1) There's no such thing as global warming. 2) There's global warming, but the scientists are exaggerating. It's not significant. 3) There's significant global warming, but man doesn't cause it. 4) Man does cause it, but it's not a net negative. 5) It is a net negative, but it's not economically possible to tackle it. 6) We need to tackle global warming, so make the poor pay for it. 7) Global warming is bad for business. Why did the Democrats not tackle it earlier? 8) ???? 9) Profit.
So it's not the App Store. The history of this, if you're unaware, is that the App Store has always been happy to have GPL software. VLC for example was put on the App Store by some of it's developers. However one VLC developer was unhappy and complained that that was contrary to GPL. And so it was removed from the App Store by someone from the open source community, not be Apple.
As I said your claim that this is Apple's attitude that prevents it is false. It's entirely to do with the GPL terms as decided by RMS - and as you say the developers that originally chose to put a particular project under that license. And to take it back to the original topic, this may be one reason while fewer projects are choosing GPL these days.
All "open source" is prohibited in many app stores. Primarily because all the app stores and the platforms they service are extremely anti-open source and locked down.
Bullshit. There's no rule in the iOS App Store to prevent any kind of open source. It's the terms of the GPL that prevent it. RMS is doing the prohibiting, not the app store. Because he's extremely anti-business.
The passive ingredients would probably appear pretty passive. If they did not, they would each cost the original company some considerable expense proving that they were safe.
Of course that's under current government rules. Under libertarianism, presumably the drug approvals process would be abandoned and we'd be back to snake oil salesmen selling all sorts of useless and/or poisonous preparations as medicines.
That part is the same in Europe. The common courtesy is to give the same period of notice as your pay period. People paid each month give a month's notice, people paid weekly give a week, people paid daily give one day. And if you don't give that, then you won't get a good reference. But nothing stops you from walking out at any time.
Indeed slavery has been illegal for a long time, so it can't be any other way.
In my suggestion, the topmost one is that you last clicked in, and will have a highlighted title-bar. That's what the menu commands would work on.
The keyboard entry window would be the one your mouse is hovering over. It'd also be the one with the flashing caret.
Not saying it would be nice to use. Sounds complicated. But then I never liked lazy-focus at all. But it does mean that lazy-focus with Mac-like menus is possible.
You make a mistake to think that this is a matter of being too young or too stupid to understand. My first computers were a Honeywell 6000 for CS at uni, a DEC Vax at work, and a BBC Micro at home. I date from a time when GUIs hadn't escaped from the research labs.
I understand perfectly well what it means. And from a position of knowledge, I say it's absolutely stupid to have gobbledygook commands like sudo and apt-get that few understand. Few of whatever age or intelligence.
There's nothing intelligent about understanding what sudo and apt-get mean. It's just arcane knowledge. Just as you're not stupid if you don't understand what all the parts of a railway locomotive are called, and the trainspotter who does know is not necessarily clever.
And it goes further than arcane commands. "Precise Pangolin"? Whoever thought that up clearly thought they were being clever coming up with a name of an animal that most people wouldn't know. Again boosting their own ego by naming something arcane.
So, now you suggest a GUI app for doing the same task. Great... but wait a minute, what is this app. How is it described on the home page.
"Synaptic is a graphical package management program for apt. It provides the same features as the apt-get command line utility with a GUI front-end based on Gtk+."
What's "a graphical package management program"? What does that do? What is "apt", "apt-get" and "Gtk+" and why should I care?
For 99% of the population this is gobbledygook.
Even if the person did manage to decipher that, the download isn't obvious. 3 links, 2 of them to raw file browsers with many files, and the other link is broken.
I repeat: this shit is why it never was the year of Linux on the desktop, and it never will be. The sad thing is that is is fixable. An OS based on *nix doesn't have to be this arcane. But the vast majority of Linux contributors are like you - they don't even recognise the problem.
I think I should have had some say as to whether or not I wanted to use Unity in the first place. This business of upgrading me for the hell of it was sick, wrong, and totally uncalled for. I was a devoted Ubuntu user for years.
It's easy to understand. The fact is that most Linux users are ultra-conservative. Heck a large number of them still think that a 1970s text based interface is the best UI.
And to prove it, they're going to reply to this post arguing that it really, really is.
Normal distributions. There's a bell curve for how competent and skillful amateurs are, and there's a different one higher up the scale for professionals.
The good amateurs are better than the bad professionals. But the majority average professional is better than the majority average amateur. In any field.
Whether you call it a corporation or a big company, there is no reason for it to not exist if there is limited government. And indeed without anti-trust anti-monopoly laws, there is no restraints on how big and influential a company can get, nor on cartels that run entire industries against the interests of the people.
There's certainly no reason to say that without big government companies would be smaller.
There's a very big difference between in the wild malware and not in the wild. Clearly malware thats not in the wild is irrelevant. Hence in your made up example, both OSs would be the same.
Simple....a local bureaucracy is much more accountable to you, than a national one is. It had better reflect your needs and views better, because you can more easily vote them out.
That's nonsense. It assumes that everyone in a local are wants the same thing. But they don't. Whether it be nationally or locally there are plenty of people who don't get what they want.
If, instead, parents were given freedom of choice in schools and teachers, the good ones would be oversubscribed
WIth the result that either you can't afford to get your kid in, or class sizes or number of classes rise to the point at which it's not a good school anymore.
The problem with libertarianism is that it only curtains the power of government. It gives by default even more power to corporates to run he world. And they have no morality nor any desire to make the world a better place. Only to enrich themselves at the people's expense. It's an out of the frying pan into the fire philosophy.
This is how the US Libertarian party describes Libertarianism:
"Libertarians support maximum liberty in both personal and economic matters. They advocate a much smaller government; one that is limited to protecting individuals from coercion and violence. Libertarians tend to embrace individual responsibility, oppose government bureaucracy and taxes, promote private charity, tolerate diverse lifestyles, support the free market, and defend civil liberties."
There's no room in that for "social nets" or preventing "people from starving to death if they lose their job". If people want to supply those things on a charitable basis they might happen. But there's no guarantee people are not going to let you starve.
Slashdot Mirror
1) There's no such thing as global warming.
2) There's global warming, but the scientists are exaggerating. It's not significant.
3) There's significant global warming, but man doesn't cause it.
4) Man does cause it, but it's not a net negative.
5) It is a net negative, but it's not economically possible to tackle it.
6) We need to tackle global warming, so make the poor pay for it.
7) Global warming is bad for business. Why did the Democrats not tackle it earlier?
8) ????
9) Profit.
"It's the terms of the GPL that prevent it."
Yes
So it's not the App Store. The history of this, if you're unaware, is that the App Store has always been happy to have GPL software. VLC for example was put on the App Store by some of it's developers. However one VLC developer was unhappy and complained that that was contrary to GPL. And so it was removed from the App Store by someone from the open source community, not be Apple.
As I said your claim that this is Apple's attitude that prevents it is false. It's entirely to do with the GPL terms as decided by RMS - and as you say the developers that originally chose to put a particular project under that license. And to take it back to the original topic, this may be one reason while fewer projects are choosing GPL these days.
All "open source" is prohibited in many app stores. Primarily because all the app stores and the platforms they service are extremely anti-open source and locked down.
Bullshit. There's no rule in the iOS App Store to prevent any kind of open source. It's the terms of the GPL that prevent it. RMS is doing the prohibiting, not the app store. Because he's extremely anti-business.
You know, in other western countries corporations aren't allowed anything unless it's granted to them explicitly.
Not true.
The passive ingredients would probably appear pretty passive. If they did not, they would each cost the original company some considerable expense proving that they were safe.
Of course that's under current government rules. Under libertarianism, presumably the drug approvals process would be abandoned and we'd be back to snake oil salesmen selling all sorts of useless and/or poisonous preparations as medicines.
That part is the same in Europe. The common courtesy is to give the same period of notice as your pay period. People paid each month give a month's notice, people paid weekly give a week, people paid daily give one day. And if you don't give that, then you won't get a good reference. But nothing stops you from walking out at any time.
Indeed slavery has been illegal for a long time, so it can't be any other way.
In my suggestion, the topmost one is that you last clicked in, and will have a highlighted title-bar. That's what the menu commands would work on.
The keyboard entry window would be the one your mouse is hovering over. It'd also be the one with the flashing caret.
Not saying it would be nice to use. Sounds complicated. But then I never liked lazy-focus at all. But it does mean that lazy-focus with Mac-like menus is possible.
You make a mistake to think that this is a matter of being too young or too stupid to understand. My first computers were a Honeywell 6000 for CS at uni, a DEC Vax at work, and a BBC Micro at home. I date from a time when GUIs hadn't escaped from the research labs.
I understand perfectly well what it means. And from a position of knowledge, I say it's absolutely stupid to have gobbledygook commands like sudo and apt-get that few understand. Few of whatever age or intelligence.
There's nothing intelligent about understanding what sudo and apt-get mean. It's just arcane knowledge. Just as you're not stupid if you don't understand what all the parts of a railway locomotive are called, and the trainspotter who does know is not necessarily clever.
And it goes further than arcane commands. "Precise Pangolin"? Whoever thought that up clearly thought they were being clever coming up with a name of an animal that most people wouldn't know. Again boosting their own ego by naming something arcane.
So, now you suggest a GUI app for doing the same task. Great... but wait a minute, what is this app. How is it described on the home page.
"Synaptic is a graphical package management program for apt. It provides the same features as the apt-get command line utility with a GUI front-end based on Gtk+."
What's "a graphical package management program"? What does that do? What is "apt", "apt-get" and "Gtk+" and why should I care?
For 99% of the population this is gobbledygook.
Even if the person did manage to decipher that, the download isn't obvious. 3 links, 2 of them to raw file browsers with many files, and the other link is broken.
I repeat: this shit is why it never was the year of Linux on the desktop, and it never will be. The sad thing is that is is fixable. An OS based on *nix doesn't have to be this arcane. But the vast majority of Linux contributors are like you - they don't even recognise the problem.
I think I should have had some say as to whether or not I wanted to use Unity in the first place. This business of upgrading me for the hell of it was sick, wrong, and totally uncalled for. I was a devoted Ubuntu user for years.
Ask for your money back.
Never say never. There's no reason you can't have sloppy focus for keyboard input whilst having the menu always reflect the top most app.
So, "sudo apt-get install whatever" is too complicated?
Actually, yes it is. That's the reason it never was the year of Linux right there. Sudo? apt-get? Linux is full of gobbledy-gook just like that.
It's easy to understand. The fact is that most Linux users are ultra-conservative. Heck a large number of them still think that a 1970s text based interface is the best UI.
And to prove it, they're going to reply to this post arguing that it really, really is.
You appear to have been the victim of several (-1, I disagree) mods.
The trend for the Linux desktop would make it 100 years or more, not three.
Wrong. I've just tried it, and it gives the error "Receiver type 'Foo' for instance message does not declare a method with selector 'undefinedMethod'"
No excuse for claiming a problem that doesn't exist.
That was in 2008.
PHP is now at #6 and less popular than C#.
The interesting one is Objective-C has nearly overtaken C++. It'll probably be passed in the next couple of months.
In fact if the trend continues, Objective-C will be the most popular language in about 3 years.
http://www.tiobe.com/content/paperinfo/tpci/images/tpci_trends.png
Normal distributions. There's a bell curve for how competent and skillful amateurs are, and there's a different one higher up the scale for professionals.
The good amateurs are better than the bad professionals. But the majority average professional is better than the majority average amateur. In any field.
Whether you call it a corporation or a big company, there is no reason for it to not exist if there is limited government. And indeed without anti-trust anti-monopoly laws, there is no restraints on how big and influential a company can get, nor on cartels that run entire industries against the interests of the people.
There's certainly no reason to say that without big government companies would be smaller.
What steps?
There's a very big difference between in the wild malware and not in the wild. Clearly malware thats not in the wild is irrelevant. Hence in your made up example, both OSs would be the same.
Simple....a local bureaucracy is much more accountable to you, than a national one is. It had better reflect your needs and views better, because you can more easily vote them out.
That's nonsense. It assumes that everyone in a local are wants the same thing. But they don't. Whether it be nationally or locally there are plenty of people who don't get what they want.
If, instead, parents were given freedom of choice in schools and teachers, the good ones would be oversubscribed
WIth the result that either you can't afford to get your kid in, or class sizes or number of classes rise to the point at which it's not a good school anymore.
The problem with libertarianism is that it only curtains the power of government. It gives by default even more power to corporates to run he world. And they have no morality nor any desire to make the world a better place. Only to enrich themselves at the people's expense. It's an out of the frying pan into the fire philosophy.
This is how the US Libertarian party describes Libertarianism:
"Libertarians support maximum liberty in both personal and economic matters. They advocate a much smaller government; one that is limited to protecting individuals from coercion and violence. Libertarians tend to embrace individual responsibility, oppose government bureaucracy and taxes, promote private charity, tolerate diverse lifestyles, support the free market, and defend civil liberties."
There's no room in that for "social nets" or preventing "people from starving to death if they lose their job". If people want to supply those things on a charitable basis they might happen. But there's no guarantee people are not going to let you starve.