Yes, I switched from Fedora to Mint several versions ago, and the upgrade process was such a hassle that I switched back to the most recent Fedora several months ago. Mint was fine, but I didn't think it was all that much better than Fedora. (I started with Red Hat way back in the day, so I am partial to it.)
Just as an example, I've been running the Aging Tabs extension with FF4 under linux and windows. It seems fine on windows, but on linux, it was slowing everything down to a crawl. Disabling that extension fixed it. There may be an interaction with another extension that I don't have on the windows system, but it is an example of extensions causing issues.
Another linux-specific issue is that FF4 crashes on me fairly frequently (daily). Once it does, it often crashes again upon restart. That's frustrating. I should probably put in the effort to determine which extension might be causing the crashes.
True, I didn't mean to imply open source started with linux. I'm not old enough to remember the early days, but I was using GNU stuff back in the '80s.
If the free software movement had happened earlier, then yes, a mature option could very well have been available and widely adopted in the early PC years. What's so bizarre about that? You do realize I'm speculating on parallel universes/"what ifs" here? In our universe, once DOS/Windows became as entrenched as it did (some might use the "m" word here), then of course it was difficult to move to something else. I guess we should just criticize RMS and Linus for being born too late? In any case, it's not hard for me to imagine how things could have turned out very differently with just a few changes here and there. Maybe in 5-50 years it'll still happen.
"Nonsense? You may have provided what you feel is a realistic example, but you fail to realise that very few, if any major industries at all have embraced free alternatives to commercial offerings where the alternatives exist, and computer software is no different. There's a reason for why these things happen consistently, and that's what makes your scenario unrealistic."
Unrealistic != impossible, hence your use of the term certainty is wrong. And, as I said before, software is very much different from other industries. I'm pretty sure you understand that.
I think there's an undercurrent of misunderstanding here, so even though we no doubt still very much disagree on many things, there's no point going on.
Many people who are familiar with MS and its history feel they acquired their power, money, and market share through unethical, if not sometimes illegal, means. No one is calling him a mobster or a murderer; we get that, thanks. We also get that in most cases it wasn't even illegal, so we're not running down to the sheriff's office demanding Gates be carted off to jail. Really, my entire point had nothing to do with the specifics of MS or Gates; I was railing against this attitude that "he's saving lives, so who cares how he got his money". If I collect $20 from everyone, well, hey, nobody's getting hurt, what's your problem? It's a slippery slope, but you could change it to, "If everyone was obligated to send me $20 for a widget in order to use their computer."
It's also insulting to use the term "zealots". Maybe "informed industry folks" would be better, eh? I don't know much about the car industry, but I'd also be pissed if the Big 3 (note not Big 1!) quietly squashed every competitor that tried to introduce a revolutionary new car that got 100 MPG. I guess the people that stood up for the little guy would just be zealots? You should be proud that you're fighting for the 1,000 pound gorilla!
Oh, nonsense. By using the term "certainty", you imply that there's no way any other outcome could come to pass. By providing one realistic example, I've already shot that down. (And it is somewhat realistic; you don't think that, given all things equal right now, PC makers wouldn't elect to use a free operating system? There's your capitalism!) It's also easy to believe that if things had played out slightly differently, we could be in a situation where two or more OS's would share the OS pie. You really think it would be 100% impossible for either of those situations to come to pass? I'd also point out that software is inherently different from most other industries.
There are lots of industries (most, really) where one company doesn't have a monopoly position that lets it rake in tons of money as MS has. Yes, other major industries have multiple large companies started or led by people who make obscene amounts of money, but there's a reason Gates was near the top of the net worth list for so long.
Yes, I figured someone would raise that point. The analogy of course gets a bit complicated if I try to make it closer to reality. But my point was that if we just throw out all the details because they aren't "important compared to life", as the earlier poster said, you can distill it down to my simplistic suggestion. The details do matter.
You still haven't defined "it", but I gave a believable example of a way in which the OS market could have gone, with the end result being no one person gets filthy rich. On top of that, even without the use of free software, it's not certain that one company would necessarily dominate the market for so long. So no, I don't think it's at all certain. You seem to just be grasping at some theoretical capitalistic ideal to back you up.
I guess you'd see nothing wrong with everyone in the world sending me $20, I'll keep 50% of it and be sure the rest is used for some very good causes. I personally would like to find a cure for cancer. You're not against finding a cure for cancer, are you...?
It's not clear what the "it" is that Gates did in your post, but it's not at all certain that someone else would've done what he and MS did. I could imagine a world where a GNU OS was used in place of DOS/Windows by all the PC builders, and no one person got $50B in the process. Just for example.
Yes, good point. This is downright shameful. I wouldn't mind seeing the constitution amended to include some kind of condition where the Congress and/or Supreme Court have to also approve a commutation or pardon in cases where the defendant's case is connected to the White House. What a blatant conflict of interest. That loophole needs to be closed.
The right-wing attempts to portray Libby as an innocent victim and claiming that Plame was not convert is indeed spin (though I applaud your even-handedness and attempt to inject facts into the debate). Even if her status was somewhat debatable, and given that Fitzgerald and the CIA both agreed she was covert I don't think there'd be much chance the defense would get anywhere on that tack (but what do I know), it doesn't excuse perjury and obstruction of justice. The whole case doesn't magically go away just because there was a chance she wouldn't be ruled covert. The right-wing pundits are just attempting to sway public opinion with statements like "she worked at a desk, c'mon". I'm sure if the case had ever been allowed to get to the point where someone was brought up on charges of violating the IIPA, your point would be more apropos.
And yet you're still wrong. Those pesky facts again. From the article:
"The CIA report said that Plame had worked overseas in the previous five years and that the agency had been taking "affirmative measures" to conceal her CIA employment."
Seem pretty clear to me. Unless you know better than the CIA...?
As I pointed out in another comment above, she was indeed covert. That has been well established at this point. Why do you insist on still claiming otherwise? Your whole premise is wrong.
Dan Rather's BOGUS and FORGED documents is giving him a free ride?
You're basing a lot of your argument on a single event, vague references to ranting and raving aside. Hardly compelling.
Really, you need to take a look at the Free Ride Clinton got for cheating on his wife and for lying under oath (the reason he was IMPEACHED)
I think it says it all that you think the whole Lewinsky affair was under-reported. Good grief. God forbid the press ask hard questions about unimportant things like rationales for war.
I don't see how anyone could call the mainstream media "liberal" anymore, if it ever was. For one thing, you have the rise of conservative Fox News; its success has had the effect of making its competitors try to emulate them, moving to the right. And every outfit has a conservative blowhard to counter the liberal one; I wouldn't be surprised if the converatives outnumber the liberals.
Second, it seems like there's been a concerted effort over the last 25 years to boost conservative ideals while belittling liberal ones. "Liberal" has become such a loaded, degrading term that many liberals can't even use it anymore. It's just plain not cool to be a liberal anymore, like it was in the '60s. This cultural shift has no doubt affected the media, too. (I should add that I think a lot of this is just perception and Republican/fundamentalist marketing mixed with public apathy, and that reality may winding up for a backlash.)
Third, Bush and his administration have gotten a nearly free ride from the media. Obviously, 9/11 is a huge reason for the press rolling over and playing dead, as well as careful handling (write anything tough and lose your access?) and a friendly Congress that doesn't want to rock the boat. Would a liberal media really not press Bush more than they have? Things seem to be slowly changing, thankfully.
Slashdot Mirror
Hey, it was only 20 years ago, we were using etch-a-sketches not stone tablets!
Don't regret buying a Note 8 based on those stats.
That Iran bit threw me, too, but I suspect he meant Vietnam.
Yes, I switched from Fedora to Mint several versions ago, and the upgrade process was such a hassle that I switched back to the most recent Fedora several months ago. Mint was fine, but I didn't think it was all that much better than Fedora. (I started with Red Hat way back in the day, so I am partial to it.)
Weird but believable. I hope whatever necessitates that ugly workaround gets fixed soon!
Just as an example, I've been running the Aging Tabs extension with FF4 under linux and windows. It seems fine on windows, but on linux, it was slowing everything down to a crawl. Disabling that extension fixed it. There may be an interaction with another extension that I don't have on the windows system, but it is an example of extensions causing issues.
Another linux-specific issue is that FF4 crashes on me fairly frequently (daily). Once it does, it often crashes again upon restart. That's frustrating. I should probably put in the effort to determine which extension might be causing the crashes.
True, I didn't mean to imply open source started with linux. I'm not old enough to remember the early days, but I was using GNU stuff back in the '80s.
Let's not forget that sweet angel Tom DeLay. What a joke that this was such an affront or that the Dems are so much worse.
If the free software movement had happened earlier, then yes, a mature option could very well have been available and widely adopted in the early PC years. What's so bizarre about that? You do realize I'm speculating on parallel universes/"what ifs" here? In our universe, once DOS/Windows became as entrenched as it did (some might use the "m" word here), then of course it was difficult to move to something else. I guess we should just criticize RMS and Linus for being born too late? In any case, it's not hard for me to imagine how things could have turned out very differently with just a few changes here and there. Maybe in 5-50 years it'll still happen.
"Nonsense? You may have provided what you feel is a realistic example, but you fail to realise that very few, if any major industries at all have embraced free alternatives to commercial offerings where the alternatives exist, and computer software is no different. There's a reason for why these things happen consistently, and that's what makes your scenario unrealistic."
Unrealistic != impossible, hence your use of the term certainty is wrong. And, as I said before, software is very much different from other industries. I'm pretty sure you understand that.
I think there's an undercurrent of misunderstanding here, so even though we no doubt still very much disagree on many things, there's no point going on.
Many people who are familiar with MS and its history feel they acquired their power, money, and market share through unethical, if not sometimes illegal, means. No one is calling him a mobster or a murderer; we get that, thanks. We also get that in most cases it wasn't even illegal, so we're not running down to the sheriff's office demanding Gates be carted off to jail. Really, my entire point had nothing to do with the specifics of MS or Gates; I was railing against this attitude that "he's saving lives, so who cares how he got his money". If I collect $20 from everyone, well, hey, nobody's getting hurt, what's your problem? It's a slippery slope, but you could change it to, "If everyone was obligated to send me $20 for a widget in order to use their computer."
It's also insulting to use the term "zealots". Maybe "informed industry folks" would be better, eh? I don't know much about the car industry, but I'd also be pissed if the Big 3 (note not Big 1!) quietly squashed every competitor that tried to introduce a revolutionary new car that got 100 MPG. I guess the people that stood up for the little guy would just be zealots? You should be proud that you're fighting for the 1,000 pound gorilla!
Oh, nonsense. By using the term "certainty", you imply that there's no way any other outcome could come to pass. By providing one realistic example, I've already shot that down. (And it is somewhat realistic; you don't think that, given all things equal right now, PC makers wouldn't elect to use a free operating system? There's your capitalism!) It's also easy to believe that if things had played out slightly differently, we could be in a situation where two or more OS's would share the OS pie. You really think it would be 100% impossible for either of those situations to come to pass? I'd also point out that software is inherently different from most other industries.
There are lots of industries (most, really) where one company doesn't have a monopoly position that lets it rake in tons of money as MS has. Yes, other major industries have multiple large companies started or led by people who make obscene amounts of money, but there's a reason Gates was near the top of the net worth list for so long.
Yes, I figured someone would raise that point. The analogy of course gets a bit complicated if I try to make it closer to reality. But my point was that if we just throw out all the details because they aren't "important compared to life", as the earlier poster said, you can distill it down to my simplistic suggestion. The details do matter.
You still haven't defined "it", but I gave a believable example of a way in which the OS market could have gone, with the end result being no one person gets filthy rich. On top of that, even without the use of free software, it's not certain that one company would necessarily dominate the market for so long. So no, I don't think it's at all certain. You seem to just be grasping at some theoretical capitalistic ideal to back you up.
I guess you'd see nothing wrong with everyone in the world sending me $20, I'll keep 50% of it and be sure the rest is used for some very good causes. I personally would like to find a cure for cancer. You're not against finding a cure for cancer, are you...?
It's not clear what the "it" is that Gates did in your post, but it's not at all certain that someone else would've done what he and MS did. I could imagine a world where a GNU OS was used in place of DOS/Windows by all the PC builders, and no one person got $50B in the process. Just for example.
Yes, good point. This is downright shameful. I wouldn't mind seeing the constitution amended to include some kind of condition where the Congress and/or Supreme Court have to also approve a commutation or pardon in cases where the defendant's case is connected to the White House. What a blatant conflict of interest. That loophole needs to be closed.
The right-wing attempts to portray Libby as an innocent victim and claiming that Plame was not convert is indeed spin (though I applaud your even-handedness and attempt to inject facts into the debate). Even if her status was somewhat debatable, and given that Fitzgerald and the CIA both agreed she was covert I don't think there'd be much chance the defense would get anywhere on that tack (but what do I know), it doesn't excuse perjury and obstruction of justice. The whole case doesn't magically go away just because there was a chance she wouldn't be ruled covert. The right-wing pundits are just attempting to sway public opinion with statements like "she worked at a desk, c'mon". I'm sure if the case had ever been allowed to get to the point where someone was brought up on charges of violating the IIPA, your point would be more apropos.
And yet you're still wrong. Those pesky facts again. From the article:
"The CIA report said that Plame had worked overseas in the previous five years and that the agency had been taking "affirmative measures" to conceal her CIA employment."
Seem pretty clear to me. Unless you know better than the CIA...?
Thank you for the non-sequitur. Clinton doesn't actually have anything to do with this.
As I pointed out in another comment above, she was indeed covert. That has been well established at this point. Why do you insist on still claiming otherwise? Your whole premise is wrong.
c le/2007/06/08/AR2007060802478.html
Info in this article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/arti
Nice try with the right-wing spin.
c le/2007/06/08/AR2007060802478.html
1. There could have been more than one leaker.
2. Plame was indeed covert. Read this: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/arti
Unless, of course, they ramp up production to meet this malicious demand....
Dan Rather's BOGUS and FORGED documents is giving him a free ride?
You're basing a lot of your argument on a single event, vague references to ranting and raving aside. Hardly compelling.
Really, you need to take a look at the Free Ride Clinton got for cheating on his wife and for lying under oath (the reason he was IMPEACHED)
I think it says it all that you think the whole Lewinsky affair was under-reported. Good grief. God forbid the press ask hard questions about unimportant things like rationales for war.
I don't see how anyone could call the mainstream media "liberal" anymore, if it ever was. For one thing, you have the rise of conservative Fox News; its success has had the effect of making its competitors try to emulate them, moving to the right. And every outfit has a conservative blowhard to counter the liberal one; I wouldn't be surprised if the converatives outnumber the liberals.
Second, it seems like there's been a concerted effort over the last 25 years to boost conservative ideals while belittling liberal ones. "Liberal" has become such a loaded, degrading term that many liberals can't even use it anymore. It's just plain not cool to be a liberal anymore, like it was in the '60s. This cultural shift has no doubt affected the media, too. (I should add that I think a lot of this is just perception and Republican/fundamentalist marketing mixed with public apathy, and that reality may winding up for a backlash.)
Third, Bush and his administration have gotten a nearly free ride from the media. Obviously, 9/11 is a huge reason for the press rolling over and playing dead, as well as careful handling (write anything tough and lose your access?) and a friendly Congress that doesn't want to rock the boat. Would a liberal media really not press Bush more than they have? Things seem to be slowly changing, thankfully.