I really don't like when people are trying to spice up their articles or blog posts with sensacionalist claims (Slashdot mods, you are guilty as Miguel are).
First of all, Linux desktop isn't dead. Millions of people use it. Ok, we are smaller than Windows definitely (can't be sure about OS X). I personally don't see it as a problem, as long developers are keeping fire of competition alive.
What Miguel propably wanted to bring up is regular point of criticism instability of Linux/free desktop based API (window enviroment, sound, graphics). While there have been some little fallouts about this in open source world, in nutshell open source desktop guys *care* about back compatability. And lot of commercial apps which can be easily run on various enviroments and distributions (and most of them even provide compatible packages for mainstream formats like deb and rpm) indicate that it is not that hard.
As always yes, there are hardware driver bugs (Windows aren't also free from this, and it has official vendor support), there are some competition in desktop enviroment (but let's be honest, in general that's not big problem). Problems for small software vendors is that mostly they can't compete with free - we don't need five different file compression applications, we have usually one general for each enviroment. Problems for big vendors - well, market isn't simply big enough (for Adobe for example).
What, do you still use Ubuntu Linux 6.06?:) Sorry, I just don't buy it. I have tons of friends who use Ubuntu Live CD, install it and use Ubuntu without ever touching a command line.
In 12.04. I just dislike it, some core details doesn't feel "native" to me. However I know it's just subjective. That's why I never understood 'fragmentation is killing free desktop' claim. Aim to have one universal framework for bus messages is much better, for example - that's why KDE migrated to D-BUS, which is completely desktop-neitral now.
What's nice that core usability is very similar between Unity and GNOME Shell, so user don't have to retrain for each.
I like Debian and Ubuntu, because of systematical structure, good packaging system and overall atitude to open system development. However, I strongy dislike Unity (nothing objective, just subjective feeling), and I love GNOME Shell. So this is good news, because I would like to work on Ubuntu and Debian, while still using GNOME stack.
It's nice to see that while with lack of resources (this and KDE version of Ubuntu are realeased without support from Canonical), Ubuntu has all popular enviroments to install. While someone like GNOME founder/now troll Miguel like to blame fragmentation why Linux isn't bringing him millions, I think having it is not bad - altough I vote for lot of integration which already have took place.
So thanks goes to devs who undertook this rather daring quest.
Exactly how do you vet smart phone users who are bombarded by Apple marketing dep and buzz around them? Exactly how?
How this landed to be jury case I don't know. This is pure one judge call.
I'm ready to bet that we finally saw the Reason why Apple pushed so much money into marketing. That's way - so people would think them as the only inventors.
Ok, let's keep this clear - it's just free software, boys. There are multiple ways to branch it and make it work your way, release it and name it "True GNOME" or whatever. No, GNOME developers have never been fan of "LEGO constuctor" type of desktop enviroment. They have been improving their software and technologies steadily, within their means and in ways they deem reasonable.
Don't like their vision? There is so much to choose from - starting from using old GNOME 2 stack (without support from outside, of course), use many of "alternative remixes", use distribution with bunch of enabled extentions, etc. - you name it.
From my expierence, is there any worth of complains, GNOME developers will get it. But they will see this as whole different vision than you. Accept that and move along.
Sorry to burst bubble, but this can be easily be forged with old data from previous hack. For me it's bigger posibility than Sony haven't taken previous attack seriously.
That really depends. Not everyone has nerve to pull out gun and aim precicely in case of such emergency. I agree that having no guns in public place like cinema is way much safer than having them. However, I would do prefer to have security guys with really good training which can act in seconds in such cases. You really can't hope that you will have some well trained guy between customers in every such situation.
I don't understand, in the past there was sometimes very strict rules in bars and pubs not to carry gun there. I don't care that you carry a gun for self protection on street. Why they were made obsolete?
Ok, let's first get loose of 'omg we are loosing privacy here' attitude and analyze this a bit. First of all, private entities can take video of me in their security cameras. What's difference after this is how they analyze that collected data? What I *need* to know is that companies do that, so I can decide in a case of unusual situation would I render their services or not.
Government policy is totally different matter and should be crafted into internal documents and practices, not laws. I don't want cops to be pushed to understand that face recognition or video surveillance isn't panacea to everything, I want them to *understand* it themselves.
So in nutshell it is a old buzz about video surveillance. I'm not standing for or against it, but just against rehashing same old arguments over something new we can do with this surveillance material.
So, no law is needed (and less hysteria please) - just more common sense. Ohhh, this is media. Forget about that, crack on panicking.
While I completely agree that social networking and Facebook is way overrated (in eyes of marketing people), it's not completely useless and without any value. However, this value can be extracted only by working with users. Problem with social networking is that it is so easy to do - there is stiff competition, G+ already showed that it can deliver much better product for niche users, etc. And that's not counting Diaspora, which actually works (as software) - so I can build social networking for my school in few days.
So in nutshell what's really is important how you handle your user base and their needs. How well do you respond to their requests. How well do you respect them. How well do you stand by your promises.
So it is real competition, actual free market. Money grab period in this industry came and has gone.
Reading all press it sounds like too much generalisation - in fact, it *feels* like Peter Jackson was more angry about backslash and calling a "cheap TV movie" just because you are used to different frame rate. So he decided that discussion about "be or not to be 48 fps" could actually overcome discussion about movie itself. I think it was wise decision and not Hollywood fear about CC. Come on, they *love* CC - it's amplified publicity with fans all around the world. What a better way to get movie going buzz rolling?
....and more Samsung Androids in the streets. Really smart tactics Apple. Obsessive as your former master. In fact, insane. But who cares if shiny is there.
Just one simple promise - I will never buy any Apple product in my life. Sorry, you simply can't have it both ways.
Sounds like usual '**** off, we know what we are doing, and errr, we didn't copied ACTA text there, it just happened to to be there! So, nothing to worry about, no ACTA!' when someone is caught red-handed. And sorry, no official draft available for everyone to analyze - no trust.
Problem is that ACTA and all new legislation actually enforces ideas of *not* having your own movies or music. It simply can't be that you made your own. All base belong to us. Give us your money, now.
If someone didn't understand, this is war. We have billions industry fighting this who has lot of money to waste on politicians and lobbying, and they won't give up their rights to get easy money without any economical logic. This ain't first, and won't be our last battle, and we should accept this as that. What's good that this also creates generation of new politicians who are very informed about moral/economical/legal issues of IPR regimes. More they pushing this, more people see what's their real aims are.
It's not a independent investigation, but parlamental - which is reason I don't buy it, because politicians always want to look better in public eye. And current public attitude is fear of nuclear. So let's make it to look like human error, nevermind that it hasn't killed anyone directly, and it was once in a lifetime event.
Mistakes, errors - that's all there. But I would pick a independent scientists and management specialists to vet out them, not politicians.
I'm confused, correct me if I'm wrong but it's 92% accurate for positive, and 99% accurate for negative. That's it, if you get positive hit, you can still be in 8% with false alarm.
Or I misread BBC article about it. If so, nevermind.
I'm quite confused. As I understand every nation of EU should ratify it, otherwise it won't fly. And there is already annoucements from nations that they WON'T ratify, and therefore treaty won't go.
What's happening in Europarlament is Euro Commision is another thing, but it still doesn't matter - ACTA is dead as we speak today.
About Europarlament - it works as democracy, simply there is power struggle because old EU countries know that by sheer numbers they will be overpowered by new members in Europarlament - therefore they have created several miniclubs which have bigger legislation power than EP - which is very wrong. Therefore for last 20 years they have tried to minimise posibility for parlament for not letting their way. It was such way with software patents, and clashes countinue to this day.
It's not black and white. It needs improvement, huge people lobby and people should start to get more interested in EU politics, because they *matter*. Ignoring and hoping that EU will go away is stupid and shortsighted.
"Greed is an innate flaw in human thinking under most circumstances. It's not some magic rocket fuel that impels society towards greater wealth and innovation. That's a bullshit narrative told to you by drug addicts who don't want to be separated from their drug . And nothing more."
Bingo. Greed is manifestation of survival instinct, hyperbolised by emotions and feelings and "know how" around in your society. How it come that most greedy people are from societies who are created by people most in need? Because they are *afraid* to go where they once were. Hunger and feeling of being poor and misarble is something what kicks survival instinct into berzerk mode. US was created by poor but determined people to live better. Determination isn't bad in it's case, but overlooking wider implications of despair and our instincts, thinking that only they matter, is problem. Problem is that people who learn to live this way usually also fuel their positive loop that they can't be wrong with fully trusting their survival instinct.
Because those with capital gains usually have very good friends at circles of politics? EU already offered such tax, however UK with all City lobby behind it stopped it at it's tracks.
Slashdot Mirror
I really don't like when people are trying to spice up their articles or blog posts with sensacionalist claims (Slashdot mods, you are guilty as Miguel are).
First of all, Linux desktop isn't dead. Millions of people use it. Ok, we are smaller than Windows definitely (can't be sure about OS X). I personally don't see it as a problem, as long developers are keeping fire of competition alive.
What Miguel propably wanted to bring up is regular point of criticism instability of Linux/free desktop based API (window enviroment, sound, graphics). While there have been some little fallouts about this in open source world, in nutshell open source desktop guys *care* about back compatability. And lot of commercial apps which can be easily run on various enviroments and distributions (and most of them even provide compatible packages for mainstream formats like deb and rpm) indicate that it is not that hard.
As always yes, there are hardware driver bugs (Windows aren't also free from this, and it has official vendor support), there are some competition in desktop enviroment (but let's be honest, in general that's not big problem). Problems for small software vendors is that mostly they can't compete with free - we don't need five different file compression applications, we have usually one general for each enviroment. Problems for big vendors - well, market isn't simply big enough (for Adobe for example).
What, do you still use Ubuntu Linux 6.06? :) Sorry, I just don't buy it. I have tons of friends who use Ubuntu Live CD, install it and use Ubuntu without ever touching a command line.
In 12.04. I just dislike it, some core details doesn't feel "native" to me. However I know it's just subjective. That's why I never understood 'fragmentation is killing free desktop' claim. Aim to have one universal framework for bus messages is much better, for example - that's why KDE migrated to D-BUS, which is completely desktop-neitral now.
What's nice that core usability is very similar between Unity and GNOME Shell, so user don't have to retrain for each.
I like Debian and Ubuntu, because of systematical structure, good packaging system and overall atitude to open system development. However, I strongy dislike Unity (nothing objective, just subjective feeling), and I love GNOME Shell. So this is good news, because I would like to work on Ubuntu and Debian, while still using GNOME stack.
It's nice to see that while with lack of resources (this and KDE version of Ubuntu are realeased without support from Canonical), Ubuntu has all popular enviroments to install. While someone like GNOME founder/now troll Miguel like to blame fragmentation why Linux isn't bringing him millions, I think having it is not bad - altough I vote for lot of integration which already have took place.
So thanks goes to devs who undertook this rather daring quest.
Exactly how do you vet smart phone users who are bombarded by Apple marketing dep and buzz around them? Exactly how?
How this landed to be jury case I don't know. This is pure one judge call.
I'm ready to bet that we finally saw the Reason why Apple pushed so much money into marketing. That's way - so people would think them as the only inventors.
Ok, let's keep this clear - it's just free software, boys. There are multiple ways to branch it and make it work your way, release it and name it "True GNOME" or whatever. No, GNOME developers have never been fan of "LEGO constuctor" type of desktop enviroment. They have been improving their software and technologies steadily, within their means and in ways they deem reasonable.
Don't like their vision? There is so much to choose from - starting from using old GNOME 2 stack (without support from outside, of course), use many of "alternative remixes", use distribution with bunch of enabled extentions, etc. - you name it.
From my expierence, is there any worth of complains, GNOME developers will get it. But they will see this as whole different vision than you. Accept that and move along.
Sorry to burst bubble, but this can be easily be forged with old data from previous hack. For me it's bigger posibility than Sony haven't taken previous attack seriously.
That really depends. Not everyone has nerve to pull out gun and aim precicely in case of such emergency. I agree that having no guns in public place like cinema is way much safer than having them. However, I would do prefer to have security guys with really good training which can act in seconds in such cases. You really can't hope that you will have some well trained guy between customers in every such situation.
Yeah, that strange, because emergency exit door is usually closed from outside.
Ok, but that at least explains how man with two shotguns and in full armor can walk into cinema.
At least he would be forced to checked. 1 guy would have died instead of 14. I don't know, just my guess.
I don't understand, in the past there was sometimes very strict rules in bars and pubs not to carry gun there. I don't care that you carry a gun for self protection on street. Why they were made obsolete?
Ok, let's first get loose of 'omg we are loosing privacy here' attitude and analyze this a bit. First of all, private entities can take video of me in their security cameras. What's difference after this is how they analyze that collected data? What I *need* to know is that companies do that, so I can decide in a case of unusual situation would I render their services or not.
Government policy is totally different matter and should be crafted into internal documents and practices, not laws. I don't want cops to be pushed to understand that face recognition or video surveillance isn't panacea to everything, I want them to *understand* it themselves.
So in nutshell it is a old buzz about video surveillance. I'm not standing for or against it, but just against rehashing same old arguments over something new we can do with this surveillance material.
So, no law is needed (and less hysteria please) - just more common sense. Ohhh, this is media. Forget about that, crack on panicking.
While I completely agree that social networking and Facebook is way overrated (in eyes of marketing people), it's not completely useless and without any value. However, this value can be extracted only by working with users. Problem with social networking is that it is so easy to do - there is stiff competition, G+ already showed that it can deliver much better product for niche users, etc. And that's not counting Diaspora, which actually works (as software) - so I can build social networking for my school in few days.
So in nutshell what's really is important how you handle your user base and their needs. How well do you respond to their requests. How well do you respect them. How well do you stand by your promises.
So it is real competition, actual free market. Money grab period in this industry came and has gone.
Reading all press it sounds like too much generalisation - in fact, it *feels* like Peter Jackson was more angry about backslash and calling a "cheap TV movie" just because you are used to different frame rate. So he decided that discussion about "be or not to be 48 fps" could actually overcome discussion about movie itself. I think it was wise decision and not Hollywood fear about CC. Come on, they *love* CC - it's amplified publicity with fans all around the world. What a better way to get movie going buzz rolling?
....and more Samsung Androids in the streets. Really smart tactics Apple. Obsessive as your former master. In fact, insane. But who cares if shiny is there.
Just one simple promise - I will never buy any Apple product in my life. Sorry, you simply can't have it both ways.
Sounds like usual '**** off, we know what we are doing, and errr, we didn't copied ACTA text there, it just happened to to be there! So, nothing to worry about, no ACTA!' when someone is caught red-handed. And sorry, no official draft available for everyone to analyze - no trust.
Problem is that ACTA and all new legislation actually enforces ideas of *not* having your own movies or music. It simply can't be that you made your own. All base belong to us. Give us your money, now.
If someone didn't understand, this is war. We have billions industry fighting this who has lot of money to waste on politicians and lobbying, and they won't give up their rights to get easy money without any economical logic. This ain't first, and won't be our last battle, and we should accept this as that. What's good that this also creates generation of new politicians who are very informed about moral/economical/legal issues of IPR regimes. More they pushing this, more people see what's their real aims are.
It's not a independent investigation, but parlamental - which is reason I don't buy it, because politicians always want to look better in public eye. And current public attitude is fear of nuclear. So let's make it to look like human error, nevermind that it hasn't killed anyone directly, and it was once in a lifetime event.
Mistakes, errors - that's all there. But I would pick a independent scientists and management specialists to vet out them, not politicians.
I'm confused, correct me if I'm wrong but it's 92% accurate for positive, and 99% accurate for negative. That's it, if you get positive hit, you can still be in 8% with false alarm.
Or I misread BBC article about it. If so, nevermind.
What about "screw you, you American leach"? :) Oracle and AutoDesk doing investments in Europe? In what parallel universe?
Dinosaurs also didn't what hit them.
I'm quite confused. As I understand every nation of EU should ratify it, otherwise it won't fly. And there is already annoucements from nations that they WON'T ratify, and therefore treaty won't go.
What's happening in Europarlament is Euro Commision is another thing, but it still doesn't matter - ACTA is dead as we speak today.
About Europarlament - it works as democracy, simply there is power struggle because old EU countries know that by sheer numbers they will be overpowered by new members in Europarlament - therefore they have created several miniclubs which have bigger legislation power than EP - which is very wrong. Therefore for last 20 years they have tried to minimise posibility for parlament for not letting their way. It was such way with software patents, and clashes countinue to this day.
It's not black and white. It needs improvement, huge people lobby and people should start to get more interested in EU politics, because they *matter*. Ignoring and hoping that EU will go away is stupid and shortsighted.
"Greed is an innate flaw in human thinking under most circumstances. It's not some magic rocket fuel that impels society towards greater wealth and innovation. That's a bullshit narrative told to you by drug addicts who don't want to be separated from their drug . And nothing more."
Bingo. Greed is manifestation of survival instinct, hyperbolised by emotions and feelings and "know how" around in your society. How it come that most greedy people are from societies who are created by people most in need? Because they are *afraid* to go where they once were. Hunger and feeling of being poor and misarble is something what kicks survival instinct into berzerk mode. US was created by poor but determined people to live better. Determination isn't bad in it's case, but overlooking wider implications of despair and our instincts, thinking that only they matter, is problem. Problem is that people who learn to live this way usually also fuel their positive loop that they can't be wrong with fully trusting their survival instinct.
Because those with capital gains usually have very good friends at circles of politics? EU already offered such tax, however UK with all City lobby behind it stopped it at it's tracks.
I can agree with that.