Re:Desktops were also locked down under
on
Linux 3.5 Released
·
· Score: 1
It's kind of funny how Linux was trying to "win", and now that it's obvious such will never happen, you claim it's not possible for Linux to lose.
You have to define "win." Market share? Market cap? Most recognized logo? What does it take to "win" in this little contest? Seems funny to me that when people want to talk about Linux, in a negative way, they think it cannot compete with Windows or Mac. I don't see why not, and considering the proliferation of companies that were once "Windows Only shops" returning again and again to pre-loaded linux machines, I think we're seeing that yes, Linux can compete, but compete to be better than it was yesterday and to be a viable alternative to the costly commercial OSes. It has "won" on both of those counts.
Linux's problems are no different than Windows' problems or Mac's problems in terms of their nature. What _is_ different is how they are dealt with. Nothing is covered up, swept in the corner or "censored" on forum posts in the land of Linux. You can't say that about either Microsoft or Apple. So, come to think of it, Linux did win. It showed the world that open source works. And it showed the world that free things aren't always shit.
Very true... which is why I mentioned "may" in there... what I can't fathom is why weapons, guns, whatever come up in a conversation about banning magnets. And I'm the troll, but he's "insightful". So cute, these moderators... Pushing agendas instead of forwarding the discussion.
Because we can.:) I am using Debian Squeeze... so, I really don't fall into that category. And neither do most of the people I know who run Linux. Tinkerers are tinkerers, no matter what platform they are on.The nature of Fedora and its community is incremental and frequent upgrades. If you had picked Debian (or perhaps slackware), I'd have been more inclined to see your analogy. In terms of what you're driving at (I think), you mean people who start on Debian and go to Arch or Ubuntu at the drop of a hat. Of course, I can see where OS X is becoming like Fedora in terms of frequency of updates, but considering pieces and parts of Fedora can be upgraded when necessary and even by hand after the community has moved on, it still is a tenuous connection. On the surface, it makes a point if one is referring to the "upgrade treadmill", but Linux doesn't require that at all, and we all know Windows and OS X do (in spite of XP's tenacity.)
My Mini as of now still runs 10.6... It was the last OS from Apple that I thought was good. Now that it's two versions behind, I suspect I will be putting Linux on my Mini so it won't collect dust.:)
I think the argument (more specifically) is that for a while now (thankfully) we CAN stop using OS X or Windows and it won't impact you in the way say, a decade or so ago would. The support and enthusiastic community surrounding all things Linux is very hearty and shows no signs of going anywhere. Things that were "impossible" (or very difficult) in the past are nearly as seamless as or (in the case of certain things) more seamless than the paid counterparts.
For me, the transition to 100% Linux came around the launch of Lion. My new Snow Leopard Mac Mini was humming along, but I was not on board with the changes and felt the new model for Apple was too restrictive for me. It had been a long time coming, in smaller increments of course. The rework under the hood that started after Jaguar was getting to be a problem... (mailbox formats, etc.)
So I put Debian Squeeze on my old Athlon PC and have been running it exclusively for a while now. I used to run a VM of Fedora on my Mini but now that I am having a ball using Debian, I will be making my Mini a full time Linux machine too very soon. Once I bother to get some of my old documents off the Mac.:) I don't even hardly turn the Mini on anymore...:)
As for Windows, I generally avoid it if at all possible. That's just me. I have an XP machine I use to play some old games, but mostly I run them in WINE, which works surprisingly well for strategy games and the like.:)
Here's to hoping they've got their driver-related ducks in a row... methinks they don't... at least not for everything. So while one person is getting sunburned eyes from the speed of the Metro interface, there are a few others who watch their computers implode in a steaming pile of pastel shit.
In other words... I have reservations about how well this will work, and since this is Microsoft... You'll get full hardware acceleration in Windows 9.
The thing that cheeses me off about the entire post is his dismissive about "nerds" as if they are the cause of all his "piracy" ills. First and foremost, market share IS a good indicator of what people want, and Android has that market share. Sure not any single phone manufacturer has Apple beat, but the PLATFORM of Android is eating iOS's lunch, relatively speaking, and continues to do so, in spite of the recent updates to the Apple handset line. I'm not knocking iOS as a platform... if people like it, people like it. But it seems to me that if this blogger was paying attention, he'd realize that people don't WANT a locked down DRM infested, closed and obnoxious to the paying customer platform. THAT is why they pick Android over iOS.
I'm sorry, but this guy's got a boner for iOS and thinks he can't do anything until Android is as locked down and "secure" as his preferred platform. That's not just delusional, but like we nerds say "WE don't CARE what you think."
Re:Desktops were also locked down under
on
Linux 3.5 Released
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Sorry Linux guys Bill Gates and IBM beat you too it many decades ago and that is the bad news.
I wasn't aware there had to be winners and losers in the game. Computing thrived with diversity, heck if it wasn't for diversity, we'd all be using some pablum invented by Bill Gates in his dorm... Thank goodness he was chasing rather than innovating... I shudder to think of the alternate universe that would've made.
Linux didn't "lose"... it's free. Linux is doing fine and several companies make a good bit of coin off it. I see Microsoft's "victory" as nothing more than eating a bit more of the pie than the other guys. Apple's got a huge market cap and tons of cash in the bank, yet they aren't even 20% of the PCs sold worldwide... So in the realm of "winners and losers"... we have to be a bit more objective, or at the very least, define what "win" means. Market share? Revenue? Mind share? Brand Loyalty? Whatever you pick, you end up with a different "winner.":) But I applaud Microsoft and Apple for really bullying everyone else for so long.. it makes me feel good that giant corporations want to actively screw me over and sell me the tools to do it with. I'm talking about both Apple and Microsoft in this regard.
As long as there are people who like to do it themselves... there will be Linux. Computing trends come and go, but revolutions stick around...
Re:Desktops were also locked down under
on
Linux 3.5 Released
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
It's funny, I've got a generic Dell PC I got for $300 from their outlet (Athlon etc etc.) Not a powerhouse, but not a shrinking violet either. I used my Mac Mini to download Debian Squeeze... and in 2 hours, with less interaction than a Windows install... I had a completely functional Linux desktop PC without doing anything in your list, except pick Debian. Back in college, I never got my et4000 card settings right for X on Slackware 0.99 (on floppies no less), but with screen and a familiarity with Amiga's CLI and DOS... I didn't miss it. (Plus that is the first time I got hooked on Nethack...)
Now, in the dim past just about everything was more difficult, to be sure... Getting games to run in DOS was also a magic trick. Then there was the myriad of other things that the CLI (which is where the computer originated) made easier for some, harder for others. Hell, Windows had a devil of a time keeping stable with the myriad of 3rd party drivers out there for Video and Sound cards alone.... Let's not forget NICs and so forth... And let's not diminish the fact that Windows used to be a graphical shell over DOS... for many years it was "hiding" DOS from the user...
Linux is a tool not everyone should use. There are idiots who shouldn't use a computer too. The fact that Linux has thrived in spite of Windows and Macintosh speaks more about the users and developers than it does about the drones who buy iPads and iPods because they're "hip". Those people don't use computers... they use appliances.
Here's a tip, though... if you hide everything from the user (a 'la original MacOS and returning to that I might add) it doesn't make them better at using a computer... it just makes them think all computers are magic. Which, in some people's case... I think should remain that way.:)
+ Invent a car with 200MPG fuel efficiency using a proprietary engine and corner the market? Your engine design becomes free domain.
If you believe Google's view... the overall benefit of that car outweighs the profit (short term) of being the only one making one. But look at it this way, the Patent System (if it wasn't inherently broken) would allow the inventor of that car to profit from the invention for a short time (not perpetually like fucking copyright) and when that time had passed, others could build from that engine design and make a 300 or 400MPG car/truck/van/etc.
The trouble is, neither Google's view nor the Patent system work the way they should. The powers that be can game the system in order to prevent newcomers into the marketplace (something the system was never designed to do, or maybe it was, and I'm just too nice about the original motives). Once you benefit the entrenched players in the market, you have ceased to benefit the public and are simply lining your pockets (Federal Government, I'm looking at you.)
All we need to do is look at the battle between DC and AC electricity to see where the exercise of market power through regulatory arms that are supposed to be for the benefit of the whole can lead to messy results (and thankfully, DC didn't catch on... or your neighborhood power plant would be choking the life out of your air as we speak.)
I don't agree that Google's idea of "beneficial to mankind == defacto public" But I do agree that anything invented has a shelf life of exclusivity. A short shelf life, or technology development will grind to a halt. (I hate the word "consumer" too. Makes me feel like I'm a sheep or cow nosing up to the trough.)
I wonder why Vista (which is Windows 7 with more annoying prompts) is excluded? Not being awake enough to check google, when was the last time Microsoft went only 1 version back for an Office Suite?
Anyone willing to spend money on Office 2013 and try to run it on XP is a masochist...:) Keep them away from credit cards... or they'll try.
Funny thing is about all those Tektronix measurement boxes (o-scopes, signal generators, spectrum analyzers) that run XP. Microsoft wanted to get in on the "ground floor" of that little venture, so they sweetened the deal and got XP on them. Now Microsoft wants to make a graceful exit from the XP world, but you just CANNOT with those devices. They are not ma and pa desktop PCs. Microsoft is going to support XP for longer than it cares to, at least in the O-Scope realm. So much for a "good idea" there, Microsoft. You can't kill an OS on a whim when you're in that market.
Granted, they'll kill it for the rest of us, but it'll take SOME time for the myriad of XP powered boxes to cycle through for upgrades to the OS... they aren't things people just "upgrade" on a whim.:) Getting a "new" o-scope isn't something you do when you're out for beer and ice either... so the "upgrade the hardware" bit wont' fly either.:)
Microsoft isn't about the "quick fix"... you think because it hasn't happened yet that they don't (or aren't secretly planning) to do the very thing we're complaining about? Technology will catch up with their mad aspirations, and the fact that it took 20 years doesn't mean they aren't going to do it. It means they are _still_ planning to do it. They have been slowly removing flexibility and freedom from their OS (and treating their users like dirty thieves)... now they intend to finish their scheme by starting down the path of "well, if I make the hardware not work with any other OS, I'm golden." Gives Ballmer a stiffy just thinking about it.
Saying they aren't going to do it is missing the 900lb balding gorilla in the room itching to bend you over the desk.
I got a neat "rotten Apple" sticker from the FSF that begs to differ with your sentiment about Stallman... "and his ilk."
He's right (on this he is VERY right and not off in the weeds with the details like some other things he talks about), and ARM is just solidifying the already convicted company of trying to do an end-round on the market to lock people into their OS and their OS alone. It bit them in the ass once, and now they're trying a different tactic... crippling the hardware.
Sorry, there's nothing "Anti-MS" about this news. It's MOTS from a company (like Apple) that has been fucking us in the ass for years. Thank FSM for Stallman and Linus Torvalds. I refuse to use Windows and I refuse to allow general purpose computing hardware to be compromised so Microsoft can play catchup to its competitors by locking down hardware. The fact that I can rip out my stupid Windows license and install Linux after I unpack my PC is one of the reasons I've not taken a pitchfork to Bill Gates' and Steve Ballmer's collective scrotums. What I would really like to do is take a dump in an envelope and mail back my Windows Recovery CD to Ballmer's office, C.O.D. When they perfect the lockdown on ARM, who doesn't honestly (and with a straight face) believe they won't be doing the exact same thing to x86 platforms? Hmm? If anyone believes that the venerable PC is safe from Microsoft's disease has been asleep for the last 20 or so years...
Indeed... there is an anti-microsoft bent to/. So what? It's obvious and no one pretends to hide it. Bill Gates the Borg should've been clue enough for anyone looking to get a Microsoft circle-jerk out of this site.
It's not about a high-horse. It's about what the people who run (and frequent) the site like. They don't like Windows. I don't like Windows. I haven't used Windows at home since Win98 was bundled with computers. Does that mean I'm on a high horse because I like, and advocate, an OS that doesn't treat one like a criminal as Windows does when it "phones home" to be sure you are not a "dirty thief"? I hate Apple too, but I did have a stint where I liked OS x. The company's practices and desire to turn a computer into an appliance with no possibility of user maintenance or control just steams my beans.
The fact that IE is taking a dive (how precipitous a dive remains to be seen) is not an advocacy of Linux or OS X. It is an acknowledgment that even the most green and inexperienced computer users like to install software they find useful. Be it Chrome or Firefox or Opera or Safari... they aren't going to be fed a line of crap from Redmond that the "one true way" for computing is Windows and what gurgles from the bowels of Microsoft Way.
You should be happy that even the oft-maligned Windows users (oft-maligned on here quite frequently) are getting a clue without being beaten with a cluestick.
Goddamn, life's too short to be pissing contest between Redmond and/. We really just like something else here. If it reeks of an air of superiority, usually that means the person is a windows fan.
It's not that MS is using secure boot.. it's that on the ARM platform, it's mandatory and MS is the gatekeeper (I forget who generates their keys for them.) Now if they suddenly got a wild hair and mandated that for regular X86 stuff... well, we're screwed. I don't mind the use of secure boot _if I have control over it._ I do not trust Microsoft.
We are basing this information on their past behavior that is documented in their Anti-trust hearings and the revealing internal communication that painted (correctly) Microsoft as a cutthroat company bent on domination.:) Sure, that's a bit hyperbolic, but not too far from the truth.
I have no problem with Microsoft requiring OEMs to use secure boot in their ARM devices... but I want the keys. It's my box, not theirs.
People used DOS forever. Was it intuitive? Sure, after you learned a few things. No one needed to know the ins and outs of DOS to be productive, but before the Mac and Windows, mainstream computing (used by businesses, sold to kids from Atari/Commodore, etc.) was a command line interface. I forget who said it, but it is still appropriate: "The only intuitive interface is the nipple. All other interfaces are learned." We can teach command line to new users just as easy as we can a mouse/touchscreen. It isn't about what's more difficult. It's about what we bother to teach the up-and-coming future users...
It's nice that there is a Graphical interface to computing, but it should never be at the expense of the command line. In other words, there should never be an arbitrary "One True Way" to do something with a computer. If someone wants to ignore the command line, that is their choice. Removing it altogether or making it just an afterthought is what the DOS prompt is for Windows XP (and yet, the Powershell is Microsoft's answer to "not everything can be done graphically.")
This reminds me of the desire to eliminate writing since we do lots of communication via computers. That's dumb to a fault, and I think the mentality of a command line being some sort of anachronism is just as dumb.
It's not about being a relic, nor is it about being stuck in the past. It's about being a useful device for everyone. I think we're moving the wrong way by creating the "One True Way" in Tablets and other devices. Just like Oracle (and others) tried to kill the PC a while ago (Ellison's famous "No PC will be below $500")... the industry wants to take the power out of the hands of the user. They're like pushers. They gave the ordinary user power, but now that is cramping their plans. Removing the command line isn't about progress. It is about removing power from the user.
You should look up what is meant by "militia." The "citizen's defense" Remember Minutemen? Your argument doesn't nullify the right of the People to keep and bear arms.
We believe in Individual liberty as codified in our Bill of Rights. Those aren't rights granted by the government. They are rights we have as humans and the Founders knew government (any government) would attempt to curtail those rights, so they wrote them down in the Constitution. While we have had quite a few attempts to circumvent those rights, we generally right the ship and shake the yoke of government tyranny off.
Since you're not an American, I don't expect you to understand. If you'd like to understand, read "The Federalist Papers"... Or anything by Thomas Jefferson.
It's not perfect, but I'd take the Constitution over any other document sanctioning government power any day.
"The right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
Pretty simple. just like the 1st Amendment. Are people who advocate the right of people (like the KKK) to have hateful rhetoric and march in the streets "insecure"? Remember the curious thing about rights... they sometimes protect things you don't like. This whole situation should've been about accidentally starting a fire. Not "target shooting and "zealous" gun right protection."
I have no problem with the gun owners being part of the same group as other careless fire safety. Just like I have no problem with gun owners being held responsible for their actions with the gun. What I have a problem with is this being a "gun regulation" debate. Simply put, it's not about guns. It's about fire safety and a loophole that allows gun owners to skate past the same penalties campfire builders and cigarette tossers contend with. Nothing more. Not about shooting guns "wherever" and open-carry. (which is what most of this thread has degenerated to.)
What I find curious is the ACLU will defend the KKK or whatever fringe nutcases are out there on the grounds of protecting civil liberties, but not once did they go after Illinois or D.C. for their blatant disregard for the 2nd Amendment (which is also considered a liberty codified in the Bill of Rights.) Reminds me of some posters on/. It's okay to defend certain rights... but rights we think are "icky" should be left to wither on the vine.
We can't have it both ways. Either we believe in Individual liberty or we don't. It's not a "shade of gray."
Let me put it another way:
"Not everyone is coming after your right to speak freely." Would you feel the same way if this was about free speech?
I can empathize, and I think that the target shooters were not thinking. But what I can't stand is the summary's blatant attempt to turn this into a gun debate, as if the "zealous protection of gun owners' rights" is somehow wrong and anti-American. It's the 2nd fucking Amendment (I'm not ranting at you, I just had to get this off my chest.) The Supreme Court has correctly interpreted "the People" in the clause of the 2nd Amendment to be individuals. (Just like "the People" in the 1st Amendment)... Utah is not doing anything overtly criminal in making sure all rights, even those that people hate (like free speech and the right to bear arms) are protected. This is purely a matter of fire safety. It has 0 to do with guns. It could've been a cigarette. It is not the gun's or 2nd Amendment's fault.
I think they should be charged and fined as a person(s) who violated a Red Flag warning and built a fire. Nothing about the guns should matter. But I can see/. (in general) loves individual freedom only sometimes.:)
"Guns are bad, mmmmkay?" -- random/. consensus.:-)
Slashdot Mirror
It's kind of funny how Linux was trying to "win", and now that it's obvious such will never happen, you claim it's not possible for Linux to lose.
You have to define "win." Market share? Market cap? Most recognized logo? What does it take to "win" in this little contest? Seems funny to me that when people want to talk about Linux, in a negative way, they think it cannot compete with Windows or Mac. I don't see why not, and considering the proliferation of companies that were once "Windows Only shops" returning again and again to pre-loaded linux machines, I think we're seeing that yes, Linux can compete, but compete to be better than it was yesterday and to be a viable alternative to the costly commercial OSes. It has "won" on both of those counts.
Linux's problems are no different than Windows' problems or Mac's problems in terms of their nature. What _is_ different is how they are dealt with. Nothing is covered up, swept in the corner or "censored" on forum posts in the land of Linux. You can't say that about either Microsoft or Apple. So, come to think of it, Linux did win. It showed the world that open source works. And it showed the world that free things aren't always shit.
Very true... which is why I mentioned "may" in there... what I can't fathom is why weapons, guns, whatever come up in a conversation about banning magnets. And I'm the troll, but he's "insightful". So cute, these moderators... Pushing agendas instead of forwarding the discussion.
Shooting the gun isn't a gross misuse of the gun. It may be illegal to shoot another person, but firing the weapon is what it's designed for.
Swallowing a magnet isn't. Dumbass.
Because we can. :) I am using Debian Squeeze... so, I really don't fall into that category. And neither do most of the people I know who run Linux. Tinkerers are tinkerers, no matter what platform they are on.The nature of Fedora and its community is incremental and frequent upgrades. If you had picked Debian (or perhaps slackware), I'd have been more inclined to see your analogy. In terms of what you're driving at (I think), you mean people who start on Debian and go to Arch or Ubuntu at the drop of a hat. Of course, I can see where OS X is becoming like Fedora in terms of frequency of updates, but considering pieces and parts of Fedora can be upgraded when necessary and even by hand after the community has moved on, it still is a tenuous connection. On the surface, it makes a point if one is referring to the "upgrade treadmill", but Linux doesn't require that at all, and we all know Windows and OS X do (in spite of XP's tenacity.)
My Mini as of now still runs 10.6... It was the last OS from Apple that I thought was good. Now that it's two versions behind, I suspect I will be putting Linux on my Mini so it won't collect dust. :)
I think the argument (more specifically) is that for a while now (thankfully) we CAN stop using OS X or Windows and it won't impact you in the way say, a decade or so ago would. The support and enthusiastic community surrounding all things Linux is very hearty and shows no signs of going anywhere. Things that were "impossible" (or very difficult) in the past are nearly as seamless as or (in the case of certain things) more seamless than the paid counterparts.
For me, the transition to 100% Linux came around the launch of Lion. My new Snow Leopard Mac Mini was humming along, but I was not on board with the changes and felt the new model for Apple was too restrictive for me. It had been a long time coming, in smaller increments of course. The rework under the hood that started after Jaguar was getting to be a problem... (mailbox formats, etc.)
So I put Debian Squeeze on my old Athlon PC and have been running it exclusively for a while now. I used to run a VM of Fedora on my Mini but now that I am having a ball using Debian, I will be making my Mini a full time Linux machine too very soon. Once I bother to get some of my old documents off the Mac. :) I don't even hardly turn the Mini on anymore... :)
As for Windows, I generally avoid it if at all possible. That's just me. I have an XP machine I use to play some old games, but mostly I run them in WINE, which works surprisingly well for strategy games and the like. :)
Here's to hoping they've got their driver-related ducks in a row... methinks they don't... at least not for everything. So while one person is getting sunburned eyes from the speed of the Metro interface, there are a few others who watch their computers implode in a steaming pile of pastel shit.
In other words... I have reservations about how well this will work, and since this is Microsoft... You'll get full hardware acceleration in Windows 9.
The thing that cheeses me off about the entire post is his dismissive about "nerds" as if they are the cause of all his "piracy" ills. First and foremost, market share IS a good indicator of what people want, and Android has that market share. Sure not any single phone manufacturer has Apple beat, but the PLATFORM of Android is eating iOS's lunch, relatively speaking, and continues to do so, in spite of the recent updates to the Apple handset line. I'm not knocking iOS as a platform... if people like it, people like it. But it seems to me that if this blogger was paying attention, he'd realize that people don't WANT a locked down DRM infested, closed and obnoxious to the paying customer platform. THAT is why they pick Android over iOS.
I'm sorry, but this guy's got a boner for iOS and thinks he can't do anything until Android is as locked down and "secure" as his preferred platform. That's not just delusional, but like we nerds say "WE don't CARE what you think."
Sorry Linux guys Bill Gates and IBM beat you too it many decades ago and that is the bad news.
I wasn't aware there had to be winners and losers in the game. Computing thrived with diversity, heck if it wasn't for diversity, we'd all be using some pablum invented by Bill Gates in his dorm... Thank goodness he was chasing rather than innovating... I shudder to think of the alternate universe that would've made.
Linux didn't "lose"... it's free. Linux is doing fine and several companies make a good bit of coin off it. I see Microsoft's "victory" as nothing more than eating a bit more of the pie than the other guys. Apple's got a huge market cap and tons of cash in the bank, yet they aren't even 20% of the PCs sold worldwide... So in the realm of "winners and losers"... we have to be a bit more objective, or at the very least, define what "win" means. Market share? Revenue? Mind share? Brand Loyalty? Whatever you pick, you end up with a different "winner." :) But I applaud Microsoft and Apple for really bullying everyone else for so long.. it makes me feel good that giant corporations want to actively screw me over and sell me the tools to do it with. I'm talking about both Apple and Microsoft in this regard.
As long as there are people who like to do it themselves... there will be Linux. Computing trends come and go, but revolutions stick around...
It's funny, I've got a generic Dell PC I got for $300 from their outlet (Athlon etc etc.) Not a powerhouse, but not a shrinking violet either. I used my Mac Mini to download Debian Squeeze... and in 2 hours, with less interaction than a Windows install... I had a completely functional Linux desktop PC without doing anything in your list, except pick Debian. Back in college, I never got my et4000 card settings right for X on Slackware 0.99 (on floppies no less), but with screen and a familiarity with Amiga's CLI and DOS... I didn't miss it. (Plus that is the first time I got hooked on Nethack...)
Now, in the dim past just about everything was more difficult, to be sure... Getting games to run in DOS was also a magic trick. Then there was the myriad of other things that the CLI (which is where the computer originated) made easier for some, harder for others. Hell, Windows had a devil of a time keeping stable with the myriad of 3rd party drivers out there for Video and Sound cards alone.... Let's not forget NICs and so forth... And let's not diminish the fact that Windows used to be a graphical shell over DOS... for many years it was "hiding" DOS from the user...
Linux is a tool not everyone should use. There are idiots who shouldn't use a computer too. The fact that Linux has thrived in spite of Windows and Macintosh speaks more about the users and developers than it does about the drones who buy iPads and iPods because they're "hip". Those people don't use computers... they use appliances.
Here's a tip, though... if you hide everything from the user (a 'la original MacOS and returning to that I might add) it doesn't make them better at using a computer... it just makes them think all computers are magic. Which, in some people's case... I think should remain that way. :)
+ Invent a car with 200MPG fuel efficiency using a proprietary engine and corner the market? Your engine design becomes free domain.
If you believe Google's view... the overall benefit of that car outweighs the profit (short term) of being the only one making one. But look at it this way, the Patent System (if it wasn't inherently broken) would allow the inventor of that car to profit from the invention for a short time (not perpetually like fucking copyright) and when that time had passed, others could build from that engine design and make a 300 or 400MPG car/truck/van/etc.
The trouble is, neither Google's view nor the Patent system work the way they should. The powers that be can game the system in order to prevent newcomers into the marketplace (something the system was never designed to do, or maybe it was, and I'm just too nice about the original motives). Once you benefit the entrenched players in the market, you have ceased to benefit the public and are simply lining your pockets (Federal Government, I'm looking at you.)
All we need to do is look at the battle between DC and AC electricity to see where the exercise of market power through regulatory arms that are supposed to be for the benefit of the whole can lead to messy results (and thankfully, DC didn't catch on... or your neighborhood power plant would be choking the life out of your air as we speak.)
I don't agree that Google's idea of "beneficial to mankind == defacto public" But I do agree that anything invented has a shelf life of exclusivity. A short shelf life, or technology development will grind to a halt. (I hate the word "consumer" too. Makes me feel like I'm a sheep or cow nosing up to the trough.)
Or, more specifically "Steve's gone, can you stop being flaming vaginas now?"
He's shaved since then, though....
I wonder why Vista (which is Windows 7 with more annoying prompts) is excluded? Not being awake enough to check google, when was the last time Microsoft went only 1 version back for an Office Suite?
Anyone willing to spend money on Office 2013 and try to run it on XP is a masochist... :) Keep them away from credit cards... or they'll try.
Funny thing is about all those Tektronix measurement boxes (o-scopes, signal generators, spectrum analyzers) that run XP. Microsoft wanted to get in on the "ground floor" of that little venture, so they sweetened the deal and got XP on them. Now Microsoft wants to make a graceful exit from the XP world, but you just CANNOT with those devices. They are not ma and pa desktop PCs. Microsoft is going to support XP for longer than it cares to, at least in the O-Scope realm. So much for a "good idea" there, Microsoft. You can't kill an OS on a whim when you're in that market.
Granted, they'll kill it for the rest of us, but it'll take SOME time for the myriad of XP powered boxes to cycle through for upgrades to the OS... they aren't things people just "upgrade" on a whim. :) Getting a "new" o-scope isn't something you do when you're out for beer and ice either... so the "upgrade the hardware" bit wont' fly either. :)
Microsoft isn't about the "quick fix"... you think because it hasn't happened yet that they don't (or aren't secretly planning) to do the very thing we're complaining about? Technology will catch up with their mad aspirations, and the fact that it took 20 years doesn't mean they aren't going to do it. It means they are _still_ planning to do it. They have been slowly removing flexibility and freedom from their OS (and treating their users like dirty thieves)... now they intend to finish their scheme by starting down the path of "well, if I make the hardware not work with any other OS, I'm golden." Gives Ballmer a stiffy just thinking about it.
Saying they aren't going to do it is missing the 900lb balding gorilla in the room itching to bend you over the desk.
I got a neat "rotten Apple" sticker from the FSF that begs to differ with your sentiment about Stallman... "and his ilk."
He's right (on this he is VERY right and not off in the weeds with the details like some other things he talks about), and ARM is just solidifying the already convicted company of trying to do an end-round on the market to lock people into their OS and their OS alone. It bit them in the ass once, and now they're trying a different tactic... crippling the hardware.
Sorry, there's nothing "Anti-MS" about this news. It's MOTS from a company (like Apple) that has been fucking us in the ass for years. Thank FSM for Stallman and Linus Torvalds. I refuse to use Windows and I refuse to allow general purpose computing hardware to be compromised so Microsoft can play catchup to its competitors by locking down hardware. The fact that I can rip out my stupid Windows license and install Linux after I unpack my PC is one of the reasons I've not taken a pitchfork to Bill Gates' and Steve Ballmer's collective scrotums. What I would really like to do is take a dump in an envelope and mail back my Windows Recovery CD to Ballmer's office, C.O.D. When they perfect the lockdown on ARM, who doesn't honestly (and with a straight face) believe they won't be doing the exact same thing to x86 platforms? Hmm? If anyone believes that the venerable PC is safe from Microsoft's disease has been asleep for the last 20 or so years...
Maybe they're into moobs. :)
Indeed... there is an anti-microsoft bent to /. So what? It's obvious and no one pretends to hide it. Bill Gates the Borg should've been clue enough for anyone looking to get a Microsoft circle-jerk out of this site.
It's not about a high-horse. It's about what the people who run (and frequent) the site like. They don't like Windows. I don't like Windows. I haven't used Windows at home since Win98 was bundled with computers. Does that mean I'm on a high horse because I like, and advocate, an OS that doesn't treat one like a criminal as Windows does when it "phones home" to be sure you are not a "dirty thief"? I hate Apple too, but I did have a stint where I liked OS x. The company's practices and desire to turn a computer into an appliance with no possibility of user maintenance or control just steams my beans.
The fact that IE is taking a dive (how precipitous a dive remains to be seen) is not an advocacy of Linux or OS X. It is an acknowledgment that even the most green and inexperienced computer users like to install software they find useful. Be it Chrome or Firefox or Opera or Safari... they aren't going to be fed a line of crap from Redmond that the "one true way" for computing is Windows and what gurgles from the bowels of Microsoft Way.
You should be happy that even the oft-maligned Windows users (oft-maligned on here quite frequently) are getting a clue without being beaten with a cluestick.
Goddamn, life's too short to be pissing contest between Redmond and /. We really just like something else here. If it reeks of an air of superiority, usually that means the person is a windows fan.
It's not that MS is using secure boot.. it's that on the ARM platform, it's mandatory and MS is the gatekeeper (I forget who generates their keys for them.) Now if they suddenly got a wild hair and mandated that for regular X86 stuff... well, we're screwed. I don't mind the use of secure boot _if I have control over it._ I do not trust Microsoft.
We are basing this information on their past behavior that is documented in their Anti-trust hearings and the revealing internal communication that painted (correctly) Microsoft as a cutthroat company bent on domination. :) Sure, that's a bit hyperbolic, but not too far from the truth.
I have no problem with Microsoft requiring OEMs to use secure boot in their ARM devices... but I want the keys. It's my box, not theirs.
People used DOS forever. Was it intuitive? Sure, after you learned a few things. No one needed to know the ins and outs of DOS to be productive, but before the Mac and Windows, mainstream computing (used by businesses, sold to kids from Atari/Commodore, etc.) was a command line interface. I forget who said it, but it is still appropriate: "The only intuitive interface is the nipple. All other interfaces are learned." We can teach command line to new users just as easy as we can a mouse/touchscreen. It isn't about what's more difficult. It's about what we bother to teach the up-and-coming future users...
It's nice that there is a Graphical interface to computing, but it should never be at the expense of the command line. In other words, there should never be an arbitrary "One True Way" to do something with a computer. If someone wants to ignore the command line, that is their choice. Removing it altogether or making it just an afterthought is what the DOS prompt is for Windows XP (and yet, the Powershell is Microsoft's answer to "not everything can be done graphically.")
This reminds me of the desire to eliminate writing since we do lots of communication via computers. That's dumb to a fault, and I think the mentality of a command line being some sort of anachronism is just as dumb.
It's not about being a relic, nor is it about being stuck in the past. It's about being a useful device for everyone. I think we're moving the wrong way by creating the "One True Way" in Tablets and other devices. Just like Oracle (and others) tried to kill the PC a while ago (Ellison's famous "No PC will be below $500")... the industry wants to take the power out of the hands of the user. They're like pushers. They gave the ordinary user power, but now that is cramping their plans. Removing the command line isn't about progress. It is about removing power from the user.
Now they won't even ship you the DVD... you have to use the App Store. :) Bunch of cheap bastards, Apple.
You should look up what is meant by "militia." The "citizen's defense" Remember Minutemen? Your argument doesn't nullify the right of the People to keep and bear arms.
We believe in Individual liberty as codified in our Bill of Rights. Those aren't rights granted by the government. They are rights we have as humans and the Founders knew government (any government) would attempt to curtail those rights, so they wrote them down in the Constitution. While we have had quite a few attempts to circumvent those rights, we generally right the ship and shake the yoke of government tyranny off.
Since you're not an American, I don't expect you to understand. If you'd like to understand, read "The Federalist Papers"... Or anything by Thomas Jefferson.
It's not perfect, but I'd take the Constitution over any other document sanctioning government power any day.
"The right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
Pretty simple. just like the 1st Amendment. Are people who advocate the right of people (like the KKK) to have hateful rhetoric and march in the streets "insecure"? Remember the curious thing about rights... they sometimes protect things you don't like. This whole situation should've been about accidentally starting a fire. Not "target shooting and "zealous" gun right protection."
I have no problem with the gun owners being part of the same group as other careless fire safety. Just like I have no problem with gun owners being held responsible for their actions with the gun. What I have a problem with is this being a "gun regulation" debate. Simply put, it's not about guns. It's about fire safety and a loophole that allows gun owners to skate past the same penalties campfire builders and cigarette tossers contend with. Nothing more. Not about shooting guns "wherever" and open-carry. (which is what most of this thread has degenerated to.)
What I find curious is the ACLU will defend the KKK or whatever fringe nutcases are out there on the grounds of protecting civil liberties, but not once did they go after Illinois or D.C. for their blatant disregard for the 2nd Amendment (which is also considered a liberty codified in the Bill of Rights.) Reminds me of some posters on /. It's okay to defend certain rights... but rights we think are "icky" should be left to wither on the vine.
We can't have it both ways. Either we believe in Individual liberty or we don't. It's not a "shade of gray."
Let me put it another way:
"Not everyone is coming after your right to speak freely." Would you feel the same way if this was about free speech?
I can empathize, and I think that the target shooters were not thinking. But what I can't stand is the summary's blatant attempt to turn this into a gun debate, as if the "zealous protection of gun owners' rights" is somehow wrong and anti-American. It's the 2nd fucking Amendment (I'm not ranting at you, I just had to get this off my chest.) The Supreme Court has correctly interpreted "the People" in the clause of the 2nd Amendment to be individuals. (Just like "the People" in the 1st Amendment)... Utah is not doing anything overtly criminal in making sure all rights, even those that people hate (like free speech and the right to bear arms) are protected. This is purely a matter of fire safety. It has 0 to do with guns. It could've been a cigarette. It is not the gun's or 2nd Amendment's fault.
I think they should be charged and fined as a person(s) who violated a Red Flag warning and built a fire. Nothing about the guns should matter. But I can see /. (in general) loves individual freedom only sometimes. :)
"Guns are bad, mmmmkay?" -- random /. consensus. :-)