You know, this inherent Slashdot "anti-government until it suits my agenda" philosophy is the only man-made object visible from space because of its sheer volume of stupidity. People like yourself are categorically free of credibility among those who make any attempts whatsoever to avoid hypocrisy.
I'd ask how you sleep at night, but you probably don't see anything contradictory here at all, do you?
Then, sadly, you can't have it both ways. R&D costs money in developer time among numerous other ways. If you are a proud member of the "I Support Linux As Long As It Requires No Personal Sacrifice Of Any Kind" club, you instantly lose your rights to bitch when things don't go your way; in terms of slow development schedule, a lackluster installation procedure or the laughable package installation options currently available (no, I don't care how much any of you like apt... the average user doesn't).
Now, you're not being particularly smarmy about any of this, so I will likewise avoid being so. Perhaps you're not a part of the irritating bunch who pound fists and exclaim that Linux is as capable on the average desktop as Windows or MacOS when the overwhelming evidence shows otherwise, but if you are hopeful of it ever reaching that level, I advise with all sincerity that you should probably lose the attitude that you have described (assuming you were speaking in first person).
Linux users are quickly becoming known as impossibly selfish malcontents who are good for little more than lipservice and that is not a great basis for any "revolution".
-- this player is yet another in an already oversaturated market and only exists because it lends support to a music format that no one on planet earth cares about outside of a small group of nerds who don't like paying for anything.
Most rational people think computer games are impossibly stupid. Calling his mother an idiot for not subscribing to the excrutiating minutia of (snicker) Everquest is like calling you an idiot for not being educated in areas that you don't care about; non-Star Trek oriented social interaction, for example.
Someone should indeed be forcibly sterilized, but I'm afraid, my Chuckleheaded friend, it's you. Based on your initial post, however, I have a hunch it's not much of an issue.
Memepool is a classic example. It spent forever on my list of daily hits until the last six months or so when the effect you're mentioning really took hold.
In addition, however, to the less available quirky content you mentioned, another problem is that everyone and his dog has a "wacky links" section. Not only is there less material overall, but much less material that hasn't been beaten to death by any number of sites in the weblog genre. How many times have you seen the pop-tart blowtorch linked somewhere, for example? The Too Many Chefs syndrome is as big of a problem as the drop in available links.
I use Microsoft and have more personality in my stool than you have in the last six generations of your family. Why? Because I have a modicum of openmindedness remaining. I use Windows 2000 quite stably on my desktop and FreeBSD on my web server. Both open and closed source? Living in harmony? Imagine that! Here's a quick tip (you may want to write this down): the best tool for a given job is not always the same as for the next job. I was as startled as you.
Now, you want to talk about drones? Okay, how about someone who posts to a discussion board claiming that the use of a software package is tantamount to a lack of personality. I can generalize too -- any Linux zealot I've ever met has been utterly useless socially and physically unkept. Obviously, that means you are too, right?
Now, considering the forum in which I'm posting this, it would be ridiculous to expect anything but jilted responses. Frankly, I don't care; it feels so good to make you look even stupider than your own words already have that I happily accept the consequences. You are an embarassment.
Yeah, show a whole bunch of people who have never heard of OSS before Stallman and Raymond. If you're lucky, Stallman will spend a half-hour flipping out over the term "open source" and Raymond will regail us all with his harrowing ascent into riches. Why not throw Dan Bernstein or Theo de Raadt in there too, just to make sure absolutely everyone is turned off?
I've said it before and I'll say it again- using those two malcontented weirdos to "sell" anything is professional suicide.
Look, I'm sure your A+B=C formula applies in some cases, let's be more realistic about this-
B. People hit Bearshare to download the song they heard, and liked, on net radio. No one makes any money.
I have no doubts that some people, although certainly less than what is claimed, actually do run out and purchase CDs after hearing a song either on net radio or via any number of P2P set ups, but I'm willing to bet that a vast majority don't. I don't. None of my close friends do. In fact, I don't even know anyone at all who does. Is it dishonest? Yes. Do I care? Sadly, no - I have no excuses or utter bullshit "free use" rationales. It feels great to take money away from the RIAA and terrible to take it away from artists, a pathetic cut it may be. The bottom line is that I have all kinds of music that I would -
a) not have bought anyway (one good song on the CD syndrome).
b) not have been able to afford on a student's fixed income.
And, honestly, I sleep just fine. Ask around - it is not an absurd claim to make that most of those who claim to purchase music based upon "samples" obtained from P2P services or net radio are lying or strongly exaggerating how often it happens.
Re:What is GIMP missing?
on
Penguin2Apple
·
· Score: 1
Re: crap interface on the GIMP.
Ay-men. Using the GIMP is like trying to eat an artichoke; it tastes (works) alright, but getting to that point is much more trouble than it's worth.
As I stated in another reply, I am willing to bet that the admittedly impressive 27% (to use your statistic) server market share for Linux has been at the expense of Netware or UNIX as opposed to Windows. The ~20% share Netware had as recently as 1999 (if I recall correctly) had to have gone somewhere, but it doesn't mean that Linux is replacing Windows on servers.
To use a terrible metaphor- Linux has, thus far, been a vulture that capitalized on the corpses of Netware and, to an extent, commercial UNIX. I don't know about the Netware and UNIX shops around your area, but the ones I deal with would have used CP/M instead of anything from Microsoft and, thus, Linux became the default replacement without having to "earn its stripes", so to speak.
Well, I obviously have no idea what type of position you hold at your job, but if your boss (client, etc) is willing to presumably turn 180 degrees based completely upon what you alone recommend and without doing any reading of his own, I weep for whatever he is in charge of. I have dealt with some seriously helpless bosses and clients and even they have the wherewithall to spend a half-hour on Google when faced with a decision of this type.
To answer your question, Microsoft has, since investing money in Apple, no other legitimate competitors, inconsequential or not. I see that Be has officially kicked the bucket as well, not that there was much risk of them doing anything regardless.
I think they are. There is a lot of energy being spent on GPLed software, and it's winning mind share to boot. They've seen Linux come from nowhere to thier major compeditor in less that 5 years. That would be enough to scare the bejeezus out of any company.
Major competitor? Questionable. There are a lot more Macs for sale at the local [fill in chain electronics retailer] than there are Linux machines. Don't use yourself or your nerd buddies to stand for real-world percentages. Linux is in there, to be sure, but let's not overstate the whole thing. What was the desktop percentage? 0.24%?
...I plan to re-deploy my dead AlphaNT machines as SAMBA servers - and they match up nicely with some big Intel based iron running Windows2000. Microsoft would count that as a lost sale, I think.
Oh? A lost sale is something that you would have purchased if not for an alternative. As Microsoft has dropped Alpha support from 2000 and above, there was no potential sale to be lost. Essentially, they kicked you out before you had a chance to leave (the wisdom of which is certainly debatable).
...Litestep and Window Blinds. There are arguements, but you think there are nothing but congenial, ass kissing sessions in cloised source design meetings? Sure.
By no means, but with ~90% of the available desktop market, they can afford a slightly less united front. Gaining ground requires a lot more cohesion than maintaining it. That being said, history is full of examples where the reigning rulers got lax and wound up drowning in blood.
Microsoft doesn't have many morons to be sure. They do have a paranoid culture, however. Look at how they've reacted to what used to be thier greatest weakness in regard to Linux - security.
Is it paranoia or just business sense? If I was a shareholder of any company, I'd damned well expect them to jump all over any competitor who threatens my stock value. Ford does it, GM does it, Coke, Nike- we could go on all day. Check the front page of Slashdot- OSS pundits do it too. Why is the omnipresent corporate mudslinging suddenly motivated by paralyzing fear when it's Microsoft?
Now, they're really, really scared that they will face competition that they can't buy or steal - they will only be able to compete on value and technology.
Do you really believe that Microsoft is "really, really scared" of the GPL? Why would they be?
1) The public image of OSS is, at this point, not good. As long as the zealots (RMS, ESR) are at the front lines, it will always conjure images of the hippies that these guys are.
2) The lucrative desktop market isn't going anywhere and, while I have no stats to back this up, I'm willing to bet that Linux's gains in the server market are more at the expense of Netware and UNIX than Windows.
3) The infighting and fragmentation among several OSS camps (GNOME/KDE and, to a lesser extent, GPL/BSD licencing) can't help but make one wonder if OSS can stay united long enough to make any impact.
Without turning this into another "OSS is nonviable in the business world" rant, the point I'm trying to make is that Microsoft has very little reason to fear the GPL. Be aware of? Yes. Watch carefully? Yes. Attempt to squash? Yes. Fear? No. Microsoft would have to be full of absolute morons to not spend some time and energy working to discredit GPL before it becomes a problem. Like Microsoft or not, you don't build the world's largest software company from a staff of morons.
Whenever I hear of Microsoft's alleged GPL fears, it reminds me of the skinny little kid who thinks that, because the schoolyard bully doesn't pick on him as often as others, the bully is afraid. I believe the term is "inconsequential".
I have a car, does that make me a qualified F1 driver? No, and this is no better. Doing what you enjoy on your own time is much, much, much different than having a PHB breathing down your neck while trying to do what you enjoy. That's why there are fifty million hacks working on a replacement for something that doesn't need replacing in the comfort of their homes and an extremely small number of genuinely good professional coders.
As an employer, I would treat "open source development" on a resume the same way as "built web sites for my family".
If you must know, I formulated my opinion of Stallman as being a nutbag long before I saw a picture of him. His ego and general insanity are plenty for such judgement. The vagrant appearance is just icing on the cake and you'll note that it came last in my original post -- it was really more of an extra jab than evidence for anything.
But, nice try with your 'questioning my sexuality' angle. Too bad I'm one of precious few Slashdotters who are secure in that way.
...has Stallman purposely avoided being confrontational? Maybe the backlash against this nutbag from even the most staunch FS supporters has managed to sink through that thick skull to a point where we can now expect an RMS who will, gasp, actually entertain opposing viewpoints!
Slashdot Mirror
I'd ask how you sleep at night, but you probably don't see anything contradictory here at all, do you?
Whoops! You misspelled "hours" in your comment.
Tools > Internet Options > Security > Custom Level > Run Active-X Controls and Plug-ins ('disable' or 'prompt' if you'd like to remain selective)
Oh look, another zealot proven wrong. Is it that time of day already?
Now, you're not being particularly smarmy about any of this, so I will likewise avoid being so. Perhaps you're not a part of the irritating bunch who pound fists and exclaim that Linux is as capable on the average desktop as Windows or MacOS when the overwhelming evidence shows otherwise, but if you are hopeful of it ever reaching that level, I advise with all sincerity that you should probably lose the attitude that you have described (assuming you were speaking in first person).
Linux users are quickly becoming known as impossibly selfish malcontents who are good for little more than lipservice and that is not a great basis for any "revolution".
Smells like success. I give it six months.
Stick with the "everyone should know the minute details of geek stuff" angle. I just hate that one.
Well, touche.
I'm saying she should just fucking log in if she wants to see who her son was talking to. It's gotta be less complicated than a lawsuit!
In that sense, yes, it probably is less complicated than a lawsuit. Sadly, it's also less profitable to do it the easy way.
What a nice chat we've had.
Most rational people think computer games are impossibly stupid. Calling his mother an idiot for not subscribing to the excrutiating minutia of (snicker) Everquest is like calling you an idiot for not being educated in areas that you don't care about; non-Star Trek oriented social interaction, for example.
Someone should indeed be forcibly sterilized, but I'm afraid, my Chuckleheaded friend, it's you. Based on your initial post, however, I have a hunch it's not much of an issue.
In addition, however, to the less available quirky content you mentioned, another problem is that everyone and his dog has a "wacky links" section. Not only is there less material overall, but much less material that hasn't been beaten to death by any number of sites in the weblog genre. How many times have you seen the pop-tart blowtorch linked somewhere, for example? The Too Many Chefs syndrome is as big of a problem as the drop in available links.
I'll hear none of that. Good day to you, sir.
It would be very easy to reverse engineer open sourced code.
Now, you want to talk about drones? Okay, how about someone who posts to a discussion board claiming that the use of a software package is tantamount to a lack of personality. I can generalize too -- any Linux zealot I've ever met has been utterly useless socially and physically unkept. Obviously, that means you are too, right?
Now, considering the forum in which I'm posting this, it would be ridiculous to expect anything but jilted responses. Frankly, I don't care; it feels so good to make you look even stupider than your own words already have that I happily accept the consequences. You are an embarassment.
I've said it before and I'll say it again- using those two malcontented weirdos to "sell" anything is professional suicide.
B. People hit Bearshare to download the song they heard, and liked, on net radio. No one makes any money.
I have no doubts that some people, although certainly less than what is claimed, actually do run out and purchase CDs after hearing a song either on net radio or via any number of P2P set ups, but I'm willing to bet that a vast majority don't. I don't. None of my close friends do. In fact, I don't even know anyone at all who does. Is it dishonest? Yes. Do I care? Sadly, no - I have no excuses or utter bullshit "free use" rationales. It feels great to take money away from the RIAA and terrible to take it away from artists, a pathetic cut it may be. The bottom line is that I have all kinds of music that I would -
a) not have bought anyway (one good song on the CD syndrome).
b) not have been able to afford on a student's fixed income.
And, honestly, I sleep just fine. Ask around - it is not an absurd claim to make that most of those who claim to purchase music based upon "samples" obtained from P2P services or net radio are lying or strongly exaggerating how often it happens.
Ay-men. Using the GIMP is like trying to eat an artichoke; it tastes (works) alright, but getting to that point is much more trouble than it's worth.
To use a terrible metaphor- Linux has, thus far, been a vulture that capitalized on the corpses of Netware and, to an extent, commercial UNIX. I don't know about the Netware and UNIX shops around your area, but the ones I deal with would have used CP/M instead of anything from Microsoft and, thus, Linux became the default replacement without having to "earn its stripes", so to speak.
To answer your question, Microsoft has, since investing money in Apple, no other legitimate competitors, inconsequential or not. I see that Be has officially kicked the bucket as well, not that there was much risk of them doing anything regardless.
Major competitor? Questionable. There are a lot more Macs for sale at the local [fill in chain electronics retailer] than there are Linux machines. Don't use yourself or your nerd buddies to stand for real-world percentages. Linux is in there, to be sure, but let's not overstate the whole thing. What was the desktop percentage? 0.24%?
Oh? A lost sale is something that you would have purchased if not for an alternative. As Microsoft has dropped Alpha support from 2000 and above, there was no potential sale to be lost. Essentially, they kicked you out before you had a chance to leave (the wisdom of which is certainly debatable).
By no means, but with ~90% of the available desktop market, they can afford a slightly less united front. Gaining ground requires a lot more cohesion than maintaining it. That being said, history is full of examples where the reigning rulers got lax and wound up drowning in blood.
Microsoft doesn't have many morons to be sure. They do have a paranoid culture, however. Look at how they've reacted to what used to be thier greatest weakness in regard to Linux - security.
Is it paranoia or just business sense? If I was a shareholder of any company, I'd damned well expect them to jump all over any competitor who threatens my stock value. Ford does it, GM does it, Coke, Nike- we could go on all day. Check the front page of Slashdot- OSS pundits do it too. Why is the omnipresent corporate mudslinging suddenly motivated by paralyzing fear when it's Microsoft?
Do you really believe that Microsoft is "really, really scared" of the GPL? Why would they be?
1) The public image of OSS is, at this point, not good. As long as the zealots (RMS, ESR) are at the front lines, it will always conjure images of the hippies that these guys are.
2) The lucrative desktop market isn't going anywhere and, while I have no stats to back this up, I'm willing to bet that Linux's gains in the server market are more at the expense of Netware and UNIX than Windows.
3) The infighting and fragmentation among several OSS camps (GNOME/KDE and, to a lesser extent, GPL/BSD licencing) can't help but make one wonder if OSS can stay united long enough to make any impact.
Without turning this into another "OSS is nonviable in the business world" rant, the point I'm trying to make is that Microsoft has very little reason to fear the GPL. Be aware of? Yes. Watch carefully? Yes. Attempt to squash? Yes. Fear? No. Microsoft would have to be full of absolute morons to not spend some time and energy working to discredit GPL before it becomes a problem. Like Microsoft or not, you don't build the world's largest software company from a staff of morons.
Whenever I hear of Microsoft's alleged GPL fears, it reminds me of the skinny little kid who thinks that, because the schoolyard bully doesn't pick on him as often as others, the bully is afraid. I believe the term is "inconsequential".
Nope, you produce 80% of the world's best marketed movies and music. There's a huge difference.
As an employer, I would treat "open source development" on a resume the same way as "built web sites for my family".
That may be true -- these statistics tend to change based upon the political stance of whomever references it. It's amazing how that works.
huge_penis_now@yahoo.com
But, nice try with your 'questioning my sexuality' angle. Too bad I'm one of precious few Slashdotters who are secure in that way.
What's next? A loss of that sexy beard?