You guys have helped spread the dream of free access, open source and non-proprietary software to the everyday consumer. No, they haven't. Very few people have moved to open source systems...
You've got a typo there. Let me fix it for you:
"Very few people are aware that they have moved to open source systems, such as the Internet and its services, all of which are, philosophically if not literally, part of the Free world that Richard Stallman envisioned lo, these many years ago."
...and very few have any desire to, or even knowledge of what they are.
The first won't happen without the second. The FSF has done a bang-up job educating developers and other geeks, to the extent that the de facto choice these days for developers is between Microsoft and GNU GPL systems and applications. There are other options, but these two dominate.
Now the FSF seem to believe that, the first battle being won, they've got to reach out to the general public - or should that be GNU/General Public - and continue the fight there. Given your points about general awareness, I think the decision is a wise one. Way to go, FSF!
Automatic radio direction finding is common and was often used in the cold war.
I thought SW radio would actually be a real challenge to trace, because of the way it's bounced off the ionosphere in order to defeat the curvature of the Earth. I'm not a radio technician, so please do tell me where I went wrong, if I did.
I hope you're not doing anything important. Although chances are if you're using Perl CGI it's probably not.
Oh puh-lease. Perl is used for important things all the time. I mean, Slashdot is written in Perl!
Okay, seriously: It's not clear whether you're referring to Perl or CGI as inappropriate for serious work. I agree that CGI deserves that status, but not Perl.
2. Drop the tribal African bullshit. The vision of Voodoo witch doctors and 419'ers conjuring up a distro don't fill me with confidence.
3. Change the name. See number 2.
Ubuntu, if you ever cared to look it up, is a reference to the spirit of forgiveness and humanity that inspired Archbishop Desmond Tutu and Nelson Mandela to create the Truth and Reconciliation Commission in order to keep South Africa from spiraling downward into civil war and slaughter. It won them the Nobel Peace Prize.
The choice of name is deliberate. Mark Shuttleworth, the man whose millions have allowed this whole process to happen, is doing his tiny part to mend South African society by following the example of some of the greatest political thinkers in modern history. The philosophy behind Ubuntu Linux is: An educated society is an enlightened society. So Shuttleworth and his foundation are spending millions of dollars promoting this principle.
Ubuntu isn't branding; it's what this software is. Heck, they're even giving away CDs to anyone who asks.
So with all due respect, try to learn just a little about something before voicing an opinion on it. You would really benefit from a learning to practice Ubuntu from time to time.
cd burning will never be trivial as long as you have to fire up a seperate program to get it done right. for it to be trivial one should be able to just drag and drop files onto the burner from inside the file manager and thats it...
Why is this insightful? Both Windows XP and Ubuntu support exactly this behaviour.
Most of the linux users try to shove it down normal people's throat..."Windows? M$ is an evil monopoly...You don't need any crappy Antivirus on linux...Ubuntu is great...."
Darn it all, those pesky facts keep on getting in the way! Sorry, we'll try to mix in some truthiness next time.
The way I see it, this divides the computer-writing bloggers into four basic camps:
1. Pro-Microsoft, got a laptop
2. Pro-Microsoft, didn't get a laptop
3. Anti-Microsoft, got a laptop
4. Anti-Microsoft, didn't get a laptop
5. Didn't get a laptop, but will kiss MS' shiny metal butt for the next 12 months in the hope of getting one some time soon.
The goal here is winning - not some "moral purity" - and winning NOW - not twenty years from now.
Sez you. 8^)
There's nothing especially moral about subscribing to a development system that's proven to produce more safer, more reliable software - and cause me fewer headaches than any other I've ever used. I am winning now. My software does what I want it to do, and I'm making a good living writing it and using it. What more could I ask for?
You're right that the future is unknowable, and that it's rash to prognosticate about it, but of this I am confident: The mainstream will follow FOSS' path, wherever it leads. I stand by my assertion.
So says the lone man to the company making billions of dollars every month.
Being rich doesn't make you right. Re-read Ozymandias some time. 8^)
People are deeply suspicious of "free" things thinking rightly so that in most cases you get what you pay for. If it isn't worth anything, then why use it is the mentality?
Don't confuse the issue. Did I say free as in no-cost? No, I deliberately did not. I said proprietary software solutions currently cost more and provide less functionality and - importantly - Freedom than the FOSS alternatives. I said this trend will continue. There is every indication that this is the case.
You've assumed that even if software changes, business will not. There's a good deal of evidence that this is not the case. Just as Rome was at its most glorious before the fall, MS' profits are huge but they're also stagnant. If they're trending anywhere, it's neutrally. As I said above, show some patience....
Not even close. I can "sudo su" and I'm root. GP is asking for a good implementation of ACLs.
Heh, never thought I'd actually say this, but... RTFM.
sudo allows a user exactly as much or as little access as they've been granted by the root user. We used it widely to limit access to logged-in users on production machines to about 6 commands. Anything else had to be specifically authorised by Ops. I'd love to know how to get the same degree of control with as little effort on Windows servers.
Free Software must be able to read the not-open format, or it's useless.
And how do you propose to do this while keeping Free software Free?
It will take more patience than some people apparently have, but in the fullness of time, people will become sick of closed formats, and especially of the prospect of paying more money for less functionality. Ultimately, selling exclusivity while the rest of the world gets ubiquity for free is a losing proposition. I'm quite confident in the ability of 'Content Creators' like Microsoft, *AA et alia to dig their own grave here. Treating one's customers like criminals is not a viable long-term strategy.
Anyone have positive experiences getting full tablet functionality under linux?
I can't speak for this tablet, but I do know that Lenovo as a company not only supports Linux on their desktops, they ship it as the default OS for their domestic-consumption PCs.
I'm working on a systems integration project for a small nation in the South Pacific. The Chinese government provided all the IT equipment through its foreign aid programme, and every Lenovo machine we received had Kylin linux installed, along with a Chinese variant of OpenOffice.org. Kylin Linux appears to be a derivative of RedHat.
I must say I was impressed by the quality of the hardware, too. All the components were decent quality, perfectly adequate for a typical office workstation, and better than many donors provide. If this example is anything to go by, then I'd assume that you'll be able to get decent Linux support for your tablet, though perhaps not until the Chinese rip off someone else's hardware drivers. 8^)
But following your argument, they shouldn't use CSS either.
No, following the same line of reasoning leads to the conclusion that CSS should be encouraged. It follows the maxim of separating content from presentation, and makes it easier for content to be accessed in a completely agnostic fashion.
JavaScript is a good thing when it's used to enhance the presentation of a site. It becomes a bad thing when it's used as the sole means of viewing the contents of a site. CSS helps to keep HTML from falling victim to the same sin: that of letting presentation trump content to the extent that the content becomes unusable except when viewed in very restricted circumstances.
I'm afraid your point does nothing but weaken any justification Microsoft might have had in applying for an RSS-related patent.
Microsoft is NOT patenting RSS, which is one possible misconception. Secondly, the patent mentions various problems with RSS (various file formats, lack of a single unified reader for the entire desktop), which they intend to fix. So, they may be looking to patent a system that uses RSS or improves it; presumably this would run on Vista, but to say they are "patenting RSS in Vista" seems odd.
Fair enough. So perhaps you could further enlighten us as to what is left to patent? Is this just like one of those useless claims staked on the intellectual Commons by adding 'on the Internet' to a process that's been common knowledge since business was first conducted between parties?
What possible improvement of RSS would, in your opinion, justify the title 'invention'? That is, after all, what patents are designed to protect: Invention, not imitation.
With Windows, Microsoft can develop an OS for 5 years and keep lots of things under wraps. When it finally hit's people's desktop, if people like the improvements, there's a big "whoa" factor.
Think of it like sex: Would you rather wait for years to get some on the off-chance that it might be mind-blowing (MS), or would you rather get laid regularly with the guarantee that it's going to be better every time (FOSS)?
Wait a minute - this is slashdot! Forget that analogy. Use... I dunno, something about +5 damage and mages... whatever. I'm outie. Got a hot date with my compiler....
If the GPL doesn't allow this, how come Stallman himself says that it doesn't violate the GPLv2.
It violates the spirit of GPL2, but Novell and MS did an end-run around a technical violation by having Microsoft agree not to sue Novell's customers. By not specifically naming Novell the company, MS has avoided putting them in a position where this supplementary agreement would be considered an additional condition to the GPL, which is strictly verboten.
It was a cynical, disingenuous move, and that's why Stallman has promised that GPL3 will not allow this kind of end-run manoeuvre.
Unless one is rich and is doing it for a hobby, people need to get paid for their 8+ hours of work a day. Can complex software really be done in your spare time?
If you think this is how the majority of Free software gets written, then you need to educate yourself. I can assure you that the 6 digits I was getting annually to write FOSS was not manna from Heaven. It was money invested - and wisely, I might add - by my employer to leverage not only my time, but the time and efforts of a great many others. By encouraging me to contribute to the community, they gained the benefit of the efforts of all the others as well.
Characterising FOSS as a donate-only kind of process borders on the deceitful. Companies develop and use FOSS because the return on their investment is higher than if they paid a single individual (or even a team) to create the same code base. Simply put, FOSS is better value,
If you have yet to realise why FOSS pays better, then I guess you and Microsoft deserve each other.
Are you indeed? Then you should know better than to use the term 'Intellectual Property'.
You of all people should know that no such thing exists - certainly not under the laws of any country I've ever had the leisure to study. A lawyer of all people should know better than to bandy inaccurate, misleading terms about. I believe the reason is that unwise talk such as that can come back to... what the legal term again? Ah yes: bite you in the ass. 8^)
Slashdot Mirror
You've got a typo there. Let me fix it for you:
"Very few people are aware that they have moved to open source systems, such as the Internet and its services, all of which are, philosophically if not literally, part of the Free world that Richard Stallman envisioned lo, these many years ago."
The first won't happen without the second. The FSF has done a bang-up job educating developers and other geeks, to the extent that the de facto choice these days for developers is between Microsoft and GNU GPL systems and applications. There are other options, but these two dominate.
Now the FSF seem to believe that, the first battle being won, they've got to reach out to the general public - or should that be GNU/General Public - and continue the fight there. Given your points about general awareness, I think the decision is a wise one. Way to go, FSF!
I thought SW radio would actually be a real challenge to trace, because of the way it's bounced off the ionosphere in order to defeat the curvature of the Earth. I'm not a radio technician, so please do tell me where I went wrong, if I did.
Blessent mon coeur d'une langueur monotone...
Aww shit, do we gotta invade Franc again?!
Oh puh-lease. Perl is used for important things all the time. I mean, Slashdot is written in Perl!
Okay, seriously: It's not clear whether you're referring to Perl or CGI as inappropriate for serious work. I agree that CGI deserves that status, but not Perl.
Sorry, IronyML doesn't parse properly in Slashcode. I think there's a bug open somewhere.
Ubuntu, if you ever cared to look it up, is a reference to the spirit of forgiveness and humanity that inspired Archbishop Desmond Tutu and Nelson Mandela to create the Truth and Reconciliation Commission in order to keep South Africa from spiraling downward into civil war and slaughter. It won them the Nobel Peace Prize.
The choice of name is deliberate. Mark Shuttleworth, the man whose millions have allowed this whole process to happen, is doing his tiny part to mend South African society by following the example of some of the greatest political thinkers in modern history. The philosophy behind Ubuntu Linux is: An educated society is an enlightened society. So Shuttleworth and his foundation are spending millions of dollars promoting this principle.
Ubuntu isn't branding; it's what this software is. Heck, they're even giving away CDs to anyone who asks.
So with all due respect, try to learn just a little about something before voicing an opinion on it. You would really benefit from a learning to practice Ubuntu from time to time.
HTH HAND
Why is this insightful? Both Windows XP and Ubuntu support exactly this behaviour.
Darn it all, those pesky facts keep on getting in the way! Sorry, we'll try to mix in some truthiness next time.
5. Didn't get a laptop, but will kiss MS' shiny metal butt for the next 12 months in the hope of getting one some time soon.
That's the group that worries me.
You had a grammatical error in your statement. I've fixed it for you.
Sez you. 8^)
There's nothing especially moral about subscribing to a development system that's proven to produce more safer, more reliable software - and cause me fewer headaches than any other I've ever used. I am winning now. My software does what I want it to do, and I'm making a good living writing it and using it. What more could I ask for?
You're right that the future is unknowable, and that it's rash to prognosticate about it, but of this I am confident: The mainstream will follow FOSS' path, wherever it leads. I stand by my assertion.
Being rich doesn't make you right. Re-read Ozymandias some time. 8^)
Don't confuse the issue. Did I say free as in no-cost? No, I deliberately did not. I said proprietary software solutions currently cost more and provide less functionality and - importantly - Freedom than the FOSS alternatives. I said this trend will continue. There is every indication that this is the case.
You've assumed that even if software changes, business will not. There's a good deal of evidence that this is not the case. Just as Rome was at its most glorious before the fall, MS' profits are huge but they're also stagnant. If they're trending anywhere, it's neutrally. As I said above, show some patience....
Heh, never thought I'd actually say this, but... RTFM .
sudo allows a user exactly as much or as little access as they've been granted by the root user. We used it widely to limit access to logged-in users on production machines to about 6 commands. Anything else had to be specifically authorised by Ops. I'd love to know how to get the same degree of control with as little effort on Windows servers.
And how do you propose to do this while keeping Free software Free?
It will take more patience than some people apparently have, but in the fullness of time, people will become sick of closed formats, and especially of the prospect of paying more money for less functionality. Ultimately, selling exclusivity while the rest of the world gets ubiquity for free is a losing proposition. I'm quite confident in the ability of 'Content Creators' like Microsoft, *AA et alia to dig their own grave here. Treating one's customers like criminals is not a viable long-term strategy.
It really is just a matter of time.
I can't speak for this tablet, but I do know that Lenovo as a company not only supports Linux on their desktops, they ship it as the default OS for their domestic-consumption PCs.
I'm working on a systems integration project for a small nation in the South Pacific. The Chinese government provided all the IT equipment through its foreign aid programme, and every Lenovo machine we received had Kylin linux installed, along with a Chinese variant of OpenOffice.org. Kylin Linux appears to be a derivative of RedHat.
I must say I was impressed by the quality of the hardware, too. All the components were decent quality, perfectly adequate for a typical office workstation, and better than many donors provide. If this example is anything to go by, then I'd assume that you'll be able to get decent Linux support for your tablet, though perhaps not until the Chinese rip off someone else's hardware drivers. 8^)
No, following the same line of reasoning leads to the conclusion that CSS should be encouraged. It follows the maxim of separating content from presentation, and makes it easier for content to be accessed in a completely agnostic fashion.
JavaScript is a good thing when it's used to enhance the presentation of a site. It becomes a bad thing when it's used as the sole means of viewing the contents of a site. CSS helps to keep HTML from falling victim to the same sin: that of letting presentation trump content to the extent that the content becomes unusable except when viewed in very restricted circumstances.
Googlebot, for one.
Millions and millions. 8^)
There are extremely strong technical reasons not to rely on JavaScript to deliver content. This is just one of the most obvious.
By all means, go ahead and use JavaScript. Just don't rely on it, or you'll be sorry.
That must have been uncomfortable for him....
I'm afraid your point does nothing but weaken any justification Microsoft might have had in applying for an RSS-related patent.
Fair enough. So perhaps you could further enlighten us as to what is left to patent? Is this just like one of those useless claims staked on the intellectual Commons by adding 'on the Internet' to a process that's been common knowledge since business was first conducted between parties?
What possible improvement of RSS would, in your opinion, justify the title 'invention'? That is, after all, what patents are designed to protect: Invention, not imitation.
Think of it like sex: Would you rather wait for years to get some on the off-chance that it might be mind-blowing (MS), or would you rather get laid regularly with the guarantee that it's going to be better every time (FOSS)?
Wait a minute - this is slashdot! Forget that analogy. Use... I dunno, something about +5 damage and mages... whatever. I'm outie. Got a hot date with my compiler....
It violates the spirit of GPL2, but Novell and MS did an end-run around a technical violation by having Microsoft agree not to sue Novell's customers. By not specifically naming Novell the company, MS has avoided putting them in a position where this supplementary agreement would be considered an additional condition to the GPL, which is strictly verboten.
It was a cynical, disingenuous move, and that's why Stallman has promised that GPL3 will not allow this kind of end-run manoeuvre.
Right. So it's technically correct to take a sip of 12 year old single malt and say, 'That's good shit.'
If you think this is how the majority of Free software gets written, then you need to educate yourself. I can assure you that the 6 digits I was getting annually to write FOSS was not manna from Heaven. It was money invested - and wisely, I might add - by my employer to leverage not only my time, but the time and efforts of a great many others. By encouraging me to contribute to the community, they gained the benefit of the efforts of all the others as well.
Characterising FOSS as a donate-only kind of process borders on the deceitful. Companies develop and use FOSS because the return on their investment is higher than if they paid a single individual (or even a team) to create the same code base. Simply put, FOSS is better value,
If you have yet to realise why FOSS pays better, then I guess you and Microsoft deserve each other.
Er, that's not alliteration, that's assonance. Pronounced ASS-onan-ce. 8^)
Are you indeed? Then you should know better than to use the term 'Intellectual Property'.
You of all people should know that no such thing exists - certainly not under the laws of any country I've ever had the leisure to study. A lawyer of all people should know better than to bandy inaccurate, misleading terms about. I believe the reason is that unwise talk such as that can come back to... what the legal term again? Ah yes: bite you in the ass. 8^)