Either Windows is the standard and its emulation the ultimate goal or Windows is junk to be ignored. Which is it Linux? The only people who have satisfactorily answered that question are the fine folks over at Apple. They've forged their own path while Linux strives to be "more like Windows".
You think that Linux, a kernel, strives to be "more like Windows"? Ignore your zeroth order error in anthropormorphizing a computer program, and your first order error in suggesting that the Linux kernel wants to be an operating system.
Assuming you mean the gnu/linux operating system wants to be like the Windows operating system, you are still full of shit.
Plenty of people use gnu/linux without a windowing system. Is the OS they are using striving to be like windows? I can't see how it is.
Plenty of people use gnu/linux with a minimal window manager, such as fluxbox or fvwm. Is the OS they are using striving to be like windows? If you think that Windows invented the idea of gui's and graphics, perhaps. But any rational person would conclude that they are using totally differnt operating system.
Plenty of people use gnu/linux with a window manager such as Windowmaker or XFCE, which has some similarities to Windows, but is very differrent. Perhaps you think these window managers to be striving to be like windows. If so, then you might want to take a closer look at these window managers. XFCE has more in common with OSX or CDE, and Windowmaker is a clone of the NEXTSTeP interface.
And then there is GNOME and KDE, desktop environments which do strive to create an environment similar to Windows or OSX. So what you are really saying is that the dekstop environments that try to be like Windows are trying to be like Windows.
I think this is a horrible idea. When you have to offer bounties to encourage people to alter open source, then you're basically hiring and paying programmers...Open source isn't about hiring and paying people, it's about everyone working together to make better software for themselves.
I think you are confusing Open Source Software and Ken Kesey's Magic School Bus. One solution to this problem is for your to do way less drugs.
Apparently, the possibility that it might be banks and hospitals that are discovering these bugs didn't occur to them.
Please name the banks or hospitals that upgrade kernels every time Linus make a point release. If they really exist, I want to be sure to stay clear of them.
In the final analysis, the numbers are all arbitrary; any sense of pride in your work or shame about your mistakes is a personal issue.
Take Apple as an example. You could strip the 10 off of 10.3.8 and say that they are on version 3.8 of OS X. That means that version 4.0 is just around the corner, and that makes their turn-around cycle sound that much more impressive.
Let me see if I follow you. Versioning is meaningless and abritrary, unless you are Apple, and then the version numbering reveals how amazing of a company you really are?
Preferring one UI over the other has nothing to do with it. Assuming the different UI doesn't work because it's not identical to Windows shows that you're either unwilling or unable to learn anything new.
True. But the poster's point was that everyone should try using a Mac before they buy it, because they, like him, might find out that they really don't like the way the OSX interface works. You are inferring that he couldn't learn anything new. What he actually said was "The way OS X handles windows and programs is a lot different, and I find it uncomfortable".
Someone who's able to switch between Windows, Linux, and a Mac and use them all is not an idiot, even if he or she strongly prefers one over the others.
Considering that the poster also described the specific OSX issues he didn't like, I think it is fair to say that he was able to use it, although he strongly prefered a different environment. By your logic, he is not an idiot.
I'm too stupid to figure out how to use a Mac, therefore I don't think anyone else should switch.
Translation:
I'm a dick who insults the intelligence of anyone who "thinks different" than I do.
I use linux, but I have seriously been considering buying a Mac for a while. At least, I was considering it until I actually tried using one. I used it for a whole summer, and learned to hate it. Nothing worked like I expected.
I have no problems with Macs in general. I still might buy a MiniMac as a "family room" computer. But there is no way that I could use one as my personal computer. They are designed for a different type of computer user than me.
So why do you insist that someone is a idiot because they don't like the OSX interface? Do you seriously believe that every intelligent person has the exact same view you do about it?
It doesn't crash firefox for everyone else? On both my computers, closing a tab with adobe open (or using the back button to go from a pdf to html) has about a 50% chance of crashing the browser. The newest release of firefox seemed to drop this percentage to about 25%, but that is still way too high.
If you had over 40 billion dollars, would you be willing to give 3 billion to charity?
I am willing to bet that nearly 100% of the population would say yes. If the only thing that matters in terms of assesing generosity is willingness to give, then Bill Gates is no more generous then the rest of the people in the world.
Of course that is not true, because you method of evaluating generosity sucks. In reality, Bill is more generous than much of the population, who would simply keep the money. What is interesting is that Bill is decently generous, and has so much money. It appears that very few peole have both of those traits.
And come on, I don't think that's fair. Look at it from a point of view of the person receiving the gift. If you gave $50 to a homeless man, would he not consider you generous? Might not be much to you, but to him that's like a month's worth of food.
Sure, and therein lies the problem is assessing generosity. Say Bill Gates kept all of him money, except for 500 dollars he gave to a homeless man on the street. By any reasonable standard, Bill is not being generous. Yet that dude that got the 500 bucks would consider Bill generous.
That is why I suggested that generosity is only meaningful in terms of the sacrifice one makes. Perhaps that is not the dictionary definition, but I think it is the only definition worth worrying about.
A person who makes 1 million a year can give away 20% and still make 800,000 a year - which is way more than anyone needs to live comfortably.
A person making 50,000 a year that gives away 20% is down to 40,000 a year - and now they are barely getting by. That 10,000 dollars is going to have a substantial impact on how they are able to live.
Which is why I said that how much you keep is an important factor in how generous you are.
Who is more generous: someone who makes 50K a year, and give 10K to charity, or someone who makes billions and gives billions? I would say that one that makes much less, and still gives a decent fraction of his money to charity.
I don't think the actual sum of money given away is that meaningful. There was no way that Bill could have ever used the money that he gave away.
I suggested elsewhere that generosity is based on what you sacrifice. And Bill has not sacrificed much of anything by giving a few billion off the top of his fortune.
Before he is able to use that 3 billion, he has to use up the other 29 billion.
I have never seen 3 billion dollars, and I never will. I just find it hard to consider somene who keeps billions of dollars for themself a generous person.
Bill has not given, or pledged to give 100% of his wealth.
I doubt that the executives of OSS companies are very generous either. I don't see what this has to do with free versus proprietary software though. It is a question of whether it is generous or not to keep billions of dollars for yourself.
Fine, when you get knighted for your speedy driving, I will complain about that too. Right now we are discussing someone being knighted for donating a small portion of the huge amount of money he obtained illegially.
Slashdot Mirror
Either Windows is the standard and its emulation the ultimate goal or Windows is junk to be ignored. Which is it Linux? The only people who have satisfactorily answered that question are the fine folks over at Apple. They've forged their own path while Linux strives to be "more like Windows".
You think that Linux, a kernel, strives to be "more like Windows"? Ignore your zeroth order error in anthropormorphizing a computer program, and your first order error in suggesting that the Linux kernel wants to be an operating system.
Assuming you mean the gnu/linux operating system wants to be like the Windows operating system, you are still full of shit.
Plenty of people use gnu/linux without a windowing system. Is the OS they are using striving to be like windows? I can't see how it is.
Plenty of people use gnu/linux with a minimal window manager, such as fluxbox or fvwm. Is the OS they are using striving to be like windows? If you think that Windows invented the idea of gui's and graphics, perhaps. But any rational person would conclude that they are using totally differnt operating system.
Plenty of people use gnu/linux with a window manager such as Windowmaker or XFCE, which has some similarities to Windows, but is very differrent. Perhaps you think these window managers to be striving to be like windows. If so, then you might want to take a closer look at these window managers. XFCE has more in common with OSX or CDE, and Windowmaker is a clone of the NEXTSTeP interface.
And then there is GNOME and KDE, desktop environments which do strive to create an environment similar to Windows or OSX. So what you are really saying is that the dekstop environments that try to be like Windows are trying to be like Windows.
Not really that insightful, is it?
The whole article sounds more like a press release than a honest review. Just look at that sentence:
functionality - I don't see a single feature on there that Word doesn't have (pdf writer can easily be added to Word).
reliability - As you point out, how can they know the reliability?
compatability - Okay, this one may be true, especially with the WordPerfect filters.
I think this is a horrible idea. When you have to offer bounties to encourage people to alter open source, then you're basically hiring and paying programmers...Open source isn't about hiring and paying people, it's about everyone working together to make better software for themselves.
I think you are confusing Open Source Software and Ken Kesey's Magic School Bus. One solution to this problem is for your to do way less drugs.
And my first comments were supposed to be taken as a joke and not seriously.
Reading your first comment, I assumed you were som 14 year old kid just trolling. There was no way to tell from your post that you were joking.
Apparently, the possibility that it might be banks and hospitals that are discovering these bugs didn't occur to them.
Please name the banks or hospitals that upgrade kernels every time Linus make a point release. If they really exist, I want to be sure to stay clear of them.
In the final analysis, the numbers are all arbitrary; any sense of pride in your work or shame about your mistakes is a personal issue.
Take Apple as an example. You could strip the 10 off of 10.3.8 and say that they are on version 3.8 of OS X. That means that version 4.0 is just around the corner, and that makes their turn-around cycle sound that much more impressive.
Let me see if I follow you. Versioning is meaningless and abritrary, unless you are Apple, and then the version numbering reveals how amazing of a company you really are?
Preferring one UI over the other has nothing to do with it. Assuming the different UI doesn't work because it's not identical to Windows shows that you're either unwilling or unable to learn anything new.
True. But the poster's point was that everyone should try using a Mac before they buy it, because they, like him, might find out that they really don't like the way the OSX interface works. You are inferring that he couldn't learn anything new. What he actually said was "The way OS X handles windows and programs is a lot different, and I find it uncomfortable".
Someone who's able to switch between Windows, Linux, and a Mac and use them all is not an idiot, even if he or she strongly prefers one over the others.
Considering that the poster also described the specific OSX issues he didn't like, I think it is fair to say that he was able to use it, although he strongly prefered a different environment. By your logic, he is not an idiot.
I'm too stupid to figure out how to use a Mac, therefore I don't think anyone else should switch.
Translation:
I'm a dick who insults the intelligence of anyone who "thinks different" than I do.
I use linux, but I have seriously been considering buying a Mac for a while. At least, I was considering it until I actually tried using one. I used it for a whole summer, and learned to hate it. Nothing worked like I expected.
I have no problems with Macs in general. I still might buy a MiniMac as a "family room" computer. But there is no way that I could use one as my personal computer. They are designed for a different type of computer user than me.
So why do you insist that someone is a idiot because they don't like the OSX interface? Do you seriously believe that every intelligent person has the exact same view you do about it?
It took you two days to come up with this reply?
It doesn't crash firefox for everyone else? On both my computers, closing a tab with adobe open (or using the back button to go from a pdf to html) has about a 50% chance of crashing the browser. The newest release of firefox seemed to drop this percentage to about 25%, but that is still way too high.
Poll hundreds of people with this question:
If you had over 40 billion dollars, would you be willing to give 3 billion to charity?
I am willing to bet that nearly 100% of the population would say yes. If the only thing that matters in terms of assesing generosity is willingness to give, then Bill Gates is no more generous then the rest of the people in the world.
Of course that is not true, because you method of evaluating generosity sucks. In reality, Bill is more generous than much of the population, who would simply keep the money. What is interesting is that Bill is decently generous, and has so much money. It appears that very few peole have both of those traits.
And come on, I don't think that's fair. Look at it from a point of view of the person receiving the gift. If you gave $50 to a homeless man, would he not consider you generous? Might not be much to you, but to him that's like a month's worth of food.
Sure, and therein lies the problem is assessing generosity. Say Bill Gates kept all of him money, except for 500 dollars he gave to a homeless man on the street. By any reasonable standard, Bill is not being generous. Yet that dude that got the 500 bucks would consider Bill generous.
That is why I suggested that generosity is only meaningful in terms of the sacrifice one makes. Perhaps that is not the dictionary definition, but I think it is the only definition worth worrying about.
No, percentages are pretty meaningless too.
A person who makes 1 million a year can give away 20% and still make 800,000 a year - which is way more than anyone needs to live comfortably.
A person making 50,000 a year that gives away 20% is down to 40,000 a year - and now they are barely getting by. That 10,000 dollars is going to have a substantial impact on how they are able to live.
Which is why I said that how much you keep is an important factor in how generous you are.
Who is more generous: someone who makes 50K a year, and give 10K to charity, or someone who makes billions and gives billions? I would say that one that makes much less, and still gives a decent fraction of his money to charity.
I don't think the actual sum of money given away is that meaningful. There was no way that Bill could have ever used the money that he gave away.
I suggested elsewhere that generosity is based on what you sacrifice. And Bill has not sacrificed much of anything by giving a few billion off the top of his fortune.
Before he is able to use that 3 billion, he has to use up the other 29 billion.
I have never seen 3 billion dollars, and I never will. I just find it hard to consider somene who keeps billions of dollars for themself a generous person.
As of 2004, he had pledged 37 % of his wealth. I don't think your math works out.
Forbes
Bill has not given, or pledged to give 100% of his wealth.
I doubt that the executives of OSS companies are very generous either. I don't see what this has to do with free versus proprietary software though. It is a question of whether it is generous or not to keep billions of dollars for yourself.
How is it generous to give away something you will never be able to use? I think Generosity requires some sort of sacrafice on the part of the giver.
10% of 32 billion is approximately 3 billion, so he has about 29 billion left.
What facts do I have wrong? Gates has pledged a lot of money, but he hasn't actually given it. He didn't even give the most money this year: Slate
And what is this about the moral high ground? Am I not allowed to criticize anyone with more money than me?
So after giving away 10% of his networth, he has 29 billion dollars left. How is it generous to keep 29 billion dollars?
Fine, when you get knighted for your speedy driving, I will complain about that too. Right now we are discussing someone being knighted for donating a small portion of the huge amount of money he obtained illegially.
The dude has billions of dollars - more money than anyone else in the world. It is really that generous of him to give small fractions of it away?
Thats funny. KDE drives me nuts because they cram the icons so close together. GNOME looks so much more pleasant with plenty of space between icons.
To each his own, I suppose.
However, I've seen nothing that indicates there is ANY such "secret law"
Sometimes the stupididity on slashdot makes me want to cry.
Nice. Made me laugh out loud. Or maybe it was the wine that made me laugh out loud. Either way, your post was on the screen when it happened.