"While GNOME was making critical mis-steps such as following in the footsteps of Microsoft, and using their FSF clout to force Redhat to hemogenize the redhat/linux desktop;"
You only say that because you're a geek and therebefore not GNOME's target group. Like it or not, GNOME has moved on to the "keep it simple and stupid"-philosophy. People like you are not their target anymore. They're targeting average users, who demand a simple, easy-to-use desktop that don't overload them with options. People like your grandmother, who don't care about lots of config options or other geeky features like you do.
You have a proprietary library. You develop an application, that can as well be open source, or proprietary, you don't care. So you use QT, because it appears to do the job well. At some point in time, someone thinks that a feature from the proprietary library might be handy for the app, and you link that library to the app, thinking that it doesn't matter, you just ship a closed source version. The application is shipped to the client, client sees that it should be GPL due to QT being used (note that you can't buy the QT license and make the app closed-source afterwards - QT doesn't allow that). Client requires the sources to the proprietary library and rights to distribute it under GPL."
You haven't "accidentally GPL'ed your software". You've only violated the license.
Stop this "GPL is viral"-myth. Your software does not automatically become GPL'ed if you distribute or link to GPL'ed software! You'll be violating the license, yes. But your software won't be automatically GPL'ed!
Re:....It's the name.. that damn name!
on
Ogg Now An RFC
·
· Score: 1
Only geeks care about whether the name "sucks" or not. Average users don't care, they just use whatever is put in front of them. It doesn't matter whether something is called "CoolStuff 2000 XP" or "blarghfooZapp86-viemacs", average users just use whatever they see first. Only Slashdotters and other vocal minorities of geeks care.
It's because it's exposing implementation details to the user. It encourages new users to mess up their filesystem. I know tons of people who have fsck'ed their Windows system because they deleted random files from C:\Program Files.
Users shouldn't have to care about the underlying filesystem! They should launch apps via menus and the only folder they should have to know about is $HOME. If you have the need to expose the underlying filesystem to the user then there's something very wrong. In other words, whether / contains usr or Applications or whatever, the user shouldn't have to care! The names of those folders should be irrelevant.
If the name of the folders are irrelevant anyway, why not aim for efficiency instead? The traditional FHS gives you that efficiency. It's proven.
Can anybody explain me what's with all the hype about putting each app in it's own directory?
Being able to see the "contents" of an app is exposing implementation detail to the user. That's bad, bad bad. Users shouldn't have to know what files a program has! They should launch their app using menus or icons and uninstall using the package manager. They should never have to know more than that! Everything else should be taken care of automatically without exposing implementation details!
So, what good is putting each app in it's own directory? It will certainly encourage people to take a look and try to hose their filesystem. I know many "average users" who fsck their Windows system because they randomly delete stuff from C:Program Files.
I wouldn't mind if they delay their release. The longer they wait the more chance Linux has to succeed. It's just like IE vs Netscape - Netscape took too long with Mozilla and now IE is everywhere.
Tell that to all those animation studios who use SGI or Linux boxes and X to produce/edit their animations.
Hmm... so for some reason X works for animation studios but doesn't on the "normal" desktop? Either there's something wrong with your reasoning or it's the *implementation* of X that's at fault, not the entire interface/system/design.
"but enterprises that require vendor support for their client OS will need to pay for it."
All I can say to this article is duh!
Like the anti-open source people say, "you get what you pay for". So if you want more support, then pay for it! Why should Linux and it's associated companies give away everything for free? You're supposed to pay for quality products!
First people complain that it's free ("free = amateur/bad/whatever"), and now people complain that it's NOT free. *sigh*...
Yes if you start the same app twice, they will share memory. But that isn't the problem. If your entire GNOME desktop is statically linked to GTK+, and you launch panel, nautilus and metacity, then you're loading 3 seperate copies of GTK+ into memory that don't share any memory at all!
Again, I'm not getting ripped off. I've checked out several stores as well as lots of computer advertisements. All the prices are more or less the same: too expensive.
"Yes, RAM, processing power, and hard drive space are cheap. You got ripped off horribly if you paid that much for those components."
No I didn't. I checked out several stores. I read lots of advertisements in computer magazines. Nowhere can I find DIMM modules that are compatible with my VIA motherboard and are cheaper.
> Wow you're getting ripped off. Where are you buying this stuff?
In the store. Heck, I checked out several stores, and even advertisements in computer magazines! The DIMM modules I bought in Vobis was actually the cheapest modules I could find.
This is The Netherlands. I don't know where you live.
I'm not a corporation. I don't have a paid sysadmin. Corporation who *do* have a paid sysadmin should use the RPMs or whatever provided by their vendor. RedHat's up2date resolves dependancies automatically, provided that you're using RPMs made by RedHat. Of course, all you *should* use is RPMs made by RedHat anyway if you're a corporation, because those packages are supported by RedHat.
First of all, RAM and disk space are NOT cheap. I spent 60 euros for 256 MB RAM, that's is not cheap (it's more than 120 Dutch guilders for goodness's sake!). A 60 GB harddisk still costs more than 200 euros. Again: not cheap. Until I can buy 256 MB RAM for 10 euros or less, and 60 GB harddisks for less than 90 euros, I call them everything but cheap.
What's even less cheap is bandwidth. Not everybody has broadband. Heck, many people can't get broadband. I have many friends who are still using 56k. It's just wrong to alienate them under the philosophy "bandwidth is cheap". And just look at how expensive broadband is (at least here): 1 mbit downstream and 128 kbit upstream (cable), for 52 euros per month (more than 110 Dutch guilders!), that's just insane. And I even have a data limit.
There is no excuse for wasting resources. Resources are NOT cheap dispite what everbody claims.
Slashdot Mirror
Uhm... yeah, that's what I meant. Changed direction. Wrong choice of words.
Have you even used that plugin yourself? Flash 6 support is broken and doesn't work!
"While GNOME was making critical mis-steps such as following in the footsteps of Microsoft, and using their FSF clout to force Redhat to hemogenize the redhat/linux desktop;"
You only say that because you're a geek and therebefore not GNOME's target group.
Like it or not, GNOME has moved on to the "keep it simple and stupid"-philosophy. People like you are not their target anymore. They're targeting average users, who demand a simple, easy-to-use desktop that don't overload them with options. People like your grandmother, who don't care about lots of config options or other geeky features like you do.
But it does not support Flash 6! And that website is using Flash 6!
"> how do you accidently GPL anything?
You have a proprietary library. You develop an application, that can as well be open source, or proprietary, you don't care. So you use QT, because it appears to do the job well. At some point in time, someone thinks that a feature from the proprietary library might be handy for the app, and you link that library to the app, thinking that it doesn't matter, you just ship a closed source version. The application is shipped to the client, client sees that it should be GPL due to QT being used (note that you can't buy the QT license and make the app closed-source afterwards - QT doesn't allow that). Client requires the sources to the proprietary library and rights to distribute it under GPL."
You haven't "accidentally GPL'ed your software". You've only violated the license.
Stop this "GPL is viral"-myth. Your software does not automatically become GPL'ed if you distribute or link to GPL'ed software! You'll be violating the license, yes. But your software won't be automatically GPL'ed!
Only geeks care about whether the name "sucks" or not. Average users don't care, they just use whatever is put in front of them. It doesn't matter whether something is called "CoolStuff 2000 XP" or "blarghfooZapp86-viemacs", average users just use whatever they see first. Only Slashdotters and other vocal minorities of geeks care.
First thing that jumped into my mind when reading the headline was Al Gore.
Oh wait, that's an I and not L? Oh, now it makes sense!
Secretary: "My CDROM drive won't eject the CDROM. What's going on?"
You: "From now on you must rightclick on the CD icon on the desktop and click the Eject menu."
Secretary: "Oh, OK." [click the menu]
Total time taken to educate her: 15 seconds.
There, was that so hard?
It's because it's exposing implementation details to the user. It encourages new users to mess up their filesystem. I know tons of people who have fsck'ed their Windows system because they deleted random files from C:\Program Files.
Users shouldn't have to care about the underlying filesystem! They should launch apps via menus and the only folder they should have to know about is $HOME. If you have the need to expose the underlying filesystem to the user then there's something very wrong.
In other words, whether / contains usr or Applications or whatever, the user shouldn't have to care! The names of those folders should be irrelevant.
If the name of the folders are irrelevant anyway, why not aim for efficiency instead? The traditional FHS gives you that efficiency. It's proven.
make uninstall
Can anybody explain me what's with all the hype about putting each app in it's own directory?
Being able to see the "contents" of an app is exposing implementation detail to the user. That's bad, bad bad. Users shouldn't have to know what files a program has! They should launch their app using menus or icons and uninstall using the package manager. They should never have to know more than that! Everything else should be taken care of automatically without exposing implementation details!
So, what good is putting each app in it's own directory? It will certainly encourage people to take a look and try to hose their filesystem. I know many "average users" who fsck their Windows system because they randomly delete stuff from C:Program Files.
IE 3 and 4 sucked too. IE 3 is horribly slow at rendering while IE 4 freezes every 10 minutes AND eats more memory.
I wouldn't mind if they delay their release. The longer they wait the more chance Linux has to succeed.
It's just like IE vs Netscape - Netscape took too long with Mozilla and now IE is everywhere.
Tell that to all those animation studios who use SGI or Linux boxes and X to produce/edit their animations.
Hmm... so for some reason X works for animation studios but doesn't on the "normal" desktop? Either there's something wrong with your reasoning or it's the *implementation* of X that's at fault, not the entire interface/system/design.
"but enterprises that require vendor support for their client OS will need to pay for it."
All I can say to this article is duh!
Like the anti-open source people say, "you get what you pay for".
So if you want more support, then pay for it! Why should Linux and it's associated companies give away everything for free? You're supposed to pay for quality products!
First people complain that it's free ("free = amateur/bad/whatever"), and now people complain that it's NOT free. *sigh*...
> Do you ever travel by car?
:p
I don't.
Really, I either use my bike or public transport. But I use my bike more often than public transport.
I don't have a credit card and my parents are afraid of credit card fraude.
Not here. One should not alienate people from other countries just because resources in his own country is cheap.
> Checking out the website of a Flemish computer shop,
We don't have Flemish computer shops in this country.
Yes if you start the same app twice, they will share memory. But that isn't the problem.
If your entire GNOME desktop is statically linked to GTK+, and you launch panel, nautilus and metacity, then you're loading 3 seperate copies of GTK+ into memory that don't share any memory at all!
Again, I'm not getting ripped off. I've checked out several stores as well as lots of computer advertisements. All the prices are more or less the same: too expensive.
"Yes, RAM, processing power, and hard drive space are cheap. You got ripped off horribly if you paid that much for those components."
No I didn't. I checked out several stores. I read lots of advertisements in computer magazines. Nowhere can I find DIMM modules that are compatible with my VIA motherboard and are cheaper.
> Wow you're getting ripped off. Where are you buying this stuff?
In the store. Heck, I checked out several stores, and even advertisements in computer magazines! The DIMM modules I bought in Vobis was actually the cheapest modules I could find.
This is The Netherlands. I don't know where you live.
I'm not a corporation. I don't have a paid sysadmin.
Corporation who *do* have a paid sysadmin should use the RPMs or whatever provided by their vendor. RedHat's up2date resolves dependancies automatically, provided that you're using RPMs made by RedHat. Of course, all you *should* use is RPMs made by RedHat anyway if you're a corporation, because those packages are supported by RedHat.
First of all, RAM and disk space are NOT cheap. I spent 60 euros for 256 MB RAM, that's is not cheap (it's more than 120 Dutch guilders for goodness's sake!). A 60 GB harddisk still costs more than 200 euros. Again: not cheap. Until I can buy 256 MB RAM for 10 euros or less, and 60 GB harddisks for less than 90 euros, I call them everything but cheap.
What's even less cheap is bandwidth. Not everybody has broadband. Heck, many people can't get broadband. I have many friends who are still using 56k. It's just wrong to alienate them under the philosophy "bandwidth is cheap".
And just look at how expensive broadband is (at least here): 1 mbit downstream and 128 kbit upstream (cable), for 52 euros per month (more than 110 Dutch guilders!), that's just insane. And I even have a data limit.
There is no excuse for wasting resources. Resources are NOT cheap dispite what everbody claims.