I feel tired of all this RIAA crap suing dead grandmothers, little children. Apple leaving me with a impression it's ripping people off and other things. All these DRM technologies coming out every year and media double speak.
I haven't bought a CD or bought music online in years, I'm just sick of this crap and want nothing to-do with it.
How is this working out for me? I'm not really bothered by it.
I can't even figure out what people are sending me in SMSes half the time, and you're going to tell me that a country is going to be able to parse out immoral messages from these messages... Hah!
I still feel that is an issue, because even if another party was interested, I some how doubt they would have this all organized and prepared like FreeBSD foundation was immediately.
but another party interested in a free project could always step in and take over the codebase just prior to the license change and go from there, exactly as what happened with the X11 codebase recently.
Looking at the history on wikipedia (checking the citations too), I see quite a lot of time being wasted between the Open Group and the XFree86 project. This isn't just a simple switch as your comment at least seemed to imply.
The BSD license is absolutely no different to the GPL in that regard, what you have in your possession does not change license under your nose.
I'm not arguing the differences between the GPL and BSD, just wondering about how possible it is for the FreeBSD foundation to privatize.
I suppose it wouldn't benefit them long term because of the already existing free alternatives and the fact anyone could adapt their last released code code and become the new 'FreeBSD'. But then again, from this point the FreeBSD foundation probably wouldn't be concerned about being fully opensource, but about some other goal like making money.
(This said, I do not believe the FreeBSD foundation would really take such a step anyway)
Why on Earth does MS insist on putting a blimmin menu bar on every window/application on the screen? Surely you can't use them all at the same time?
They don't. Infact that's one of the reason why I prefer Windows/KDE to OS X.
A application doesn't have to have a menu bar if it doesn't need it. Just look at xmms/winamp, Microsoft Office 2007... Hell, in firefox I move the the bookmarks toolbar object right next to the menubar. It's a more efficient use of space.
Next time you're on Windows, try this: Open up a spreadsheet and a text-based document and maybe even an image in an image app. Try to get them all to show as much of themselves as possible on the screen, next to each other with no overlap.
Done at 1024x768 with openoffice and the gimp (to be fair we're using the same applications -- which would be the applications I would use anyway).
Now try the same on a Mac at the same resolution.
Done with the same applications.
Which do you think gives more viewable area for all windows? If you're working in one particular window but want to see the contents of another, do you really want to see the controls for the other window/app right in the middle of the screen?
Windows, whitebar still takes more screen real-estate (even when just comparing the menubar height).
If you're working in one particular window but want to see the contents of another, do you really want to see the controls for the other window/app right in the middle of the screen? Shouldn't they be "tucked up in the top", out of the way?
Well, it can be useful if I want to access the menu of another application with one click.
Personally I prefer KDE over Windows and OS X, using the Windows style of menus (since KDE can mimick OS X's menubar) because with KDE I can tell it to keep certain windows ontop/below others, thus letting me use more of my screen real estate.
If I want an OS that Just Works, I go with Mac OS X.
I go with Linux -- I have no time to waste figuring out why the X11 server can't copy/paste or why Samba broke in this minor version etc.
If I want an OS to play video games, I go with Windows.
If I want to play video games.. Again, I use Linux because I still tend to get noticable better performance on it, even if the game itself is running under Wine.
If I want an OS that's open-source, I go with Debian, Ubuntu, OpenBSD or NetBSD.
This might sound funny... But I'm not actually interested in open-source that much to decide using a OS over it.
I've never understood the point of the commercial Linux distros.
That depends entirely on the distribution. Some distributions are targeted towards the enterprise desktop (Like SuSE enterprise desktop) which really -- do work well in the enterprise. Distributions like Mandriva (I haven't used the desktop version in over a year admittedly) do actually make the desktop somewhat easier , for example Mandriva comes with tools like harddrake, a GUI application that makes it easy to change device parameters that you would usually change with commands like 'rmmod && modprobe thingy=woo" etc.
they don't make it any easier to play Windows games or run Windows apps
I do believe a commercial distribution some time ago called Lindows was targeted to that purpose -- I never really touched it so I can't comment on it.
and if you wanted a serious server-grade Un*x, you might as well go with Solaris.
Solaris does not run on A LOT of hardware, no need to mention there isn't vast repositories of software offered like those in SuSE, or hell even Ubuntu's. I have heard that Solaris is supposed to be the most advanced operating system in the world. But so far in my own practical use speed comparisons, it doesn't really do very good against Linux systems and the advantages of the OS I keep reading about seem to be more about development than anything else. I don't really see how that makes it more worthy of being a server.
Hell, looking even at the management tools for things like bind, AD integration, apache configuration... I certainly prefer SuSE's YaST2. The little slow java utilities I've used on Solaris don't make up for the same functionality and editing the configurations manually doesn't mean I get the job done as fast as I should of done (although there are certainly instances where I will need to edit things manually -- but Solaris doesn't really offer a superior benefit here either, it's the same).
IE is similar in that the Help system (as well as other systems) are tied into the browser. *Some* form of browser must be delivered or else all that has to be reworked (again).
It has been reworked in Vista, Microsoft themselves have claimed they have separated IE from the shell. They're still shipping IE with Vista.
You completely missed the point. It doesn't matter if Microsoft is the one who makes a package, it's if they choose one to deliver with the OS. If they choose *any* reasonable package, someone will cry about it.
I can assure you there are people who will cry about anything no matter what. This is irrelevant.
As far as those other packages you mentioned, various competing vendors DID get upset that Microsoft bundled them.
And nothing happened from what I saw. Windows Movie Maker, Windows media player was still shipped just fine.
This was, to a fair degree, an appeasement to those other vendors.
I don't think you even remember the real reason why Microsoft was seen as anti-competitive, they were FORCING OEMs to not bundle things like Netscape with their OS and additionally conviently including IE in their OS -- That is anti-competitive.
When doing support over IRC/IM, I personally find it a lot easier getting the user to copy and paste commands into a terminal window than guiding them through GUIs, which they will persist doesn't have the button/tab/menu item I tell them to click or they will get confused part way and skip some instruction accidentally which messes it all up.
To this day, I still have problems with people who insist they don't have a "start menu" under Windows.
If you want a secure Linux, you do need the equivalent of UAC - sudo.
Actually it's gksudo or kdesu.
Additionally, these prompts should usually only appear when starting a configuration application, some application that needs low level access or when granting a configuration tool temporary rights to change items, it should never appear in the middle of using a normal user application -- like I've seen on Vista.
It take a little bit of editing your xorg.conf file but I got it running on ubuntu fiesty with an ati card to boot. And I am a linux noob. There are a few walk through on the beryl site for those interested.
I got it working on Kubuntu Fiesty without editing the xorg.conf. I just installed beryl-manager (with the Emerald theme) package(s) and started it, worked immediately.
And while you waste away the hours getting your wireless set up, I can click on my wireless connection, select my neighbors network and BAM! I'm online.
My wireless works out of the box, unlike in Windows. Windows XP didn't come with drivers. My "Designed for Windows XP" wireless does not work under Windows because the drivers (latest and the ones that came on the CD) only work on SP1 and lower.
Yes there are instances where things don't work out of the box on Linux, but there are instances where it doesn't work on Windows when the hardware is even additionally "designed" for it. Such as in my example.
Yes, Vista is graphics intensive and requires some ROBUST hardware to run with all of the eye candy.
I have seen Ubuntu Linux with Beryl using a Vista-like theme and Vista with Aero running side by side..
The difference between the hardware was that the Ubuntu system was running two year old hardware and Vista was using very new hardware. The Ubuntu system performed just as well.
If eye candy were not important, wouldn't everything run from Command line?
Use your brain. I can't view pictures in the command line, can I? A command line isn't always the best concept when it comes to a interface for the user. I certainly wouldn't want to use a command line to draw pictures or make a website (can you imagine typing
The problem is that Ubuntu is allowed to include these type things with the distribution while Microsoft *cannot* include similar functionality by law and/or threat of monopoly.
Microsoft adds backup utilities, movie production software, desktop search etc.
The 'law' decreed that Microsoft remove IE from Windows, did they do that? No.
Sorry, the anti-competitive mush isn't a excuse.
The equivalent of Ubuntu's inclusion of OpenOffice would be the inclusion of the same (or Office). How quickly do you think the EU and everyone else (particularly those companies who have their own competing product) would complain and get that stopped in its tracks?
I don't think it could be stopped. They haven't managed to stop even Internet Explorer.
Similar argument for Paint vs The Gimp or any other similar product?
Eh? What competing product to the Gimp does Microsoft have?
I can understand that one doesn't want to change a working system, but in todays world, NIS really doesn't have any place anymore - at all.
Do you really want all your l33t users try
ypcat passwd > file &&./john passwd ?
I have no idea how exactly their network infrastructure is setup or secured. It's not impossible to secure NIS against such things but it's probably not going to help against a random unsecured laptop being plugged into the network.
And how much money was spent to make sure those HPs had AV, antispyware, and a firewall?
Windows comes with a firewall, where have you been? And the anti-spyware and AV probably came with the computer.
hen how long will they last?
Well, I don't know how long I can support on hardware from HP for, but I know with Apple it's only (corporate-type support) for hardware younger than three years old. So, three years for the Macs.
I'm typing this on an HP Pavilion I bought new. In the first year both the hdd and the motherboard had to be replaced.
Every single mac I've owned have had at least one 'logicboard failure' among numerous other hardware issues...:/
Because it was under warranty it didn't cost me anything to repair but when the motherboard took a dive I was without my PC for a few days then when the hdd dove I lost another couple of days.
Here is a single story of my issues with Apple (I don't really feel like typing out all my horrible experiences with them): After convincing them that there really is a problem which they refuse to believe. I send them MBP to fix the whining issue, goes to them, waiting months, comes back untouched.
I send it again, it gets 'lost' for a month, they find it, reinstall OS X but the whining is still there. I give up because I really don't have anymore time to waste doing crap. The MBP still whines to this day.
Lastly, Linux drivers don't matter much, because Linux software runs on Macs.
ROFL.
I suppose you could call it 'running', but with how things crash and are poorly supported on OS X, I would not trade in my Linux install for a OS X install. Hell, ever since X11 came out on OS X, they can't even get clipboards working properly. It either doesn't work at all, or can only copy just a bit of the content you selected etc. (note, the X11 servers on windows can do this, and they can even do DRAG AND DROP).
It will always be easy to install GNOME or KDE on OS X.
Really? You see.. I tried, from trying to find the right versions of tools to compile KDE to setting up a build environment on OS X, I find it insanely difficult. Which, in the end didn't work. I want to use KDE stable, 3.5.6, I don't want to use outdated KDE 3.4, nor experimental KDE4.x.
I want to use Krita, no, no option there. I want to use Amarok, no, no option there. Hell, maybe I want to use StarOffice -- How do I do that? What about Novell's openoffice fork that has decent vb macro support?
Stop bullshitting, Linux software does not run on OS X unmodified and I refuse to migrate to OS X on my main desktop (I do run it however) because a lot of the software I enjoy just isn't available at all on OS X. Nevermind having to deal with OS X's issues.
First off,.net is very locked into window for all practical putposes, and that is bad.
From Mono's homepage:
Mono provides the necessary software to develop and run.NET client and server applications on Linux, Solaris, Mac OS X, Windows, and Unix. Sponsored by Novell (http://www.novell.com), the Mono open source project has an active and enthusiastic contributing community and is positioned to become the leading choice for development of Linux applications.
Hmm, sorry, I disagree with you.
Bad software architecture, bad for legacy, and it locks you in.
How?
Second, When Macs start getting IT enterprise market share, you will see a.net frame work appear for it.
Assuming you're talking about Microsoft and not the Mono porject, they made one for FreeBSD. I guess FreeBSD has more market share than OS X.
Third, Yes, I know theere is a demand for.net, and I do it myself. That doesn't make it good for the company.
Slashdot Mirror
Or, do what I do.
I feel tired of all this RIAA crap suing dead grandmothers, little children. Apple leaving me with a impression it's ripping people off and other things. All these DRM technologies coming out every year and media double speak.
I haven't bought a CD or bought music online in years, I'm just sick of this crap and want nothing to-do with it.
How is this working out for me? I'm not really bothered by it.
Your points don't really make sense unless it does cost Apple more money todo this than "needing packaging, delivery trucks, shelf space" etc.
I'm willing to wager that it doesn't.
Don't worry, you can reencode flac files to another format without the risk of horrible artifacts (which would be a issue if they were AAC or MP3).
I can't even figure out what people are sending me in SMSes half the time, and you're going to tell me that a country is going to be able to parse out immoral messages from these messages... Hah!
I suppose it wouldn't benefit them long term because of the already existing free alternatives and the fact anyone could adapt their last released code code and become the new 'FreeBSD'. But then again, from this point the FreeBSD foundation probably wouldn't be concerned about being fully opensource, but about some other goal like making money.
(This said, I do not believe the FreeBSD foundation would really take such a step anyway)
A application doesn't have to have a menu bar if it doesn't need it. Just look at xmms/winamp, Microsoft Office 2007... Hell, in firefox I move the the bookmarks toolbar object right next to the menubar. It's a more efficient use of space.Done at 1024x768 with openoffice and the gimp (to be fair we're using the same applications -- which would be the applications I would use anyway).Done with the same applications.Windows, whitebar still takes more screen real-estate (even when just comparing the menubar height).Well, it can be useful if I want to access the menu of another application with one click.
Personally I prefer KDE over Windows and OS X, using the Windows style of menus (since KDE can mimick OS X's menubar) because with KDE I can tell it to keep certain windows ontop/below others, thus letting me use more of my screen real estate.
Hell, looking even at the management tools for things like bind, AD integration, apache configuration... I certainly prefer SuSE's YaST2. The little slow java utilities I've used on Solaris don't make up for the same functionality and editing the configurations manually doesn't mean I get the job done as fast as I should of done (although there are certainly instances where I will need to edit things manually -- but Solaris doesn't really offer a superior benefit here either, it's the same).
When doing support over IRC/IM, I personally find it a lot easier getting the user to copy and paste commands into a terminal window than guiding them through GUIs, which they will persist doesn't have the button/tab/menu item I tell them to click or they will get confused part way and skip some instruction accidentally which messes it all up.
To this day, I still have problems with people who insist they don't have a "start menu" under Windows.
Additionally, these prompts should usually only appear when starting a configuration application, some application that needs low level access or when granting a configuration tool temporary rights to change items, it should never appear in the middle of using a normal user application -- like I've seen on Vista.
Yes there are instances where things don't work out of the box on Linux, but there are instances where it doesn't work on Windows when the hardware is even additionally "designed" for it. Such as in my example.I have seen Ubuntu Linux with Beryl using a Vista-like theme and Vista with Aero running side by side..
The difference between the hardware was that the Ubuntu system was running two year old hardware and Vista was using very new hardware. The Ubuntu system performed just as well.Use your brain. I can't view pictures in the command line, can I? A command line isn't always the best concept when it comes to a interface for the user. I certainly wouldn't want to use a command line to draw pictures or make a website (can you imagine typing for html work? That would be hell annoying. This is why we have terminal editors even.
The reason why we have GUIs (and TUIs) is not for eye-candy specifically but for usability. Eye-candy is just icing on the cake.
The 'law' decreed that Microsoft remove IE from Windows, did they do that? No.
Sorry, the anti-competitive mush isn't a excuse.I don't think it could be stopped. They haven't managed to stop even Internet Explorer.Eh? What competing product to the Gimp does Microsoft have?
...
Yeah, maybe a few years ago. How I installed Java, Flash, mp3 support etc. all in one go:
Installed the meta package 'ubuntu-restricted-extras', that was it.
You can enable ACL filesystem support in Linux, it's just not turned on by default.
After convincing them that there really is a problem which they refuse to believe. I send them MBP to fix the whining issue, goes to them, waiting months, comes back untouched.
I send it again, it gets 'lost' for a month, they find it, reinstall OS X but the whining is still there. I give up because I really don't have anymore time to waste doing crap. The MBP still whines to this day.
I suppose you could call it 'running', but with how things crash and are poorly supported on OS X, I would not trade in my Linux install for a OS X install. Hell, ever since X11 came out on OS X, they can't even get clipboards working properly. It either doesn't work at all, or can only copy just a bit of the content you selected etc. (note, the X11 servers on windows can do this, and they can even do DRAG AND DROP).Really? You see.. I tried, from trying to find the right versions of tools to compile KDE to setting up a build environment on OS X, I find it insanely difficult. Which, in the end didn't work. I want to use KDE stable, 3.5.6, I don't want to use outdated KDE 3.4, nor experimental KDE4.x.
I want to use Krita, no, no option there. I want to use Amarok, no, no option there. Hell, maybe I want to use StarOffice -- How do I do that? What about Novell's openoffice fork that has decent vb macro support?
Stop bullshitting, Linux software does not run on OS X unmodified and I refuse to migrate to OS X on my main desktop (I do run it however) because a lot of the software I enjoy just isn't available at all on OS X. Nevermind having to deal with OS X's issues.