Mindset and objectives. Out of those, there is no right answer. But there are a few (and vocal) anti-GPL trolls that think their way is the only way.
I'd say there is no point on disagreeing with trolls, but that is factualy wrong. If you don't disagree, less informed people will think there is consensus on the minoritary opinion, and won't go looking for what is right. There is plenty of point on arguing with vocal trolls, it is just that you should keep in mind that they are trolls while you arguee.
I agree, but the same way I won't get in the Anonymous cruzade because I think their methods are wrong (in the sense that they don't work), one'd have to accept that even less people are wiling to go into more questionable methods.
That said, such an attack needs only a small team of perpetrators, so nothing we talk here can make it happen, or not happen.
Well, if they start making good products, and stop stealing and harassing their customers, and lose they lobbying powers, who cares if they grow? Looks like a win-win for everybody except the sociopats (ok, it is a win for the sociopat killing the other sociopats too, but you can't always win).
1 - it is made in exchange of making the idea public. Money does not enter the equation. Most IP offices spend more money than they make.
2 - Patents are surely a monopoly on imaginary property. That property is the lawfullness of producing a good. And, yes, it is imaginary.
3 - If the company had the slight hope of keeping its inventions secret, do you realy think they'd publish it and get a temporary monopoly, insteady of a permanent one by keeping it secret? Surely companies don't exchange the publicity of their inventions by monopolies, they either exchange it by something else or get the monopoly free.
Anonymous would still exist even if everybody acted ethicaly (by your standards, I guess). Even if nobody wanted to act in an unethical way by their standards, they'd do unethical acts by somebody's else standards. That said, this case is completely different from the Wikileaks one, here people are on courts, looking for a rulling. At the Wikileaks one, people were simply acting, without any chance of defense for their oponents. I don't like the way the courts are working on this case, but you can't deny it is different.
Now, I second the oppinion of Moryath, a DDoS made by people is completely different from one made by bots, and it can't be criminal to use your bandwidth in a protest. I hightlight "your bandwidth" and "protest" here, without those qualifications, there can't be an exemption. And no corporations protesting, they shouldn't have that right.
Not quite so. We can't go faster than light, but with some energy we can make the travelling distance smaller, so we can get there in less than 4 years (on the traveler's reference frame).
In fact, my newer install of Win 7 refused to work on completely different ways. So annoying ways that I ditched it, and the computer where it was has no Windows anymore. But I have too little experience with it to post the most common problems.
The webcam problem is not due to user error, it is because it is a shitty cam. When somebody say that some piece of hardware doesn't work on Linux because it is shitty, people get all mad. In the end of the day, why it doesn't work simply doesn't matter.
By the way, I've never saw an instalation of Windows "just working", except for the stuff that comes from the computer manufacturer. Even then, most of that don't just work, or "just work" for a week... And, yes, there is a big sample of the newer Vista and 7 here.
Obviously, we could go with something better than the Unix CLI. But that doesn't take away from the argument that current GUIs aren't well suited when you have too many options. Even the CLI toghether with a manual is better suited for that.
And, yes, I agree, that pushes the need of remembering the software functions into the user. That isn't good. Having a too full of options GUI (as we understand them) would have the same problem (the user will have to memorize the path to get the commands), and would create a lot of other problems.
I kind of liked KDE 4. Not that much, but wasn't annoyed by it either. That said, I simply can't use it at home, I don't know why, neither where the problem is, but my NFS server simply can't handle KDE 4 sessions. It stops locking files, and nothing works after that.
Anyway, I' just want to say that you don't need to put your KDE 3 away. There is a project called Trinity that keeps updating it.
It is hard to hire people capable of "innovation" (probably means inventive work here, but could also mean improving the workers productivity) half way around the globe. That is true for both US or Indian recruters.
"ever try rebooting a server while logged into it remotely?"
Even if that were a true problem, that wouldn't be a problem at all. Need to reboot a server? Go to work and reboot it (gota do some other stuff, since you are already there). Anyway, most places can't have a datacenter without anybody physicaly there*, so simply call the datacenter, and ask for the person there to reboot the server. The other 99% of the time, there is no problem at all, you'll make more travels because of meetings.
That quite a good question. And by all samples I've taken during my life... People don't hate CLIs, they just don't know how to use them, like they just don't know how to use Word, or Photo Shop the first time they try, and wouldn't even try again if they see no use for it. Of course, CLIs are quite harder to learn than those other examples I used, so a user would need to try way harder for mastering it, wat would make him not a normal user anymore, but a power user. Anyway, I've never seen anybody that hates the CLI.
The distinction between an "Aplication Programming" Interface and a "User" Interface is an artificial one that shouldn't exist. The Unix CLI did make that point clear, then everybody forgot (mainly because there wasn't any money on it) and got out ot create our current GUI.
In a very low level, sure, there is no reason to restrict your monitor to only display some symbols. Why not be able to access every pixel? But our current GUI didn't even come close to replace the CLI. As a related point, take a look at how many options a modern program puts on its menus, some do even include a CLI because the GUI isn't suitable for that many options.
In short, you use a GUI to program because you use a few features that CLI editors just happen to not have (but there is no inherent relation to GUI or CLI, it is just by cohincidence), a few features that they happen to have, but you are not used to them, and because you use a CLI anyway, it is just that it is drawn in a GUI environment.
That is not to take from your argument, but puts some light in the fact that we are slowly migrating everyting to the GUI, even the CLI. Hell, with the super fast computers that we have today, there is no reason not to. I used to miss the big fonts, nice readability and low luminosity of CLIs when I was on a GUI. Nowadays they are there too, it is just a matter of settings.
My home server do photo edition daily (ok, looks daily for new photos, do photo edidion only when those exist) with a CLI based script. I wouldn't know where to even start doing such thing at GUI (even more because the computer has no keyboard, mouse or monitor attached to it).
That was because those systems weren't creaetd by the "Top Minds in software architecture", those minds were busy working on how to improve software in general to pay attention to the GUI, and they still are. The GUI was created by average* developpers, working for money driven** companies. And those made a system that sells well, not one that behaves well. That this same model survived into the FOSS era is disturbing, but lots of things that shouldn't, survived, mainly because it is hard to break a paradigm. Also, the fat that computers used to be slow and have too little memory made the hightly optimized GUI competitive, and it can't be hightly optimized and fully scriptable at the same time... That means, GUIs appeared a bit earlier than they should have. Now, both barriers did go away, and we can start trying to break the paradigm.
* Ok, probably way above average, but that is just because the average is so skewed that the average developper probably won't know how to use booleans, and be confused by the hight variety of control structures available to him. Not top minds, anyway.
** That is a redundancy, I know, but makes the point clearer.
"It's like we have this obsession with making things hard for ourselves just to keep application developers in jobs."
That is nice, sincce it appears to be exactly the case.
Slashdot Mirror
Mindset and objectives. Out of those, there is no right answer. But there are a few (and vocal) anti-GPL trolls that think their way is the only way.
I'd say there is no point on disagreeing with trolls, but that is factualy wrong. If you don't disagree, less informed people will think there is consensus on the minoritary opinion, and won't go looking for what is right. There is plenty of point on arguing with vocal trolls, it is just that you should keep in mind that they are trolls while you arguee.
Yes, that is true. But that doesn't make your argument that they should go against somebody else any less wrong.
I agree, but the same way I won't get in the Anonymous cruzade because I think their methods are wrong (in the sense that they don't work), one'd have to accept that even less people are wiling to go into more questionable methods.
That said, such an attack needs only a small team of perpetrators, so nothing we talk here can make it happen, or not happen.
Well, it seems you lost the context of the conversation. How do OO relates to the CLI vs. GUI dicotomy?
They are after a bigger scam artist, that is scamming the US Judicial system out of the civil liberties of their people.
Really, your poster doesn't look like sarcasm, but I can't imagine you are being so disingenious.
Well, if they start making good products, and stop stealing and harassing their customers, and lose they lobbying powers, who cares if they grow? Looks like a win-win for everybody except the sociopats (ok, it is a win for the sociopat killing the other sociopats too, but you can't always win).
Some corrections:
1 - it is made in exchange of making the idea public. Money does not enter the equation. Most IP offices spend more money than they make.
2 - Patents are surely a monopoly on imaginary property. That property is the lawfullness of producing a good. And, yes, it is imaginary.
3 - If the company had the slight hope of keeping its inventions secret, do you realy think they'd publish it and get a temporary monopoly, insteady of a permanent one by keeping it secret? Surely companies don't exchange the publicity of their inventions by monopolies, they either exchange it by something else or get the monopoly free.
People (and policeman) don't go identifying me around the streed by my /. UID.
Yes, that would be more effective. And also would be hightly immoral, even for the people that think the DDoS is moraly right.
Anonymous would still exist even if everybody acted ethicaly (by your standards, I guess). Even if nobody wanted to act in an unethical way by their standards, they'd do unethical acts by somebody's else standards. That said, this case is completely different from the Wikileaks one, here people are on courts, looking for a rulling. At the Wikileaks one, people were simply acting, without any chance of defense for their oponents. I don't like the way the courts are working on this case, but you can't deny it is different.
Now, I second the oppinion of Moryath, a DDoS made by people is completely different from one made by bots, and it can't be criminal to use your bandwidth in a protest. I hightlight "your bandwidth" and "protest" here, without those qualifications, there can't be an exemption. And no corporations protesting, they shouldn't have that right.
It doesn't have to be an energy source for being usefull as a propelent.
Not quite so. We can't go faster than light, but with some energy we can make the travelling distance smaller, so we can get there in less than 4 years (on the traveler's reference frame).
Relativity is funny like that.
In fact, my newer install of Win 7 refused to work on completely different ways. So annoying ways that I ditched it, and the computer where it was has no Windows anymore. But I have too little experience with it to post the most common problems.
The webcam problem is not due to user error, it is because it is a shitty cam. When somebody say that some piece of hardware doesn't work on Linux because it is shitty, people get all mad. In the end of the day, why it doesn't work simply doesn't matter.
By the way, I've never saw an instalation of Windows "just working", except for the stuff that comes from the computer manufacturer. Even then, most of that don't just work, or "just work" for a week... And, yes, there is a big sample of the newer Vista and 7 here.
Obviously, we could go with something better than the Unix CLI. But that doesn't take away from the argument that current GUIs aren't well suited when you have too many options. Even the CLI toghether with a manual is better suited for that.
And, yes, I agree, that pushes the need of remembering the software functions into the user. That isn't good. Having a too full of options GUI (as we understand them) would have the same problem (the user will have to memorize the path to get the commands), and would create a lot of other problems.
KDE 3 was forked, and the fork is called Trinity. So, if you want your finished DE back, just search for it.
I kind of liked KDE 4. Not that much, but wasn't annoyed by it either. That said, I simply can't use it at home, I don't know why, neither where the problem is, but my NFS server simply can't handle KDE 4 sessions. It stops locking files, and nothing works after that.
Anyway, I' just want to say that you don't need to put your KDE 3 away. There is a project called Trinity that keeps updating it.
It is hard to hire people capable of "innovation" (probably means inventive work here, but could also mean improving the workers productivity) half way around the globe. That is true for both US or Indian recruters.
Even if that were a true problem, that wouldn't be a problem at all. Need to reboot a server? Go to work and reboot it (gota do some other stuff, since you are already there). Anyway, most places can't have a datacenter without anybody physicaly there*, so simply call the datacenter, and ask for the person there to reboot the server. The other 99% of the time, there is no problem at all, you'll make more travels because of meetings.
* I blame that on Windows.
That quite a good question. And by all samples I've taken during my life... People don't hate CLIs, they just don't know how to use them, like they just don't know how to use Word, or Photo Shop the first time they try, and wouldn't even try again if they see no use for it. Of course, CLIs are quite harder to learn than those other examples I used, so a user would need to try way harder for mastering it, wat would make him not a normal user anymore, but a power user. Anyway, I've never seen anybody that hates the CLI.
Probably did, otherwise he wouldn't be so sure that it is impossible to write complex software by pointing and clicking.
The distinction between an "Aplication Programming" Interface and a "User" Interface is an artificial one that shouldn't exist. The Unix CLI did make that point clear, then everybody forgot (mainly because there wasn't any money on it) and got out ot create our current GUI.
In a very low level, sure, there is no reason to restrict your monitor to only display some symbols. Why not be able to access every pixel? But our current GUI didn't even come close to replace the CLI. As a related point, take a look at how many options a modern program puts on its menus, some do even include a CLI because the GUI isn't suitable for that many options.
In short, you use a GUI to program because you use a few features that CLI editors just happen to not have (but there is no inherent relation to GUI or CLI, it is just by cohincidence), a few features that they happen to have, but you are not used to them, and because you use a CLI anyway, it is just that it is drawn in a GUI environment.
That is not to take from your argument, but puts some light in the fact that we are slowly migrating everyting to the GUI, even the CLI. Hell, with the super fast computers that we have today, there is no reason not to. I used to miss the big fonts, nice readability and low luminosity of CLIs when I was on a GUI. Nowadays they are there too, it is just a matter of settings.
I see, it is editing if it uses a convolution filter...
My home server do photo edition daily (ok, looks daily for new photos, do photo edidion only when those exist) with a CLI based script. I wouldn't know where to even start doing such thing at GUI (even more because the computer has no keyboard, mouse or monitor attached to it).
That was because those systems weren't creaetd by the "Top Minds in software architecture", those minds were busy working on how to improve software in general to pay attention to the GUI, and they still are. The GUI was created by average* developpers, working for money driven** companies. And those made a system that sells well, not one that behaves well. That this same model survived into the FOSS era is disturbing, but lots of things that shouldn't, survived, mainly because it is hard to break a paradigm. Also, the fat that computers used to be slow and have too little memory made the hightly optimized GUI competitive, and it can't be hightly optimized and fully scriptable at the same time... That means, GUIs appeared a bit earlier than they should have. Now, both barriers did go away, and we can start trying to break the paradigm.
* Ok, probably way above average, but that is just because the average is so skewed that the average developper probably won't know how to use booleans, and be confused by the hight variety of control structures available to him. Not top minds, anyway.
** That is a redundancy, I know, but makes the point clearer.
That is nice, sincce it appears to be exactly the case.