You are right about the fact that most people don't care about whether or not their computer is an x86 or a PPC or some other architecture. But what about the people who do care about what CPU their computer is running (e.g., assembly hackers, people who love programming on very low levels, etc.)? For years, this group of people liked the Mac simply it offered a Unix-based operating system based on a PowerPC, whose architecture is much more elegant compared to the x86. They used Macs mostly because there weren't any other options left (Alpha is dead, VAX died a long time ago, Motorola 68k is relegated to embedded computers, etc.). Now that Macs aren't going to use the PPC anymore, that means that all of those geeks are going to have to deal with the x86 forever, no matter how much we love it or hate it.
Oh well, so much for non-x86 personal computers. It looks like that group of people who love working on non-x86 computers would take advantage of embedded computing, which contains a multitude of fun and interesting platforms to choose from. With Linux/NetBSD and other FOSS software around, I feel that embedded computing would start looking like an interesting alternative in a few years.
First Apple switches to Intel chips. Next, there is finally a Debian release. What's next? Microsoft giving away old versions of Office and Windows? Longhorn coming out next week? GNU Hurd becomes fully usable?
I agree; this is a truly sad day in computing. All of the non-x86 platforms, from the Alpha to the Motorola 68k to the PowerPC, have been shafted. Starting in 2007, there will be no platform diversity in the personal computing market at all. Everybody will be running some sort of x86 chip. And as a geek, this means that we cannot really take advantage of the other, much more elegant platforms that are offered.
Oh well, I wonder how hard it will be to set up a computer company that used some variant of *nix (or even a completely different operating system) and also used a non-x86 platform as well. The OS and platform was so compelling that anyone would switch. Hmmm, I'm just dreaming.
I strongly agree with you. The x86 is technically the worst platform there is, however because of this "worse is better" attitude that Apple decided to take recently, we're going to be stuck with that horrid platform for another decade. I agree with you; why buy a Mac if it's going to have the same processor as a Dell with an operating system that is just FreeBSD with a graphical shell? I might as well buy a Athlon 64 (they're better than Pentium 4's, anyway) and use FreeBSD and KDE/GNOME; it will be way cheaper and better than a Intel Mac with Mac OS X, anyway.
Drat! And I was starting to like Apple for the past few years. I do not look forward to an x86 monopoly; there are almost no other platforms left to choose from because Intel/Microsoft has killed them off.
Well, it looks like we are slowly moving to an x86-only world for computers. Back in the beginning there used to be a lot of choice in processors for computers. You can choose between Motorola 68k, Motorola 88k, PowerPC, x86, SPARC, ALPHA, VAX, and a whole array of other platforms that I forgot to mention. Now starting in 2006, all of the major computer manufacturers will only offer x86 computers (with the exception of Sun, and I'm excluding embedded computers).
This looks like another case of "worse is better," in which the technically inferior product wins out over the technically superior product due to other reasons (price, monopolies, etc.) The x86 is a very inelegant platform compared to the Motorola 68k and the PowerPC. However, due to the whole Microsoft + x86 partnership over the last 20+ years, as well as the price of a x86 (versus a G4 or a G5 chip), every non-x86 platform seem to have folded over the past two decades, no matter how elegant those platforms are. Apple was the last major personal computer manufacturer that didn't go x86, and it looks like they are going there, too. I would rather have a PowerPC G5 chip than a Pentium 4, but that's the way things are going these days.
Oh well, I wonder if the OpenCores project is going anywhere at all. I do not look forward to an x86 monopoly on personal computer chips.
Re:No DRM. Not on my computer. Not now. Not ever
on
Intel Claims No DRM
·
· Score: 1
You might want to hold that thought. Apple is planning on switching to Intel chips next year. Whether or not those chips will be x86s or not is something we'll find out tomorrow at the WWDC.
We still have the Sun SPARC, though, but Sun workstations with SPARC chips aren't exactly affordable. Plus, Sun is already starting to sell Intel x86 workstations, meaning that there is a possiblity that the SPARC can disappear, too.
Oh well, if Intel, AMD, and Via all follow suit, at least we still can buy and use old non-DRM-encumbered chips and run the latest FOSS software (or non-DRM-encumbered proprietary software). We might have to put up with our old and slow chips when everybody else is running their terahertz machines, but at least we're still computing freely and without any encumberances.
Well, where do you suggest that we move to? Many of the other country's policies are going south as well. The megacorporations are controlling Europe's and Australia's policies as well, and the majority of the rest of the world is third-world and has many of its own issues. People say lots of good things about Canada, but it's only a matter of time until it succumbs to US pressure. I've also thought about Japan, but I don't know how the situation of liberties is in that country.
Are there any free places left, or am I forgetting a few places?
It is amazing the stark differences between Bill Gates's attitude about software and Steve Wozniak's attitude. Gates wanted people to not share software and was in favor of proprietary software, and called hobbyists thieves. Wozniak, on the other hand, made hardware and software that was marketed to the hobbyists. The Apple II came with full schematics, and the source (well, the BASIC or assembly source) was fully available to some of the programs; I've read a story about somebody interactively changing one of Wozniak's games.
When The Woz left Apple in 1985, though, Apple's hardware and software became closed after a few years. The closest we got to The Woz is the FOSS movement.
This isn't about tabs. A new version of Internet Explorer hasn't came out since 2001, which is a very long time in computing years. Unless Windows 2000 users use an alternative browser, they would be stuck with Internet Explorer 6 as the latest IE browser.
This isn't a good idea on Microsoft's part, because there are still many users using Windows 2000 (in fact, Windows 2000 is still supported; and I believe that Windows 2000 is the best version of Windows that was ever released), and if Microsoft abandons all of its Windows 2000 users in the broswer market, where are all of these people going to move to? They're not going to spend $$$ upgrading to XP over a broswer; they would more than likely switch to Mozilla/Firefox/Netscape/KMeleon/Opera/etc.
During the original broswer war, IE was on almost every major platform. It was available on Windows as far back as Windows 3.1, Mac OS 7.5 and higher, and even Solaris; the only sizable community that didn't get IE was the Linux/BSD group (that community used Netscape 4.x until Mozilla or Konqueror became usable; I don't know which came first since I was a Windows user back then). It seemed to me that Microsoft wanted to control the broswer market, so instead of only offering IE to its latest Windows offerings, it offered it to a wide array of operating system (even though Netscape had a wider array; it included Linux).
Now in the second Broswer Wars, Microsoft is completely ignoring its older Windows versions, the Macintosh, and *nix. Yet Firefox is available on a wide array of platforms. For example, even though Mozilla doesn't have official support for Firefox on *BSD, using *BSD ports (which applies the appropriate patches to the source), it compiles nicely and runs well. If I were Microsoft, I would be a little scared. Just about every platform can use Firefox, and if it isn't available on that platform (such as Mac OS Classic), somebody can port it. If Linux or Mac OS X takes off, then Microsoft would lose its stranglehold in the browser market. If Microsoft wants to win this broswer war, it should port IE 7 to just about every operating system imaginable. Old Windows versions, Mac OS X, Linux, *BSD, Solaris; you name it, Microsoft should port it to that platform. If Microsoft really wants 95% marketshare, it should stop ignoring old Windows versions and other operating systems and start porting.
... is getting in my nerves. Why should the big corporations here have the right to meddle into our copyright laws, and then slap the name "terrorism" in the justification of doing so? The problem with these copyright laws that the MPAA/RIAA have been pushing is that they are forgetting our (the citizen's) end of the stick. They have been increasing the duration of copyrights and patents to the point that most of us would be dead before we see Mickey Mouse in the public domain (since they keep extending it). They have been increasing the punishments for people who have already been illegally copyright infringing (since when does uploading a movie to the Internet warrant a 3-year prison sentence?), and illegalizing things that should be under fair-use (e.g., the DMCA; why should the government tell me what to do with my DVDs in my own private use?). The politicians are ignorant about technical issues, the voters are ignorant about the politicians, and they're letting the corporations run amok. But where is our public domain? Where is our "fair use"? Where is our freedom?
It's like our government is being run by the Socialist Party and the Fascist Party. Both of them don't care about liberty and both don't want a small government. All they want to do is to continue manipulating the public until they reach their logical goals: a huge, authoritarian government. The only difference is that the socialists would justify it in the name of "helping the poor" and the fascists would justify it in the name of "moral values." Both would justify it in the names of "protecting the children" and "defending this country against terrorism."
Come on Libertarians and Greens. They will have to win the 2008 election if we ever hope for this country to be saved by this rampant corporatism and the move toward totalitarianism.
There doesn't even need to be a lure. All that needs to happen is all of the major processor manufacturers have DRM'd chips (well, all of the major processor manufacturers are on the Trusted Computing Group member list, so they're not to far from it). Where do the computer manufacturers get their processors from? Intel, AMD, IBM, Sun, Transmeta, Motorola, Texas Instruments, and a few other members from this list. If the only computers available are DRM-encumbered, people will still buy these computers, since they're the only computers on the market that can do all of the "new and improved things" that Microsoft and the MPAA/RIAA say that they can do, and also the fact that there would probably be some new "must-have" technologies that you can't get with your old Athlon 64 running Linux. No, everybody would be required to run Windows 2010 with the latest Intel/AMD chip with "Built-In Dang Real Media."
No matter what happens, you'll have to take my old x86 computers running FreeBSD out of my cold, dead fingers.
Err, I just found out that IBM is part of the Trusted Computing Group. Motorola is on the list, too, in case you are wondering. Apple isn't on the list, but the processors in Apple's computers come from Motorola or IBM, so if all IBM/Motorola offered were DRM'd chips, where can Apple buy chips from?
And don't tell me that Apple can switch to AMD, Sun's SPARC, Texas Instruments, or Transmeta chips; all of those corporations are also on the list, too.
This is the beginning of the end. Unless the OpenCores project starts making strides in the market, it looks like sooner or later all computer manufacturers would end up caving into the demands made by Microsoft and the MPAA/RIAA, since all of the processors are made by Trutesd Computing members.
AMD makes very nice processors, I agree. Unfortunately, AMD is also a part of the Trusted Computing group, meaning that if they get pressured to cave into demands by Microsoft and Big Media, they would probably will.
If that ever occurs, at least we still have the PowerPC and the Open Cores project.
You might be shocked when I say this, but I actually have no problem with basic health care, public roads (other than they can use some repair, widening, and better planning), public schools (even though it is long overdue for a dramatic reform), police and fire protection, and some other government services. That's when "state's rights" and the idea of state/county/city government steps in. When we Libertarians speak of "big government," we speak of the federal government providing every service under the sun. If we had a Libertarian-controlled congress and presidency, some of the federal programs will be removed, but the states will decide whether to fill in the void with state/county/city government programs or not. (Now, a Libertarian as a state governor would take a different approach since s/he can't cut any federal programs, but can start making the state adopt some of the society-related Libertarian issues; the economic aspects of Libertarianism are more geared toward the federal government, even though state governments can use a bit of financial conservatism these days).
You stated that the government should be involved in health issues because "they have the power to do something." However, power can always corrupt. For example, we don't mind the government requiring public schools to only give out healthy foods for meals. Their schools = their rules. However, I have a problem when the government tries to act like my parents. For example, I would be upset if the government told me that I can only have so much food per day, and that it was against the law to eat more than the legal limit of "junk food" per day. All of these restrictions on my liberties because they claim that "stopping you from eating 'too much' would result in saving lives like yours."
I personally believe that the government should just let people be free, and stay out of people's private lives. If I want to eat so much that I'm 600 pounds and close to death, well then, the government should let me. I just don't expect the government to pay for my medical bills, and I expect to be fully responsible for my own actions. That's why I'm a Libertarian.
In the case of this iPod for eating right thing, I still believe that since the government controls the schools, the government should change the schools' meals to healthy choices. They don't need to attach iPods and XBoxes in order to convince people to pass on chocolate bars and switch to fruit; rather, the schools should stop serving junk food and start serving healthy meals. In fact, as I think about it, this argument isn't about libertarianism vs. [insert other political ideology here]; that's irrelevant now. This is about attaching incentives in order to get kids to eat healthy foods versus the school just offering only healthy foods in the first place.
Even though an iPod or XBox would be a very nice incentive if I were a kid participating in this program to eat healthy, where does the prizes come from? That kid's parents' taxpayer dollars. As a Libertarian, why should the government have to use the possibility of an iPod in order for them to eat healthy, or, better yet, why should the government even be involved in health issues such as obesity? The rise of obesity is a societal issue and it is best dealt with by society, not government.
In this particular case, if I had a choice, my taxpayer dollars should go toward the replacement of the school's unhealthy food items with healthy food. No bribes necessary; the kids would eat better. Besides, there are plenty of healthy foods; one can snack on fruits instead of chocolate candy bars, for example.
Wake up everyday and find this country is becoming more and more conservative and restrictive.
Conservative is the wrong word. Conservatism, according to dictionary.com, means "A political philosophy or attitude emphasizing respect for traditional institutions, distrust of government activism, and opposition to sudden change in the established order."
This isn't conservatism at all; a true conservative would be against these policies because it is against the traditional American policies (export licenses for studying seems un-American to me) and is just another way of government intruding on people's lives.
I can't think of another word to discribe this (other than totalitarian, but that's too extreme in this case), but that word isn't conservatism.
B) Any time I'm forced to drop to a command line, you as a developer have failed. Back 10 years ago, this may have been acceptable. In this day and age, it isn't. Furthermore, while once in a blue moon I may change a text file in Windows, in Linux it's a constant occurence. Again, you have failed.
How is using the command line a failure of the developer? How are command lines "idiocy that needs to be exorcised from the OS?" Command lines are very powerful tools; they're not the easiest for beginners to learn, but once they are learned, they are very powerful. Try replacing the occurance of a certain word with another word in 100 files with a GUI. Get back to me when you're done.
Besides, the command line is a central part of Unix--that's how Unix works. Commands can be piped and stored into shell scripts as well. If you're really "a fairly technical user," then you should understand *nix fairly quickly. Unless you meant "fairly technical luser," as your post seems to read.
Oh, and about the manual pages. Manual pages are just references, not full-fledged tutorials. If you're looking for that, try searching for TLDP (The Linux Documentation Project). You also might want to try FreeBSD; their documentation is pretty nice and very readable and their manual pages, while not tutorials, are very informative.
Finally, what does FOSS have to do with having to learn all of these technical details? Have you tried Firefox? OpenOffice? They're fine pieces of software that are very usable, no "bizarre, arcane, and technical" details that you have to face.
One of the things that helped me install fonts is this paper. Yes, it's from the FreeBSD handbook, but nearly all of it deals with just X11 and not FreeBSD-specific.
A few little tips; you might want to install the Microsoft web fonts (they're free as in beer and pretty nice) as well as the Bitstream Vera fonts. If you have a Windows box, you can copy those fonts, put them on your *nix box, and update the fonts database by typing ttmkfdir > fonts.dir where the TrueType fonts are stored.
Pretty much, my experience with fonts have been, for the most part, pretty good. I'm using FreeBSD with Window Maker, so no, I don't have all of the nice KDE/GNOME bells and whistles, so my fonts might not look as good. However, it is a great idea to get a nice understanding of how fonts work under X11. You never know when you need it....
As for the Sheldon font, X11 comes with a program called xfontsel. (Yes, it's ugly and it comes from the bad old days of X, and its description of fonts is a stark departure from Windows/Mac, but it does the job). Anyways, look under the fmly menu and see if your font is located there.
Hmmm, the JRL is a new license and it is much improved from the SCSL (Java was licensed under this license until Java 1.5), but still, it isn't GPL compatible, meaning that I can't use Sun code in gcj or Kaffe, and read this little tidbit of the license:
If any portion of, or functionality implemented by, the
Technology becomes the subject of a claim or threatened
claim of infringement ("Affected Materials"), Sun may, in
its unrestricted discretion, suspend Your rights to use and
distribute the Affected Materials under this License. Such
suspension of rights will be effective immediately upon
Sun's posting of notice of suspension on the Technology
Site.
In other words, say I download the Java 1.5 JDK sources and start studying it. I then help out in a FOSS Java project, contributing some code. If Sun complains that some of the code in the FOSS project that I contributed is infringing on their IP, then I'm in some legal trouble. However, what defines infringement?
This new Java license is much better than the old one (in fact, I might read into it more), but it still has many flaws, and it isn't compatible with the GPL (due to the above and other requirements) or any other major FOSS license.
The FOSS community is solving the problem. See for yourself. He's trying to get the Java-only features working with gcj. The gcj developers are also adding more Java features to their compiler, too.
Whenever the FOSS community has a complaint, we voice it out for a while and then get to work. That's how we got the GNU project and freely available BSDs in the first place.
Free Software isn't about taking down Microsoft and other big corporations. I don't use FreeBSD because I want to "stick it to the man." Free software is about being able to use software unencumbered by licensing restrictions. And what do you mean that nerds have no vision? Richard Stallman, Linus Torvalds, the BSD developers, and hundreds of other nerds have the vision of creating completely free software for everyone. Yes, we still have some things to work on (like that Swedish thesaurus and spell checker that you mentioned), but it's getting there.
Nobody in the "real world" (boy I hate that phrase; I'll change it to "non-geek world") cares about Debian and Fedora shipping Java because the non-geek world uses Mac OS X and Windows. The last thing on the average Mac user's or Windows user's mind is the licensing of Java; it either comes with their computer or it is a quick download away. But Linux and BSD users are in a different realm, the "surreal world" as you probably call it, and they aren't generally going to put up with the licensing. Besides, Sun Java isn't available for many platforms. What if I'm using NetBSD on an Alpha machine? Too bad, I can't use Sun Java even if I wanted to.
The point is, free software isn't about "sticking it to the man." It is about using unencumbered software. If you have a problem with this, you can always return to your Mac or Windows box, along with your Java. Nobody's stopping you from using that, and nobody's stopping geeks like myself from forking OpenOffice.
Slashdot Mirror
You are right about the fact that most people don't care about whether or not their computer is an x86 or a PPC or some other architecture. But what about the people who do care about what CPU their computer is running (e.g., assembly hackers, people who love programming on very low levels, etc.)? For years, this group of people liked the Mac simply it offered a Unix-based operating system based on a PowerPC, whose architecture is much more elegant compared to the x86. They used Macs mostly because there weren't any other options left (Alpha is dead, VAX died a long time ago, Motorola 68k is relegated to embedded computers, etc.). Now that Macs aren't going to use the PPC anymore, that means that all of those geeks are going to have to deal with the x86 forever, no matter how much we love it or hate it.
Oh well, so much for non-x86 personal computers. It looks like that group of people who love working on non-x86 computers would take advantage of embedded computing, which contains a multitude of fun and interesting platforms to choose from. With Linux/NetBSD and other FOSS software around, I feel that embedded computing would start looking like an interesting alternative in a few years.
First Apple switches to Intel chips. Next, there is finally a Debian release. What's next? Microsoft giving away old versions of Office and Windows? Longhorn coming out next week? GNU Hurd becomes fully usable?
What a strange day today.
I agree; this is a truly sad day in computing. All of the non-x86 platforms, from the Alpha to the Motorola 68k to the PowerPC, have been shafted. Starting in 2007, there will be no platform diversity in the personal computing market at all. Everybody will be running some sort of x86 chip. And as a geek, this means that we cannot really take advantage of the other, much more elegant platforms that are offered.
Oh well, I wonder how hard it will be to set up a computer company that used some variant of *nix (or even a completely different operating system) and also used a non-x86 platform as well. The OS and platform was so compelling that anyone would switch. Hmmm, I'm just dreaming.
I strongly agree with you. The x86 is technically the worst platform there is, however because of this "worse is better" attitude that Apple decided to take recently, we're going to be stuck with that horrid platform for another decade. I agree with you; why buy a Mac if it's going to have the same processor as a Dell with an operating system that is just FreeBSD with a graphical shell? I might as well buy a Athlon 64 (they're better than Pentium 4's, anyway) and use FreeBSD and KDE/GNOME; it will be way cheaper and better than a Intel Mac with Mac OS X, anyway.
Drat! And I was starting to like Apple for the past few years. I do not look forward to an x86 monopoly; there are almost no other platforms left to choose from because Intel/Microsoft has killed them off.
Well, it looks like we are slowly moving to an x86-only world for computers. Back in the beginning there used to be a lot of choice in processors for computers. You can choose between Motorola 68k, Motorola 88k, PowerPC, x86, SPARC, ALPHA, VAX, and a whole array of other platforms that I forgot to mention. Now starting in 2006, all of the major computer manufacturers will only offer x86 computers (with the exception of Sun, and I'm excluding embedded computers).
This looks like another case of "worse is better," in which the technically inferior product wins out over the technically superior product due to other reasons (price, monopolies, etc.) The x86 is a very inelegant platform compared to the Motorola 68k and the PowerPC. However, due to the whole Microsoft + x86 partnership over the last 20+ years, as well as the price of a x86 (versus a G4 or a G5 chip), every non-x86 platform seem to have folded over the past two decades, no matter how elegant those platforms are. Apple was the last major personal computer manufacturer that didn't go x86, and it looks like they are going there, too. I would rather have a PowerPC G5 chip than a Pentium 4, but that's the way things are going these days.
Oh well, I wonder if the OpenCores project is going anywhere at all. I do not look forward to an x86 monopoly on personal computer chips.
You might want to hold that thought. Apple is planning on switching to Intel chips next year. Whether or not those chips will be x86s or not is something we'll find out tomorrow at the WWDC.
We still have the Sun SPARC, though, but Sun workstations with SPARC chips aren't exactly affordable. Plus, Sun is already starting to sell Intel x86 workstations, meaning that there is a possiblity that the SPARC can disappear, too.
Oh well, if Intel, AMD, and Via all follow suit, at least we still can buy and use old non-DRM-encumbered chips and run the latest FOSS software (or non-DRM-encumbered proprietary software). We might have to put up with our old and slow chips when everybody else is running their terahertz machines, but at least we're still computing freely and without any encumberances.
You must mean hardcore gangsta rap. The term "gangster rap" just doesn't sound as hardcore as gangsta does.
Well, where do you suggest that we move to? Many of the other country's policies are going south as well. The megacorporations are controlling Europe's and Australia's policies as well, and the majority of the rest of the world is third-world and has many of its own issues. People say lots of good things about Canada, but it's only a matter of time until it succumbs to US pressure. I've also thought about Japan, but I don't know how the situation of liberties is in that country.
Are there any free places left, or am I forgetting a few places?
You call tons of security holes, lots of spyware and malware possibilities, and loads of vulnerabilities "ain't broke"?
It is amazing the stark differences between Bill Gates's attitude about software and Steve Wozniak's attitude. Gates wanted people to not share software and was in favor of proprietary software, and called hobbyists thieves. Wozniak, on the other hand, made hardware and software that was marketed to the hobbyists. The Apple II came with full schematics, and the source (well, the BASIC or assembly source) was fully available to some of the programs; I've read a story about somebody interactively changing one of Wozniak's games.
When The Woz left Apple in 1985, though, Apple's hardware and software became closed after a few years. The closest we got to The Woz is the FOSS movement.
This isn't about tabs. A new version of Internet Explorer hasn't came out since 2001, which is a very long time in computing years. Unless Windows 2000 users use an alternative browser, they would be stuck with Internet Explorer 6 as the latest IE browser.
This isn't a good idea on Microsoft's part, because there are still many users using Windows 2000 (in fact, Windows 2000 is still supported; and I believe that Windows 2000 is the best version of Windows that was ever released), and if Microsoft abandons all of its Windows 2000 users in the broswer market, where are all of these people going to move to? They're not going to spend $$$ upgrading to XP over a broswer; they would more than likely switch to Mozilla/Firefox/Netscape/KMeleon/Opera/etc.
During the original broswer war, IE was on almost every major platform. It was available on Windows as far back as Windows 3.1, Mac OS 7.5 and higher, and even Solaris; the only sizable community that didn't get IE was the Linux/BSD group (that community used Netscape 4.x until Mozilla or Konqueror became usable; I don't know which came first since I was a Windows user back then). It seemed to me that Microsoft wanted to control the broswer market, so instead of only offering IE to its latest Windows offerings, it offered it to a wide array of operating system (even though Netscape had a wider array; it included Linux).
Now in the second Broswer Wars, Microsoft is completely ignoring its older Windows versions, the Macintosh, and *nix. Yet Firefox is available on a wide array of platforms. For example, even though Mozilla doesn't have official support for Firefox on *BSD, using *BSD ports (which applies the appropriate patches to the source), it compiles nicely and runs well. If I were Microsoft, I would be a little scared. Just about every platform can use Firefox, and if it isn't available on that platform (such as Mac OS Classic), somebody can port it. If Linux or Mac OS X takes off, then Microsoft would lose its stranglehold in the browser market. If Microsoft wants to win this broswer war, it should port IE 7 to just about every operating system imaginable. Old Windows versions, Mac OS X, Linux, *BSD, Solaris; you name it, Microsoft should port it to that platform. If Microsoft really wants 95% marketshare, it should stop ignoring old Windows versions and other operating systems and start porting.
... is getting in my nerves. Why should the big corporations here have the right to meddle into our copyright laws, and then slap the name "terrorism" in the justification of doing so? The problem with these copyright laws that the MPAA/RIAA have been pushing is that they are forgetting our (the citizen's) end of the stick. They have been increasing the duration of copyrights and patents to the point that most of us would be dead before we see Mickey Mouse in the public domain (since they keep extending it). They have been increasing the punishments for people who have already been illegally copyright infringing (since when does uploading a movie to the Internet warrant a 3-year prison sentence?), and illegalizing things that should be under fair-use (e.g., the DMCA; why should the government tell me what to do with my DVDs in my own private use?). The politicians are ignorant about technical issues, the voters are ignorant about the politicians, and they're letting the corporations run amok. But where is our public domain? Where is our "fair use"? Where is our freedom?
It's like our government is being run by the Socialist Party and the Fascist Party. Both of them don't care about liberty and both don't want a small government. All they want to do is to continue manipulating the public until they reach their logical goals: a huge, authoritarian government. The only difference is that the socialists would justify it in the name of "helping the poor" and the fascists would justify it in the name of "moral values." Both would justify it in the names of "protecting the children" and "defending this country against terrorism."
Come on Libertarians and Greens. They will have to win the 2008 election if we ever hope for this country to be saved by this rampant corporatism and the move toward totalitarianism.
IBM is a part of the Trusted Computing Group, too. Look for yourself, for proof.
There doesn't even need to be a lure. All that needs to happen is all of the major processor manufacturers have DRM'd chips (well, all of the major processor manufacturers are on the Trusted Computing Group member list, so they're not to far from it). Where do the computer manufacturers get their processors from? Intel, AMD, IBM, Sun, Transmeta, Motorola, Texas Instruments, and a few other members from this list. If the only computers available are DRM-encumbered, people will still buy these computers, since they're the only computers on the market that can do all of the "new and improved things" that Microsoft and the MPAA/RIAA say that they can do, and also the fact that there would probably be some new "must-have" technologies that you can't get with your old Athlon 64 running Linux. No, everybody would be required to run Windows 2010 with the latest Intel/AMD chip with "Built-In Dang Real Media."
No matter what happens, you'll have to take my old x86 computers running FreeBSD out of my cold, dead fingers.
Err, I just found out that IBM is part of the Trusted Computing Group. Motorola is on the list, too, in case you are wondering. Apple isn't on the list, but the processors in Apple's computers come from Motorola or IBM, so if all IBM/Motorola offered were DRM'd chips, where can Apple buy chips from?
And don't tell me that Apple can switch to AMD, Sun's SPARC, Texas Instruments, or Transmeta chips; all of those corporations are also on the list, too.
This is the beginning of the end. Unless the OpenCores project starts making strides in the market, it looks like sooner or later all computer manufacturers would end up caving into the demands made by Microsoft and the MPAA/RIAA, since all of the processors are made by Trutesd Computing members.
This is looking very scary.
AMD makes very nice processors, I agree. Unfortunately, AMD is also a part of the Trusted Computing group, meaning that if they get pressured to cave into demands by Microsoft and Big Media, they would probably will.
If that ever occurs, at least we still have the PowerPC and the Open Cores project.
You might be shocked when I say this, but I actually have no problem with basic health care, public roads (other than they can use some repair, widening, and better planning), public schools (even though it is long overdue for a dramatic reform), police and fire protection, and some other government services. That's when "state's rights" and the idea of state/county/city government steps in. When we Libertarians speak of "big government," we speak of the federal government providing every service under the sun. If we had a Libertarian-controlled congress and presidency, some of the federal programs will be removed, but the states will decide whether to fill in the void with state/county/city government programs or not. (Now, a Libertarian as a state governor would take a different approach since s/he can't cut any federal programs, but can start making the state adopt some of the society-related Libertarian issues; the economic aspects of Libertarianism are more geared toward the federal government, even though state governments can use a bit of financial conservatism these days).
You stated that the government should be involved in health issues because "they have the power to do something." However, power can always corrupt. For example, we don't mind the government requiring public schools to only give out healthy foods for meals. Their schools = their rules. However, I have a problem when the government tries to act like my parents. For example, I would be upset if the government told me that I can only have so much food per day, and that it was against the law to eat more than the legal limit of "junk food" per day. All of these restrictions on my liberties because they claim that "stopping you from eating 'too much' would result in saving lives like yours."
I personally believe that the government should just let people be free, and stay out of people's private lives. If I want to eat so much that I'm 600 pounds and close to death, well then, the government should let me. I just don't expect the government to pay for my medical bills, and I expect to be fully responsible for my own actions. That's why I'm a Libertarian.
In the case of this iPod for eating right thing, I still believe that since the government controls the schools, the government should change the schools' meals to healthy choices. They don't need to attach iPods and XBoxes in order to convince people to pass on chocolate bars and switch to fruit; rather, the schools should stop serving junk food and start serving healthy meals. In fact, as I think about it, this argument isn't about libertarianism vs. [insert other political ideology here]; that's irrelevant now. This is about attaching incentives in order to get kids to eat healthy foods versus the school just offering only healthy foods in the first place.
Thanks for making me think.
Even though an iPod or XBox would be a very nice incentive if I were a kid participating in this program to eat healthy, where does the prizes come from? That kid's parents' taxpayer dollars. As a Libertarian, why should the government have to use the possibility of an iPod in order for them to eat healthy, or, better yet, why should the government even be involved in health issues such as obesity? The rise of obesity is a societal issue and it is best dealt with by society, not government.
In this particular case, if I had a choice, my taxpayer dollars should go toward the replacement of the school's unhealthy food items with healthy food. No bribes necessary; the kids would eat better. Besides, there are plenty of healthy foods; one can snack on fruits instead of chocolate candy bars, for example.
Conservative is the wrong word. Conservatism, according to dictionary.com, means "A political philosophy or attitude emphasizing respect for traditional institutions, distrust of government activism, and opposition to sudden change in the established order."
This isn't conservatism at all; a true conservative would be against these policies because it is against the traditional American policies (export licenses for studying seems un-American to me) and is just another way of government intruding on people's lives.
I can't think of another word to discribe this (other than totalitarian, but that's too extreme in this case), but that word isn't conservatism.
How is using the command line a failure of the developer? How are command lines "idiocy that needs to be exorcised from the OS?" Command lines are very powerful tools; they're not the easiest for beginners to learn, but once they are learned, they are very powerful. Try replacing the occurance of a certain word with another word in 100 files with a GUI. Get back to me when you're done.
Besides, the command line is a central part of Unix--that's how Unix works. Commands can be piped and stored into shell scripts as well. If you're really "a fairly technical user," then you should understand *nix fairly quickly. Unless you meant "fairly technical luser," as your post seems to read.
Oh, and about the manual pages. Manual pages are just references, not full-fledged tutorials. If you're looking for that, try searching for TLDP (The Linux Documentation Project). You also might want to try FreeBSD; their documentation is pretty nice and very readable and their manual pages, while not tutorials, are very informative.
Finally, what does FOSS have to do with having to learn all of these technical details? Have you tried Firefox? OpenOffice? They're fine pieces of software that are very usable, no "bizarre, arcane, and technical" details that you have to face.
One of the things that helped me install fonts is this paper. Yes, it's from the FreeBSD handbook, but nearly all of it deals with just X11 and not FreeBSD-specific.
A few little tips; you might want to install the Microsoft web fonts (they're free as in beer and pretty nice) as well as the Bitstream Vera fonts. If you have a Windows box, you can copy those fonts, put them on your *nix box, and update the fonts database by typing ttmkfdir > fonts.dir where the TrueType fonts are stored.
Pretty much, my experience with fonts have been, for the most part, pretty good. I'm using FreeBSD with Window Maker, so no, I don't have all of the nice KDE/GNOME bells and whistles, so my fonts might not look as good. However, it is a great idea to get a nice understanding of how fonts work under X11. You never know when you need it....
As for the Sheldon font, X11 comes with a program called xfontsel. (Yes, it's ugly and it comes from the bad old days of X, and its description of fonts is a stark departure from Windows/Mac, but it does the job). Anyways, look under the fmly menu and see if your font is located there.
Come on. Even OpenBSD has vulnerabilities every now and then. No current operating system is 100% secure.
Hmmm, the JRL is a new license and it is much improved from the SCSL (Java was licensed under this license until Java 1.5), but still, it isn't GPL compatible, meaning that I can't use Sun code in gcj or Kaffe, and read this little tidbit of the license:
If any portion of, or functionality implemented by, the Technology becomes the subject of a claim or threatened claim of infringement ("Affected Materials"), Sun may, in its unrestricted discretion, suspend Your rights to use and distribute the Affected Materials under this License. Such suspension of rights will be effective immediately upon Sun's posting of notice of suspension on the Technology Site.
In other words, say I download the Java 1.5 JDK sources and start studying it. I then help out in a FOSS Java project, contributing some code. If Sun complains that some of the code in the FOSS project that I contributed is infringing on their IP, then I'm in some legal trouble. However, what defines infringement?
This new Java license is much better than the old one (in fact, I might read into it more), but it still has many flaws, and it isn't compatible with the GPL (due to the above and other requirements) or any other major FOSS license.
The FOSS community is solving the problem. See for yourself. He's trying to get the Java-only features working with gcj. The gcj developers are also adding more Java features to their compiler, too.
Whenever the FOSS community has a complaint, we voice it out for a while and then get to work. That's how we got the GNU project and freely available BSDs in the first place.
No, you're the one who needs to get a grip.
Free Software isn't about taking down Microsoft and other big corporations. I don't use FreeBSD because I want to "stick it to the man." Free software is about being able to use software unencumbered by licensing restrictions. And what do you mean that nerds have no vision? Richard Stallman, Linus Torvalds, the BSD developers, and hundreds of other nerds have the vision of creating completely free software for everyone. Yes, we still have some things to work on (like that Swedish thesaurus and spell checker that you mentioned), but it's getting there.
Nobody in the "real world" (boy I hate that phrase; I'll change it to "non-geek world") cares about Debian and Fedora shipping Java because the non-geek world uses Mac OS X and Windows. The last thing on the average Mac user's or Windows user's mind is the licensing of Java; it either comes with their computer or it is a quick download away. But Linux and BSD users are in a different realm, the "surreal world" as you probably call it, and they aren't generally going to put up with the licensing. Besides, Sun Java isn't available for many platforms. What if I'm using NetBSD on an Alpha machine? Too bad, I can't use Sun Java even if I wanted to.
The point is, free software isn't about "sticking it to the man." It is about using unencumbered software. If you have a problem with this, you can always return to your Mac or Windows box, along with your Java. Nobody's stopping you from using that, and nobody's stopping geeks like myself from forking OpenOffice.