>The entire point of taking someone like RMS's opinion is based on the assumption that he's more informed than the average person.
Not a good idea.
e.g. a quite important guy calls you bamboccione and you react by going to live by yourself getting a house at the very peak of the housing bubble, giving money to the interests this obviously very well informed guy represented. Fatal mistake huh?
You should instead try looking for the consequences an opinion implies, look for possible conflict of interest, agendas, and compare the premises annd the conclusions with reality.
Next up on slashdot: stallman declares 2+2=4, get challenged on it because he had been eating the scabs on his feet.
Not that performing such acts during conferences has ever been a good idea (wtf), but I see a problem when stallman is always about communism idealism and hygiene while people have discussed for years Dubya Bush policy without mentioning he was drunk.
Ok, that makes the dualism evolution vs creation even more of a fake. But the reasons behind the ideation of a theory are irrelevant to the theory itself, even if they make it less desirable to invest time on it. E.g. the Flying Spaghetti Monster religion is equivalent to any other religious movement until the end of time, but knowing it was made up doesn't make many people adopt it and sincerely believe it's the truth.
You miss a detail, when a religion says "believe" and "announce the good news, that people can be saved", and it becomes "this God is real and I'll punish you for not obeying what [I say] it is saying", the problem is not the religion.
Then you miss the whole picture, together with everybody else.
IT IS A FAKE dualism, the one between evolution and creation. A hypothetical creator outside time does not create the initial state of the universe and lets it evolve. It creates the whole timeline together with the whole space in one step. Else he'd be travelling himself in time, a creator bound by the thing it is going to create? IMPOSSIBRU)
Evolution is orthogonal to religion, the how is not the who.
OTOH if somebody comes up with a young earth theory that fits some ancient religious books, why not? Does not prove any book correct in its impossible to prove religious messages, so what is the problem? It does not rule out evolution automatically. Maybe DNA is shakered faster when some cosmic ray showers occur:)
I wounldn't see the music/code comparison as creative vs. useful. The problem with music or other artistic works is that a modification can HUGELY alter its quality, for the worst. It's already difficult for an artist not to ruin its own ideas.
So a share, but not alter clause seems very appropriate IMHO
IIRC at least once, some lin... er... GNU/Linux distro packagers modified some referral codes kept in the source of a program, overriding the upstream authors' choice, which would deprive them from the donations of the modified package.
This seems technically compatible with the freedom allowed by GPL, what do you think of such a practice, anyway?
It is not biased, samsung did throw a tantrum by raising 20% the price of processors sold to apple. A very justified but anyway still a tantrum because a 20% raise out of the blue would likely not have happened otherwise.
I had a motherboard acting up and kept the CPU. A desktop pc with replaceable parts and user-installed software is purposefully being killed by the hardware cartel, but I'm not going to get their new all-soldered uefi-locked toys anytime soon.
Nice to know the entire audience of slashdot learned Italian. About time. I filed a bug report for debian, obviously it was a debian installer problem, else I'd have gone upstream.
But then you depend on the software vendor to fix bugs or worse vulnerabilities in libraries used by the program that you otherwise would update separately.
It would be feasible to provide static packages in FOSS, though. Gobolinux and its rootless mode are one approach alternative to the monolythic package.
The windows pc+user is "Territory", applications have the main function of occupying it, and if feasible preventing the competition to do the same as much as possible. Exerting control yields profits.
Probably, programmers wouldn't build daemons when simpler GUI triggered processes are enough, PHB make them build them anyway. Real world experiences anyone?
In theory, nobody would bypass the safety measures of a nuclear reactor as a safety exercise, yet that`s what happened in chernobyl. Human in the chain of commands means little, in the long run.
The dangers of independent AI are ridiculous compared to AI dependent on a cabal of humans that have already perpetrated serious crimes hiding behind the concept of national security or similar excuses.
1. training for public beta means loss of productivity, worker has to switch from a desktop to another; moreover one is unstable, and the other is a public beta:D Lots of stuff under windows needs new drivers when win version is bumped up...
2. are there xp official themes from MS? or are they coming from serious software houses that can give support? Because, installing binaries from random little software house which can break at any moment is a worse scenario than getting used to the new system.
3. iirc office 03 crashed more often with 7 and couldn't run under 64 bits. After some time it is fixed but workers would have had to deal with the problems.
All three points have a linux alternative coming up as very reasonable. Besides, the whole matter is incomplete: those who use a lot of FOSS know the advantage of controlling a lot more what goes into your pc.
I can understand the first part (OO didn't perform as expected, causing trouble to people accustomed to office) But the rest of the summary seems MS marketspeak. "stable development?" LOL office is the most unstable, both format and GUI wise, project that I know, its development phase can be the most disciplined and careful process in the whole sw industry, but the end product is anything but stable.
Of course, no argument is necessary now that they reverted the decision. Have fun with your MS and macros, citizens.
I disagree on the dinosaur. All they have to do is enter the same mindset of the windows era. "We suck, but let's steal/copy what's already on the market and let our customer do what they please with our platform, even pirate us. Once we get the market we'll shaft them with compound interest".
And people is likely to fall for it again.
One thing I'd do, though, is use another corporation. Money is de facto anonymous, untraceable, transferable with the speed of light, why bother with a name which is mostly known for the industry of AV and of fix it again technicians.........oh, wait a d*mn minute... I WANT THE LIST OF GOOGLE INVESTORS. THE PHOTOS, NOT THE SHELL COMPANIES. NOW!;-)
Bulls...eye. Apple had world dominance a few times. The first mainstream PC The first mainstream GUI The first almost mainstream PDA The first mainstream smartphone
And
A consumer digital camera (but not mainstream) The only viable pro audio platform for a decade The most succesful consumer grade graphic/AV station
Everytime it has some advantage it rests on laurels until the competition, with not as polished products, catches up.
The only thing they kept dominant until the end was the ipod.
Not that it is a big problem for the consumer: you can have a good ecosystem of sw and stuff with 5% of the market, as long as there is some compatibility with the rest of the world. I should know, I've been using stuff with 10% market penetration since the apple][.
If, other than the 5% market, you put yourself in a controlled ecosystem, that's an entirely different problem.
Ironically enough the most problematic device to own, technically speaking, is... the ipod. (no standard usb storage, less space than a nomad, sometimes it hangs, soldered battery - lame)
Darwin can be left open because there is so much closed source stuff atop it before one can use darwin to make a competitor to OSX. I am not saying this is not possible to replicate under the GPL, as Android is exactly that, a GPL kernel which is de facto controlled by Google. I am saying OSX is not Darwin. The applications depend on the GUI and the possibly closed source drivers.
And if somebody did, and if it got succesful, there is still the software patents weapon to use.
About GPL you described an earlier flaw, affero fixed that and I still think that those selling services based on improved OSS are not following the spirit of the earlier GPL, so again not a good point.
Interesting metric you have for allowing non consensual acquisition of data, where the bad behavior of the "victim" has any relevance. I catch you cheating on your wife, I am entitled to snap a pic and blackmail you, for that same metric.
In truth the BSD folks want the widest possible distribution of their software because they believe that will ultimately provide the computing world the greatest benefit.
Closed source is controlled source, it can't happen.
Look at OSX. Tomorrow apple decides iOS is fine for macs, dumps OSX and all its improvements to bsd will be lost like ballmer's chairs in google's direction.
Slashdot Mirror
yep it was tasteless, considering that, as we speak, the police may be scanning all mcafee`s personal items for malicious items.
>The entire point of taking someone like RMS's opinion is based on the assumption that he's more informed than the average person.
Not a good idea.
e.g. a quite important guy calls you bamboccione and you react by going to live by yourself getting a house at the very peak of the housing bubble, giving money to the interests this obviously very well informed guy represented. Fatal mistake huh?
You should instead try looking for the consequences an opinion implies, look for possible conflict of interest, agendas, and compare the premises annd the conclusions with reality.
Next up on slashdot: stallman declares 2+2=4, get challenged on it because he had been eating the scabs on his feet.
Not that performing such acts during conferences has ever been a good idea (wtf), but I see a problem when stallman is always about communism idealism and hygiene while people have discussed for years Dubya Bush policy without mentioning he was drunk.
Ok, that makes the dualism evolution vs creation even more of a fake.
But the reasons behind the ideation of a theory are irrelevant to the theory itself, even if they make it less desirable to invest time on it.
E.g. the Flying Spaghetti Monster religion is equivalent to any other religious movement until the end of time, but knowing it was made up doesn't make many people adopt it and sincerely believe it's the truth.
You miss a detail, when a religion says "believe" and "announce the good news, that people can be saved", and it becomes "this God is real and I'll punish you for not obeying what [I say] it is saying", the problem is not the religion.
Then you miss the whole picture, together with everybody else.
IT IS A FAKE dualism, the one between evolution and creation. A hypothetical creator outside time does not create the initial state of the universe and lets it evolve. It creates the whole timeline together with the whole space in one step. Else he'd be travelling himself in time, a creator bound by the thing it is going to create? IMPOSSIBRU)
Evolution is orthogonal to religion, the how is not the who.
OTOH if somebody comes up with a young earth theory that fits some ancient religious books, why not? Does not prove any book correct in its impossible to prove religious messages, so what is the problem? It does not rule out evolution automatically. Maybe DNA is shakered faster when some cosmic ray showers occur :)
I wounldn't see the music/code comparison as creative vs. useful.
The problem with music or other artistic works is that a modification can HUGELY alter its quality, for the worst. It's already difficult for an artist not to ruin its own ideas.
So a share, but not alter clause seems very appropriate IMHO
IIRC at least once, some lin... er... GNU/Linux distro packagers modified some referral codes kept in the source of a program, overriding the upstream authors' choice, which would deprive them from the donations of the modified package.
This seems technically compatible with the freedom allowed by GPL, what do you think of such a practice, anyway?
Ciao!
It is not biased, samsung did throw a tantrum by raising 20% the price of processors sold to apple. A very justified but anyway still a tantrum because a 20% raise out of the blue would likely not have happened otherwise.
I had a motherboard acting up and kept the CPU.
A desktop pc with replaceable parts and user-installed software is purposefully being killed by the hardware cartel, but I'm not going to get their new all-soldered uefi-locked toys anytime soon.
In veritas the bug was in debian, anyway if things go upstream it doesn't really matter if they get there from debian or ubuntu, giusto?
And it's not true slashdot is almost all angloamerican: microsoft and apple shills are outsourced.
Nice to know the entire audience of slashdot learned Italian. About time.
I filed a bug report for debian, obviously it was a debian installer problem, else I'd have gone upstream.
> "Raising the bar" makes something harder. That might not be what you want for a desktop interface!
Using the newer interfaces, unity, win8, gnome3 is like dancing the limbo: raising the bar would be a welcome change.
Mr. Shuttleworth, do you know someone that can hunt down parent poster and shred his geek card into tiny pieces?
But then you depend on the software vendor to fix bugs or worse vulnerabilities in libraries used by the program that you otherwise would update separately.
It would be feasible to provide static packages in FOSS, though. Gobolinux and its rootless mode are one approach alternative to the monolythic package.
The windows pc+user is "Territory", applications have the main function of occupying it, and if feasible preventing the competition to do the same as much as possible. Exerting control yields profits.
Probably, programmers wouldn't build daemons when simpler GUI triggered processes are enough, PHB make them build them anyway. Real world experiences anyone?
hm.
In theory, nobody would bypass the safety measures of a nuclear reactor as a safety exercise, yet that`s what happened in chernobyl. Human in the chain of commands means little, in the long run.
The dangers of independent AI are ridiculous compared to AI dependent on a cabal of humans that have already perpetrated serious crimes hiding behind the concept of national security or similar excuses.
1. training for public beta means loss of productivity, worker has to switch from a desktop to another; moreover one is unstable, and the other is a public beta :D
Lots of stuff under windows needs new drivers when win version is bumped up...
2. are there xp official themes from MS? or are they coming from serious software houses that can give support? Because, installing binaries from random little software house which can break at any moment is a worse scenario than getting used to the new system.
3. iirc office 03 crashed more often with 7 and couldn't run under 64 bits. After some time it is fixed but workers would have had to deal with the problems.
All three points have a linux alternative coming up as very reasonable. Besides, the whole matter is incomplete: those who use a lot of FOSS know the advantage of controlling a lot more what goes into your pc.
Silly you, we had to wait 'till all patents on it expired.
I can understand the first part (OO didn't perform as expected, causing trouble to people accustomed to office)
But the rest of the summary seems MS marketspeak.
"stable development?" LOL office is the most unstable, both format and GUI wise, project that I know, its development phase can be the most disciplined and careful process in the whole sw industry, but the end product is anything but stable.
Of course, no argument is necessary now that they reverted the decision. Have fun with your MS and macros, citizens.
I disagree on the dinosaur. All they have to do is enter the same mindset of the windows era. "We suck, but let's steal/copy what's already on the market and let our customer do what they please with our platform, even pirate us. Once we get the market we'll shaft them with compound interest".
And people is likely to fall for it again.
One thing I'd do, though, is use another corporation. Money is de facto anonymous, untraceable, transferable with the speed of light, why bother with a name which is mostly known for the industry of AV and of fix it again technicians...... ...oh, wait a d*mn minute... ;-)
I WANT THE LIST OF GOOGLE INVESTORS.
THE PHOTOS, NOT THE SHELL COMPANIES.
NOW!
Bulls...eye.
Apple had world dominance a few times.
The first mainstream PC
The first mainstream GUI
The first almost mainstream PDA
The first mainstream smartphone
And
A consumer digital camera (but not mainstream)
The only viable pro audio platform for a decade
The most succesful consumer grade graphic/AV station
Everytime it has some advantage it rests on laurels until the competition, with not as polished products, catches up.
The only thing they kept dominant until the end was the ipod.
Not that it is a big problem for the consumer: you can have a good ecosystem of sw and stuff with 5% of the market, as long as there is some compatibility with the rest of the world. I should know, I've been using stuff with 10% market penetration since the apple][.
If, other than the 5% market, you put yourself in a controlled ecosystem, that's an entirely different problem.
Ironically enough the most problematic device to own, technically speaking, is... the ipod. (no standard usb storage, less space than a nomad, sometimes it hangs, soldered battery - lame)
16 305 067 bytes = 15.5497236 megabytes
Yes, some jerk objects and wants to define 1M as 1000000 instead of 1024*1024 bytes: the file is in RAM. HA!
(whoever thought that mass memory could use different units than volatile memory, should have been tarred gzipped and feathered)
Darwin can be left open because there is so much closed source stuff atop it before one can use darwin to make a competitor to OSX. I am not saying this is not possible to replicate under the GPL, as Android is exactly that, a GPL kernel which is de facto controlled by Google. I am saying OSX is not Darwin. The applications depend on the GUI and the possibly closed source drivers.
And if somebody did, and if it got succesful, there is still the software patents weapon to use.
About GPL you described an earlier flaw, affero fixed that and I still think that those selling services based on improved OSS are not following the spirit of the earlier GPL, so again not a good point.
Interesting metric you have for allowing non consensual acquisition of data, where the bad behavior of the "victim" has any relevance. I catch you cheating on your wife, I am entitled to snap a pic and blackmail you, for that same metric.
Closed source is controlled source, it can't happen.
Look at OSX. Tomorrow apple decides iOS is fine for macs, dumps OSX and all its improvements to bsd will be lost like ballmer's chairs in google's direction.