Believe me, spatial Nautilus does not suck for people who don't grok computers.
No, I don't believe you. At all. How does removing the toolbar help anyone? What do I click to go back? What if I want to look in a different folder? "Just close that one, and open this one that says browser" is the answer.
Hide the tree view, that's fine. Hide the URI bar, that's fine too as long as the path is in the window title. But leave the fricken toolbar there, and put buttons on it to turn the others back on.
"I'm sure are very good but they can't keep rewriting every package to support multiple archs, Its not a managable job with the current amount of developers."
Appearantly canadian courts are not in agreement since coping, including downloading for private use is legal.
No it is not.
the act of such copying, for private use, is in itself not an infringing act.
You're an idiot. The source copy is the infringement. You don't have any rights to make copies of it, because you're not supposed to have it in the first place. That is what the law says. Beleive a fallacy if you want, just shut the fuck up about it.
And not a single one of those apps do you use ctrl-L inside a dialog entitled "open", or any dialog for that matter"
Firefox does so. If you turn off the navigation toolbar, and press ctrl-l, you get this.
"
When it comes to the widgets, GNOME and GTK+ are the same people"
Nope. GTK+ are the widgets used by the Gnome project. Filing Gnome bugs for problems with GTK+ makes as much sense as blaming XFCE for them. They're closely related, but not the same thing. The Gtk+ developers are a very helpful and friendly group. I'm sure they would accept patches that improved the file chooser.
I don't think you'll have any luck trying to get the URI bar put into the widget, but the autocomplete in the ctrl-l dialog should select files as well, not just the directory containing them.
ctrl-l works well though, there's no need to change anything, except the documentation. A nice handy keyboard shortcuts reference would go a long way. Firefox has a nice one.
'I'll give you 10 to 1 that the way you found out about ctrl-L was via the web search or a mailing list.'
I don't know what the bet was, but I like the odds. I found it because ctrl-l is the keybinding that takes you to the url bar in Firefox, Nautilus, Konqueror, and a whole bunch of others.
'This is simply looking at the filechooser as a usability issue with normal users.'
Well take it up with the GTK+ developers. It doesn't make any more sense to complain to Gnome devs about that than it does to complain about it to the Gaim developers.
'And before you even start calling me some troll'
You're not just some troll.. You're a troll with a bad attitude.
"The GNOME heirachy needs to be walloped with a clue stick when it comes to useability."
Useability has improved over all IMHO.
"I'll give you something. The filechooser. "Nah. No one will ever want to type in a filename when they can simply click 15 times!"
The flip side of that one is, anyone who knows how to type in a filename, can handle pressing ctrl-l to do that, or right clicking and selecting "Open Location". Autocomplete works nicely, and you can navigate to a new directory, or select a file or network resource.
I still think it's the Gnome users who need to tell the Gnome developers what they want without sounding like whiny children. That is what SUN's HIG provided. Just not enough of it.
Again, that was not your initial point though, you calimed just HAVING it required permision and that ANY use also did.
My point is that, if you are the recipient of an infinging copy, whether or not you can make copies of it is irrelevant.
The law, which you say I have not read, but have quoted several times says:
42. (1) Every person who knowingly
(2) Every person who knowingly
(a) makes or possesses any plate that is specifically designed or adapted for the purpose of making infringing copies of any work or other subject-matter in which copyright subsists
is guilty of an offence and liable
(c) on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding twenty-five thousand dollars or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to both, or
(d) on conviction on indictment, to a fine not exceeding one million dollars or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years or to both.
(3) The court before which any proceedings under this section are taken may, on conviction, order that all copies of the work or other subject-matter that appear to it to be infringing copies, or all plates in the possession of the offender predominantly used for making infringing copies, be destroyed or delivered up to the owner of the copyright or otherwise dealt with as the court may think fit.
That can obviously be interpreted a number of ways, but in my view, and the view of others it means if you are in possession of an MP3 rip of a CD, or a DivX reencode of a DVD that somebody made in order to distribute on the internet, then you are guilty of a crime.
I'm afraid that the whole "Spatial Natilus" debacle didn't do much for the GNOME team's reputation.
Or their morale probably. I wish Sun would do another HIG. The developers need more unbaised feedback. All they are likely to hear on Slashdot is the vocal minority. I use Gnome, with e16, and I like it very much but I'm not likely to say anything about it until I have something to bitch about.
Having said that, I too hate spacial nautilus, and I'm very glad that turning it off no longer involves hunting through gconf.:)
Under Canadia law receiving a file is fine, so long as you don't go ahead and infringe afterwards.
We'll have to see what happens in the courts. Currently the ISPs aren't allowed to name their subscribers. Once that changes and ISPs are required to provide that information to the court, or they find a way to get people to give up their anonymity, the lawsuits will come fast and furious. Until then we can only speculate. I don't believe that you are allowed to have files that were made as a result of infringement, any more than you would legally be allowed to have the Microsoft source code that leaked a year or two ago. I'd almost like to turn in a few of the dishonest people I know to have copies just to see what happens.
But hell, if you're right then maybe I'll ask him to sue you.
You could try. This isn't a P2P network though, which is what we are talking about. With P2P, you are sending copies as you are receiving them. That isn't happening here.
Why have you not responded to the lies you posted regarding what I said?
Because there are no lies. You are just being foolish. You seem to have a problem with the words "license", and "use". Other than semantics, you don't even have an argument at all.
Intellectual Property law in Canada permits the limited use of copyright material in two specific circumstances. The first is "Fair Use"; that is, for private study or research and for criticism, review or summary if the source and the author is identified. The second is under "Implied License"; that is, the copyright owner invites others to make use of the work in a certain way and thus a consent or license to use the work is implied. For example, by posting a copyright work to a server, there is/may be an implied license authorizing whatever reproduction is necessary for accessing and viewing.
No, you have been saying that you have the right to copy anything that has ever been composed. You have the right to copy anything that you have acquired legally. If you acquire the work from someone who doesn't have authority to give it to you, you can't claim any right to copy it. You shouldn't have it to begin with, you had to infringe on the copyright to get it.
So hopefully you will not object if I proceed on a US-basis.
Actually, I do.. We're talking about a ruling in Canada which stated copyright holders do not have the authority to demand from ISPs the identification of its subscribers. The misconception is that this ruling somehow gives people the right to infringe on other peoples copyrights.
Slashdot Mirror
The funny thing is though, if you look at the W3C member list, you find:
The gang's all here.
Believe me, spatial Nautilus does not suck for people who don't grok computers.
No, I don't believe you. At all. How does removing the toolbar help anyone? What do I click to go back? What if I want to look in a different folder? "Just close that one, and open this one that says browser" is the answer.
Hide the tree view, that's fine. Hide the URI bar, that's fine too as long as the path is in the window title. But leave the fricken toolbar there, and put buttons on it to turn the others back on.
I can't take a screenshot of Safari, but this Konqueror shot is pretty funny.
When Linux can support ALL of my apps and hardware, I will accept it as a real OS.
When you get real apps and hardware, we'll accept you as a real person.
Will these kids wanna spend 4 years learning how to use it all properly and not get r00ted in the mean time?
Sure they're just kids. Set them loose on Windows 98, and it won't take 4 years to get r00ted. 4 minutes maybe.
So the nightmare is that they turned off spacial Nautilus? I may just become an Ubuntu user yet..
Spacial nautilus sucks. Its only a matter of time before the dev's realize this too.
"I'm sure are very good but they can't keep rewriting every package to support multiple archs, Its not a managable job with the current amount of developers."
;)
It seems to work pretty well for Gentoo.
The source is irellevant.
No its not. The key phrase is "makes or possesses".
Appearantly canadian courts are not in agreement since coping, including downloading for private use is legal.
No it is not.
the act of such copying, for private use, is in itself not an infringing act.
You're an idiot. The source copy is the infringement. You don't have any rights to make copies of it, because you're not supposed to have it in the first place. That is what the law says. Beleive a fallacy if you want, just shut the fuck up about it.
"You conviently didn't do what I said."
Neither did you. Stop whining or come up with an amicable solution.
I'm fine with the way it is now, gnome-vfs is finally working very well. Onward and upward.
Firefox does so. If you turn off the navigation toolbar, and press ctrl-l, you get this.
Nope. GTK+ are the widgets used by the Gnome project. Filing Gnome bugs for problems with GTK+ makes as much sense as blaming XFCE for them. They're closely related, but not the same thing. The Gtk+ developers are a very helpful and friendly group. I'm sure they would accept patches that improved the file chooser.
I don't think you'll have any luck trying to get the URI bar put into the widget, but the autocomplete in the ctrl-l dialog should select files as well, not just the directory containing them.
ctrl-l works well though, there's no need to change anything, except the documentation. A nice handy keyboard shortcuts reference would go a long way. Firefox has a nice one.
'I'll give you 10 to 1 that the way you found out about ctrl-L was via the web search or a mailing list.'
I don't know what the bet was, but I like the odds. I found it because ctrl-l is the keybinding that takes you to the url bar in Firefox, Nautilus, Konqueror, and a whole bunch of others.
'This is simply looking at the filechooser as a usability issue with normal users.'
Well take it up with the GTK+ developers. It doesn't make any more sense to complain to Gnome devs about that than it does to complain about it to the Gaim developers.
'And before you even start calling me some troll'
You're not just some troll.. You're a troll with a bad attitude.
Like, you think that titanium, and the equipment required to work titanium comes cheap? Cheaper than sand?
Don't be foolish. Now you can wear your tinfoil hat, and charge your PDA at the same time. Nobel prize for these guys.
"The GNOME heirachy needs to be walloped with a clue stick when it comes to useability."
Useability has improved over all IMHO.
"I'll give you something. The filechooser. "Nah. No one will ever want to type in a filename when they can simply click 15 times!"
The flip side of that one is, anyone who knows how to type in a filename, can handle pressing ctrl-l to do that, or right clicking and selecting "Open Location". Autocomplete works nicely, and you can navigate to a new directory, or select a file or network resource.
I still think it's the Gnome users who need to tell the Gnome developers what they want without sounding like whiny children. That is what SUN's HIG provided. Just not enough of it.
My point is that, if you are the recipient of an infinging copy, whether or not you can make copies of it is irrelevant.
The law, which you say I have not read, but have quoted several times says:
- 42. (1) Every person who knowingly
- (2) Every person who knowingly
- (a) makes or possesses any plate that is specifically designed or adapted for the purpose of making infringing copies of any work or other subject-matter in which copyright subsists
- is guilty of an offence and liable
- (c) on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding twenty-five thousand dollars or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to both, or
- (d) on conviction on indictment, to a fine not exceeding one million dollars or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years or to both.
- (3) The court before which any proceedings under this section are taken may, on conviction, order that all copies of the work or other subject-matter that appear to it to be infringing copies, or all plates in the possession of the offender predominantly used for making infringing copies, be destroyed or delivered up to the owner of the copyright or otherwise dealt with as the court may think fit.
That can obviously be interpreted a number of ways, but in my view, and the view of others it means if you are in possession of an MP3 rip of a CD, or a DivX reencode of a DVD that somebody made in order to distribute on the internet, then you are guilty of a crime.I'm afraid that the whole "Spatial Natilus" debacle didn't do much for the GNOME team's reputation.
:)
Or their morale probably. I wish Sun would do another HIG. The developers need more unbaised feedback. All they are likely to hear on Slashdot is the vocal minority. I use Gnome, with e16, and I like it very much but I'm not likely to say anything about it until I have something to bitch about.
Having said that, I too hate spacial nautilus, and I'm very glad that turning it off no longer involves hunting through gconf.
Under Canadia law receiving a file is fine, so long as you don't go ahead and infringe afterwards.
We'll have to see what happens in the courts. Currently the ISPs aren't allowed to name their subscribers. Once that changes and ISPs are required to provide that information to the court, or they find a way to get people to give up their anonymity, the lawsuits will come fast and furious. Until then we can only speculate. I don't believe that you are allowed to have files that were made as a result of infringement, any more than you would legally be allowed to have the Microsoft source code that leaked a year or two ago. I'd almost like to turn in a few of the dishonest people I know to have copies just to see what happens.
But hell, if you're right then maybe I'll ask him to sue you.
You could try. This isn't a P2P network though, which is what we are talking about. With P2P, you are sending copies as you are receiving them. That isn't happening here.
He's a subscriber, he saw the story 20 minutes ago or whatever.
What I am saying is that USE doesn't require the permision of the copyright holder since it is not an exclusive right of the copyright holder
It sure does, if in order to use it, you have to make copies.
Because there are no lies. You are just being foolish. You seem to have a problem with the words "license", and "use". Other than semantics, you don't even have an argument at all.
Intellectual Property law in Canada permits the limited use of copyright material in two specific circumstances. The first is "Fair Use"; that is, for private study or research and for criticism, review or summary if the source and the author is identified. The second is under "Implied License"; that is, the copyright owner invites others to make use of the work in a certain way and thus a consent or license to use the work is implied. For example, by posting a copyright work to a server, there is/may be an implied license authorizing whatever reproduction is necessary for accessing and viewing.
I have been talking about USING things, or simply HAVING things, since that is what you wrote.
Yes. You cannot *have* the work if the copyright had to be infringed to get it.
That is what I have been saying all the time.
No, you have been saying that you have the right to copy anything that has ever been composed. You have the right to copy anything that you have acquired legally. If you acquire the work from someone who doesn't have authority to give it to you, you can't claim any right to copy it. You shouldn't have it to begin with, you had to infringe on the copyright to get it.
If so then he's commiting infringment.
Yes. Now you've got it. If he/she isn't allowed to give it to you, you aren't allowed to have it.
So hopefully you will not object if I proceed on a US-basis.
Actually, I do.. We're talking about a ruling in Canada which stated copyright holders do not have the authority to demand from ISPs the identification of its subscribers. The misconception is that this ruling somehow gives people the right to infringe on other peoples copyrights.