Go figure, a company that writes an OS that is designed for a system that they control and limit every aspect of the hardware has less issues than an OS that is written for a general platform where the combination and quality of hardware is infinite.
So exercising a patent on a 10 yr old filesystem that has been beaten on all fronts by multiple other filesystems, or as the linux people say when talking about ext2/3/jfs/reiserfs/xfs/... is now stifling innovation and progress?
" You can't buy a song from Apple, sync your iPod with your PC, then connect it to the 360 and play those songs. You can't even do it with your own ripped files from CD, unless you manually drag them over to a folder on your iPod, which your iPod then doesn't even know exists (but the Xbox 360 does)."
You can't do that with any system and an Ipod. It is not a limitation or neutering of the 360, it is a product of the way the Itunes DB is implemented in the Ipod.
It is completely valid to have to define "people" and "open source".
"people", the general public, or developers? Does the average idiot on the street care that they can get the source to the latest kernel? No, the developers do.
As for open source, the OSS community can't even figure out a definition as to what they are, be it the FSF version, the OSF version, or everything in between. Is open source the freedom to do whatever the heck you want with the code(BSD style), or the ability to see and make changes to the code if you give the code back to the world(FSF style), or make changes to the code but relinquish rights to distribute that code(MS style)?
Also, is the proliferation of F/OSS solutions because of the ethical values, or the monetary cost? In which case then you have a case not for F/OSS, but against charging a large amount of money for software.
The same could be sung about what the GPL did to software compared to BSD licenced software. The GPL is about freedom for the user through restrictions on the software, if you can't see that, well, you're as blind as the other 3000 FSF members then.
And guess what, none of those defintions are a quality of free software.
Free software has nothing to do with freedom of software, in any sense, be it speech or beer(btw, last I checked, I paid money for beer). Free Software is about Freedom for the User, not the software.
No, the survey is showing the the adoption of Linux is slowing. The use is still growing, but it is mostly growing in the companies that are already using it.
Why should MS worry? Their closest competitor in the Office Suite is OO.org, and they are more occupied trying to please RMS and Goons and thier "X isn't free enough because I say so" issues, that it will be long before OO.org matches the features/speed/stability of MS Office.
Hmm, so the number of trolls is inversely proportional to the distance into the "right"? Microsoft must be so far into the "right" they looped back around.
Stallman isn't an OSS leader, and he's probably excommunicate you from the church of Stallman for saying that.
Stallman is a Free Software (zealot) leader, and as he has stated over and over and over and over and... that Free Software is not OSS.
So instead of bowing down and thanking the proprietary companies for letting me use thier software, I should instead bow down to some loony long hair who now decides to tell me what my code can be licensed under, and what software I can put on my machine?
You disciples of St. Ignacius can keep your religion, I'll continue to use the best tool for the job.
Re:How about doing something actually useful ?
on
Next Generation X11
·
· Score: 1
So, is Windows being so advanced the reason why it regularly resets my dual display to a single? Or is it so advanced that it requires that display #1 be on the left and display #2 on the right -- that is if I want the mouse cursor to appear in the right place when moving it from display to display?
No, it's so advanced that the drivers for your card have a different designation for what is primary and what is secondary depending on OS/Manufacturer.
"Sorry, MS, you're not being innovative. You're following palmOne. How sad is that.:-)"
Sorry Opensource, you're not being innovative, you're just following MS/Apple. How sad is that.
Comprehension is 9/10ths of reading. The author of the article is stating that the license of a piece of software for a strategic piece of software is unimportant when compared to whether or not their is a company that can provide support/training for that product past the whim of the original developers.
The boon and bane of OSS is not the license, it is that the software is developed by someone to "scratch an itch" or because "it's interesting", itches and problems rarely stay interesting for long.
don't know if you looked at this product at all, but I wouldn't switch. NeroLinux uses gtk1.2 which is old, looks old, and doesn't really apeal at all. I think more people will be 'burned' by Nero Linux and leave the platform than those who will switch becuase they can use it to burn other things. (pardon pun).
Question:
What pray tell is the *default* toolkit that the majority of the Linux userbase will have installed on their system?
Answer:
Officially, none, unofficially, more than likely GTK1.2 because of the *killer* apps that still use it (XMMS anyone)
Just be thankful they didn't pull a mozilla and create yet another un-needed interface set that bloats the crap out of their application.
Well, which is it? Nero is entering a niche market with 80% of potential users' needs met by a free competitor
Then why are there thousands of text editors on Linux if VI/Emacs does everything?
Because the creators believe they have something unique and valuable to offer. Be it a slightly different way to look at text editing, or in the case of Nero, a consistent and refined UI developed by *gasp* professional UI developers, something the Linux world lacks.
Companies(projects) are not created because YOU think they offer something new, but because the creators think they do. It is up to the consumers to decide if they really do. So have a coke, a smile, shut the hell up, and actually *try* the software and decide for yourself. If you don't want to, then you have no basis for any arguments because you do not *know* what they have to offer.
Guess what, they will still work for you.
This is another *choice*, and it comes from a commercial company at that, something very uncommon in todays market.
The reason that Nero is a good thing, is the same reason the OSS community feels the need for 7billion text editors, choice.
Let's see. Will I be able to drag and drop from my KDE or Gnome desktop? Does it fit with the freedesktop standards for menus, etc? And in what way is it better than K3B?
Free Linux software doesn't even follow those specifications, and you expect a commercial company to?
Slashdot Mirror
There is a reason companies hire smart people to do engineering, accounting, and finance. It's because they know what they are doing.
CEO's are there to manage people, not tell Joe Beancounter that he forgot to carry a 1.
Go figure, a company that writes an OS that is designed for a system that they control and limit every aspect of the hardware has less issues than an OS that is written for a general platform where the combination and quality of hardware is infinite.
Who'd a thunk
So exercising a patent on a 10 yr old filesystem that has been beaten on all fronts by multiple other filesystems, or as the linux people say when talking about ext2/3/jfs/reiserfs/xfs/... is now stifling innovation and progress?
Of course, people who disagree with you are trolls, not zealots.
" You can't buy a song from Apple, sync your iPod with your PC, then connect it to the 360 and play those songs. You can't even do it with your own ripped files from CD, unless you manually drag them over to a folder on your iPod, which your iPod then doesn't even know exists (but the Xbox 360 does)."
You can't do that with any system and an Ipod. It is not a limitation or neutering of the 360, it is a product of the way the Itunes DB is implemented in the Ipod.
It is completely valid to have to define "people" and "open source".
"people", the general public, or developers? Does the average idiot on the street care that they can get the source to the latest kernel? No, the developers do.
As for open source, the OSS community can't even figure out a definition as to what they are, be it the FSF version, the OSF version, or everything in between. Is open source the freedom to do whatever the heck you want with the code(BSD style), or the ability to see and make changes to the code if you give the code back to the world(FSF style), or make changes to the code but relinquish rights to distribute that code(MS style)?
Also, is the proliferation of F/OSS solutions because of the ethical values, or the monetary cost? In which case then you have a case not for F/OSS, but against charging a large amount of money for software.
The same could be sung about what the GPL did to software compared to BSD licenced software. The GPL is about freedom for the user through restrictions on the software, if you can't see that, well, you're as blind as the other 3000 FSF members then.
And guess what, none of those defintions are a quality of free software.
Free software has nothing to do with freedom of software, in any sense, be it speech or beer(btw, last I checked, I paid money for beer). Free Software is about Freedom for the User, not the software.
No, the survey is showing the the adoption of Linux is slowing. The use is still growing, but it is mostly growing in the companies that are already using it.
5, 4, 3, 2...
Why should MS worry? Their closest competitor in the Office Suite is OO.org, and they are more occupied trying to please RMS and Goons and thier "X isn't free enough because I say so" issues, that it will be long before OO.org matches the features/speed/stability of MS Office.
Hmm, so the number of trolls is inversely proportional to the distance into the "right"? Microsoft must be so far into the "right" they looped back around.
And if Microsoft started adding in patches for software that isn't theirs you would be screaming "MONOPOLY" at the top of your lungs.
The problem with anonymous freedom of speech is you eliminate the responsibilty of speech. Sometimes it's difficult to decide what is worth more.
Stallman isn't an OSS leader, and he's probably excommunicate you from the church of Stallman for saying that. Stallman is a Free Software (zealot) leader, and as he has stated over and over and over and over and ... that Free Software is not OSS.
So instead of bowing down and thanking the proprietary companies for letting me use thier software, I should instead bow down to some loony long hair who now decides to tell me what my code can be licensed under, and what software I can put on my machine? You disciples of St. Ignacius can keep your religion, I'll continue to use the best tool for the job.
So, is Windows being so advanced the reason why it regularly resets my dual display to a single? Or is it so advanced that it requires that display #1 be on the left and display #2 on the right -- that is if I want the mouse cursor to appear in the right place when moving it from display to display? No, it's so advanced that the drivers for your card have a different designation for what is primary and what is secondary depending on OS/Manufacturer.
"Sorry, MS, you're not being innovative. You're following palmOne. How sad is that. :-)"
Sorry Opensource, you're not being innovative, you're just following MS/Apple. How sad is that.
The boon and bane of OSS is not the license, it is that the software is developed by someone to "scratch an itch" or because "it's interesting", itches and problems rarely stay interesting for long.
You don't patent your code genius, you copyright it. You patent your algorithm.
Funny, I thought real coders used the right tool for the job, or is that real smart coders?
Question: What pray tell is the *default* toolkit that the majority of the Linux userbase will have installed on their system?
Answer: Officially, none, unofficially, more than likely GTK1.2 because of the *killer* apps that still use it (XMMS anyone)
Just be thankful they didn't pull a mozilla and create yet another un-needed interface set that bloats the crap out of their application.
Then why are there thousands of text editors on Linux if VI/Emacs does everything? Because the creators believe they have something unique and valuable to offer. Be it a slightly different way to look at text editing, or in the case of Nero, a consistent and refined UI developed by *gasp* professional UI developers, something the Linux world lacks.
Companies(projects) are not created because YOU think they offer something new, but because the creators think they do. It is up to the consumers to decide if they really do. So have a coke, a smile, shut the hell up, and actually *try* the software and decide for yourself. If you don't want to, then you have no basis for any arguments because you do not *know* what they have to offer.
Guess what, they will still work for you. This is another *choice*, and it comes from a commercial company at that, something very uncommon in todays market. The reason that Nero is a good thing, is the same reason the OSS community feels the need for 7billion text editors, choice.
Free Linux software doesn't even follow those specifications, and you expect a commercial company to?