I agree with every point you raise. Many artists have to sue their labels to get any of these sorts of royalties (some haven't been paid for sales on iTMS, even). But fairness to the artist aside, you'r still legally allowed to make personall copies, and give copies to family/friends buy putting the copy on blank media that includes a royalty fee.
The licence to legally rip the contents to DRM-free formats and to gave some copies to friends and family. That would be a fair deal.
You have that already.
The only requirement to circumventing DRM to make a copy is that you are making a personal copy for either backup or interoperability purposes, and will not be distributing copies either indiscriminately to the general population or for profit.
In order to give copies to friends and family, you just need to buy blank Music CDs instead of blank Data CDs. The extra cost of blank Music CDs is a royalty fee to the music industry to offset revenue lost to people giving copies to friends and family.
Does that mean it uses apt-get to download and install the network manager?
yeah. It's not installed by default because it doesn't work in 100% of the conceivable situations (static IP, you want a network connection before you log in). I think it should be installed but disabled by default, but I'm not in charge.
Re:Can I upgrade without reinstalling
on
Fedora Core 6 Review
·
· Score: 3, Funny
What if you don't have a CD? In debian you can just change your sources.list and type apt-get dist-upgrade.
man, that sounds yummy.
Re:Does it support WPA-PSK out of the box?
on
Fedora Core 6 Review
·
· Score: 3, Informative
That Ubuntu Wiki makes it look a lot harder than it really is. The wiki doesn't make it obvious that the paragraph after the first three apt-get commands is where the process ends for 95% of users. In most cases (if your wifi chip is already recognized and working) you can install network-manager-[kde|gnome], start the Notification Area applet, select your network from the list, enter the credentials, and you're done. The rest of the page is for manually setting up all the wpa stuff that Network Manager handles for you.
That depends on how they include the functionality. If they include unlicensed software, then U.S. ditribution of Mandriva (hosting ISO images on servers in the U.S., retail outlets selling boxed CD sets, etc) could be halted.
I guess gmail works best with gmail, and the rest of the internet mail world workss best with itself.
gmail works just fine with every other email server. You just have a different preference about how to optimally use email.
But tell me, what would you rather see if using eBay: 10 mails with the subject "EBAY ITEM #10021010" never changing, or descriptive subjects like "EBAY ITEM #1002101 PAYMENT SENT" describing each thing going on?
Saying you sent payment is not changing the topic of discussion. It's just adding superfluous content to the Subject that [I think] should be put in the body. The subject of the thread isn't that you paid me, the subject is the item for sale on eBay. You're using the Subject header to summarize the entire Body header of every new message. In fact, unless you either send that new subject (from your example) with no body, or redundantly put the update of "PAYMENT SENT" (why are you shouting?) in the body as well, I probably wouldn't even notice it was there, because the topic had been previously established and I'm looking for new information in the body of your reply. In the time I've been taking to craft this reply, I only just now accidentally noticed you changed the topic of the thread. And I feel your doing so has gained nothing. If you're actually changing the topic (and a better example, in my opinion, would be to start talking about a different item rather than the next step in the auction of the item you started off talking about), hit New instead of Reply. At least I can give a conversation multiple labels so I can logically associate it with multiple organizational units without having multiple copies. I've never once see any single email tool group emails by thread/conversation with 100% accuracy. The problem isn't the client, it's the multitude of people who like to do things their way instead of the way the software was programmed to handle it. And I haven't ever seen Yahoo's web mail do any grouping, only sorting and filtering. Thirty emails on a single topic means 30 links to click in my Inbox, which I think is a huge waste of space (not collapsible) and harder to navigate (since I can only view a limited number of links per page). The only thing I would like better about gmail's conversation grouping feature is if it would group the thread in a tree structure like Thunderbird and Evolution (but both still suffer from the same problem of people changing the Subject for no good reason and using Reply when they should be using New). So people who think like me consider Yahoo to have the serious design flaw of giving you a huge, inneficient flat listing of every individual email when we really want to view threads. But as has been pointed out, this is a matter of personal preference, and we don't seem to be insisting that Yahoo Mail is flawed and broken and horrible.
It must be buried somewhere then. I expected to see it in the "you could go here" sentence, but you had no link on the "here" like I would have expected.
The link is posted in my reply to that comment, before your reply to that comment was posted, http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=198517&cid=162 67541. But hopefully you already found that, as this reply took way longer than I initially intended.
I like to be considerate to others and put "payment sent" or "box mailed" or "have you paid yet?" etc in the email subjects.
I would hate emailing with you. I prefer the new topic = new email thread method, and archive all the realted emails into a label/folder. I can't stand having one huge monolithic thread with 7 topics being discussed.
I already posted the feature suggestion link in a prior reply in this thread.
I like to insist on subjects for emails being as accurate as possible.
After the first email is sent, I never actually read the subject header. I'm guessing there are plenty of other people like me, who will all be wondering why you can't ever just hit reply, type in your reply, and hit send, instead of screwing up my threaded-by-conversation view (be it in gmail, outlook, or thunderbird). Judging by how meny posts it took you to clarify your complaint to most of us replying to you, I'd say you're not nearly the Amazing Accurate Description Guy you seem to believe yourself to be, either, but rather the Pedantic Everything Should Clearly Be Done How I Think It Should Guy.
mail says Inbox (1) (because there's only one thread with new messages) and I can only see one new name in the 'From:' column. So I click on the thread and read 'my new message', and often don't realise there's another one off the bottom of the screen (as the right-hand scroll-bar is my only clue).
The Inbox label on the left shows (1) new conversation, but the display of conversations in Inbox should show (2) next to the conversation if there are 2 new emails present (it does for me).
I hit submit to fast. The feature suggestion link is
https://services.google.com/inquiry/gmail_suggest/
You might get a kick out of the fact that "Switch Conversation View on or off" is a pre-configured choice of features to suggest from.
I've finally figured out that you're talking about editing the subject when replying. This explains a great deal about your problems with thread grouping. Why do you want to change the subject within an existing thread? I don't notice it as either a good or bad design choice because if I want a new subject, I just compose a new email rather than replying. It's no wonder you can't figure out gmail. Gmail groups conversation threads by subject. If you randomly changes the subject header mid-thread, you've basically just created a new thread. Instead of ranting on slashdot you could go here and suggest they give preference to the "In-Reply-To" header instead of the subject header. Problem is, I've seen other email clients use different headers to indicate what 'thread' a particular email belongs to.
in order to effectively search, I have to click the tag and then search within the tag (the search function *never* returns what I'm looking for if I search all e-mail)).
Clicking on a label is really just doing a search for that label. If you wanted to search for ubuntu in emailes labeled Linux you could just put "Label:Linux ubuntu" in the search field. You can do the same for things like "From:", "to:", "Subject:", "before:", "after:", and "Date:". You can also put multiple qualifiers (like a couple of labels, a from, and a before and after range).
Now I have these inscrutable "me, Rob" groups for them.
Do you mean to say your inbox doesn't display the subject of the conversation thread next to the list of people who sent an email in the conversation thread?
One single conversation has been broken up by Gmail's inbox-scrambler into 5 or 6 of their "conversation" groupings.
Guess that answers question from my previous post. Can you post a screenshot of this? I've never seen this happen. The only thing I can think of is that you and your friends indiscriminately send emails without subjects, or random change the topic mid-thread.
Do you also defend the design flaw where you have to click on "edit subject" to edit the subject?
I almost forgot to ask about this. What exactly are you referring to here? Are you saying you had to click a link to be able to edit the subject of an email you're composing? I haven't ever once seen a gmail compose mail window without a plain editable text field for the subject. If you're talking about anything, you'll have to clarify.
my single email "conversations" are broken into several scrambled clumps
How can you have 'single email "conversation' (a conversation with only one email in it), and how is it being broken up?
I think I understand what you're complaining about, but you really suck at explaining it. I think you're complaining that for a given thread of email (for example, 16 emails sent/received with the subject "I'm having a party on saturday"), gmail groups them all together into one link when viewing your inbox. This link represents the entire conversation. You click this link and are presented with the whole thread on one page, with the ability to expand/collapse each individual email within the thread to either show the whole email or just a summary line (who sent it, the first line of the email (you can turn this off), and when they sent it). What you would prefer to see is the whole list of every single individual email in your inbox.
The way you describe it, it sounds like you're saying gmail is taking those 16 emails, and breaking them up in multiple conversations. So instead of a single link for the whole thread (or your preferred 16 links for all the individual emails in the thread) you are seeing 3 links (one to a grouping of 3 emails in the thread, one to a grouping of 8 emails in the thred, and one to a grouping of 5 emails in the thread). Judging from the other responses to your post, I'm not the only one who thought this is what you're saying.
Please do respond to clarify if my assumptions about what you're really trying to convey are correct.
don't like how Gmail is not good at what it is supposed to do and ends up breaking a single "conversation" into several different groups
I have no idea what you're referring to. For me, a single conversation thread (both sent and received) is displayed all in one page, and I can apply multiple labels to the thread to have the whole thread appear in all relevant categorizations I want without having multiple copies of any of the emails within that thread. Can you clarify what you are seeing?
I didn't say Microsoft should ship a product without these things, just that they should implement them to standard APIs so that other companies can ship a competing product that customers can use in place of the Microsoft one.
You say that fixing the flaws would be an operating system component but blocking the viruses in a different fashion is not?
A daemon that sits around on top of the file system monitoring every read/write for virus signatures is, in my opinion, not part of the OS. It isn't necessary for basic interaction with the hardware. Fixing a buffer overflow in the kernel's file system components is part of the OS. I don't care if Microsoft does either. If they implement the former (a real-time FS scan using availalble APIs, so that you can have Windows without having their virus scanning agent), that's fine. If they bundle it into the kernel so that it's always there and can't be replaced with a competitors product or turned off by the consumer, that's not fine. Anything that's not necessary for interaction with the hardware (Can I read from and write to memory and the file system? Can I read input from the mouse/keyboard/tablet? etc) needs to be implemented against standard APIs that competitor's have equal access to (like video card drivers), such that a competitor's product can fully replace the Microsoft one if the consumer wants to.
Typical/. shit-think. You all gladly, even eagerly, lambast MS for every single Windows-related exploit or bug, but you won't let MS fix it. You even go so far as to approve government intervention to ENSURE MS releases a buggy and insecure product.
When did I say MS shouldn't be able to provide their own products in this market space? I said I think it should be implemented external to the system. Microsoft is quite welcome to provide their own anti-virus product, I just don't want it embedded in the kernel. I want it fully uninstallable, and using a standard API that any other software vendor can use, so that the competing products are interchangeable, meaning consumers win. If Microsoft wants to fix the security hole in the kernel that allows a virus or spyware to run, I'll certainly let them. I want the government to step in and ensure that non-OS products released by Microsoft are on the same free-market footing as competing products. That in no way limits Microsoft's ability to release a secure OS or a product which competes against Adobe, Symantec, McAfee, BMC, IBM, AOL, Apple, or you.
I think Microsoft should be allowed to add any export-to-pdf or PDF print filters it wants to, obviously having to be compliant with the standard if they use the term PDF anywhere. I don't think anything built into explorer other than thumbnail preview should be allowed. They should be able to make a PDF reader and browser plugin that is totally interchangeable though.
For Symantec's complaint. I think MS should be allowed to have a firewall integrated into the system. If they make a shitty one than turn it off and load a third party firewall. But I don't think anything else should be integrated. Antivirus, ad-blocking, spyware monitoring should all be external to the system I think. Although I think a case could be made for spyware monitoring.
Copying a dvd to my computer into 1 file means i have to convert it to divx or something like that which means degraded quality
You can create an iso image of the decrypted files. Single file, uncompressed backup that should be directly playable by any decent software dvd player.
Slashdot Mirror
How can one vote if one doesn't understand what one is voting for?
Ask Congress, they seem to have made a career out of it.
I agree with every point you raise. Many artists have to sue their labels to get any of these sorts of royalties (some haven't been paid for sales on iTMS, even). But fairness to the artist aside, you'r still legally allowed to make personall copies, and give copies to family/friends buy putting the copy on blank media that includes a royalty fee.
The licence to legally rip the contents to DRM-free formats and
to gave some copies to friends and family. That would be a fair deal.
You have that already.
The only requirement to circumventing DRM to make a copy is that you are making a personal copy for either backup or interoperability purposes, and will not be distributing copies either indiscriminately to the general population or for profit.
In order to give copies to friends and family, you just need to buy blank Music CDs instead of blank Data CDs. The extra cost of blank Music CDs is a royalty fee to the music industry to offset revenue lost to people giving copies to friends and family.
Does that mean it uses apt-get to download and install the network manager?
yeah. It's not installed by default because it doesn't work in 100% of the conceivable situations (static IP, you want a network connection before you log in). I think it should be installed but disabled by default, but I'm not in charge.
man, that sounds yummy.
That Ubuntu Wiki makes it look a lot harder than it really is. The wiki doesn't make it obvious that the paragraph after the first three apt-get commands is where the process ends for 95% of users. In most cases (if your wifi chip is already recognized and working) you can install network-manager-[kde|gnome], start the Notification Area applet, select your network from the list, enter the credentials, and you're done. The rest of the page is for manually setting up all the wpa stuff that Network Manager handles for you.
That depends on how they include the functionality. If they include unlicensed software, then U.S. ditribution of Mandriva (hosting ISO images on servers in the U.S., retail outlets selling boxed CD sets, etc) could be halted.
it's ok, we still respect your amazing non-FP |_337|\|355
I guess gmail works best with gmail, and the rest of the internet mail world workss best with itself.
gmail works just fine with every other email server. You just have a different preference about how to optimally use email.
But tell me, what would you rather see if using eBay: 10 mails with the subject "EBAY ITEM #10021010" never changing, or descriptive subjects like "EBAY ITEM #1002101 PAYMENT SENT" describing each thing going on?
Saying you sent payment is not changing the topic of discussion. It's just adding superfluous content to the Subject that [I think] should be put in the body. The subject of the thread isn't that you paid me, the subject is the item for sale on eBay. You're using the Subject header to summarize the entire Body header of every new message. In fact, unless you either send that new subject (from your example) with no body, or redundantly put the update of "PAYMENT SENT" (why are you shouting?) in the body as well, I probably wouldn't even notice it was there, because the topic had been previously established and I'm looking for new information in the body of your reply. In the time I've been taking to craft this reply, I only just now accidentally noticed you changed the topic of the thread. And I feel your doing so has gained nothing. If you're actually changing the topic (and a better example, in my opinion, would be to start talking about a different item rather than the next step in the auction of the item you started off talking about), hit New instead of Reply. At least I can give a conversation multiple labels so I can logically associate it with multiple organizational units without having multiple copies. I've never once see any single email tool group emails by thread/conversation with 100% accuracy. The problem isn't the client, it's the multitude of people who like to do things their way instead of the way the software was programmed to handle it. And I haven't ever seen Yahoo's web mail do any grouping, only sorting and filtering. Thirty emails on a single topic means 30 links to click in my Inbox, which I think is a huge waste of space (not collapsible) and harder to navigate (since I can only view a limited number of links per page). The only thing I would like better about gmail's conversation grouping feature is if it would group the thread in a tree structure like Thunderbird and Evolution (but both still suffer from the same problem of people changing the Subject for no good reason and using Reply when they should be using New). So people who think like me consider Yahoo to have the serious design flaw of giving you a huge, inneficient flat listing of every individual email when we really want to view threads. But as has been pointed out, this is a matter of personal preference, and we don't seem to be insisting that Yahoo Mail is flawed and broken and horrible.
It must be buried somewhere then. I expected to see it in the "you could go here" sentence, but you had no link on the "here" like I would have expected.
The link is posted in my reply to that comment, before your reply to that comment was posted, http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=198517&cid=162 67541. But hopefully you already found that, as this reply took way longer than I initially intended.
I like to be considerate to others and put "payment sent" or "box mailed" or "have you paid yet?" etc in the email subjects.
I would hate emailing with you. I prefer the new topic = new email thread method, and archive all the realted emails into a label/folder. I can't stand having one huge monolithic thread with 7 topics being discussed.
I already posted the feature suggestion link in a prior reply in this thread.
I like to insist on subjects for emails being as accurate as possible.
After the first email is sent, I never actually read the subject header. I'm guessing there are plenty of other people like me, who will all be wondering why you can't ever just hit reply, type in your reply, and hit send, instead of screwing up my threaded-by-conversation view (be it in gmail, outlook, or thunderbird). Judging by how meny posts it took you to clarify your complaint to most of us replying to you, I'd say you're not nearly the Amazing Accurate Description Guy you seem to believe yourself to be, either, but rather the Pedantic Everything Should Clearly Be Done How I Think It Should Guy.
mail says Inbox (1) (because there's only one thread with new messages) and I can only see one new name in the 'From:' column. So I click on the thread and read 'my new message', and often don't realise there's another one off the bottom of the screen (as the right-hand scroll-bar is my only clue).
The Inbox label on the left shows (1) new conversation, but the display of conversations in Inbox should show (2) next to the conversation if there are 2 new emails present (it does for me).
I hit submit to fast. The feature suggestion link is https://services.google.com/inquiry/gmail_suggest/
You might get a kick out of the fact that "Switch Conversation View on or off" is a pre-configured choice of features to suggest from.
I've finally figured out that you're talking about editing the subject when replying. This explains a great deal about your problems with thread grouping. Why do you want to change the subject within an existing thread? I don't notice it as either a good or bad design choice because if I want a new subject, I just compose a new email rather than replying. It's no wonder you can't figure out gmail. Gmail groups conversation threads by subject. If you randomly changes the subject header mid-thread, you've basically just created a new thread. Instead of ranting on slashdot you could go here and suggest they give preference to the "In-Reply-To" header instead of the subject header. Problem is, I've seen other email clients use different headers to indicate what 'thread' a particular email belongs to.
You could just, you know, configure gmail's pop access to delete emails from gmail after you download them with pop.
in order to effectively search, I have to click the tag and then search within the tag (the search function *never* returns what I'm looking for if I search all e-mail)).
Clicking on a label is really just doing a search for that label. If you wanted to search for ubuntu in emailes labeled Linux you could just put "Label:Linux ubuntu" in the search field. You can do the same for things like "From:", "to:", "Subject:", "before:", "after:", and "Date:". You can also put multiple qualifiers (like a couple of labels, a from, and a before and after range).
Now I have these inscrutable "me, Rob" groups for them.
Do you mean to say your inbox doesn't display the subject of the conversation thread next to the list of people who sent an email in the conversation thread?
One single conversation has been broken up by Gmail's inbox-scrambler into 5 or 6 of their "conversation" groupings.
Guess that answers question from my previous post. Can you post a screenshot of this? I've never seen this happen. The only thing I can think of is that you and your friends indiscriminately send emails without subjects, or random change the topic mid-thread.
I almost forgot to ask about this. What exactly are you referring to here? Are you saying you had to click a link to be able to edit the subject of an email you're composing? I haven't ever once seen a gmail compose mail window without a plain editable text field for the subject. If you're talking about anything, you'll have to clarify.
How can you have 'single email "conversation' (a conversation with only one email in it), and how is it being broken up?
I think I understand what you're complaining about, but you really suck at explaining it. I think you're complaining that for a given thread of email (for example, 16 emails sent/received with the subject "I'm having a party on saturday"), gmail groups them all together into one link when viewing your inbox. This link represents the entire conversation. You click this link and are presented with the whole thread on one page, with the ability to expand/collapse each individual email within the thread to either show the whole email or just a summary line (who sent it, the first line of the email (you can turn this off), and when they sent it). What you would prefer to see is the whole list of every single individual email in your inbox.
The way you describe it, it sounds like you're saying gmail is taking those 16 emails, and breaking them up in multiple conversations. So instead of a single link for the whole thread (or your preferred 16 links for all the individual emails in the thread) you are seeing 3 links (one to a grouping of 3 emails in the thread, one to a grouping of 8 emails in the thred, and one to a grouping of 5 emails in the thread). Judging from the other responses to your post, I'm not the only one who thought this is what you're saying.
Please do respond to clarify if my assumptions about what you're really trying to convey are correct.
I have no idea what you're referring to. For me, a single conversation thread (both sent and received) is displayed all in one page, and I can apply multiple labels to the thread to have the whole thread appear in all relevant categorizations I want without having multiple copies of any of the emails within that thread. Can you clarify what you are seeing?
I didn't say Microsoft should ship a product without these things, just that they should implement them to standard APIs so that other companies can ship a competing product that customers can use in place of the Microsoft one.
A daemon that sits around on top of the file system monitoring every read/write for virus signatures is, in my opinion, not part of the OS. It isn't necessary for basic interaction with the hardware. Fixing a buffer overflow in the kernel's file system components is part of the OS. I don't care if Microsoft does either. If they implement the former (a real-time FS scan using availalble APIs, so that you can have Windows without having their virus scanning agent), that's fine. If they bundle it into the kernel so that it's always there and can't be replaced with a competitors product or turned off by the consumer, that's not fine. Anything that's not necessary for interaction with the hardware (Can I read from and write to memory and the file system? Can I read input from the mouse/keyboard/tablet? etc) needs to be implemented against standard APIs that competitor's have equal access to (like video card drivers), such that a competitor's product can fully replace the Microsoft one if the consumer wants to.
When did I say MS shouldn't be able to provide their own products in this market space? I said I think it should be implemented external to the system. Microsoft is quite welcome to provide their own anti-virus product, I just don't want it embedded in the kernel. I want it fully uninstallable, and using a standard API that any other software vendor can use, so that the competing products are interchangeable, meaning consumers win. If Microsoft wants to fix the security hole in the kernel that allows a virus or spyware to run, I'll certainly let them. I want the government to step in and ensure that non-OS products released by Microsoft are on the same free-market footing as competing products. That in no way limits Microsoft's ability to release a secure OS or a product which competes against Adobe, Symantec, McAfee, BMC, IBM, AOL, Apple, or you.
I think Microsoft should be allowed to add any export-to-pdf or PDF print filters it wants to, obviously having to be compliant with the standard if they use the term PDF anywhere. I don't think anything built into explorer other than thumbnail preview should be allowed. They should be able to make a PDF reader and browser plugin that is totally interchangeable though.
For Symantec's complaint. I think MS should be allowed to have a firewall integrated into the system. If they make a shitty one than turn it off and load a third party firewall. But I don't think anything else should be integrated. Antivirus, ad-blocking, spyware monitoring should all be external to the system I think. Although I think a case could be made for spyware monitoring.
You can create an iso image of the decrypted files. Single file, uncompressed backup that should be directly playable by any decent software dvd player.