I appologize, you're absolutely correct - I read too much into your post.
My take was based on the 'talk' I heard when UserLinux was suggested. The impression I remember getting was that of a distro to bring companies to Linux, a united front to standardize Linux and get enterprise behind it.
A distro is fine -- I agree with you 100%. I do have problems, though, with folks trying to steer the community behind one this or that. Sure, it can work if they pull it off -- if they don't, they might just hurt us more than help us -- but only one environment will get the benefit. I'm up for bringing corporations into the community we have now. Sorry if I just spent a while kicking a dead horse.
First, enterprises don't like to develop for an infinite number of platforms. The test matrix is impossible. Agreed.
--- A secretary doesn't care if she's using GNOME or KDE, but she's going to be confused if you tell her, "Now pick your desktop environment, and then you can get to work".
Your problem is that you're confusing what I said with what a distro does. I'm talking about the community level, not the distro level -- sorry if I wasn't clear.
A distribution chooses defaults to present a unified front. Doing otherwise is foolish as you confuse the hell out of users.
But to try to steer the Linux community to embrace and develop for GNOME and drop KDE is equally foolish. I think the more intelligent solution would be to further integrate the two (wrappers, abstraction layers, etc.). Enable an application written for GNOME to work within KDE with a respectable degree of integration. Take the applications that are heavily integrated into a given desktop (nautilus, for example) and standardize them so that GNOME and KDE core apps work/feel the same.
--- The problem of enterprise standardizing on one distro happened years ago, when many businesses started supporting Redhat rather than Linux in general, and guess what? Linux is still around and kicking, and Redhat isn't the only option.
First I'll remind you that companies such as IBM and many many many countries are going with SuSE. Red Hat is US centric.
Second, Linux hasn't hit its prime, especially on the desktop, which, as you'll recall, is the entire point of this article: desktop Linux, or more accurately, environments. Now I'm not suggesting that KDE will lose any developers if enterprise moves in and really pushes GNOME (of which I'm a user and huge fan). What I am suggesting is that we can put effort behind both desktop environments without sacrificing simplicity and integration.
And it's attitudes like yours that have done so much to keep Linux from being the OS choice for homes and businesses all over the world. Right now, out of the box, Windows is a far superior choice for most users because it doesn't include four browsers, six e-mail clients, two completely different desktops, two SMTP servers, six text editors, three FTP clients, etc.
Congratulations for reading more into my post than I said.
Listen to me again, maybe you'll understand where I'm coming from. Good defaults (read: GNOME) are wonderful. Keep them. Any good commercial distro will present a unified system so as to avoid user confusion. Doing otherwise is retarded. Understand now that we're on the same side on this one?
The problem, however, is that some folks think that Linux, at the community level -- as opposed to the distro level -- need to select a unified front, and this is simply not true. What we need is for our current systems to interoperate, to breed choice with cooperation. Provide methods for GNOME applications to work feasibly on KDE without much effort on the side of the application developer.
It's quite possible to load a QT based program while running GNOME. It's quite possible for KDE folks to set up a wrapper layer to import GNOME applets into KDE. It's quite possible to create a wrapper for clipboard and drag-n-drop functionality.
It's even easier to present a unified front as far as interfaces go. Application menus, shortcuts, installations, all of these things can be streamlined.
Let a company pick their own distro -- IT departments exist for a reason. Let the distro makers pick a unified front of apps. But don't try to steer a community to one environment and one browser and one email client -- it's not necessary. Keeping choice in Linux isn't the stupid whim of a zealot, it's a very realitic goal. Companies aren't going to do this -- they make more money by owning the entire market. The Linux community isn't driven by a company, however, and we don't have to be to attract corporations.
Right, but this is about bringing enterprise to Linux, not about creating a new distro -- or at least that was my impression.
Getting enterprise behind one "distro" (a collection of packages) will effectively hijack a lot of the effort that goes into Linux to favor a single distro. This will work, don't get me wrong. All of my apps will still be there, stronger than ever, due to more users in general.
But instead of picking favorites and letting enterprise run with it by developing only for certain environments, etc., and effectively putting another desktop in a small minority, we can standardize on basic things: general interface concepts, configuration and installation methods, navigating the hard disk and using the clipboard, etc. We can KEEP KDE and GNOME and all the major browsers and all the major mail clients and all the major Xs and Os going -- as long as they play well with eachother and don't confuse the hell out of users.
To word it in a sentence: Linux needs to be predictable and it needs to interoperate. Linux doesn't need a flagship desktop environment.
Which is why you only cover the basics to keep the interfaces generally the same. The point is to allow choice but to allow a user to learn one desktop and be able to deal with others and not be a geek. None of this requires picking a single web browser or desktop.
The community can't decide on a favorite distro, so picking applications isn't going to work here. What we CAN decide on is how things should work on a general level, and I think THAT is what will help companies embrace Linux.
Windows is a homogenous environment, so it's easy to train folks who have used it before. If we can give Linux a little consistancy, I think we'll gain much of the benefit that Windows has.
If I wanted to stick with 'one browser is good enough for everyone' I wouldn't have migrated to Linux.
Just because you don't have a single desktop doesn't mean companies won't buy in.
I'll tell you a secret. You can get KDE and Gnome to play fine if you standardize areas where they can interoperate. Installation, administration tools. If your standards says "install libraries for both GTK and QT", then set up some standards for how to get the clipboard to talk between the two.
What Linux needs most is a standard that says, "ctrl+q is quit" and "include a programs menu" and "program installation is done through X", etc. We need standards so that users don't have to learn 50 different manuals to use Linux.
If you think this isn't possible without picking a single desktop, you belong back in the Microsoft camp with all the nazis.:)
Well, it doesn't take a genius to figure this out, but let me help apply the parent of your post to the subject at hand:
He's trying to say that going KDE is not the answer.
Making a specification that says quit is "CTRL+Q" is. Making a specification that says "this is how you handle a clipboard" is. Making a specification that says "this is how to handle drag-n-drop" is. Making a specification that says "program installations should be supported through RPM,.deb,.ebuild, etc." files is.
Homogenizing Linux will never be the solution. If you wankers want a single browser, go back to Microsoft. I'll be here in the Linux world where we've figured out that there are no "best" applications. Everyone likes it their own way, and I'll be damned if our "community" standardizes on a single desktop.
What Linux needs is not a new selection of packages. This is what distros are for.
Linux is all about choice. What companies need, instead of being told what desktop to use to comply with everyone else, is a standards base that *everyone* can comply with if they wish.
Maybe that isn't what UnitedLi^WLinuxStanda^WUserLinux is aiming for, but that's what we need. Going about cutting off an entire desktop isn't the way to make the Linux world friendly.
Let me say this again.
Forced standards are better than no standards [Microsoft], but Open and free and non-excluding standards are best.
For example, Red Hat is pretty gnome centric. Is excluding the biggest Linux distributor in the US really a smart idea if we want Linux to compete against the big dogs like Microsoft?
Let's not make this the land of one desktop or one browser or one this or that. Have we not learned our lesson from taking this shit from Microsoft?
Let's make a standard that helps applications/desktops/etc. interoperate. Drag-n-drop, clipboard, installer/package manager interoperation, etc.
This pick-a-favorite won't work. You folks haven't learned. Homogenizing Linux will never be the answer.
> "DRM is an accelerator which will boost digital sales of media, because it will convince media companies their content is protected. It should not be a competitive weapon," he added.
Err.... Last time I checked, sales were more dependant on the consumer than the peddler.
It's companies that think like this that make small business possible. The stupid, lumbering companies who don't know their arse from a hole in the ground. The companies that have HR folks interview someone for job X who have never done job X but instead attempt to make up for it by asking meaningless, open-ended questions.
The bigger a company gets, the more common the clueless, "well-rounded", ass-kissing employees become the norm, the type of employees that do things not because they enjoy them but to pump up their resume. Passion and specialization go out the window in favor of the clueless git who does what he's told. He did X to build up his resume because society said it would be a good idea. He'll treat his job the same way.
Inside these companies, overhead goes through the roof, management grows exponentially to micromanage the clueless gits who have no independent thought and the company has to run its product with an iron fist to stay profitable.
God bless human nature. Darwin, in some cases, is still shining through.
I used to find myself thinking "SCO released Linux code" to mean "SCO distributed someone else's product."
However, the way the GPL is worded, SCO's version of Linux is actually a product of SCO . It's theirs. They 'own' it to the extent that they can't claim copyright over portions they didn't write and that they must adhere to the GPL.
Assuming that they're not full of it (bear with me), SCO isn't accidentally releasing this code while distributing someone else's product. They're releasing it while distributing their own product. Where they got the majority of their product's code from isn't even a concern.
Re:You folks are barking up the wrong tree
on
Who Owns The Facts?
·
· Score: 1
If I had a mod point, I'd throw it your way. Thanks for the comment, I hadn't looked at it that way before.
Cheers
Re:You folks are barking up the wrong tree
on
Who Owns The Facts?
·
· Score: 1
"send money to the Democratic Party in North Carolina, with the express purpose of helping someone run against him. Choose the lesser evil, because you sure ain't gonna get to choose the greater good."
I don't know that I like this game either. Folks who "choose the lesser evil" are voting, which is great, but they are letting their power as voters be quarantined. If everyone actually stood up and told their representative/party, "Look, do things this way or I go to another party", politicians might be in more of a hurry to please their consituents. But no, people insist on squabbling about republicans or democrats and refuse to even think about what another party's stances are -- and thus we get presented with two horrible candidates who know that they only have to compete with each other; to be the lesser of two evils. They know this, and that is why they're not as responsible to their constiuents. As long as they behave just a little better than the other guy, they're still in office.
And we all fight over them like a bunch of monkeys flinging feces at each other in hopes that we'll be the monkey to get the prize: a rotten banana.
If people keep limiting their own choices to two bad apples, we'll never go anywhere but down... save a miracle.
I hope this made some form of sense. Cheers
Re:You folks are barking up the wrong tree
on
Who Owns The Facts?
·
· Score: 1
Federal judges yes, sorry for the oversight. A lot of my focus here was on civil.
I can agree with some of the idea behind keeping these judges out of harms way. Moral and constitutional judgements, IMO the most important kind, need to be protected from negative influence (campaign funding, scratch-my-back-I'll-scratch-yours games, etc.), but I do think that judges who aren't up for reelection every so often should be forced to be more accountable.
Sorry we're not friendly.:( I sincerely hate that about my government. Either we're pacifistic isolationists or manipulative goons. Both sides have their good points, but the sharp edges are horrible.
In fair game, I'd like to point out my feelings about a number of countries across that oversized lake... Much of Europe seems to have adopted an isolationist, pacifistic attitude. This is my opinion, but it seems like government/EU/UN resolutions and statements are rarely followed through by European countries. Whether force is necessary here or there is one thing, but personally I don't see any way out of thinking that some of our bitter neighbors wouldn't rather beat their chest and return to their cave when their talk is ignored.
I'm sorry that I see things this way. I hope that in the future I can feel like members of the EU and surrounding countries (as well as some folks in my own nation) can either stand behind what they say or not say anything at all. Claiming that you're going to get your Posse only to stay home and call the US a "Crazy Cowboy" when he goes to follow through seems a little hypocritical.
"Because the USA has a bigger army and is actively trying to stop us from making a common army of our own."
Um... when are we all going to grow up and quit blaming "bigger brother" for everything we can't do?
Can you please explain to me what arm twisting is being done and why the EU is giving into it? I'm not meaning to sound bitter here, but talk of the EU being forced to do something by an outside force makes me want to give the speaker a bottle of warm milk.
You folks are barking up the wrong tree
on
Who Owns The Facts?
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
"What's wrong here is that it makes it easy for big corporations with deep pockets to keep the little guy from being a nuisance/competitor. Who can afford to litigate against a Fortune 500 company whether his database is or is not misappropriated from theirs?"
What follows is a general rant about "the system":
Don't blame the law (unless you think it's wrong in and of itself, of course). Don't blame the lawyers, they're just mouthpeices: everyone (even the bad guys) needs a voice in a civil society.
Blame the elected representatives who pass bad legislation which screws up the system. Blame the elected judges who hear ridiculous cases and who let bad legislation pass which screws up the system. Blame the citizens making up juries who make some of these stupid court decisions.
See where this is going?
Government (and economics, for that matter) is just a way of controlling power. No matter which party you belong to, it doesn't get any more basic than this.
If you don't play the game, the folks who make the rules (your fellow citizens) will fuck you over. Democracy, capitalism, whatever -- NONE of it works if the people sit around and let a minority run the show.
Personally, I'm of the opinion that less government is a good thing: I feel that sane courts and capitalism are more effective than legislature (I trust my vote more among 200,000 corporations than than I do 2,000 politicians). I think less government could solve problems like this, but it will never happen unless lots of folks like me vote.
The same goes for you and what you believe. Welcome to the rest of your life. Put your hands on the wheel.
A for effort, B- for a decent troll, F for competence.
"A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator" Go back and take Government 101. Your comment truely amazes me, that anyone can think like this. The current administration does not pass laws nor does it judge court cases. Impeachment is still an option, the legislature can override a veto with a 2/3 vote and the judicial dept. has its checks.
--- "stringent socioeconomic controls" The administration controls my wages? My taxes? How much I pay for a stick of bubble gum?
--- "suppression of the opposition through terror..." How many protestors do you know of who were brutalized, maimed, murdered, or otherwise terrorized by our government? Hundreds of thousands of folks all over the country sprang up and protested the war -- I still see the fliers. How are these people being oppressed?
--- "...and censorship" What would you point at to illustrate this? It's somewhat difficult to censor material on the Internet, the government does not control the media.
--- "and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism" I'll give you some of this.
We're much better off these days than we were in the 50's, both domestic and foreign. Same goes for the early 40's (internment camps anyone?).
That said, we are FAR from a police state or a dictatorship. Cry conspiracy all you want, it's a pretty blind point of view. You're ignoring select parts to make your view of our country work.
The patriot act scares the hell out of me and this article scares the hell out of me. Powers our government (both parties) have wanted for years are finally being granted under the guise of protecting us from the terrorists on every street corner. We all know this is a bunch of BS. But screaming that the sky is falling is pretty damn unrealistic and makes you look like an idiot.
Are you sure that the nuances you're talking about don't have their equivalents in Windows?
DLL Hell or file sharing problems or viruses for instance? Lots of folks think these problems don't exist on Windows because they're used to working with them there. Any defects are going to annoy anyone new to a system.
"Do decision makers even pay any attention to these petions or do they figgure that because an online petition is much easier to put a name to than any other type of feedback the names are fairly worthless..."
Yeah, but we're Slashdotters! We hardly take the time to read the article, much less sign up for a petition!:)
Hey buddy, I'm really sorry for the Linux newbies who are still fawning over Linux, but don't lump us all up with the idiotic zealots. That's just as much of a logical fallacy as to say nobody uses Windows because they like it over all the other alternatives.
Any true Linux user is all about choice. That's what makes Linux great.
If Windows suits your needs, then so be it. That's great! I'm honestly happy for you. I wish Linux could provide that, maybe someone can help fill that need. It's the same thing I tell the folks I know: Linux isn't for some people.
If there is one piece of advice I can give anyone to understanding the rants of a Linux person, it's this: Most Linux folks don't care what you use. They found a system that is elegant, suits their needs and let's them tweak things to their exact preferences. They found a system that is very in tune with the way they use a computer. And they want to share the gem that they found. This can start the rabid zealot rants, especially from a new Linux convert. I used to fall in this category; then I got over it, realized that not everyone will do best with Linux and moved on.
NOW, my biggest thing is education. It hurts to see someone down-talking Linux when they know little to nothing about it. I enjoy showing people Linux as most people don't know what it is -- maybe they'll enjoy it as I have. It's when people start spewing misinformation that I get mad.
This has been my experience. I sincerely hope that Linux folks can be a little less rabid and I hope that Windows users will be a little less defensive.
What you're saying is correct: Linux himself doesn't have that kind of power. But the Linux community as a whole does.
I am writing this message based from a laptop running a Linux kernel with Linux drivers, Linux services, and an entire host of open source software (bash, X, Gnome, Metacity, ALSA, CUPS) that I did not pay a dime for.
Linux has hackers in every one of the projects I mentioned. While Linus is only directly in control of the kernel, he does have some control over the community as a whole, a community which is far more powerful than Microsoft.
Those 80-100 lines of code SCO is referring to were from BSD. Bruce and others said it shouldn't have been there and got rid of it because it was a bad implementation.
Slashdot Mirror
Ximian Evolution does this as well. I'm not sure as to how well it does it as I don't use it, but it is in there. :)
I appologize, you're absolutely correct - I read too much into your post.
:)
My take was based on the 'talk' I heard when UserLinux was suggested. The impression I remember getting was that of a distro to bring companies to Linux, a united front to standardize Linux and get enterprise behind it.
A distro is fine -- I agree with you 100%. I do have problems, though, with folks trying to steer the community behind one this or that. Sure, it can work if they pull it off -- if they don't, they might just hurt us more than help us -- but only one environment will get the benefit. I'm up for bringing corporations into the community we have now.
Sorry if I just spent a while kicking a dead horse.
Cheers
First, enterprises don't like to develop for an infinite number of platforms. The test matrix is impossible.
Agreed.
---
A secretary doesn't care if she's using GNOME or KDE, but she's going to be confused if you tell her, "Now pick your desktop environment, and then you can get to work".
Your problem is that you're confusing what I said with what a distro does. I'm talking about the community level, not the distro level -- sorry if I wasn't clear.
A distribution chooses defaults to present a unified front. Doing otherwise is foolish as you confuse the hell out of users.
But to try to steer the Linux community to embrace and develop for GNOME and drop KDE is equally foolish. I think the more intelligent solution would be to further integrate the two (wrappers, abstraction layers, etc.). Enable an application written for GNOME to work within KDE with a respectable degree of integration. Take the applications that are heavily integrated into a given desktop (nautilus, for example) and standardize them so that GNOME and KDE core apps work/feel the same.
---
The problem of enterprise standardizing on one distro happened years ago, when many businesses started supporting Redhat rather than Linux in general, and guess what? Linux is still around and kicking, and Redhat isn't the only option.
First I'll remind you that companies such as IBM and many many many countries are going with SuSE. Red Hat is US centric.
Second, Linux hasn't hit its prime, especially on the desktop, which, as you'll recall, is the entire point of this article: desktop Linux, or more accurately, environments. Now I'm not suggesting that KDE will lose any developers if enterprise moves in and really pushes GNOME (of which I'm a user and huge fan). What I am suggesting is that we can put effort behind both desktop environments without sacrificing simplicity and integration.
And it's attitudes like yours that have done so much to keep Linux from being the OS choice for homes and businesses all over the world. Right now, out of the box, Windows is a far superior choice for most users because it doesn't include four browsers, six e-mail clients, two completely different desktops, two SMTP servers, six text editors, three FTP clients, etc.
Congratulations for reading more into my post than I said.
Listen to me again, maybe you'll understand where I'm coming from. Good defaults (read: GNOME) are wonderful. Keep them. Any good commercial distro will present a unified system so as to avoid user confusion. Doing otherwise is retarded.
Understand now that we're on the same side on this one?
The problem, however, is that some folks think that Linux, at the community level -- as opposed to the distro level -- need to select a unified front, and this is simply not true. What we need is for our current systems to interoperate, to breed choice with cooperation. Provide methods for GNOME applications to work feasibly on KDE without much effort on the side of the application developer.
It's quite possible to load a QT based program while running GNOME. It's quite possible for KDE folks to set up a wrapper layer to import GNOME applets into KDE. It's quite possible to create a wrapper for clipboard and drag-n-drop functionality.
It's even easier to present a unified front as far as interfaces go. Application menus, shortcuts, installations, all of these things can be streamlined.
Let a company pick their own distro -- IT departments exist for a reason. Let the distro makers pick a unified front of apps. But don't try to steer a community to one environment and one browser and one email client -- it's not necessary. Keeping choice in Linux isn't the stupid whim of a zealot, it's a very realitic goal. Companies aren't going to do this -- they make more money by owning the entire market. The Linux community isn't driven by a company, however, and we don't have to be to attract corporations.
Right, but this is about bringing enterprise to Linux, not about creating a new distro -- or at least that was my impression.
Getting enterprise behind one "distro" (a collection of packages) will effectively hijack a lot of the effort that goes into Linux to favor a single distro. This will work, don't get me wrong. All of my apps will still be there, stronger than ever, due to more users in general.
But instead of picking favorites and letting enterprise run with it by developing only for certain environments, etc., and effectively putting another desktop in a small minority, we can standardize on basic things: general interface concepts, configuration and installation methods, navigating the hard disk and using the clipboard, etc. We can KEEP KDE and GNOME and all the major browsers and all the major mail clients and all the major Xs and Os going -- as long as they play well with eachother and don't confuse the hell out of users.
To word it in a sentence: Linux needs to be predictable and it needs to interoperate. Linux doesn't need a flagship desktop environment.
Which is why you only cover the basics to keep the interfaces generally the same. The point is to allow choice but to allow a user to learn one desktop and be able to deal with others and not be a geek. None of this requires picking a single web browser or desktop.
The community can't decide on a favorite distro, so picking applications isn't going to work here. What we CAN decide on is how things should work on a general level, and I think THAT is what will help companies embrace Linux.
Windows is a homogenous environment, so it's easy to train folks who have used it before. If we can give Linux a little consistancy, I think we'll gain much of the benefit that Windows has.
If I wanted to stick with 'one browser is good enough for everyone' I wouldn't have migrated to Linux.
:)
Just because you don't have a single desktop doesn't mean companies won't buy in.
I'll tell you a secret. You can get KDE and Gnome to play fine if you standardize areas where they can interoperate. Installation, administration tools. If your standards says "install libraries for both GTK and QT", then set up some standards for how to get the clipboard to talk between the two.
What Linux needs most is a standard that says, "ctrl+q is quit" and "include a programs menu" and "program installation is done through X", etc. We need standards so that users don't have to learn 50 different manuals to use Linux.
If you think this isn't possible without picking a single desktop, you belong back in the Microsoft camp with all the nazis.
Hrm...
.deb, .ebuild, etc." files is.
Well, it doesn't take a genius to figure this out, but let me help apply the parent of your post to the subject at hand:
He's trying to say that going KDE is not the answer.
Making a specification that says quit is "CTRL+Q" is. Making a specification that says "this is how you handle a clipboard" is. Making a specification that says "this is how to handle drag-n-drop" is. Making a specification that says "program installations should be supported through RPM,
Homogenizing Linux will never be the solution. If you wankers want a single browser, go back to Microsoft. I'll be here in the Linux world where we've figured out that there are no "best" applications. Everyone likes it their own way, and I'll be damned if our "community" standardizes on a single desktop.
Sorry for the flame, I honestly am.
This is pretty damn simple.
What Linux needs is not a new selection of packages.
This is what distros are for.
Linux is all about choice. What companies need, instead of being told what desktop to use to comply with everyone else, is a standards base that *everyone* can comply with if they wish.
Maybe that isn't what UnitedLi^WLinuxStanda^WUserLinux is aiming for, but that's what we need. Going about cutting off an entire desktop isn't the way to make the Linux world friendly.
Let me say this again.
Forced standards are better than no standards [Microsoft], but Open and free and non-excluding standards are best.
For example, Red Hat is pretty gnome centric. Is excluding the biggest Linux distributor in the US really a smart idea if we want Linux to compete against the big dogs like Microsoft?
Let's not make this the land of one desktop or one browser or one this or that. Have we not learned our lesson from taking this shit from Microsoft?
Let's make a standard that helps applications/desktops/etc. interoperate. Drag-n-drop, clipboard, installer/package manager interoperation, etc.
This pick-a-favorite won't work. You folks haven't learned. Homogenizing Linux will never be the answer.
> "DRM is an accelerator which will boost digital sales of media, because it will convince media companies their content is protected. It should not be a competitive weapon," he added.
Err.... Last time I checked, sales were more dependant on the consumer than the peddler.
It's companies that think like this that make small business possible. The stupid, lumbering companies who don't know their arse from a hole in the ground. The companies that have HR folks interview someone for job X who have never done job X but instead attempt to make up for it by asking meaningless, open-ended questions.
The bigger a company gets, the more common the clueless, "well-rounded", ass-kissing employees become the norm, the type of employees that do things not because they enjoy them but to pump up their resume. Passion and specialization go out the window in favor of the clueless git who does what he's told. He did X to build up his resume because society said it would be a good idea. He'll treat his job the same way.
Inside these companies, overhead goes through the roof, management grows exponentially to micromanage the clueless gits who have no independent thought and the company has to run its product with an iron fist to stay profitable.
God bless human nature. Darwin, in some cases, is still shining through.
I used to find myself thinking "SCO released Linux code" to mean "SCO distributed someone else's product."
However, the way the GPL is worded, SCO's version of Linux is actually a product of SCO . It's theirs. They 'own' it to the extent that they can't claim copyright over portions they didn't write and that they must adhere to the GPL.
Assuming that they're not full of it (bear with me), SCO isn't accidentally releasing this code while distributing someone else's product. They're releasing it while distributing their own product. Where they got the majority of their product's code from isn't even a concern.
If I had a mod point, I'd throw it your way. Thanks for the comment, I hadn't looked at it that way before.
Cheers
"send money to the Democratic Party in North Carolina, with the express purpose of helping someone run against him. Choose the lesser evil, because you sure ain't gonna get to choose the greater good."
I don't know that I like this game either. Folks who "choose the lesser evil" are voting, which is great, but they are letting their power as voters be quarantined. If everyone actually stood up and told their representative/party, "Look, do things this way or I go to another party", politicians might be in more of a hurry to please their consituents. But no, people insist on squabbling about republicans or democrats and refuse to even think about what another party's stances are -- and thus we get presented with two horrible candidates who know that they only have to compete with each other; to be the lesser of two evils. They know this, and that is why they're not as responsible to their constiuents. As long as they behave just a little better than the other guy, they're still in office.
And we all fight over them like a bunch of monkeys flinging feces at each other in hopes that we'll be the monkey to get the prize: a rotten banana.
If people keep limiting their own choices to two bad apples, we'll never go anywhere but down... save a miracle.
I hope this made some form of sense.
Cheers
Federal judges yes, sorry for the oversight. A lot of my focus here was on civil.
I can agree with some of the idea behind keeping these judges out of harms way. Moral and constitutional judgements, IMO the most important kind, need to be protected from negative influence (campaign funding, scratch-my-back-I'll-scratch-yours games, etc.), but I do think that judges who aren't up for reelection every so often should be forced to be more accountable.
Cheers
Sorry we're not friendly. :( I sincerely hate that about my government. Either we're pacifistic isolationists or manipulative goons. Both sides have their good points, but the sharp edges are horrible.
In fair game, I'd like to point out my feelings about a number of countries across that oversized lake...
Much of Europe seems to have adopted an isolationist, pacifistic attitude. This is my opinion, but it seems like government/EU/UN resolutions and statements are rarely followed through by European countries. Whether force is necessary here or there is one thing, but personally I don't see any way out of thinking that some of our bitter neighbors wouldn't rather beat their chest and return to their cave when their talk is ignored.
I'm sorry that I see things this way. I hope that in the future I can feel like members of the EU and surrounding countries (as well as some folks in my own nation) can either stand behind what they say or not say anything at all. Claiming that you're going to get your Posse only to stay home and call the US a "Crazy Cowboy" when he goes to follow through seems a little hypocritical.
> Besides which, why can't the EU "just say no"?
"Because the USA has a bigger army and is actively trying to stop us from making a common army of our own."
Um... when are we all going to grow up and quit blaming "bigger brother" for everything we can't do?
Can you please explain to me what arm twisting is being done and why the EU is giving into it? I'm not meaning to sound bitter here, but talk of the EU being forced to do something by an outside force makes me want to give the speaker a bottle of warm milk.
"What's wrong here is that it makes it easy for big corporations with deep pockets to keep the little guy from being a nuisance/competitor.
Who can afford to litigate against a Fortune 500 company whether his database is or is not misappropriated from theirs?"
What follows is a general rant about "the system":
Don't blame the law (unless you think it's wrong in and of itself, of course).
Don't blame the lawyers, they're just mouthpeices: everyone (even the bad guys) needs a voice in a civil society.
Blame the elected representatives who pass bad legislation which screws up the system.
Blame the elected judges who hear ridiculous cases and who let bad legislation pass which screws up the system.
Blame the citizens making up juries who make some of these stupid court decisions.
See where this is going?
Government (and economics, for that matter) is just a way of controlling power. No matter which party you belong to, it doesn't get any more basic than this.
If you don't play the game, the folks who make the rules (your fellow citizens) will fuck you over. Democracy, capitalism, whatever -- NONE of it works if the people sit around and let a minority run the show.
Personally, I'm of the opinion that less government is a good thing: I feel that sane courts and capitalism are more effective than legislature (I trust my vote more among 200,000 corporations than than I do 2,000 politicians). I think less government could solve problems like this, but it will never happen unless lots of folks like me vote.
The same goes for you and what you believe. Welcome to the rest of your life. Put your hands on the wheel.
A for effort, B- for a decent troll, F for competence.
"A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator"
Go back and take Government 101. Your comment truely amazes me, that anyone can think like this. The current administration does not pass laws nor does it judge court cases. Impeachment is still an option, the legislature can override a veto with a 2/3 vote and the judicial dept. has its checks.
---
"stringent socioeconomic controls"
The administration controls my wages? My taxes? How much I pay for a stick of bubble gum?
---
"suppression of the opposition through terror..."
How many protestors do you know of who were brutalized, maimed, murdered, or otherwise terrorized by our government? Hundreds of thousands of folks all over the country sprang up and protested the war -- I still see the fliers. How are these people being oppressed?
---
"...and censorship"
What would you point at to illustrate this? It's somewhat difficult to censor material on the Internet, the government does not control the media.
---
"and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism"
I'll give you some of this.
We're much better off these days than we were in the 50's, both domestic and foreign. Same goes for the early 40's (internment camps anyone?).
That said, we are FAR from a police state or a dictatorship. Cry conspiracy all you want, it's a pretty blind point of view. You're ignoring select parts to make your view of our country work.
The patriot act scares the hell out of me and this article scares the hell out of me. Powers our government (both parties) have wanted for years are finally being granted under the guise of protecting us from the terrorists on every street corner. We all know this is a bunch of BS. But screaming that the sky is falling is pretty damn unrealistic and makes you look like an idiot.
Are you sure that the nuances you're talking about don't have their equivalents in Windows?
DLL Hell or file sharing problems or viruses for instance?
Lots of folks think these problems don't exist on Windows because they're used to working with them there. Any defects are going to annoy anyone new to a system.
Cheers
"Do decision makers even pay any attention to these petions or do they figgure that because an online petition is much easier to put a name to than any other type of feedback the names are fairly worthless..."
:)
Yeah, but we're Slashdotters! We hardly take the time to read the article, much less sign up for a petition!
Hey buddy, I'm really sorry for the Linux newbies who are still fawning over Linux, but don't lump us all up with the idiotic zealots. That's just as much of a logical fallacy as to say nobody uses Windows because they like it over all the other alternatives.
Any true Linux user is all about choice. That's what makes Linux great.
If Windows suits your needs, then so be it. That's great! I'm honestly happy for you. I wish Linux could provide that, maybe someone can help fill that need. It's the same thing I tell the folks I know: Linux isn't for some people.
If there is one piece of advice I can give anyone to understanding the rants of a Linux person, it's this:
Most Linux folks don't care what you use. They found a system that is elegant, suits their needs and let's them tweak things to their exact preferences. They found a system that is very in tune with the way they use a computer. And they want to share the gem that they found. This can start the rabid zealot rants, especially from a new Linux convert. I used to fall in this category; then I got over it, realized that not everyone will do best with Linux and moved on.
NOW, my biggest thing is education. It hurts to see someone down-talking Linux when they know little to nothing about it. I enjoy showing people Linux as most people don't know what it is -- maybe they'll enjoy it as I have. It's when people start spewing misinformation that I get mad.
This has been my experience. I sincerely hope that Linux folks can be a little less rabid and I hope that Windows users will be a little less defensive.
Cheers
I fail to see how the BSD licence is a Libertarian's wet dream, could you please explain?
What you're saying is correct: Linux himself doesn't have that kind of power. But the Linux community as a whole does.
I am writing this message based from a laptop running a Linux kernel with Linux drivers, Linux services, and an entire host of open source software (bash, X, Gnome, Metacity, ALSA, CUPS) that I did not pay a dime for.
Linux has hackers in every one of the projects I mentioned. While Linus is only directly in control of the kernel, he does have some control over the community as a whole, a community which is far more powerful than Microsoft.
Those 80-100 lines of code SCO is referring to were from BSD. Bruce and others said it shouldn't have been there and got rid of it because it was a bad implementation.
Lying. Through. His. Teeth.
According to the 1996 (or 1998) MLA handbook, apostrophe use is always based on whether the word is single or plural.
:)
Perens's would be correct, according to the handbook, whereas users' would be correct for a group of users.
Random, useless info.
Cheers