See the only problem with your terms is when most people think of "Freedom" they think of you know, freedom from slavery or oppression like the Civil Rights Movement or Sufferage Movement...etc and not some hard to use operating system hardware mainly used by geeks who have a hard time socially communicating their ideas to normal people.
Actually both you are missing what "freedom" means in this context. The freedom of FOSS isn't a fundamental right like free speech. It's a bonus feature that the author can give you. The difference between FOSS and proprietary software is like the difference between owning and renting a home; with one you are "free" to change to your liking, but no one can force you to rent their apartment.
There are people who disagree (like RMS), but IMHO that's the nature of the "free" in free software. Your problem with Linux apparently has nothing to do with this nuance, since your idea of Linux is "some hard to use operating system hardware" (we'll just ignore that an OS and hardware are not the same thing). Linux can be hard, but this mostly depends on A) which distro you use and B) what you want to do with it. Slackware (what I use) would admittedly be hard for a newbie to jump right into. But to give you an example, I have two sisters, one who uses Linux (Ubuntu) and the other Windows. The one using Linux has asked me for help less often than the other. Not a scientific study by any stretch, but that's my experience.
It's truly funny how many people are fucking lazy and naive enough to NOT update their systems after many many years of hearing about viruses.
I mean really, you gotta be pretty fuckin dumb to not know about keeping your system up to date, or at least acknowledge that viruses exist.
Yes, people ought to be good about maintaining their computers, but I don't understand why you think it's great that people exploit this.
You seem to glorify the ruining of computers, and I don't understand why. Shame on those who let their guard down, but the real blame rests on the criminals themselves. Just because a house is unlocked doesn't mean that someone has a right to break into it to prove that the owner was lax on security.
It's even better when big companies get hit because they're the ones pumping shitloads of money into supposed "experienced" network admins.. and what happens? Shit hits the fan.
I love it.
Suppose you go to a town that just got hit by a tornado and you see a building with in-tact windows that weren't boarded up.Do you think, "darn, I wish that tornado was more destructive so these folks would have lost their home. Obviously they deserve it because they're lazy." I hope not. Yeah, people should be more vigilant, but it doesn't mean they deserve to have their stuff destroyed.
Just as tornadoes shouldn't be seen as a good thing, neither should computer destruction. And unlike tornadoes, cyber crimes are caused by jerks (to put it nicely) who, instead of being glorified, need to spend some time behind bars.
I am more concerned with seeing an end to the duopoly of Windows and Mac for the consumer desktop. While some may not apply the term I think it fits. We really need a third major player for the desktop to get things moving again. Right now Apple and Microsoft are not moving forward, we are still bound to single processor solutions that are mouse and keyboard driven. We have been there for nearly 20 years now!
I don't quite understand what you want in terms of innovation. Those of us who need more than one CPU are not "still bound to single processor solutions" at all. Today's operating systems fully support SMP. But for most people there is no point in having more than one CPU because they generally aren't running multiple CPU-intensive programs in parallel; for many people, the most demanding program they'll run is a word processor (and one instance at a time for that matter).
As for the mouse and keyboard, they are there because they are intuitive and effective input devices for using a computer. The keyboard is definitely here to stay, and the only thing I can possibly imagine making the mouse obsolete is the advent of 3D desktops, which might eventually take advantage of some fancier hardware. Even so, although 3D desktops look great, there's no reason to believe that they will make the user more efficient.
So perhaps there's some incredible general purpose input device we haven't discovered, but I think the mouse and keyboard are here to stay and with good reason. Even if this device exists, CLIs are still sometimes preferred by users today despite the existence of GUI tools. Innovation is great, but I don't think there's anything too revolutionary in store for us in the I/O area, and there's nothing the general public can gain from SMP computers except for needlessly higher prices.
You are one of the few people on Slashdot who are thinking reasonably about this issue.
They [the RIAA] charge very high prices for CDs, restrict their usage, and then wonder why their customers aren't happy. Grow up.
Yes, but there is a perfectly ethical and legal way to fight this: simply don't buy the music. If Ford charged ridiculously high prices for their cars, don't buy them. But that doesn't mean that you now have a right to go steal these cars (yes, I know it's not perfectly analagous, which is a good segway to my next point...).
On the other hand, you have a multitude of excuses for piracy. The "copyright infringement isn't theft" is my favorite, as it in no way justifies breaking of the law.
"Theft" is a slightly inaccurate portrayal of copyright infringement. It is much more like counterfeiting, which I hope we all agree is and should be illegal. In a capitalist economy, you earn money for your work, and you can then convert money into stuff you want (like music) as a reward. No, it doesn't directly affect anyone negatively, but that is an extremely short-sighted view of it. If counterfeiting were legal and everyone did it, money would become worthless and the economy would become irrelevant.
Similarly, piracy music devalues music and means that there is less of a reward for those who do work. If you pirate music, then you are getting a reward without earning it.
In any case, discussion of the practical effects of the RIAA's licensing schemes are beside the deeper point. If you are one of the "information wants to be free" crowd that doesn't recognize intellectual property, then you have a much more fundamental disagreement with the RIAA. But if you do recognize intellectual property as a legitimate idea, then you have to accept the RIAA's licensing terms for what they are, whether you like them or not. These terms are and should be set by copyright holders (who are in this case the RIAA). If they are acceptable, buy the music. If they aren't, don't buy it. If you believe in copyright, but also believe that customers should be able to write arbitrary licenses for IP they don't own, you hold completely contradictory views.
During the US Civil War, the sunken USS Merrimack was raised and converted to an ironclad by the Confederates, who renamed it the CSS Virginia (which later fought in the famous battle of the ironclads). So the parent was just trying to make a, albeit lame, joke about the acronym "CSS." It wasn't truly offtopic, and it definitely wasn't a troll.
I don't care if it's apt-get, RPM, Roll your own, or what not.... the difficulty with installing applications on a.nix like OS is what is keeping me from using it as my "Desktop".
I prefer to compile the source whenever possible, but I can definitely see where you're coming from. There does need to be an easy way to install binaries, but I thought this issue had been solved with package managers. What exactly do you not like about, for example, RPM? Installing an RPM using the GUI is more or less just like in Windows: double click.
Actually I think that's a comment from the Gaim developers responding to the patch. After all, the comment thanks the person for the patch, so it would be strange for Microsoft to thank itself on behalf of the Gaim people...
No, I didn't RTFA. Why should I? It will just be more sensationalist crap the Media has hounded out. How is this news? Every day I see more evil things happening on the 5 o'clock news -- why? Is there a reason that news has to include blood and gore?
Think about it. In 1984, Orwell declared that "War is Peace" in Oceania. How is this different from today? Bush says that in order to have "peace" (i.e. not be at risk of terrorism), we must go to war with a random country. A country that did not have any part in the attack on 9/11.
Again, the article is not about Bush. There's plenty to criticize Bush for, but I don't see what's insightful about some random swipe at him in an unrelated article.
I love how the Bush administration keeps the Terrorist "threat" at the forefront of the American peoples' lives. It really makes me wonder if we are not moving closer to an Orwellian future. "War Is Peace" is beginning to sound more and more like Bush's rhetoric every day.
Um... I think someone didn't RTFA. Bush isn't even mentioned once in the article. Why did this post get a +5 Insightful when it has nothing to do with the article?
Why are there two major windows manager projects? Not like lots of other smaller projects like IceWM. It seems that so much time is put in KDE and Gnome, that if the two teams worked together, they might make something superior to what they made on their own. Does KDE and Gnome have the same goals, or are they very different?
I'm no expert by any means on either KDE or GNOME; this is all from what I've gathered as a KDE user, so don't quote me on any of this. I personally wouldn't want the two to become one because they do seem to go into different directions. A perfect example is their file browsers. I've always loved Konqueror, especially since it means I get to use tabbed file browsing. Nautilus, on the other hand, decided to use a "spatial browsing" interface, which opens a new window for each folder you open. Personally I can't stand this, but it was decided on after much deliberation by the GNOME people, so apparently some people like it. KDE also behaves a lot more like Windows than GNOME does. Some people dislike the Windows interface, but for newcomers to the Unix world it is useful to have this to ease the transition. So long as you can use KDE apps in GNOME and GNOME apps in KDE, I think there's no problem keeping the two projects separate.
This is my guess, correct me if I am wrong. KDE has more developers and money. Gnome has fewer people, but more creative people. KDE will give you everything and the kitchen sink. Gnome will find ways put a twist into things, to make it fun.
I'm not sure if GNOME or KDE has more people; I've always been under the impression that they have about the same number. As far as corporate sponsorship goes, though, companies like Novell are going for KDE, whereas Red Hat has poured a whole bunch of resources into GNOME. As far as putting a new "twist" into software, yeah I'd say that's true of GNOME. The difference is that, IMHO, the twists just make the software harder to use. But again, this is all in the eye of the beholder. Different people like different features, and that's why I'm fine with two different desktops.
For me, the difference boils down to this. GNOME does what it's supposed to do very well, and it's lighter-weight and cleaner. But what GNOME is supposed to do isn't what I want (like spatial browsing). KDE is supposed to do what I want, but it feels slower and there are weird bugs that can be annoying (example: my desktop icons magically rearrange themselves sometimes).
I know that you've been modded down as a troll, but you have a good point, and even though I disagree with it, I think your post deserves an answer, not a troll mod.
I don't know if any of you noticed, but Linux only has about a 1% share of the desktop market. What is the point of teaching these kids to use a system that nobody else does?
Yes, Linux doesn't have a large share of the desktop market, but it's got a very large piece of the server pie, and is also prevalent in areas like supercomputing involved in scientific research. So the notion that learning Linux has no practical application in the "real world" is simply false. If these kids are doing tech support for the general public, yes, Windows is the system they should learn; if they're writing a program for a scientist to be executed on a cluster of Linux boxes (the job I happen to have right now), Linux is more appropriate.
However, even this is not necessarily relevant. If these kids are supposed to be learning academics (as opposed to vocational training), the operating system is really not that important in terms of how well the kids will learn. A mouse behaves about the same on Windows as on Linux, most of the skills involved in using Office are applicable to OpenOffice.org, etc. The concepts of computer science, for example, are platform-independent, no matter whether you like programming with vi/emacs or Visual Studio. So even programmers, those who have as much to do with computers as anyone, will become just as good programmers no matter which platform they learn on.
So what I'm saying is that in terms of educational value, if students learn Windows or learn Unix, it makes little difference. Also, many of these machines will be servers and computers that students won't come into contact with, and therefore they deserve an OS chosen purely on technical merits.
So, in a nutshell, what I'm saying is that the schools should get what they think is best, whether it's Windows or Linux. Their job isn't to help Microsoft maintain a monopoly just because they already have one.
Isn't the point of Linux that it's free and all that jazz? I mean... paying for it takes away a whole lot of the attractiveness IMHO.
If you mean that it's free in the sense of it not costing any money, no, that's not the point. The point of the operating system that it's been bundled with, GNU, was to provide a "free" OS in the sense that the user could do whatever he wished with it, i.e. modify it and share it with others. The sharing aspect means that it's very easy to obtain without paying for it, but that wasn't the purpose. I paid for my copy of GNU/Linux. Why? I like Linux in large part because the source code is accessible, and I think good work deserves good pay.
Freeware (in the sense of cost) has always been around in great quantity. What makes open source programs different is the *open source code*, not the fact that you can download it for free.
But surely you could see many programmers hiding little bugs within the program to make themselves tax free. Not everything must or can be open source.
I see your point, but if it's possible to cheat on your taxes by modifying the client software, then it's a pretty weak design. All such checks should be done on the server side. Even though the program is being distributed as a binary, if such loopholes exist, one can imagine some hex-editor-wielding taxpayer giving himself tax breaks. I see no reason why the whole design couldn't be made secure against this or why they couldn't provide a web-based system so that all you need is a browser.
Its is the open source community's resposibility to make it's OS compatible with these processes, not the company/government to make a version for your OS.
It's pretty difficult to make your OS run binaries from another platform if the other platform is closed source. The government shouldn't have to build a version of the program for every OS, but it should provide an interface compatible with some open standard/protocol, such as HTTP. This way, even if your platform didn't support the standard/protocol, it would be easy for someone to write a program that did.
Why doesn't the Australian government provide the source code to the public? I'm sure that there would be plenty of programmers willing to port the program to other platforms.
People don't mind paying for software\music etc. They just don't like being ripped off with overly inflated prices.
So they think they can set the price to what they deem appropriate? It is the copyright holder who gets to set the terms/price at which the IP is licensed, not the consumer. Otherwise, the consumer will choose the price that gives him the best deal: $0. If you think something at a store is too expensive, don't buy it. That doesn't give you the right to simply take it.
Others -- notably large numbers whose company intranets rely on ActiveX tools -- consider it a pain in the ass, and any security implications a distant second in importance to keeping those tools working.
You shouldn't have to choose between security and use of your computer. Because ActiveX is insecure, developers ought to use other tools to provide both compatibility with other browsers and operating systems on which ActiveX hasn't been implemented.
A typical filesharer doesn't sell the downloaded music for money either.
That's totally irrelevant. It's copyright infringement whether or not you sell it.
The first thing a filesharer sees from the RIAA is a C&D letter demanding money. Welte tells the infringing companies "We know you use GPLed code in your products you sell. Clean up your act or we will do more than just remind you about it.". At this time, there is no fine to pay if the company complies.
Sounds like your complaint with the RIAA is that they're simply too quick to demand money. Copyright infringement, whether it's against music or GPLed software, is wrong, and the law ought to be enforced. I would like to hear from the Slashdot community how they would like to see the RIAA enforce its copyrights without lawsuits instead of lambasting them for doing anything at all.
Yes, but unfortunately, that probably won't be what happens (at least for a very, very long time). If GNU/Linux becomes a major desktop OS, the beginnings of the movement will happen elsewhere. China is pushing bigtime for it, other Asian countries, Brazil, and patches of Europe. The US is where Microsoft is more entrenched than anywhere else, and it will probably be last to fall (if this change does indeed occur).
For a long time, I've believed that for Humanity to survive, we *MUST* have colonies on more than just Earth. We have the technology to kill everything on this planet in minutes, and it takes a mistake by one person to start that chain of events. Maybe through our own greed and industrialization, we've already set the earth on a fatal spiral through pollution. There are also other events that can happen, which are on more of a sci-fi scale. What if the sun goes super nova? What if a giant asteroid crashes into the earth?
I'm all for spreading colonies, but your last two examples are a little more realistic than "sci-fi." We know that the sun's going to die; it'll take 4.5 billion years, but it will definitely happen. And a large asteroid will almost certainly strike the Earth. One killed the dinosaurs, and that was only 65 million years ago (a blink of an eye in the history of the Earth).
Slashdot Mirror
See the only problem with your terms is when most people think of "Freedom" they think of you know, freedom from slavery or oppression like the Civil Rights Movement or Sufferage Movement...etc and not some hard to use operating system hardware mainly used by geeks who have a hard time socially communicating their ideas to normal people.
Actually both you are missing what "freedom" means in this context. The freedom of FOSS isn't a fundamental right like free speech. It's a bonus feature that the author can give you. The difference between FOSS and proprietary software is like the difference between owning and renting a home; with one you are "free" to change to your liking, but no one can force you to rent their apartment.
There are people who disagree (like RMS), but IMHO that's the nature of the "free" in free software. Your problem with Linux apparently has nothing to do with this nuance, since your idea of Linux is "some hard to use operating system hardware" (we'll just ignore that an OS and hardware are not the same thing). Linux can be hard, but this mostly depends on A) which distro you use and B) what you want to do with it. Slackware (what I use) would admittedly be hard for a newbie to jump right into. But to give you an example, I have two sisters, one who uses Linux (Ubuntu) and the other Windows. The one using Linux has asked me for help less often than the other. Not a scientific study by any stretch, but that's my experience.
It's truly funny how many people are fucking lazy and naive enough to NOT update their systems after many many years of hearing about viruses.
I mean really, you gotta be pretty fuckin dumb to not know about keeping your system up to date, or at least acknowledge that viruses exist.
Yes, people ought to be good about maintaining their computers, but I don't understand why you think it's great that people exploit this. You seem to glorify the ruining of computers, and I don't understand why. Shame on those who let their guard down, but the real blame rests on the criminals themselves. Just because a house is unlocked doesn't mean that someone has a right to break into it to prove that the owner was lax on security.
It's even better when big companies get hit because they're the ones pumping shitloads of money into supposed "experienced" network admins.. and what happens? Shit hits the fan.
I love it.
Suppose you go to a town that just got hit by a tornado and you see a building with in-tact windows that weren't boarded up.Do you think, "darn, I wish that tornado was more destructive so these folks would have lost their home. Obviously they deserve it because they're lazy." I hope not. Yeah, people should be more vigilant, but it doesn't mean they deserve to have their stuff destroyed.
Just as tornadoes shouldn't be seen as a good thing, neither should computer destruction. And unlike tornadoes, cyber crimes are caused by jerks (to put it nicely) who, instead of being glorified, need to spend some time behind bars.
Why don't the worms actually do something really destructive, like erase partition tables or cause irreversible damage?
... why is it a "shame" that they cause less damage? Shouldn't it be a relief?
Shame..
I am more concerned with seeing an end to the duopoly of Windows and Mac for the consumer desktop. While some may not apply the term I think it fits. We really need a third major player for the desktop to get things moving again. Right now Apple and Microsoft are not moving forward, we are still bound to single processor solutions that are mouse and keyboard driven. We have been there for nearly 20 years now!
I don't quite understand what you want in terms of innovation. Those of us who need more than one CPU are not "still bound to single processor solutions" at all. Today's operating systems fully support SMP. But for most people there is no point in having more than one CPU because they generally aren't running multiple CPU-intensive programs in parallel; for many people, the most demanding program they'll run is a word processor (and one instance at a time for that matter).
As for the mouse and keyboard, they are there because they are intuitive and effective input devices for using a computer. The keyboard is definitely here to stay, and the only thing I can possibly imagine making the mouse obsolete is the advent of 3D desktops, which might eventually take advantage of some fancier hardware. Even so, although 3D desktops look great, there's no reason to believe that they will make the user more efficient.
So perhaps there's some incredible general purpose input device we haven't discovered, but I think the mouse and keyboard are here to stay and with good reason. Even if this device exists, CLIs are still sometimes preferred by users today despite the existence of GUI tools. Innovation is great, but I don't think there's anything too revolutionary in store for us in the I/O area, and there's nothing the general public can gain from SMP computers except for needlessly higher prices.
You are one of the few people on Slashdot who are thinking reasonably about this issue.
...).
They [the RIAA] charge very high prices for CDs, restrict their usage, and then wonder why their customers aren't happy. Grow up.
Yes, but there is a perfectly ethical and legal way to fight this: simply don't buy the music. If Ford charged ridiculously high prices for their cars, don't buy them. But that doesn't mean that you now have a right to go steal these cars (yes, I know it's not perfectly analagous, which is a good segway to my next point
On the other hand, you have a multitude of excuses for piracy. The "copyright infringement isn't theft" is my favorite, as it in no way justifies breaking of the law.
"Theft" is a slightly inaccurate portrayal of copyright infringement. It is much more like counterfeiting, which I hope we all agree is and should be illegal. In a capitalist economy, you earn money for your work, and you can then convert money into stuff you want (like music) as a reward. No, it doesn't directly affect anyone negatively, but that is an extremely short-sighted view of it. If counterfeiting were legal and everyone did it, money would become worthless and the economy would become irrelevant.
Similarly, piracy music devalues music and means that there is less of a reward for those who do work. If you pirate music, then you are getting a reward without earning it.
In any case, discussion of the practical effects of the RIAA's licensing schemes are beside the deeper point. If you are one of the "information wants to be free" crowd that doesn't recognize intellectual property, then you have a much more fundamental disagreement with the RIAA. But if you do recognize intellectual property as a legitimate idea, then you have to accept the RIAA's licensing terms for what they are, whether you like them or not. These terms are and should be set by copyright holders (who are in this case the RIAA). If they are acceptable, buy the music. If they aren't, don't buy it. If you believe in copyright, but also believe that customers should be able to write arbitrary licenses for IP they don't own, you hold completely contradictory views.
During the US Civil War, the sunken USS Merrimack was raised and converted to an ironclad by the Confederates, who renamed it the CSS Virginia (which later fought in the famous battle of the ironclads). So the parent was just trying to make a, albeit lame, joke about the acronym "CSS." It wasn't truly offtopic, and it definitely wasn't a troll.
I don't care if it's apt-get, RPM, Roll your own, or what not.... the difficulty with installing applications on a .nix like OS is what is keeping me from using it as my "Desktop".
I prefer to compile the source whenever possible, but I can definitely see where you're coming from. There does need to be an easy way to install binaries, but I thought this issue had been solved with package managers. What exactly do you not like about, for example, RPM? Installing an RPM using the GUI is more or less just like in Windows: double click.
not the typical microsoft readme!
...
Actually I think that's a comment from the Gaim developers responding to the patch. After all, the comment thanks the person for the patch, so it would be strange for Microsoft to thank itself on behalf of the Gaim people
No, I didn't RTFA. Why should I? It will just be more sensationalist crap the Media has hounded out. How is this news? Every day I see more evil things happening on the 5 o'clock news -- why? Is there a reason that news has to include blood and gore?
Think about it. In 1984, Orwell declared that "War is Peace" in Oceania. How is this different from today? Bush says that in order to have "peace" (i.e. not be at risk of terrorism), we must go to war with a random country. A country that did not have any part in the attack on 9/11.
Again, the article is not about Bush. There's plenty to criticize Bush for, but I don't see what's insightful about some random swipe at him in an unrelated article.
I love how the Bush administration keeps the Terrorist "threat" at the forefront of the American peoples' lives. It really makes me wonder if we are not moving closer to an Orwellian future. "War Is Peace" is beginning to sound more and more like Bush's rhetoric every day.
... I think someone didn't RTFA. Bush isn't even mentioned once in the article. Why did this post get a +5 Insightful when it has nothing to do with the article?
Um
Why are there two major windows manager projects? Not like lots of other smaller projects like IceWM. It seems that so much time is put in KDE and Gnome, that if the two teams worked together, they might make something superior to what they made on their own. Does KDE and Gnome have the same goals, or are they very different?
I'm no expert by any means on either KDE or GNOME; this is all from what I've gathered as a KDE user, so don't quote me on any of this. I personally wouldn't want the two to become one because they do seem to go into different directions. A perfect example is their file browsers. I've always loved Konqueror, especially since it means I get to use tabbed file browsing. Nautilus, on the other hand, decided to use a "spatial browsing" interface, which opens a new window for each folder you open. Personally I can't stand this, but it was decided on after much deliberation by the GNOME people, so apparently some people like it. KDE also behaves a lot more like Windows than GNOME does. Some people dislike the Windows interface, but for newcomers to the Unix world it is useful to have this to ease the transition. So long as you can use KDE apps in GNOME and GNOME apps in KDE, I think there's no problem keeping the two projects separate.
This is my guess, correct me if I am wrong. KDE has more developers and money. Gnome has fewer people, but more creative people. KDE will give you everything and the kitchen sink. Gnome will find ways put a twist into things, to make it fun.
I'm not sure if GNOME or KDE has more people; I've always been under the impression that they have about the same number. As far as corporate sponsorship goes, though, companies like Novell are going for KDE, whereas Red Hat has poured a whole bunch of resources into GNOME. As far as putting a new "twist" into software, yeah I'd say that's true of GNOME. The difference is that, IMHO, the twists just make the software harder to use. But again, this is all in the eye of the beholder. Different people like different features, and that's why I'm fine with two different desktops.
For me, the difference boils down to this. GNOME does what it's supposed to do very well, and it's lighter-weight and cleaner. But what GNOME is supposed to do isn't what I want (like spatial browsing). KDE is supposed to do what I want, but it feels slower and there are weird bugs that can be annoying (example: my desktop icons magically rearrange themselves sometimes).
I know that you've been modded down as a troll, but you have a good point, and even though I disagree with it, I think your post deserves an answer, not a troll mod.
I don't know if any of you noticed, but Linux only has about a 1% share of the desktop market. What is the point of teaching these kids to use a system that nobody else does?
Yes, Linux doesn't have a large share of the desktop market, but it's got a very large piece of the server pie, and is also prevalent in areas like supercomputing involved in scientific research. So the notion that learning Linux has no practical application in the "real world" is simply false. If these kids are doing tech support for the general public, yes, Windows is the system they should learn; if they're writing a program for a scientist to be executed on a cluster of Linux boxes (the job I happen to have right now), Linux is more appropriate.
However, even this is not necessarily relevant. If these kids are supposed to be learning academics (as opposed to vocational training), the operating system is really not that important in terms of how well the kids will learn. A mouse behaves about the same on Windows as on Linux, most of the skills involved in using Office are applicable to OpenOffice.org, etc. The concepts of computer science, for example, are platform-independent, no matter whether you like programming with vi/emacs or Visual Studio. So even programmers, those who have as much to do with computers as anyone, will become just as good programmers no matter which platform they learn on.
So what I'm saying is that in terms of educational value, if students learn Windows or learn Unix, it makes little difference. Also, many of these machines will be servers and computers that students won't come into contact with, and therefore they deserve an OS chosen purely on technical merits.
So, in a nutshell, what I'm saying is that the schools should get what they think is best, whether it's Windows or Linux. Their job isn't to help Microsoft maintain a monopoly just because they already have one.
Isn't the point of Linux that it's free and all that jazz? I mean... paying for it takes away a whole lot of the attractiveness IMHO.
If you mean that it's free in the sense of it not costing any money, no, that's not the point. The point of the operating system that it's been bundled with, GNU, was to provide a "free" OS in the sense that the user could do whatever he wished with it, i.e. modify it and share it with others. The sharing aspect means that it's very easy to obtain without paying for it, but that wasn't the purpose. I paid for my copy of GNU/Linux. Why? I like Linux in large part because the source code is accessible, and I think good work deserves good pay.
Freeware (in the sense of cost) has always been around in great quantity. What makes open source programs different is the *open source code*, not the fact that you can download it for free.
But surely you could see many programmers hiding little bugs within the program to make themselves tax free. Not everything must or can be open source.
I see your point, but if it's possible to cheat on your taxes by modifying the client software, then it's a pretty weak design. All such checks should be done on the server side. Even though the program is being distributed as a binary, if such loopholes exist, one can imagine some hex-editor-wielding taxpayer giving himself tax breaks. I see no reason why the whole design couldn't be made secure against this or why they couldn't provide a web-based system so that all you need is a browser.
Its is the open source community's resposibility to make it's OS compatible with these processes, not the company/government to make a version for your OS.
It's pretty difficult to make your OS run binaries from another platform if the other platform is closed source. The government shouldn't have to build a version of the program for every OS, but it should provide an interface compatible with some open standard/protocol, such as HTTP. This way, even if your platform didn't support the standard/protocol, it would be easy for someone to write a program that did.
Why doesn't the Australian government provide the source code to the public? I'm sure that there would be plenty of programmers willing to port the program to other platforms.
People don't mind paying for software\music etc. They just don't like being ripped off with overly inflated prices.
So they think they can set the price to what they deem appropriate? It is the copyright holder who gets to set the terms/price at which the IP is licensed, not the consumer. Otherwise, the consumer will choose the price that gives him the best deal: $0. If you think something at a store is too expensive, don't buy it. That doesn't give you the right to simply take it.
I went to the mirror. The login prompt comes up and everything, but when I try to type in a login it doesn't do anything. Any idea what's wrong?
Who says you have to use your own blood?
;)
Yes, how about those of animals. I can just see it now: huge power plant ranches. Hey, it is renewable energy resource.
lasindi
in closed-source / proprietary we trust.
Um, PDF is open, not proprietary. This was just a dumb thing the commission did.
lasindi
Others -- notably large numbers whose company intranets rely on ActiveX tools -- consider it a pain in the ass, and any security implications a distant second in importance to keeping those tools working.
You shouldn't have to choose between security and use of your computer. Because ActiveX is insecure, developers ought to use other tools to provide both compatibility with other browsers and operating systems on which ActiveX hasn't been implemented.
A typical filesharer doesn't sell the downloaded music for money either.
That's totally irrelevant. It's copyright infringement whether or not you sell it.
The first thing a filesharer sees from the RIAA is a C&D letter demanding money. Welte tells the infringing companies "We know you use GPLed code in your products you sell. Clean up your act or we will do more than just remind you about it.". At this time, there is no fine to pay if the company complies.
Sounds like your complaint with the RIAA is that they're simply too quick to demand money. Copyright infringement, whether it's against music or GPLed software, is wrong, and the law ought to be enforced. I would like to hear from the Slashdot community how they would like to see the RIAA enforce its copyrights without lawsuits instead of lambasting them for doing anything at all.
lasindi
Yes, but unfortunately, that probably won't be what happens (at least for a very, very long time). If GNU/Linux becomes a major desktop OS, the beginnings of the movement will happen elsewhere. China is pushing bigtime for it, other Asian countries, Brazil, and patches of Europe. The US is where Microsoft is more entrenched than anywhere else, and it will probably be last to fall (if this change does indeed occur).
lasindi
It won't be a supernova like the OP said, though.
No, but the Earth will be swallowed up.
lasindi
For a long time, I've believed that for Humanity to survive, we *MUST* have colonies on more than just Earth. We have the technology to kill everything on this planet in minutes, and it takes a mistake by one person to start that chain of events. Maybe through our own greed and industrialization, we've already set the earth on a fatal spiral through pollution. There are also other events that can happen, which are on more of a sci-fi scale. What if the sun goes super nova? What if a giant asteroid crashes into the earth?
I'm all for spreading colonies, but your last two examples are a little more realistic than "sci-fi." We know that the sun's going to die; it'll take 4.5 billion years, but it will definitely happen. And a large asteroid will almost certainly strike the Earth. One killed the dinosaurs, and that was only 65 million years ago (a blink of an eye in the history of the Earth).
lasindi
It is more than time for an open source Flash player...
Anyone know of any?
GPLFlash is a project to develop just such a player.
lasindi