Mouahahaha, you clearly don't know what you're talking about. You really don't need to hunt dependencies yourself, tools such as urpmi and others do it for you, and it's been like that for years.
but you still had to track down a thousand different repositories
Not true. I'm only using the official mandriva repositories, and everything I need is in there, no need to use other repositories.
Do you still have to hunt for 3 hours on the interwebs to figure out how to install anything that didn't come with the distro?
I'm curious about how you install something that didn't come with the distro on Debian.
You're right, it's included in the commercial version. There's also a "Free" version which includes none of theses things. The non-free stuff is in a separate repository, which you can decide to use or not to use.
The question is not what they encourage you to do. The question is what they ALLOW you to do. Even if some open source projects encourage you to report things to them (and it's usually better if you have a patch), they do allow you to distribute the patch or a fixed version yourself. I'm not sure it is the same here.
How many basic users would be able to even compile a version with the altered code
A better question would be "how many linux distribution would ship a version with the altered code". It is the job of the distribution to fix minor annoyances like this depending on what its users want.
In the world of Desktop Operating Systems, Microsoft is the Else. If Linux isn't right for you, and OSX isn't right for you, you get Windows, and right now there are an awful lot of people who fit into the else, and I don't see any way to incorporate those people into Linux or Apple without giving up most of what makes those systems great in the first place.
No, it's not that Linux or Mac OS X don't fit to those people. It's just that they don't really know something else exists, and they don't even know how much they're paying for Windows.
we should have the option though (and the option not to pay for an OS)
That exactly what they propose. They did not say that you can't buy a PC with an OS. The only thing they say is that this OS should not be located on the Hard Drive, but on a DVD, so that you can decide not to buy it (or buy an other one instead).
But it would be sheer madness to mandate that an operating system can't be included with a computer.
You can buy an OS with your computer. But you must have the choice. That means the OS must not be located on the Hard Drive, but on a separate DVD, which you can decide not to buy if you don't need it, or want an other one instead. That's all.
Mandating that computers be sold without operating systems would end up hurting the vast majority of people -- who DO want to buy a computer that they can just turn out and do work on.
No, it won't hurt them, because they will still be able to buy an OS with their computer (and chose one that is certified to work on this particular hardware). The only difference is that it will be stored on a DVD instead of directly on the Hard Drive. But using a rescue DVD only takes a few minutes. That's no big deal.
But forcing them not to ever include the OS will just piss a lot of users off, even though they are lame windows users they do deserve some empathy I guess...
It forces them to not include the OS preinstalled, but you can still get the OS on a DVD if you want (this is an option). And I don't think it will piss off a lot of users, it usually takes something like 5 minutes to install an OS with a rescue disk...
What is the problem with banning bundling ? For the user who still wants Windows, it's just a matter of waiting 5 minutes after inserting the Windows rescue disk.
That thing with Dell is more of a joke. you can choose Linux, but only on certain models, and if you decide to upgrade it to the same model that comes bundled with Vista, then it's actually more expensive with Linux. Also, they let you choose Ubuntu, but other Linux distributions exist and you can't choose them.
The idea is that it would be illegal to sell a PC pre-installed with an OS. However, you can buy an OS at the same time if you like (it is an option). Most vendors currently provide a Windows rescue disk, and it takes something like 5 minutes to install the OS with that disk. So if you want Windows on your PC, it's just a matter of spending 5 minutes more than if it came pre-installed. But you have the choice of not buying Windows, buying an other OS like Linux, or no OS at all (and buy it at an other place, or use a free one or one that you already own).
Mac OS X kernel is based on Mach, which has nothing to do with NetBSD, FreeBSD or OpenBSD.
I didn't say Mac OS X doesn't use any tools from BSD, yes they have many userland programs and libraries coming from BSD, but that does not make it a BSD system. I'm sure you can find Linux distributions shipping code with UC Berkley Regents copyrights, but nobody talks about theses as "BSD".
Who said GCC generate the best code in the world ? There's something in the middle between generating the best code in the world and generating code with no optimisation at all.
Slashdot Mirror
It's different because no one ever writes year/day/month, so if you see something starting with year, you know what the numbers are.
It's funny that they open source it just after selling livejournal.
They didn't have an open source blog software anymore ?
Given the headache that incompatibility between GPLv3 and GPLv2 is causing developers, will we see more of this?
DJB changing the license for his software has nothing to do with GPLv2 vs GPLv3. His software was actually not open source !
Mandriva said it will not sign that deal with Microsoft :
http://blog.mandriva.com/2007/06/19/we-will-not-go-to-canossa/
CentOS is just the same as RedHat
It would have taken a couple of minutes on Linux if an autopackage version was available on the truecrypt site.
Good luck using autopackage for something that require modifications in the kernel !
Mouahahaha, you clearly don't know what you're talking about. You really don't need to hunt dependencies yourself, tools such as urpmi and others do it for you, and it's been like that for years.
but you still had to track down a thousand different repositories
Not true. I'm only using the official mandriva repositories, and everything I need is in there, no need to use other repositories.
Do you still have to hunt for 3 hours on the interwebs to figure out how to install anything that didn't come with the distro?
I'm curious about how you install something that didn't come with the distro on Debian.
You're right, it's included in the commercial version. There's also a "Free" version which includes none of theses things. The non-free stuff is in a separate repository, which you can decide to use or not to use.
I guess the people who answer understood it was a joke. But a comment that say something wrong, even if it is a joke, still says something wrong.
What are you talking about ? If you're talking about Compiz Fusion, then it's optional. KDE4 is optional. I don't see how it is bloatware.
The question is not what they encourage you to do. The question is what they ALLOW you to do. Even if some open source projects encourage you to report things to them (and it's usually better if you have a patch), they do allow you to distribute the patch or a fixed version yourself. I'm not sure it is the same here.
How many basic users would be able to even compile a version with the altered code
A better question would be "how many linux distribution would ship a version with the altered code". It is the job of the distribution to fix minor annoyances like this depending on what its users want.
In the world of Desktop Operating Systems, Microsoft is the Else. If Linux isn't right for you, and OSX isn't right for you, you get Windows, and right now there are an awful lot of people who fit into the else, and I don't see any way to incorporate those people into Linux or Apple without giving up most of what makes those systems great in the first place.
No, it's not that Linux or Mac OS X don't fit to those people. It's just that they don't really know something else exists, and they don't even know how much they're paying for Windows.
but forcing PCs to be sold with no OS is retarded
we should have the option though (and the option not to pay for an OS)
That exactly what they propose. They did not say that you can't buy a PC with an OS. The only thing they say is that this OS should not be located on the Hard Drive, but on a DVD, so that you can decide not to buy it (or buy an other one instead).
That's a good idea too. But unbundling is a good start.
But it would be sheer madness to mandate that an operating system can't be included with a computer.
You can buy an OS with your computer. But you must have the choice. That means the OS must not be located on the Hard Drive, but on a separate DVD, which you can decide not to buy if you don't need it, or want an other one instead. That's all.
Mandating that computers be sold without operating systems would end up hurting the vast majority of people -- who DO want to buy a computer that they can just turn out and do work on.
No, it won't hurt them, because they will still be able to buy an OS with their computer (and chose one that is certified to work on this particular hardware). The only difference is that it will be stored on a DVD instead of directly on the Hard Drive. But using a rescue DVD only takes a few minutes. That's no big deal.
Just prohibit them from charging more for the retail version than the OEM version. BAM problem solved.
How is that a simpler solution ? What's the problem with prohibiting bundling ?
But forcing them not to ever include the OS will just piss a lot of users off, even though they are lame windows users they do deserve some empathy I guess...
...
It forces them to not include the OS preinstalled, but you can still get the OS on a DVD if you want (this is an option). And I don't think it will piss off a lot of users, it usually takes something like 5 minutes to install an OS with a rescue disk
What is the problem with banning bundling ? For the user who still wants Windows, it's just a matter of waiting 5 minutes after inserting the Windows rescue disk.
That thing with Dell is more of a joke. you can choose Linux, but only on certain models, and if you decide to upgrade it to the same model that comes bundled with Vista, then it's actually more expensive with Linux. Also, they let you choose Ubuntu, but other Linux distributions exist and you can't choose them.
The idea is that it would be illegal to sell a PC pre-installed with an OS. However, you can buy an OS at the same time if you like (it is an option).
Most vendors currently provide a Windows rescue disk, and it takes something like 5 minutes to install the OS with that disk. So if you want Windows on your PC, it's just a matter of spending 5 minutes more than if it came pre-installed. But you have the choice of not buying Windows, buying an other OS like Linux, or no OS at all (and buy it at an other place, or use a free one or one that you already own).
They hit a black screen with or something similar on it.
If they select one of the OS that has been certified to work on this particular hardware, then they should not hit a black screen.
Other than that, installing a Linux distribution such as Mandriva or Ubuntu is really easy if the hardware is correctly supported.
Mac OS X kernel is based on Mach, which has nothing to do with NetBSD, FreeBSD or OpenBSD.
I didn't say Mac OS X doesn't use any tools from BSD, yes they have many userland programs and libraries coming from BSD, but that does not make it a BSD system. I'm sure you can find Linux distributions shipping code with UC Berkley Regents copyrights, but nobody talks about theses as "BSD".
Mac OS X is NOT BSD. It uses some parts of it, but Windows do too.
Packages also are available on Mandriva Cooker, and they will be on Mandriva 2008 RC2 to be released soon.
Who said GCC generate the best code in the world ? There's something in the middle between generating the best code in the world and generating code with no optimisation at all.