeg4, etc under Linux that Apple could use, no reason to reinvent the wheel and port quicktime, carbon/macos toolkit, etc to Linux. Oh, and Quicktime already works under Linux, there is even an Open Quicktime. The proprietary Sorenson stuff is what is not ported or available. Though it does work with MPlayer, Xine or VLC and the windows DLL's under Linux just fine. There is no technical reason why iTMS does not run under Linux. The only reason is because Apple is like Microsoft. They want to force users to use thier products and not interoperate. We heard it out of the horses mouth the other day how Steve sees no reason why the number #1 music store and the #1 music player (by revenue not volume) should work with Real. So much code works between FreeBSD and Linux it is not even funny, so there is no reason Apple couldn't have a lot of their stuff running under Linux. The reason Apple doesn't do that is because they want a monopoly on hardware. When MS does something like this, the Apple fanboys soil their pants, yet when Appple does it, there is always an excuse made for Apple by their fanboys running to stand up for Steve. I am not trolling, this is just how it is.
Linux and Unix OSes have had this for a long time. You can export a remote display and run programs remotely while displaying them locally or run programs locally and display them remotely. You can also run multiple VNC sessions and give each user their own KDE/Gnome desktop. The latest version of VNC has a vnc module for X that will let you export the desktop in the way people are used to with the MS Windows version of VNC. You just need to put a Load "vnc" option in your modules section of your XF86config file if your distro does not set it up for you.
DRM is black or white. If you accept ANY DRM now, you are giving the green ligth to companies to continue to tighten the restrictions. Later versions will come out that have tighter control. For example, I bet MS's version will take away more rigths from the buyer then Apple's version and the RIAA will like that version more. So what does the RIAA do? They only let the "lattest/hottest" titles go to the MS music store. By accepting ANY DRM, you are giving control to the RIAA/MPAA and other companies that they are looking for and will use.
How in the world do you come up with this crap? PlayFair does not allow a user to do anything that Apple's own DRM does not allow them to do. With a regular iTMS song, you can burn and rip to get a DRM free version. The PlayFair program does the same thing. PlayFair only works on songs that you have PAID FOR. So just what bad thing does it do? It saves a user from having to go through the long process of burning and ripping. To me that is a good thing.One other thing I just thought of. Why is Apple the one going after this program? They are not the ones who wrote the FairPlay DRM. Do they even own the copyrights? It would be kinda funny if they have no legal right to enforce the copyrights.
Also, how in the world can you compare the GPL to this crap? The GPL is about giving end-users MORE rights then standard copyright laws allow. Apple's DRM is about taking away rights that standard copyright laws and Fair Use laws allow. There is no comparision.
A copyright holder has rights over distribution. They have no rights on usage and monitoring after they sell a copyrighted work. What right does Apple or the RIAA/MPAA have to control how you use their copyrighted work? They have none.
I personally have never used iTMS (or any other music store) and never will until DRM is removed (which may never happen). I cannot understand how people don't care about these companies telling them how they can use a product after they make a purchase. Do people put up with this for other industries? Would you buy a car from Ford that only allowed one person at a time and had security devices to try to enforce that rule? What if Ford sold a car that would only work on Sundays? Would you put up with that? I don't think most people would. Yet, they bend over for software and media companies and let their fair use right be stripped away. Now some end-user is fighting to keep their fair use rights and you call them a theif? How stupid of you.
This project looks really cool, though they still do not have any beta downloads available.
Next time, do a quick search on google, and you should find just about anything you need for Linux. You should also join the Redhat Yahoo group which I am a moderator on. We answer every question with no nasty attitude toward new Linux users. You can also check out the Linux Yahoo group for all things Linux. We have the same attitude as the Redhat Yahoo group and have a few 1,000 members.
However, there are things far more important then market share such as the systems architecture. Unix/Linux has a LOOOONG history of a clear separation from user files/directories and OS files/directories. That is why a normal user under Solaris, Linux, FreeBSD, etc can only install/modify things in their home directory or directories that they own (traditionally only their home directory). MS Windows on the other hand has no separation on what files a user can modify by default. Your average Joe User running MS Windows XP is running with Administrator rights and a virus/worm/etc can just kill the whole system. I believe Mac OS has this problem, though not as bad as MS Windows. The permissions on the Applications directory can be pretty loose.
Compared to what? MS Windows? Come on now. When was the last time you used or admined Linux? Most come with just about everything off and a very powerful firewall that "Big Three Linux Distros" have on by default and block common things like SMB, SMTP in, etc. You could turn off _everything_ and really lock down Linux with things like SELinux, but usability would go way down. I think a balance needs to be made on every OS between what services/ports etc are on by default and a certain level of user responsibility to get updates.Now is it that hard to turn that into a nice link?
My wife was dying until I bought here a Powerbook.
I had no job until I learnd to use Mac OSX
My wife left me, my children were killed by toxic gas, I was on the verge of suicide, until my new G5 came in.
I could not figure out how to use _any_ other OS, until I used Mac OS X.
I was a virgin, until I used Mac OS X
Every other programming API is SOOOOO hard, Cocoa, is SOOOOOO easy
I use Mac, I don't know why the rest of the world does not use Mac?
MS Windows sucks
Linux is OK for a server but sucks as a desktop
Mac OS X rulz
I slept with Steve Jobs
Jigsaw puzzle guru: Mr CEO, you should hire me
Mr. CEO: Why is that young man?
Jigsaw puzzle guru: Because I can program a *very* fancy jigsaw puzzle in Cocoa.
Mr. CEO: Well, in that case, your hired. $100,000 a year starting salary.
Jigsaw puzzle guru: Mr Game company manager, you should hire me
Mr Game company manager: Why is that young man?
Jigsaw puzzle guru: Because I can program a *very* fancy jigsaw puzzle in Cocoa.
Mr Game company manager: Well, in that case, your hired. $80,000 a year starting salary.
Jigsaw puzzle guru: Soup Nazi, you should hire me.
Soup Nazi: Why is that young man?
Jigsaw puzzle guru: Because I can program a *very* fancy jigsaw puzzle in Cocoa.
Soup Nazi: No soup for you, come back, two year.