why is it that every GPL fanatic thinks that unless you're willing to give everything away for free at the drop of a hat
Why is it that every Anonymous Coward troll thinks that they're entitled to the efforts of others for free?
a non-contibuting mooch
Because the first thing the whine about is having to contribute their changes back. They absolutely don't want to do what the GPL requires, and they whine about it.
forcing folks to open up their goodies is not good
What does it force? The only new things in the GPLv3, at least that I recall, was a bar on using it in systems that locked the system down and prevented the user from installing custom built versions of the GPL software.
Because the only way to make money is to take open source software and ensure that the recipients of your modified version cannot have the source code? Or that the source code must absolutely be integrated deeply into yours?
Making money with the GPL requires a LOT more diligence since v3 came out.
I know, those pesky anti-DRM requirements sure make it hard to squeeze your users for money.
Only for driver vendors that refuse to cooperate with the kernel community. They want to take advantage of Linux as a platform but not contribute to its success. The Kernel should be forced into a static ABI set for the sake of uncooperative, unhelpful vendors.
As far as I know, not even the Nexus S 4G has buildable driver source available for its wimax interface, which is why every guerrilla ICS ROM for it has broken 4G. It's even worse for HTC phones, because they don't even release their drivers as proper loadable kernel modules -- they just compile them straight into a monolithic binary blob, then rip out the proprietary bits and dump the unbuildable kernel source on the curb.
Sounds like a pile of shitty hardware vendors and shitty handset vendors. Pointing at the kernel ABIs is incorrect.
Or maybe just force the phone makers to blindly compile and release new unsupported proprietary.ko files for drivers with the latest kernel within 5 days of Google's official source drop, with the usual disclaimers that the new.ko files are untested, unwarranted, will cause birth defects, and might make you hunting for chocolate at 3am.
Or maybe these hardware vendors could actually start upstreaming their shit. Google too, since their shit infects so many drivers so deeply that many have to be rewritten to be pushed upstream.
By the way, can they distribute a GPLed kernel without releasing the drivers?
Depends, are the drivers delivered as proprietary kernel modules? Are they userspace binaries like most mobile GPU drivers? Then they can distribute the Linux kernel and omit the sources for the drivers.
I've heard this argument before, and frankly it's a complete load.
Given that the network operators cannot absolutely secure their network and that rogue applications and third-party OSes have the potential to wreak havoc on their networks and other subscribers, it is in their best interests to keep the same off their network.
If this was true, then they would deny access to any device they didn't recognize. Yet the GSM networks are obligated to allow any compliant device on their network.
Because the vendor of the device needs to provide support, a minimal set of software configurations will lower support costs
Not relevant, since we're talking about an optional path.
rogue apps having access to the OS level of a device may very well allow the device to operate out of specification, causing interference to other devices (i.e., damage to their users) around them.
Which is a poor excuse at best, and already dictated by FCC regulations regarding radio emissions. Unsurprisingly, you generally can't alter the baseband radios that come in these devices and pretty much nobody is asking to do that.
So, yeah, most of these systems were designed to keep you from changing things for monetary reasons
I'd say they're all designed with that intention. Even Motorola's GSM and non-DROID devices are deliberately crippled, hell devices that don't even go on the cellular networks are crippled. The only reason for it is for planned obsolescence and control over the end user.
So in other words, they've come full circle and have implemented something that works like, but is wholly incompatible with, that which they have fought so hard against.
I haven't had a desktop system with only 256MB of RAM in 10 years. Even my Athlon 64 system had 1GB to start. Sounds like you were being punished or something.
It made me wonder if a more X11 friendly version of Linux could be ported
Trivially. The question is whether or not the hardware vendor will release the kernel sources (Chinese vendors have a bad habit of not doing so) and whether they'll release Xorg compatible versions of the GPU drivers.
Android's made it a real pain in the ass for non-Android Linux platforms to get a handle on modern mobile hardware.
TV is fundamentally broken because it is completely passive. This is what advertisers and media companies love about it, though, and this is why they are pushing hard to break the Internet and turn computers into TV 2.0.
They've succeeded partially, seen in the acceptance of the term "media consumption device" which is being used to cover virtually all of the new mobile space (and a point to shout down people who like to tinker, and in defense of DRM and lock-down.)
As a practical matter, this is not the case. Strictly speaking, people could install any number of OSes on their PC. In reality, most people just use the OS that came with the machine, and in fact many parts of modern PCs are often Windows only for a while until the open source stuff catches up with drivers.
But nonetheless, the system does not force you to find a local exploit to get access at a level that allows you to replace the OS.
There would be no technical or legal reason to stop me, unless I had some practical reason to worry about such things.
But do you really want to financially support a corporation that sees your actions as hostile, and moves proactively to stop you without providing a legitimate out?
Seems like a long way from the idea of open source software being supported by the donated time of thousands of dedicated volunteers. Am I missing something?
Sponsorship has always been one way for open source software to operate. Donated time is another, but that's even rarer than sponsored contributions, which is how a lot of Linux is developed.
I have stopped using Firefox on a few different machines simply because it has experienced problems which were not replicated under Chrome
And most complaints seem to be anecdotal rather than linked to a verified bug report. I've never seen issues that some people have, despite my use of an ancient Firefox profile and being on Nightly at home and Release at work.
Does it actually prevent downloads or does it still just cut off downloads half way, resulting in small downloads going through then being hidden, and always allowing the HTTP request to go through?
I thought FireFox was such a positive force for open standards, in the days when IE was a monopoly.
Last I checked it still is. Unless you can show how they came to a screeching halt in supporting new web standards.
It became, instead, an organization that knew better than the open web. It wasn't about implementing standards any more.
So they should never have opinions on the value or efficacy of solutions, they should just implement and expend effort implementing dubiously valuable standards that aren't actually standards but rather something dictated by the Webkit engine. Something you would rather attack Mozilla for but give other browsers a pass on.
They even give a rationale for their refusal:
The problem with WebSQLDatabase is that it isn't good for the Web, because it depends completely to the semantics and query planning of SQL as implemented by SQLite --- which is a somewhat quirky SQL implementation.
But apparently rational argument and valid points are meaningless.
Slashdot Mirror
Proof? Any?
Why is it that every Anonymous Coward troll thinks that they're entitled to the efforts of others for free?
Because the first thing the whine about is having to contribute their changes back. They absolutely don't want to do what the GPL requires, and they whine about it.
What does it force? The only new things in the GPLv3, at least that I recall, was a bar on using it in systems that locked the system down and prevented the user from installing custom built versions of the GPL software.
Because the only way to make money is to take open source software and ensure that the recipients of your modified version cannot have the source code? Or that the source code must absolutely be integrated deeply into yours?
I know, those pesky anti-DRM requirements sure make it hard to squeeze your users for money.
I can profit while using GPL code. I simply can't take and not give back.
That was true with the GPLv2 as well.
Boo hoo, so write it yourself. Why is it every complaint against the GPL seems to come from those who want to mooch and not contribute?
I think he's having a mental fault and mixing units.
32mbps = ~4MByte/s
which is better than the ~24mbps I get off Comcast (a solid 3MB/s off Steam content servers, at least until my cablemodem starts having seizures.)
Only for driver vendors that refuse to cooperate with the kernel community. They want to take advantage of Linux as a platform but not contribute to its success. The Kernel should be forced into a static ABI set for the sake of uncooperative, unhelpful vendors.
Sounds like a pile of shitty hardware vendors and shitty handset vendors. Pointing at the kernel ABIs is incorrect.
Or maybe these hardware vendors could actually start upstreaming their shit. Google too, since their shit infects so many drivers so deeply that many have to be rewritten to be pushed upstream.
Ah yes, the old chicken and egg problem. I guess we should just stop developing new things and forever use what already exists.
Depends, are the drivers delivered as proprietary kernel modules? Are they userspace binaries like most mobile GPU drivers? Then they can distribute the Linux kernel and omit the sources for the drivers.
Indeed, we have no choice in this market. We are supposed to sit down and accept what is forced down our throats.
Wait, are you saying that the DMCA is in some way good?
I've heard this argument before, and frankly it's a complete load.
If this was true, then they would deny access to any device they didn't recognize. Yet the GSM networks are obligated to allow any compliant device on their network.
Not relevant, since we're talking about an optional path.
Which is a poor excuse at best, and already dictated by FCC regulations regarding radio emissions. Unsurprisingly, you generally can't alter the baseband radios that come in these devices and pretty much nobody is asking to do that.
I'd say they're all designed with that intention. Even Motorola's GSM and non-DROID devices are deliberately crippled, hell devices that don't even go on the cellular networks are crippled. The only reason for it is for planned obsolescence and control over the end user.
So in other words, they've come full circle and have implemented something that works like, but is wholly incompatible with, that which they have fought so hard against.
I haven't had a desktop system with only 256MB of RAM in 10 years. Even my Athlon 64 system had 1GB to start. Sounds like you were being punished or something.
They're available. They just cost significantly more and are way lower density. Search the Micron P300/P320.
Trivially. The question is whether or not the hardware vendor will release the kernel sources (Chinese vendors have a bad habit of not doing so) and whether they'll release Xorg compatible versions of the GPU drivers.
Android's made it a real pain in the ass for non-Android Linux platforms to get a handle on modern mobile hardware.
TV is fundamentally broken because it is completely passive. This is what advertisers and media companies love about it, though, and this is why they are pushing hard to break the Internet and turn computers into TV 2.0.
They've succeeded partially, seen in the acceptance of the term "media consumption device" which is being used to cover virtually all of the new mobile space (and a point to shout down people who like to tinker, and in defense of DRM and lock-down.)
But nonetheless, the system does not force you to find a local exploit to get access at a level that allows you to replace the OS.
But do you really want to financially support a corporation that sees your actions as hostile, and moves proactively to stop you without providing a legitimate out?
Like what? I'm tired of vagaries used on the attack.
As if the two are mutually exclusive.
Do you have any sort of backup for your claim, or is this just another knee-jerk, irrational reaction with no factual basis?
This has nothing to do with using Chrome over Firefox. It has everything to do with the freewheeling bashing of Firefox that goes on these days.
Sponsorship has always been one way for open source software to operate. Donated time is another, but that's even rarer than sponsored contributions, which is how a lot of Linux is developed.
Well aren't you the pinnacle of rational thought?
This is a perfect example of the hate for Mozilla I see on Slashdot these days, with a dash of anger and irrationality for spice.
Slashdot is oozing hate for Firefox these days.
And most complaints seem to be anecdotal rather than linked to a verified bug report. I've never seen issues that some people have, despite my use of an ancient Firefox profile and being on Nightly at home and Release at work.
Does it actually prevent downloads or does it still just cut off downloads half way, resulting in small downloads going through then being hidden, and always allowing the HTTP request to go through?
Last I checked it still is. Unless you can show how they came to a screeching halt in supporting new web standards.
So they should never have opinions on the value or efficacy of solutions, they should just implement and expend effort implementing dubiously valuable standards that aren't actually standards but rather something dictated by the Webkit engine. Something you would rather attack Mozilla for but give other browsers a pass on.
They even give a rationale for their refusal:
But apparently rational argument and valid points are meaningless.