He does not get the gpl at all. You are right about misinformation.
Oh, I bet he gets it, all right. He's not an idiot. My guess is this: he's hoping 90% of the rest of the population doesn't get it. He merely wants people to be afraid of the GPL, and will do his best to misrepresent the GPL at every opportunity.
This is no different from him slamming other software companies at any given moment; he's just striking Linux at the only point he has, the license.
This is good: it means MS has given up on the "MS-Windows is technically superior," and, "MS-Windows is cheaper."
At this point, cheap shots are all they have left.
You misunderstand me. When the machine gives you the paper, you check it over, touch the "yes, I voted like this" button, and then insert the paper into a (human monitored) collection box, just like paper votes are handled now. The paper votes accompany the electonic votes at all times; this way, we get the convenience of the electronic votes (the thing everyone is after) with the auditability of paper votes.
The best of both worlds.
Note the difference between "electronic voting," and "on-line voting." So far we are talking about the electronic version of the current system, in which people have to go to a poll location. On-line voting presents other problems, but probably results in a similar situation as absentee ballots, in which you must print off and mail in a chit; then, you are correct, the dunces and mouth-breathers will have a hard time with it.
I don't know if this has been offered as a solution yet, but the easiest way to verify an election is to keep a paper trail.
When a person votes, the machine should spit out a piece of paper with the voter's choices listed. The voter verifies the paper, then slides the paper into a slot (in much the same way many current voting machines accept the voter card).
In that way, the voting machines can automate the tabulation, and we can avoid any hanging chads; but the paper trail still exists.
I liken it to playing a game of Tekken, or Starcraft, or whatever your favorite multiplayer game is. You may not like an aspect of the rules and wish them to be changed, but if you're in a tournament theres nothing keeping your opponent from using 'exploits' or 'cheese' or whatever you wanna call it. The point is when you're playing to win, all avenues must be considered and also what your opponent is capable of must be considered as well.
All well-and-good, but the difference between the game of Real Life and Tekken or Starcraft is this: we influence the rules. And if the rules are stupid, we can (hopefully!) do something about it.
Until such time as the rules are fixed, then yes: you are correct. Use the rules against them. But that shouldn't stop us from striving with every available erg against Rank Stupidity.
Right tool for the right job. What it runs under is irrelevant.
Wha..?
Bitkeeper is used for Linux development. In fact, it is an integral part of Linux development.
I don't know if you realize this, but Linux runs on more than just x86 hardware. From that, you can conclude that at least *some* Linux kernel developers us other platforms than x86. From there, it is not too great of a logical leap to conclude that, if Bitkeeper is used for Linux kernel development, and isn't supported by the platform under which some kernel developers develop, Bitkeeper is the wrong tool for the job, because it doesn't support all Linux platforms.
There are several conclusions from this sorite, including this: in this application, the platoform under which Bitkeeper runs is especially relevent. So, while the first sentence of your reply is correct, the second sentence is complete and utter rubbish.
The later we may be taking about a few cents per diluted share. The former we are taking about an innocents person life.
From the looks of our laws, the "few cents a share" means more than an innocent life.
Why are criminal corporations still in business? (Enron, Shell, Exxon, and a slew of others have financed armed raids in various countries, in which people have died.) Why is it that someone can share a file on a P2P network and end up paying the RIAA for the rest of their lives, but the guy in charge of the company (Enron) that fucked over California (and a good chunk of the rest of the world) goes free, without paying a dime?
I guess it means the biggest crime is not being rich.
I'm sure the mafia says the same thing. And Enron.
Maybe rather than sitting around ranting anti-MS, people could try doing something like making actually useful, easy-to-use-and-configure-for-the-bonehead-masses stuff.
I don't know if you've noticed, but that's exactly what's happening. Anti-MS rants make us feel good, and they don't take too much time from our actual development.
Unfortunately, it's getting so easy to slam MS, it's not very fun anymore. "We respect others' intellectual property." Ha! Ha! How could they say that with a straight face?
It's just too easy.
Re:A Linux Newbie's Perspective
on
Linux on the Desktop
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Needless to say, as long as Linux distributions and desktop managers continue to proliferate, the average user's requirements will never be met. I say this as a *fact* not a *prescription*, so spare me the Linux-strength-in-diversity comments. I just think you can't have your cake (freedom/diversity) and eat it too (Linux on average desktop).
I've not seen any credible evidence to back this up. I agree with your two numbered points; however, this addendum is from the perspective of a self-admitted 15-year Wintel person. You state it as fact; but, I believe it is simply 15 years of Wintel indoctrination talking.
If diversity were a bad thing, we'd all be driving the same kind of car, or eating the same food.
Now, computers in general must get easier to use; but that's the truth for every single computer out there. I mean, right now we judge computers by their varying degrees of suckitude. All computers (and operating systems) suck; just some suck less.
Also, allow me to wander a bit, and talk for a moment about evolution. One of the primary driving factors of evolution is genetic divergence. During good times, a population's genes will mix up nicely, allowing for a wide distribution of all kinds of genes. Then, during tougher times (when nature is selecting), certain phenotypes provide for better survival traits. It's difficult (or even impossible) to be able to tell which phenotype will provide advantage beforehand.
Certain populations with small genetic diversity are at risk; if the environment changes even slightly, they may not have the necessary survival traits within the population. (Cheetahs and condors are examples of species with extremely small genetic diversity.)
What's this have to do with Linux? Should be easy to spot: Linux has very broad genetic diversity. This allows it to survive in many varied environments. And, if the computing environment changes (as it does almost daily), some phenotypes will be more suited to survival than others. Some fall by the wayside; others survive.
So, I won't spare you the "Linux-strenght-in-diversity" comments. Because it is not only a strength, it is a necessity if we are going to move forward in any meaningful way, instead of the monolithic singularity of commercial operating systems.
On the second, if this is your sole reason, you're being illogical. That would be like brushing off a good idea from a fellow developer because you didn't like his office.
Or more like not partnering with someone who has stabbed you (or people just like you) in the back so many times you feel like Lizzy Borden's folks.
The information itself is only important to those who would protect it or exploit it.
This is patent bullshit.
I can think of several ways this aggregate information is important. First is social: the entire purpose of his research was to investigate the sociogeographic aspects of the information infrastructure. More importantly, this information shows us where our money would be best spent in beefing up the infrastructure: like optimizing a program, you have to find your performance bottlenecks; you can't do that if you don't know where those bottlenecks are.
From a business philosophy standpoint, the one quote from the article that stuck out was this (from memory): "We didn't realize how interdependent we were." From a fucking banking exec. Think about that for a second. If this attitude is endimic to the corporate world, this shows these idiots think they are running their companies in a vacuum! If corporate wonks can learn that the world is a much more complex and fragile thing than they thought, and that they rely on other companies (even competitors) for success, maybe (just maybe) they can stop fucking over the country just to make a few bucks.
But the most important benefits will be those you and I can't see. The laser was not designed to revolutionize information storage and transmission, but that is now its primary application. Same thing here. This aggregate data has enough value on its own right now, but in the future, it may be more important for our survival than any of us realize right now.
The way to protect our infrastructure is not to hide the jugular, but to make sure there *is* no jugular. This information is the place to start, not the place to stop.
For example, even though the UN was just on our backs about Iraq, they now are BEGGING us to intervene in Liberia, this is ridiculous.
Although I agree in general with your post, there is a major difference between Iraq and Liberia. First, we were never asked to intervene in Iraq. Neither the Iraqis nor the rest of the world wanted us there.
In fact, the one time we were asked to intervene in a minimal way (after President Bush Sr. encouraged the Shiites to revolt against Hussien after the Gulf War I, and they asked for the weapons we confiscated from the Iraqi army), we refused, resulting in the mass graves we turned up recently.
Iraq was relatively stable before our interference, and they were no threat to the United States, except perhaps for the threat to the cheap and massive flow of oil. 'Cause we need to afford to drive our fucking SUVs.
Liberia has been in a state of turmoil for several years. Liberia is more like Kosovo, in which the UN (with major US participation) helped to add a tiny little bit of stability. We didn't make everything better, of course, but it was better than nothing.
But mostly, we were asked.
And comparing the Iraqi situation with the Nazis is a bit of a stretch, as the lack of WMDs has driven home. And considering the disproof of the evidence presented to convince us Iraq *ever* represented a threat, we should never have been there in the first place.
Personally, I feel Iraq was merely a distraction from the fact that most of the terrorists were from friendly Saudi Arabia (supporting your point about the million dollars), and that bin Laden is still at large, and that Afghanistan has turned into a quagmire and will never have a democracy.
Care to enlighten us on what that work is? My guess is a server environment where a fully functioning, mass mass market ready OS isn't needed.
Dude, MS-Windows XP has proven to be a mass mass market OS for gaming; and simple word processing; and conveyer of various worms, viruses, and trojans. Although it's more stable than MS-Windows 2000, as a server OS it still requires rebooting, or it becomes unstable after just a few weeks.
I guess MS workers are just more interested in what they're doing then. How else do you explain Linux having been around fot 50% more time and not being even close to done?
This is silly. Saying Linux has been around for 50% more time is both misleading and incorrect. Claiming the current iteration of Linux is like the version 1.0 kernel is like saying MS-Windows XP is based on MS-Windows 3.0.
And you *still* haven't outlined the ways in which Linux is unfinished. What is your definition of "finished?" If you mean, "as in finished all the function goals defined in the road map and ready for the mass market," to which road map do you refer? And, how do you know Linux has not met it's road map by that definition?
BTW, there *is* a road map for Linux. Before every development branch, Linus announces his goals for the development kernel. Yes, he accepts other goals, as well; but they do not get incorporated unless they fit with his goals.
In fact, I would dare say Linux has clearer, better-defined goals than MS-Windows. For instance, what is the road map of Longhorn?
For a taste of the Linux 2.5 road map as seen at the outset, see this article at LWN.
I guess you must have been hired by them at one time then.
Nope. I've hated Microsoft's business tactics and shoddy software for years (since 1991, to be exact). Wouldn't work for them. But I know a lot of people who *do* work for them. I know that MS makes technical decisions based on marketing requirements; I know they curse the release schedule, because *they* don't like shipping broken products (which a couple of them have called both MS-Win2k and XP).
Care to enlighten us on what that work is? My guess is a server environment where a fully functioning, mass mass market ready OS isn't needed.
Simple. We are using X terminals that are about 9 years old. I'm installing some more computing capacity in the server room, because our users have outstripped the current set of servers.
How do I upgrade the computing power of 300 X Terminals? Add a single computer. Those X terminals can now run applications seamlessly and transperantly off the new server; the users don't even realize there *has* been an upgrade. (And, yes, this is a full GUI system. Don't let the term "terminal" throw you off.)
And it sure beats the hell out of upgrading and maintaining 300 PCs based on MS-Windows.
Sure, MS-Windows might be user-oriented. But Unix is *business* oriented, and has out-performed and out-gunned MS-Windows for 15 years now.
Now, here's where you'll say, "But MS-Windows is installed on more desktops, making it the best!" This is, in essence, the basis of your argument already (by calling MS-Windows "Mass Market"). But big deal? Budwieser is the best-selling beer. Christina Aguelera (sp) outsells Radiohead. The Ford Pinto was once the best-selling car.
What's this prove? That often, the best-selling article is guilded crap. For those of us who have experienced the beautifully-veneered shackles of MS-Windows after using operating systems that are both powerful and flexible, the mass-appeal of MS-Windows is exactly like drowning in Budwieser.
In 8 years MS has dominated the market with their OS.
Microsoft started out with a monopoly on IBM PC systems; after the clones were released, it still had a monopoly. When faced with DR-DOS (which was quickly undermining that monopoly) they used anti-competitive tactics to exclude DR-DOS from the retail chain, and cheap stunts like misleading error messages in MS-Windows 3.1 Beta to undermine the reputation of DR-DOS as an excellent, reliable OS.
This has been going on for over twenty years. It isn't that Microsoft has dominated the market with their OS; it's that cheap commodity hardware has dominated the market, and Microsoft has the business savvy to ride that train, and the position and ruthlessness to exclude others.
Windows 98 is still perfectly usable. It's been 12-13 years for Linux and it's far from done.
Horse-drawn carriages are perfectly usable. Doesn't make me want to use one for transportation.
When will Linux be "done?" What is your definition? It does everything that MS-Windows XP does, and a lot more. (I'm not talking about the applications that ride on top of the OS; just the OS itself. But even in application space, Linux is Ready.) And, in case you haven't noticed, no operating system is ever *done*. And they all suck, even Linux. It's just that Linux (and OS X) suck less.
The great thing about closed source is that it has a clear road map that the developers have to follow and the developers get paid.
Hello, McFly?!? Linux Torvalds? The guy who controls all this? You think he's just randomly applying patches?
I realize I'm just feeding a troll (and a poor one at that), but this "closed source has direction" idea has been disproven so many times its no longer even an interesting thought.
Microsoft has changed directions so many times (think "Internet," for an example) it makes the head spin to watch. But, if you listen to pundits, this makes them "flexible."
This roadmap chestnut is a bit shopworn.
"Many eyes" is a joke when talking about MS. Bill Gates probably has more people working on Windows than there are people working on Linux. And if he needed "more eyes" he'd hire them.
This is so fucking idiotic, I am not sure which fallacy to address first.
Let's start with the number of people working on MS-Windows. Very few people at Microsoft have the ability to look at all the code. Those working on networking cannot look at the filesystem code, for instance. So, even if MS had 10,000 people working on MS-Windows, very few are able to see beyond their chunk of code.
Secondly, MS hires programmers and stick them where they are needed. This does not necessarily mean they are placed where their talents lie, and their interest is rarely taken into account.
This self-selection in the open-source world is one of the most brilliant aspects of the whole affair. It has been shown time and again that a programmer is orders of magnitude more efficient when they are deeply interested in what they are doing. I would wager that 2 hours a night by a good Linux programmer beats 8 hours a day by a typical MS-Windows programmer. (Note I am comparing "good" to "typical;" yes, I know this is not fair.)
Further, Microsoft spends more money on the sales department than in R&D. This should give you a hint why Microsoft has so successfully excluded all other contenders from the distribution chain.
Gotta go; I have to accomplish real work with my Linux box, work that can't be done on an XP box.
Well, I guess I'll give the guy a break - he is new on the block.:-)
He might very well understand the difference between "public domain" and the various FOSS licenses; but try to explain the distinction to a newbie. They get a serious case of MEGO (My Eyes Glaze Over), and the rest of the message is lost to them.
I took exception at first blush, too, but realized his point was that Linux is ready for quite a few MS-Windows power users.
Stock is pretty liquid and he doesn't need it to drive to work. He can give MS shares to charity and everyone would be happy.
Although I won't quibble with BG's worth and real wealth, I will argue with the perceived worth of MS stock.
Remember, Enron's stock was worth quite a bit before the fall; look at it now, valueless. Microsoft is following a lot of the same accounting practices that inflated the worth of Enron stock.
Now, Enron also practiced explicitly illegal acts (from screwing the state of California to endorsing state-led murder in northern Africa), and so far MS has only been quasi-illegal (shifting reported income from one reporting period to the next to "flatten out" perceived growth, thereby maintaining stock value). However, Microsoft's real worth is questionable, as their true monetary profit is shrouded in slieght-of-hand accounting (reporting employee's stock options as income, for instance).
Although it isn't guaranteed to happen, there is a good chance that Microsoft will not be able to continue to ride the artificial economic wave. They have been quite adept so far; but if the stock starts to deflate, they could loose almost their entire worth. Granted, that will still leave them with a lot of resources, but if that happens, Microsoft (and Bill Gates) will no longer be the dominant players. (Think IBM in the '80s.)
This could happen overnight, as witnessed by Enron, Worldcom, or dozens of other companies over the last 100 years.
Itâ(TM)s no secret. To win at business, you must perform better than your competition. Better. Stronger. Faster. You get the picture.
To win at business, you must make a profit. That's it. You don't have to kill your competition; you don't have to fuck anyone over.
You just have to be able to pay the people who work for you, accomplish what you set out to do, and maybe make a little bank in the process.
It's this stupid "Business as competition" mentality (with "Business as war" at the most extreme), coupled with plain old greed, that led to Enron, WorldCom, Microsoft, and the RIAA/MPAA.
I'm not saying, "C'mon, can't we all just get along?" I'm just saying, winning isn't measured by how much more profitable you are than the illusiory "competition." It's measured by the good you do versus the bad you do.
2) DLL hell. I use Gnome and KDE sometimes. Mostly I try to use a few of the programs from each. GNU cash, KWORD.... which requires a lot of libraries == unnessary bloat, slowness and confusion when source compiling.
Okay, I agree with most of what you said, but this is just silly.
First, "DLL Hell" is reserved for DLL conflict, in which different programs require different versions of a library but the system can't cope; not "requires a lot of libraries."
Second, the fact they require a lot of libraries is *good*. The goal of Object Oriented Programming is code-reuse; this is considered a Good Thing. Now, libraries aren't necessarily OO in nature, but the fact that all these apps use a core set of functionality is really A Good Thing. This *doesn't* lead to bloat; it leads to faster development with less bugs, as the library becomes well-tested and well-debugged.
Slowness? Yes, since Linux seems to be a bit slow in dynamic binding. Troube compiling? Possibly, if you download the source and compile yourself. But, desktop users shouldn't be doing this! They should be doing "apt-get install gnumeric gnucash kword" or whatever. Or clicking friendly checkboxes and a button that says, "Download and Install."
Or whatever.
The rest of your points are valid. Not debilitating, I think, but valid. Unfortunately, because of the way politics works (and the computer industry is driven more by ad-hoc business politics than by worth and value, that's for fucking god-damned sure), I think OS-X doesn't stand much of a chance against MS-Windows.
But then again, Linux doesn't stand much of a chance, either.
Shouldn't they be spent on something where the user is completely free to modify - either licensed BSD, or public domain?
In this case, the GPL is exactly the same as the BSD license.
It's only when the user stops being a user and starts being a distributer that the rules change. The GPL does not allow people to stand on the shoulders of giants without a return in contribution.
It's not users (or "beleaguered UK taxpayers") but profiteers that are under additional restriction.
Furthermore, his statements about patents have no bearing on the lawsuit as SCO never claimed any patent infringement -- only stolen code (which is a copyright claim).
It's a little more subtle than this. SCO isn't even calling it a copyright infringement; they are suing for breach of contract. Part of the breach of contract claims IBM used parts of System V (which SCO claims as their own) in beefing up Linux.
Now, which parts? Apperantly, SCO claims that one specific area of infringement is in the RCU code, which removes a major bottleneck for >4 CPU machines. Sequent "invented" the RCU algorithm; Sequent was later purchased by IBM.
So how does this constitute breach of contract? SCO claims that the Unix contract signed by IBM (and, in fact, by every Unix signee) includes provisions for SCO to claim all derivitive works.
This is the crux; SCO has stated (through its top administrators) that all modern operating systems are merely derived works; they have hinted this includes MS-Windows, and they also want to re-visit the BSD decision.
This is patently rediculous. (Excuse the pun. Couldn't resist.) But, if SCO succeeds in their assault on IBM, they will have a case against every other Unix provider, and against Linux. They will probably have no case against Microsoft (who would most likely pay SCO off anyway, rather than face more bad publicity) or BSD, but that wouldn't stop them from trying with their new-found booty.
This is shares some attributes of the British Telecom case against (Compuserve? Prodigy? Don't remember off the top of my head), based on the scope of the claims. BT wanted to own the Internet; SCO wants to own every OS. The greatness of their chutzpah is stunning.
But, I did not say "pleasure," or even "happiness." I did say "joy." Don't know what difference that makes.
But, in my non-nihilistic non-hedonism, since life is merely the process of moving from birth to death, the process by which you find joy is as important as the joy itself.
Or, put another way: I may receive a house as a gift, but I will take more pride (and perhaps more joy) from a house I build myself.
So, although the mind-state induced by soma may equal the mind-state of joy, the context is different, and so the experience will be different.
You just got fired? Your wife is dying? You have an incurable melanoma? No problem! Your life is one long, drawn-out orgasm anyway!
Again, a matter of context. Although an orgasm from masturbation may be just as intense as any other time, I would rather have sex with a partner than masturbate.
And context plays out with the getting fired or losing a wife. The joy experienced after a great time of depression or anger never makes up for the loss, but feels extremely good just the same.
But, you do have excellent points, ones that are extremely difficult (if not impossible) to refute.
Slashdot Mirror
He does not get the gpl at all. You are right about misinformation.
Oh, I bet he gets it, all right. He's not an idiot. My guess is this: he's hoping 90% of the rest of the population doesn't get it. He merely wants people to be afraid of the GPL, and will do his best to misrepresent the GPL at every opportunity.
This is no different from him slamming other software companies at any given moment; he's just striking Linux at the only point he has, the license.
This is good: it means MS has given up on the "MS-Windows is technically superior," and, "MS-Windows is cheaper."
At this point, cheap shots are all they have left.
You misunderstand me. When the machine gives you the paper, you check it over, touch the "yes, I voted like this" button, and then insert the paper into a (human monitored) collection box, just like paper votes are handled now. The paper votes accompany the electonic votes at all times; this way, we get the convenience of the electronic votes (the thing everyone is after) with the auditability of paper votes.
The best of both worlds.
Note the difference between "electronic voting," and "on-line voting." So far we are talking about the electronic version of the current system, in which people have to go to a poll location. On-line voting presents other problems, but probably results in a similar situation as absentee ballots, in which you must print off and mail in a chit; then, you are correct, the dunces and mouth-breathers will have a hard time with it.
I don't know if this has been offered as a solution yet, but the easiest way to verify an election is to keep a paper trail.
When a person votes, the machine should spit out a piece of paper with the voter's choices listed. The voter verifies the paper, then slides the paper into a slot (in much the same way many current voting machines accept the voter card).
In that way, the voting machines can automate the tabulation, and we can avoid any hanging chads; but the paper trail still exists.
Are there any flaws with this?
I liken it to playing a game of Tekken, or Starcraft, or whatever your favorite multiplayer game is. You may not like an aspect of the rules and wish them to be changed, but if you're in a tournament theres nothing keeping your opponent from using 'exploits' or 'cheese' or whatever you wanna call it. The point is when you're playing to win, all avenues must be considered and also what your opponent is capable of must be considered as well.
All well-and-good, but the difference between the game of Real Life and Tekken or Starcraft is this: we influence the rules. And if the rules are stupid, we can (hopefully!) do something about it.
Until such time as the rules are fixed, then yes: you are correct. Use the rules against them. But that shouldn't stop us from striving with every available erg against Rank Stupidity.
Right tool for the right job. What it runs under is irrelevant.
Wha..?
Bitkeeper is used for Linux development. In fact, it is an integral part of Linux development.
I don't know if you realize this, but Linux runs on more than just x86 hardware. From that, you can conclude that at least *some* Linux kernel developers us other platforms than x86. From there, it is not too great of a logical leap to conclude that, if Bitkeeper is used for Linux kernel development, and isn't supported by the platform under which some kernel developers develop, Bitkeeper is the wrong tool for the job, because it doesn't support all Linux platforms.
There are several conclusions from this sorite, including this: in this application, the platoform under which Bitkeeper runs is especially relevent. So, while the first sentence of your reply is correct, the second sentence is complete and utter rubbish.
The later we may be taking about a few cents per diluted share. The former we are taking about an innocents person life.
From the looks of our laws, the "few cents a share" means more than an innocent life.
Why are criminal corporations still in business? (Enron, Shell, Exxon, and a slew of others have financed armed raids in various countries, in which people have died.) Why is it that someone can share a file on a P2P network and end up paying the RIAA for the rest of their lives, but the guy in charge of the company (Enron) that fucked over California (and a good chunk of the rest of the world) goes free, without paying a dime?
I guess it means the biggest crime is not being rich.
Really, we all do what it takes to pay the bills.
I'm sure the mafia says the same thing. And Enron.
Maybe rather than sitting around ranting anti-MS, people could try doing something like making actually useful, easy-to-use-and-configure-for-the-bonehead-masses stuff.
I don't know if you've noticed, but that's exactly what's happening. Anti-MS rants make us feel good, and they don't take too much time from our actual development.
Unfortunately, it's getting so easy to slam MS, it's not very fun anymore. "We respect others' intellectual property." Ha! Ha! How could they say that with a straight face?
It's just too easy.
Needless to say, as long as Linux distributions and desktop managers continue to proliferate, the average user's requirements will never be met. I say this as a *fact* not a *prescription*, so spare me the Linux-strength-in-diversity comments. I just think you can't have your cake (freedom/diversity) and eat it too (Linux on average desktop).
I've not seen any credible evidence to back this up. I agree with your two numbered points; however, this addendum is from the perspective of a self-admitted 15-year Wintel person. You state it as fact; but, I believe it is simply 15 years of Wintel indoctrination talking.
If diversity were a bad thing, we'd all be driving the same kind of car, or eating the same food.
Now, computers in general must get easier to use; but that's the truth for every single computer out there. I mean, right now we judge computers by their varying degrees of suckitude. All computers (and operating systems) suck; just some suck less.
Also, allow me to wander a bit, and talk for a moment about evolution. One of the primary driving factors of evolution is genetic divergence. During good times, a population's genes will mix up nicely, allowing for a wide distribution of all kinds of genes. Then, during tougher times (when nature is selecting), certain phenotypes provide for better survival traits. It's difficult (or even impossible) to be able to tell which phenotype will provide advantage beforehand.
Certain populations with small genetic diversity are at risk; if the environment changes even slightly, they may not have the necessary survival traits within the population. (Cheetahs and condors are examples of species with extremely small genetic diversity.)
What's this have to do with Linux? Should be easy to spot: Linux has very broad genetic diversity. This allows it to survive in many varied environments. And, if the computing environment changes (as it does almost daily), some phenotypes will be more suited to survival than others. Some fall by the wayside; others survive.
So, I won't spare you the "Linux-strenght-in-diversity" comments. Because it is not only a strength, it is a necessity if we are going to move forward in any meaningful way, instead of the monolithic singularity of commercial operating systems.
On the second, if this is your sole reason, you're being illogical. That would be like brushing off a good idea from a fellow developer because you didn't like his office.
Or more like not partnering with someone who has stabbed you (or people just like you) in the back so many times you feel like Lizzy Borden's folks.
The information itself is only important to those who would protect it or exploit it.
This is patent bullshit.
I can think of several ways this aggregate information is important. First is social: the entire purpose of his research was to investigate the sociogeographic aspects of the information infrastructure. More importantly, this information shows us where our money would be best spent in beefing up the infrastructure: like optimizing a program, you have to find your performance bottlenecks; you can't do that if you don't know where those bottlenecks are.
From a business philosophy standpoint, the one quote from the article that stuck out was this (from memory): "We didn't realize how interdependent we were." From a fucking banking exec. Think about that for a second. If this attitude is endimic to the corporate world, this shows these idiots think they are running their companies in a vacuum! If corporate wonks can learn that the world is a much more complex and fragile thing than they thought, and that they rely on other companies (even competitors) for success, maybe (just maybe) they can stop fucking over the country just to make a few bucks.
But the most important benefits will be those you and I can't see. The laser was not designed to revolutionize information storage and transmission, but that is now its primary application. Same thing here. This aggregate data has enough value on its own right now, but in the future, it may be more important for our survival than any of us realize right now.
The way to protect our infrastructure is not to hide the jugular, but to make sure there *is* no jugular. This information is the place to start, not the place to stop.
Personally, I feel Iraq was merely a distraction from the fact that most of the terrorists were from friendly Saudi Arabia...
Sorry, I wasn't explicit-- most of the terrorists who kamakazed the WTC and Pentagon were from Saudi Arabia. Not most terrorists in general.
Sorry about that.
For example, even though the UN was just on our backs about Iraq, they now are BEGGING us to intervene in Liberia, this is ridiculous.
Although I agree in general with your post, there is a major difference between Iraq and Liberia. First, we were never asked to intervene in Iraq. Neither the Iraqis nor the rest of the world wanted us there.
In fact, the one time we were asked to intervene in a minimal way (after President Bush Sr. encouraged the Shiites to revolt against Hussien after the Gulf War I, and they asked for the weapons we confiscated from the Iraqi army), we refused, resulting in the mass graves we turned up recently.
Iraq was relatively stable before our interference, and they were no threat to the United States, except perhaps for the threat to the cheap and massive flow of oil. 'Cause we need to afford to drive our fucking SUVs.
Liberia has been in a state of turmoil for several years. Liberia is more like Kosovo, in which the UN (with major US participation) helped to add a tiny little bit of stability. We didn't make everything better, of course, but it was better than nothing.
But mostly, we were asked.
And comparing the Iraqi situation with the Nazis is a bit of a stretch, as the lack of WMDs has driven home. And considering the disproof of the evidence presented to convince us Iraq *ever* represented a threat, we should never have been there in the first place.
Personally, I feel Iraq was merely a distraction from the fact that most of the terrorists were from friendly Saudi Arabia (supporting your point about the million dollars), and that bin Laden is still at large, and that Afghanistan has turned into a quagmire and will never have a democracy.
But then again, I'm a cynical git.
Geez...I'm an MCSE guess i'll be happy with the 65k a year..
Fuck, is *that* all you get? I guess the MCSE *is* worthless.
Care to enlighten us on what that work is? My guess is a server environment where a fully functioning, mass mass market ready OS isn't needed.
Dude, MS-Windows XP has proven to be a mass mass market OS for gaming; and simple word processing; and conveyer of various worms, viruses, and trojans. Although it's more stable than MS-Windows 2000, as a server OS it still requires rebooting, or it becomes unstable after just a few weeks.
I guess MS workers are just more interested in what they're doing then. How else do you explain Linux having been around fot 50% more time and not being even close to done?
This is silly. Saying Linux has been around for 50% more time is both misleading and incorrect. Claiming the current iteration of Linux is like the version 1.0 kernel is like saying MS-Windows XP is based on MS-Windows 3.0.
And you *still* haven't outlined the ways in which Linux is unfinished. What is your definition of "finished?" If you mean, "as in finished all the function goals defined in the road map and ready for the mass market," to which road map do you refer? And, how do you know Linux has not met it's road map by that definition?
BTW, there *is* a road map for Linux. Before every development branch, Linus announces his goals for the development kernel. Yes, he accepts other goals, as well; but they do not get incorporated unless they fit with his goals.
In fact, I would dare say Linux has clearer, better-defined goals than MS-Windows. For instance, what is the road map of Longhorn?
For a taste of the Linux 2.5 road map as seen at the outset, see this article at LWN.
I guess you must have been hired by them at one time then.
Nope. I've hated Microsoft's business tactics and shoddy software for years (since 1991, to be exact). Wouldn't work for them. But I know a lot of people who *do* work for them. I know that MS makes technical decisions based on marketing requirements; I know they curse the release schedule, because *they* don't like shipping broken products (which a couple of them have called both MS-Win2k and XP).
Care to enlighten us on what that work is? My guess is a server environment where a fully functioning, mass mass market ready OS isn't needed.
Simple. We are using X terminals that are about 9 years old. I'm installing some more computing capacity in the server room, because our users have outstripped the current set of servers.
How do I upgrade the computing power of 300 X Terminals? Add a single computer. Those X terminals can now run applications seamlessly and transperantly off the new server; the users don't even realize there *has* been an upgrade. (And, yes, this is a full GUI system. Don't let the term "terminal" throw you off.)
And it sure beats the hell out of upgrading and maintaining 300 PCs based on MS-Windows.
Sure, MS-Windows might be user-oriented. But Unix is *business* oriented, and has out-performed and out-gunned MS-Windows for 15 years now.
Now, here's where you'll say, "But MS-Windows is installed on more desktops, making it the best!" This is, in essence, the basis of your argument already (by calling MS-Windows "Mass Market"). But big deal? Budwieser is the best-selling beer. Christina Aguelera (sp) outsells Radiohead. The Ford Pinto was once the best-selling car.
What's this prove? That often, the best-selling article is guilded crap. For those of us who have experienced the beautifully-veneered shackles of MS-Windows after using operating systems that are both powerful and flexible, the mass-appeal of MS-Windows is exactly like drowning in Budwieser.
I hate it when people get the history wrong.
In 8 years MS has dominated the market with their OS.
Microsoft started out with a monopoly on IBM PC systems; after the clones were released, it still had a monopoly. When faced with DR-DOS (which was quickly undermining that monopoly) they used anti-competitive tactics to exclude DR-DOS from the retail chain, and cheap stunts like misleading error messages in MS-Windows 3.1 Beta to undermine the reputation of DR-DOS as an excellent, reliable OS.
This has been going on for over twenty years. It isn't that Microsoft has dominated the market with their OS; it's that cheap commodity hardware has dominated the market, and Microsoft has the business savvy to ride that train, and the position and ruthlessness to exclude others.
Windows 98 is still perfectly usable. It's been 12-13 years for Linux and it's far from done.
Horse-drawn carriages are perfectly usable. Doesn't make me want to use one for transportation.
When will Linux be "done?" What is your definition? It does everything that MS-Windows XP does, and a lot more. (I'm not talking about the applications that ride on top of the OS; just the OS itself. But even in application space, Linux is Ready.) And, in case you haven't noticed, no operating system is ever *done*. And they all suck, even Linux. It's just that Linux (and OS X) suck less.
The great thing about closed source is that it has a clear road map that the developers have to follow and the developers get paid.
Hello, McFly?!? Linux Torvalds? The guy who controls all this? You think he's just randomly applying patches?
I realize I'm just feeding a troll (and a poor one at that), but this "closed source has direction" idea has been disproven so many times its no longer even an interesting thought.
Microsoft has changed directions so many times (think "Internet," for an example) it makes the head spin to watch. But, if you listen to pundits, this makes them "flexible."
This roadmap chestnut is a bit shopworn.
"Many eyes" is a joke when talking about MS. Bill Gates probably has more people working on Windows than there are people working on Linux. And if he needed "more eyes" he'd hire them.
This is so fucking idiotic, I am not sure which fallacy to address first.
Let's start with the number of people working on MS-Windows. Very few people at Microsoft have the ability to look at all the code. Those working on networking cannot look at the filesystem code, for instance. So, even if MS had 10,000 people working on MS-Windows, very few are able to see beyond their chunk of code.
Secondly, MS hires programmers and stick them where they are needed. This does not necessarily mean they are placed where their talents lie, and their interest is rarely taken into account.
This self-selection in the open-source world is one of the most brilliant aspects of the whole affair. It has been shown time and again that a programmer is orders of magnitude more efficient when they are deeply interested in what they are doing. I would wager that 2 hours a night by a good Linux programmer beats 8 hours a day by a typical MS-Windows programmer. (Note I am comparing "good" to "typical;" yes, I know this is not fair.)
Further, Microsoft spends more money on the sales department than in R&D. This should give you a hint why Microsoft has so successfully excluded all other contenders from the distribution chain.
Gotta go; I have to accomplish real work with my Linux box, work that can't be done on an XP box.
But, happy trolling!
Well, I guess I'll give the guy a break - he is new on the block. :-)
He might very well understand the difference between "public domain" and the various FOSS licenses; but try to explain the distinction to a newbie. They get a serious case of MEGO (My Eyes Glaze Over), and the rest of the message is lost to them.
I took exception at first blush, too, but realized his point was that Linux is ready for quite a few MS-Windows power users.
The ideal of democracy is simple: together we are strong, divided we are weak. Each shall have an equal say.
Sounds like a union to me.
See ya.
Stock is pretty liquid and he doesn't need it to drive to work. He can give MS shares to charity and everyone would be happy.
Although I won't quibble with BG's worth and real wealth, I will argue with the perceived worth of MS stock.
Remember, Enron's stock was worth quite a bit before the fall; look at it now, valueless. Microsoft is following a lot of the same accounting practices that inflated the worth of Enron stock.
Now, Enron also practiced explicitly illegal acts (from screwing the state of California to endorsing state-led murder in northern Africa), and so far MS has only been quasi-illegal (shifting reported income from one reporting period to the next to "flatten out" perceived growth, thereby maintaining stock value). However, Microsoft's real worth is questionable, as their true monetary profit is shrouded in slieght-of-hand accounting (reporting employee's stock options as income, for instance).
Although it isn't guaranteed to happen, there is a good chance that Microsoft will not be able to continue to ride the artificial economic wave. They have been quite adept so far; but if the stock starts to deflate, they could loose almost their entire worth. Granted, that will still leave them with a lot of resources, but if that happens, Microsoft (and Bill Gates) will no longer be the dominant players. (Think IBM in the '80s.)
This could happen overnight, as witnessed by Enron, Worldcom, or dozens of other companies over the last 100 years.
Itâ(TM)s no secret. To win at business, you must perform better than your competition. Better. Stronger. Faster. You get the picture.
To win at business, you must make a profit. That's it. You don't have to kill your competition; you don't have to fuck anyone over.
You just have to be able to pay the people who work for you, accomplish what you set out to do, and maybe make a little bank in the process.
It's this stupid "Business as competition" mentality (with "Business as war" at the most extreme), coupled with plain old greed, that led to Enron, WorldCom, Microsoft, and the RIAA/MPAA.
I'm not saying, "C'mon, can't we all just get along?" I'm just saying, winning isn't measured by how much more profitable you are than the illusiory "competition." It's measured by the good you do versus the bad you do.
Microsoft may not make the best software, but there mice are excellent.
They only steal the best.
This article seems to be a case of an MS-Windows geek pitting the two most-likely challangers against themselves.
Fuck that. "United we stand, divided we fall."
OSX is good. Linux is good. Who cares who has the biggest market share? We don't need to whip it out and do a size comparison.
2) DLL hell. I use Gnome and KDE sometimes. Mostly I try to use a few of the programs from each. GNU cash, KWORD .... which requires a lot of libraries == unnessary bloat, slowness and confusion when source compiling.
Okay, I agree with most of what you said, but this is just silly.
First, "DLL Hell" is reserved for DLL conflict, in which different programs require different versions of a library but the system can't cope; not "requires a lot of libraries."
Second, the fact they require a lot of libraries is *good*. The goal of Object Oriented Programming is code-reuse; this is considered a Good Thing. Now, libraries aren't necessarily OO in nature, but the fact that all these apps use a core set of functionality is really A Good Thing. This *doesn't* lead to bloat; it leads to faster development with less bugs, as the library becomes well-tested and well-debugged.
Slowness? Yes, since Linux seems to be a bit slow in dynamic binding. Troube compiling? Possibly, if you download the source and compile yourself. But, desktop users shouldn't be doing this! They should be doing "apt-get install gnumeric gnucash kword" or whatever. Or clicking friendly checkboxes and a button that says, "Download and Install."
Or whatever.
The rest of your points are valid. Not debilitating, I think, but valid. Unfortunately, because of the way politics works (and the computer industry is driven more by ad-hoc business politics than by worth and value, that's for fucking god-damned sure), I think OS-X doesn't stand much of a chance against MS-Windows.
But then again, Linux doesn't stand much of a chance, either.
Yet.
Shouldn't they be spent on something where the user is completely free to modify - either licensed BSD, or public domain?
In this case, the GPL is exactly the same as the BSD license.
It's only when the user stops being a user and starts being a distributer that the rules change. The GPL does not allow people to stand on the shoulders of giants without a return in contribution.
It's not users (or "beleaguered UK taxpayers") but profiteers that are under additional restriction.
Furthermore, his statements about patents have no bearing on the lawsuit as SCO never claimed any patent infringement -- only stolen code (which is a copyright claim).
It's a little more subtle than this. SCO isn't even calling it a copyright infringement; they are suing for breach of contract. Part of the breach of contract claims IBM used parts of System V (which SCO claims as their own) in beefing up Linux.
Now, which parts? Apperantly, SCO claims that one specific area of infringement is in the RCU code, which removes a major bottleneck for >4 CPU machines. Sequent "invented" the RCU algorithm; Sequent was later purchased by IBM.
So how does this constitute breach of contract? SCO claims that the Unix contract signed by IBM (and, in fact, by every Unix signee) includes provisions for SCO to claim all derivitive works.
This is the crux; SCO has stated (through its top administrators) that all modern operating systems are merely derived works; they have hinted this includes MS-Windows, and they also want to re-visit the BSD decision.
This is patently rediculous. (Excuse the pun. Couldn't resist.) But, if SCO succeeds in their assault on IBM, they will have a case against every other Unix provider, and against Linux. They will probably have no case against Microsoft (who would most likely pay SCO off anyway, rather than face more bad publicity) or BSD, but that wouldn't stop them from trying with their new-found booty.
This is shares some attributes of the British Telecom case against (Compuserve? Prodigy? Don't remember off the top of my head), based on the scope of the claims. BT wanted to own the Internet; SCO wants to own every OS. The greatness of their chutzpah is stunning.
These guys must have Epcot-sized testicles.
Very good points.
But, I did not say "pleasure," or even "happiness." I did say "joy." Don't know what difference that makes.
But, in my non-nihilistic non-hedonism, since life is merely the process of moving from birth to death, the process by which you find joy is as important as the joy itself.
Or, put another way: I may receive a house as a gift, but I will take more pride (and perhaps more joy) from a house I build myself.
So, although the mind-state induced by soma may equal the mind-state of joy, the context is different, and so the experience will be different.
You just got fired? Your wife is dying? You have an incurable melanoma? No problem! Your life is one long, drawn-out orgasm anyway!
Again, a matter of context. Although an orgasm from masturbation may be just as intense as any other time, I would rather have sex with a partner than masturbate.
And context plays out with the getting fired or losing a wife. The joy experienced after a great time of depression or anger never makes up for the loss, but feels extremely good just the same.
But, you do have excellent points, ones that are extremely difficult (if not impossible) to refute.