"Hey, John, before we can collaborate on this project, you need to buy a Mac, buy SubEthaEdit, install it, and then figure out how to let our two machines talk to each other through our firewalls." I don't think so.
I take it you're unfamiliar with the concept of an example?
SubEthaEdit is a 6M download for basic collaborative text editing. Sounds quite bloated to me when you consider that Google Docs provides WYSIWYG editing, real-time collaboration, storage, indexing and search, chat, and complete version management in just a web page.
Funny. I just opened a short document in Google docs and my Web browser started using an additional 22 Meg. Also, if something takes down my browser or locks it up, well that's it my editing session is hosed too. Gee, that's great. And I still can't automatically find the editing session of the guy sitting next to me in the coffee shop without a separate communication channel like IM or e-mail to tell me how to get to it. It also sucks for collaborative editing because only one person can make changes at a time (no multiple cursors). Sorry, but Web apps suck at things like autodiscovery, often consume more resources, and are often lacking in features because they can't use the host OS to its full potential.
It's like homeownership: if your boss knows you have a mortgage, you're screwed. He has no reason to offer you incentives (better pay, better hours, better perks, etc) because you have another God to pray to: your bankster. The same is true with a W2: your boss knows he's your only source of income, and as such you're stuck with bad pay, bad hours, bad perks.
What you say mostly applies only on the low end. Some of the nicer places I've worked have had profit sharing and stock and bonuses and lots of perqs to keep us happy. Just because someone has a mortgage doesn't mean they can't walk and get a job with another top firm. We had problems with Google stealing employees for example and I know of at least one case where managers saw someone's resume was making the rounds and offered them a big raise and a promotion to stay.
While I understand where you're coming from and have done both regular salaried jobs and contract work. I just don't think it is as clear cut of a division as you're implying. When you're pulling an $100 an hour or more contracting, you generally have the CV to get a salaried job where you can move up or get big bonuses or other concessions.
The notion of a collaborative application that requires a client other than a web browser itself seems outdated, no matter how good the application may be.
I very, very, very strongly disagree. I like have real applications instead of the limited functionality and bloat of Web applications. For example, a good, collaborative text editor (like SubEthaEdit) which autodiscovers via ZeroConf is a heck of a lot easier to use and faster than any Web application I've seen.
Clearly something else as going on, how do I know? acu[uctures studies always have failed.
I did a lot of research into acupuncture after my physician recommended it for a medical problem I was having (it was ineffective in my case). It is not true that scientific studies have shown it to be useless. It fairs no better than a placebo needle for almost all uses, but actually has shown real results with some practitioners for pain relief and for people having problems with vomiting.
Then he should cite some good studies, or loose[sic] his license.
As I said, science does support it for a few uses, although not all schools of acupuncture or all practitioners can manage those results. I'd also note, there is also scientific evidence to support some other therapies usually considered "chinese medicine" such as moxibustion (which was also ineffective in my case).
Spain, England, Portugal, France, Germany, Japan don't exist anymore? Study your history books please.
They exist, but dot he governments that existed at the time exist. In France, the monarchy had their heads chopped off in a violent revolution. In England the monarchy was peacefully displaced (although they could still be sued presumably). Similar situations exist in most all of the other countries. Just because the country is referred to by the same name does not mean it is the same legal entity after a revolution.
The rest of your post is a mixed appeal to consequences and listing of past crimes. In my mind, if you can prove past crimes and have legal standing, I'm all for justice. There's no reason inheritors of wealth should not have that wealth returned to the ancestors of those from which it was stolen (ethically speaking).
The Papal States were annexed to the Kingdom of Italy 1860 to 1870, which comprised the center and northeast of Italy, reducing to what it is today the Vatican City. So, it is not precisely "the same" resources and wealth.
Yeah, and Union Carbide had assets seized, does that mean they should no longer be sued by people they wronged? The Catholic church is the same organization based upon those same profits. They may have gained and lost assets since, but every organization does and that does not stand in the way of modern lawsuits.
None of the items you cite regard a government or organization that still exists. The Roman empire fell and was conquered repeatedly before the Italian democracy rose to power there. It is a different government entirely. The Catholic church, on the other hand, has been the same organization with the same resources and wealth ever since.
So, assuming this suceeds... can the native americans sue europe for defiling their land, and ruining their culture?
Who is "Europe"? A tribe could sue the EU, but since it did not exist at the time they don't have much chance of winning. In fact, there aren't really many governments from that time still functioning, most have been replaced in violent or nonviolent revolutions. Now the Roman catholic church, on the other hand, has been the same organization since that time. The trick here is proving those claiming to be the knights templar, really are the same organization.
"Designers" who can't code have absolutely no business "working" in software. If you think you really know how an interface should work and look, then learn to code it. Otherwise, you're just a critic of the kind that the NYT doesn't hire.
I could just as easily argue that programmers who haven't studied behavioral psychology should not be allowed to contribute to designing user interfaces, since they are obviously not qualified. Or, as an analogy, you could argue civil engineers who are not physically fit should not be allowed to have input on the design of runoff ditches and it should be left up to the ditch diggers to decide where they go. Frankly, I think your opinion is myopic.
Personally, I find FBSD, Debian, Slackware, and the majority of GNU software to be quite usable. Of course, I don't expect everything to be zero effort, either. Anything worth doing takes a bit of effort.
Do you feel the same way about, say aircraft? Anything worth doing takes effort, so you should have to learn aircraft repair and maintenance and constantly be working on your plane in order to get it to work each flight. How about cars? You can't expect to be able to drive if you can't put in the effort and learn how to rebuild your fuel injection system.
Speaking of which, tried Windows lately? Now to me, that's really hard to use! But then, I don't want to learn the "Windows way" of doing everything, as I fail to see the pay off in it.
Maybe this is part of what is leading you off track. Windows has terrible usability. The difference is MS has a monopoly so even though their usability sucks, people deal with it and use it anyway. With Linux, the opposite is true. Unless it is significantly better than Windows, it doesn't stand a chance of gaining market share on the desktop. Being as good as the abominable usability that is Windows won't cut it.
No, I didn't sumbit it because I wasn't at home the week when the labs build was released, and its old news if I submitted it when I came back 6 days after that build was released.
I wouldn't let that stop you in future. I've seen articles make the front page that were years old. A week is not too long.
I am terribly sorry for not expressing as I should have when I was writing that comment, I was reffering to the Wikimedia people - which are pushing Firefox through their mailing list, when I was talking about Wikipedia.
I see what you're saying. I wonder if the wikipedia team knew that Opera supported those tags. Frankly, Opera has a pretty small market share in comparison and it is entirely possible the person or group who sent out the mailings are not familiar enough with Opera to know.
I am sorry for my bad grammar as I am not from the US and English is not my primary language.
Your grammar is fine. Sorry about the correction. I edit a lot of papers and it is almost automatic for me. It was not intended as criticism. There are a great many americans posting who regularly make more mistakes than you.
My principle of a fair trial relies heavily on the idea of giving both sides equal chance to present their case (I don't know the latin phrase for that, sorry).
So one side is an incredibly wealthy criminal organization with hundreds of high priced lawyers combing through case law seeking precedent and who has already been censured for not presenting relevant findings to the courts where they appear to be detrimental to them. Further, the judge reopened the case because he determined those experts misled him by not presenting a well known precedent they had themselves been part of and were legally obligated to present.
The other side is an individual without any real resources with a lawyer apparently not competent enough to find and present said well known precedent.
You consider that to be both sides having an equal chance? You consider that to be both sides having a more equal chance than asking impartial experts from law schools to submit relevant information?
Since every person has an opinion on something, at least when they bother to write about it, it's usually hard to consider such a letter as an unbiased expert testimony, but it is supposed to be seen as such.
Sure everyone has an opinion, including the lawyers being paid to work on this case. So if you ask for input from experts, you're likely to get input from people with conflicting opinions, thus being informed about both opinions. Not that the judge needs to worry about getting one side, since there is an expert team of highly paid lawyers researching it and presenting it.
I guess I just don't see how anyone can consider the judge getting all the facts a bad thing.
Do you know of any other examples of that happening? I don't, and I've been in the litigation field for 34 years.
I stated I did not know if it was unusual. But since you ask, a google for "judge request amicus" returns as it's first hit a discussion of "Massachusetts Nurse Assoc. v. Essent Healthcare of Massachusetts, Inc." where the judge requested amicus briefs from a specific discussion group of law professors. It mentions that such requests are unusual. This does, however, show such an action is not unprecedented. I'd also note that the case in question (about health insurance for same sex couples) was also one where an important precedent was the likely to be set.
Now I'm no lawyer, but it seems to me these type of cases are probably quite rare and deserving of extra attention. For a judge to be diligent and request factual input for experts in the field seems like a good thing. What do you think?
This situation is extremely unusual. In this case the judge actually invited amicus curiae briefs.
I don't know that is unusual. In cases where one party has huge legal resources and one party has none and where large issues such as constitutionality are a factor, I'd hope any decent judge would encourage them in an attempt to have a fair trial.
That only works for applications for which you have the source. Not all commercial software is open source, and limiting yourself to only open-source (er, "ships as source") software is quite limiting in a business enviornment[sic].
Please clarify what you're talking about. I made several comments. Obviously you can't compile software without the source, but that holds true for Linux as much as Windows or OS X. Commercial, closed source software can and is packaged.
So, essentially, I could write a letter, citing my level of expertise to appear credible and try to influence the court to follow my train of logic and sway them to create a verdict I deem favorable, because I might be affected by it some time later?
Yeah you could, but unless you have some useful precedent to cite or verifiable facts that have not been presented, they will probably ignore you.
Well, it sure looks like this time, the influencing is done in the right direction, but still, the rather foul taste lingers.
I don't understand why you'd have a foul taste. People shouldn't be able to voice their opinions? So long as you aren't sending cash or promises along with your opinions, why would there be a problem?
Well, I didn't know the phrase amicus curiae before, so I looked it up in Wikipedia and... I can't help it, it sounds a tad bit like "lobbying for courtrooms". How do courts keep this from happening? Or do they, actually?
For the most part, amicus curiae briefs are encouraged, much like pro bono work. Anyone with enough money can hire lawyers to exhaustively research legally grey areas looking for precedents. Friend of the court briefs are generally used to help even the odds for people without those kind of resources. In this case, for example, an important precedent being discussed and high priced lawyers funded by a huge cartel (convicted of criminal actions) is suing an individual with no real resources. When concerned experts volunteer their time to help the court have all the information from the other side, well I think that is a good thing.
Yes, this means that you aren't the target customer for the people who need problems solved.
The point I was making is that it is hard for developers to easily get their software into a single format that all their customers can easily use. The fact that in my examples I'm not the target for LSB does not matter. I'm the customer of their target, and when it is a pain for me to get and install software because the developer had to choose to target either Debian or RedHat or waste time trying to target both with different procedures, well that is the exact problem they're supposedly working on solving.
Third party software shouldn't be packaged, it should install into a subdirectory of/opt in the same way that Windows software uses "\Program Files".
I kind of prefer my third party software to be packaged so I can manage the install, uninstall, and update process from the same location as all the rest of my software. I strongly prefer it to be a self contained, executable package so I can run it from removable media without having to install it locally as well and so that all the files it uses are self contained for security and management reasons.
If you're compiling from source well then, yes - of course you're going to have trouble.
Why? Instead of typing the same commands on the CLI every time, why can't my package manager handle that step? Is there some reason why this step should have poor usability?
Not as much as if you were trying to do the same thing in Windows or OS X though.
%./configure
% make
% make install
The above seems to work on OS X and Linux exactly the same for most of the software I run. For that matter, the only things I compile myself on Windows use the same procedure within Cygwin.
'It is critically important for Linux to have an easy way for software developers to write to distro 'N,' whether it's Red Hat, Ubuntu or Novell,"
Personally (as a Linux on the desktop user), I'm a lot more concerned about easily acquiring installing software, than whether it has problems with my distro. For the most part I can get software to run, but it can be a huge pain in the butt. I wish LSB would focus on extending and standardizing package formats and creating advanced standards for package managers to simplify that part of my workflow. I never wonder, "will this run on Ubuntu," so much as "which package format is this in, or how hard is it going to be to compile and update."
Could this have been what took Apple so long? Not as entertaining as posting "Apple sucks", but worth a look nonetheless.
That's an interesting theory, but doesn't look too likely. The flawed patches are the ones ending in "P1" which seem to be what OS X systems are upgraded to. Maybe they worked around that with other code, but there is not really any evidence to support that theory. Someone should probably test it.
If you're not seeing 100/100 on Acid3 with a WebKit nightly build on Mac OS X or Windows you should file a bug report [webkit.org].
I saw 100/100 on an older version of the nightlies, but I assume they had to regress some item temporarily. I'm also sure they run the Acid3 test themselves as part of their regression. Try it yourself.
Just needed to point out that Red Hat doesn't even make the binaries available to anyone who doesn't pay and doesn't even let CentOS use their name on thier webpage [centos.org].
I have no problem at all with the trademark thing. If RedHat or Sun doesn't want their brand on a product that has been tweaked and is being distributed by another company or group, that is cool with me. The difference between Linux and VirtualBox is, there are a lot of Linux distros out there tailored to different needs and it is easy for different companies to contribute to Linux and create projects with ongoing development shared. With most of Sun's projects, this has not been the case. If I want to use Linux for my enterprise workstations, I can go with Redhat or IBM or Canonical and I know all of them can get bug fixes done and all will benefit from one another. If I want to use VirtualBox, where else can I go if Sun is unresponsive or just doesn't care about my needs? If another company starts working on it aiming at my market, will their changes get into the main codebase, or will they constantly be back porting them to the latest release from Sun? With Linux, I can get binaries from somewhere, even tweaked for use in my home, but where do I get binaries for VirtualBox if Sun doesn't distribute them and will Sun play nice with whatever company is "competing" with them by distributing said binaries?
Even now, it is a real pain in the butt to actually get a copy of OpenSolaris and install it as a normal user. They make you install a proprietary download manager and give them a bunch of personal info.
How long ago was that? Last week I downloaded an iso straight from opensolaris.com and had it running in virtualbox soon after without having to give any personal information and without needing any download manager.
That was a few months back. I just took a look at their new site, and it sounds like they listened to their feedback (either mine or that of many others). I'm downloading a new iso now, and have some hope, although my success rate for installing the current OpenSolaris release inside a VM optimized for it has only been about 50%.
The slightly longer answer is that they are actually trying to compete with Linux. And some people will even say that Solaris is, in some ways, better than Linux. That's apostasy of the highest order for the Slashdot crowd.
A longer answer still is that most people on Slashdot are probably exposed to the worst of Sun as part of their jobs: the 10-year old behemoths.
Here's my perspective. My experience with Sun lately has been with Solaris. Technically, as it now stands, it may be more advanced than Linux in many ways. Unfortunately, not all is wine and roses.
As a normal user looking for a workstation, Solaris is so late to the game that almost everyone is already invested in linux. Applications are designed for Linux and take advantage of Linux's features to a greater extent than Solaris. Getting Solaris, is a pain as well, because of all the hoopla Sun makes you go through. In short it is not very compelling.
As a developer looking for a base OS to make a custom distro or an appliance, Solaris also fails. Getting minor customizations or changes into Solaris is an exercise in frustration compared to the ease of Linux. Whatever its faults, Linux takes input from everyone and has a well tested apparatus for lots of people to contribute and lots of experienced coders available to hire for that purpose.
Sun was and is simply too reluctant to commit to being part of the OSS community. They were too late open sourcing Solaris and are still not good about encouraging others to contribute to it or even making that process not a slow and painful experience. The same thing goes for OpenOffice and any number of other Sun OSS projects. As I mentioned in other places, I appreciate their contributions and the quality of technology they create, but they get a C-minus when it comes to being part of the community and facilitating uses for their software where they don't see the immediate benefit to their bottom line.
My company shelled out for version 3, and I played with the beta of version 2. Version 3 has been stable as I could want and they were fairly responsive to the one bug I reported.
Slashdot Mirror
"Hey, John, before we can collaborate on this project, you need to buy a Mac, buy SubEthaEdit, install it, and then figure out how to let our two machines talk to each other through our firewalls." I don't think so.
I take it you're unfamiliar with the concept of an example?
SubEthaEdit is a 6M download for basic collaborative text editing. Sounds quite bloated to me when you consider that Google Docs provides WYSIWYG editing, real-time collaboration, storage, indexing and search, chat, and complete version management in just a web page.
Funny. I just opened a short document in Google docs and my Web browser started using an additional 22 Meg. Also, if something takes down my browser or locks it up, well that's it my editing session is hosed too. Gee, that's great. And I still can't automatically find the editing session of the guy sitting next to me in the coffee shop without a separate communication channel like IM or e-mail to tell me how to get to it. It also sucks for collaborative editing because only one person can make changes at a time (no multiple cursors). Sorry, but Web apps suck at things like autodiscovery, often consume more resources, and are often lacking in features because they can't use the host OS to its full potential.
It's like homeownership: if your boss knows you have a mortgage, you're screwed. He has no reason to offer you incentives (better pay, better hours, better perks, etc) because you have another God to pray to: your bankster. The same is true with a W2: your boss knows he's your only source of income, and as such you're stuck with bad pay, bad hours, bad perks.
What you say mostly applies only on the low end. Some of the nicer places I've worked have had profit sharing and stock and bonuses and lots of perqs to keep us happy. Just because someone has a mortgage doesn't mean they can't walk and get a job with another top firm. We had problems with Google stealing employees for example and I know of at least one case where managers saw someone's resume was making the rounds and offered them a big raise and a promotion to stay.
While I understand where you're coming from and have done both regular salaried jobs and contract work. I just don't think it is as clear cut of a division as you're implying. When you're pulling an $100 an hour or more contracting, you generally have the CV to get a salaried job where you can move up or get big bonuses or other concessions.
The notion of a collaborative application that requires a client other than a web browser itself seems outdated, no matter how good the application may be.
I very, very, very strongly disagree. I like have real applications instead of the limited functionality and bloat of Web applications. For example, a good, collaborative text editor (like SubEthaEdit) which autodiscovers via ZeroConf is a heck of a lot easier to use and faster than any Web application I've seen.
Clearly something else as going on, how do I know? acu[uctures studies always have failed.
I did a lot of research into acupuncture after my physician recommended it for a medical problem I was having (it was ineffective in my case). It is not true that scientific studies have shown it to be useless. It fairs no better than a placebo needle for almost all uses, but actually has shown real results with some practitioners for pain relief and for people having problems with vomiting.
Then he should cite some good studies, or loose[sic] his license.
As I said, science does support it for a few uses, although not all schools of acupuncture or all practitioners can manage those results. I'd also note, there is also scientific evidence to support some other therapies usually considered "chinese medicine" such as moxibustion (which was also ineffective in my case).
Spain, England, Portugal, France, Germany, Japan don't exist anymore? Study your history books please.
They exist, but dot he governments that existed at the time exist. In France, the monarchy had their heads chopped off in a violent revolution. In England the monarchy was peacefully displaced (although they could still be sued presumably). Similar situations exist in most all of the other countries. Just because the country is referred to by the same name does not mean it is the same legal entity after a revolution.
The rest of your post is a mixed appeal to consequences and listing of past crimes. In my mind, if you can prove past crimes and have legal standing, I'm all for justice. There's no reason inheritors of wealth should not have that wealth returned to the ancestors of those from which it was stolen (ethically speaking).
The Papal States were annexed to the Kingdom of Italy 1860 to 1870, which comprised the center and northeast of Italy, reducing to what it is today the Vatican City. So, it is not precisely "the same" resources and wealth.
Yeah, and Union Carbide had assets seized, does that mean they should no longer be sued by people they wronged? The Catholic church is the same organization based upon those same profits. They may have gained and lost assets since, but every organization does and that does not stand in the way of modern lawsuits.
None of the items you cite regard a government or organization that still exists. The Roman empire fell and was conquered repeatedly before the Italian democracy rose to power there. It is a different government entirely. The Catholic church, on the other hand, has been the same organization with the same resources and wealth ever since.
So, assuming this suceeds ... can the native americans sue europe for defiling their land, and ruining their culture?
Who is "Europe"? A tribe could sue the EU, but since it did not exist at the time they don't have much chance of winning. In fact, there aren't really many governments from that time still functioning, most have been replaced in violent or nonviolent revolutions. Now the Roman catholic church, on the other hand, has been the same organization since that time. The trick here is proving those claiming to be the knights templar, really are the same organization.
"Designers" who can't code have absolutely no business "working" in software. If you think you really know how an interface should work and look, then learn to code it. Otherwise, you're just a critic of the kind that the NYT doesn't hire.
I could just as easily argue that programmers who haven't studied behavioral psychology should not be allowed to contribute to designing user interfaces, since they are obviously not qualified. Or, as an analogy, you could argue civil engineers who are not physically fit should not be allowed to have input on the design of runoff ditches and it should be left up to the ditch diggers to decide where they go. Frankly, I think your opinion is myopic.
Personally, I find FBSD, Debian, Slackware, and the majority of GNU software to be quite usable. Of course, I don't expect everything to be zero effort, either. Anything worth doing takes a bit of effort.
Do you feel the same way about, say aircraft? Anything worth doing takes effort, so you should have to learn aircraft repair and maintenance and constantly be working on your plane in order to get it to work each flight. How about cars? You can't expect to be able to drive if you can't put in the effort and learn how to rebuild your fuel injection system.
Speaking of which, tried Windows lately? Now to me, that's really hard to use! But then, I don't want to learn the "Windows way" of doing everything, as I fail to see the pay off in it.
Maybe this is part of what is leading you off track. Windows has terrible usability. The difference is MS has a monopoly so even though their usability sucks, people deal with it and use it anyway. With Linux, the opposite is true. Unless it is significantly better than Windows, it doesn't stand a chance of gaining market share on the desktop. Being as good as the abominable usability that is Windows won't cut it.
No, I didn't sumbit it because I wasn't at home the week when the labs build was released, and its old news if I submitted it when I came back 6 days after that build was released.
I wouldn't let that stop you in future. I've seen articles make the front page that were years old. A week is not too long.
I am terribly sorry for not expressing as I should have when I was writing that comment, I was reffering to the Wikimedia people - which are pushing Firefox through their mailing list, when I was talking about Wikipedia.
I see what you're saying. I wonder if the wikipedia team knew that Opera supported those tags. Frankly, Opera has a pretty small market share in comparison and it is entirely possible the person or group who sent out the mailings are not familiar enough with Opera to know.
I am sorry for my bad grammar as I am not from the US and English is not my primary language.
Your grammar is fine. Sorry about the correction. I edit a lot of papers and it is almost automatic for me. It was not intended as criticism. There are a great many americans posting who regularly make more mistakes than you.
My principle of a fair trial relies heavily on the idea of giving both sides equal chance to present their case (I don't know the latin phrase for that, sorry).
So one side is an incredibly wealthy criminal organization with hundreds of high priced lawyers combing through case law seeking precedent and who has already been censured for not presenting relevant findings to the courts where they appear to be detrimental to them. Further, the judge reopened the case because he determined those experts misled him by not presenting a well known precedent they had themselves been part of and were legally obligated to present.
The other side is an individual without any real resources with a lawyer apparently not competent enough to find and present said well known precedent.
You consider that to be both sides having an equal chance? You consider that to be both sides having a more equal chance than asking impartial experts from law schools to submit relevant information?
Since every person has an opinion on something, at least when they bother to write about it, it's usually hard to consider such a letter as an unbiased expert testimony, but it is supposed to be seen as such.
Sure everyone has an opinion, including the lawyers being paid to work on this case. So if you ask for input from experts, you're likely to get input from people with conflicting opinions, thus being informed about both opinions. Not that the judge needs to worry about getting one side, since there is an expert team of highly paid lawyers researching it and presenting it.
I guess I just don't see how anyone can consider the judge getting all the facts a bad thing.
Do you know of any other examples of that happening? I don't, and I've been in the litigation field for 34 years.
I stated I did not know if it was unusual. But since you ask, a google for "judge request amicus" returns as it's first hit a discussion of "Massachusetts Nurse Assoc. v. Essent Healthcare of Massachusetts, Inc." where the judge requested amicus briefs from a specific discussion group of law professors. It mentions that such requests are unusual. This does, however, show such an action is not unprecedented. I'd also note that the case in question (about health insurance for same sex couples) was also one where an important precedent was the likely to be set.
Now I'm no lawyer, but it seems to me these type of cases are probably quite rare and deserving of extra attention. For a judge to be diligent and request factual input for experts in the field seems like a good thing. What do you think?
This situation is extremely unusual. In this case the judge actually invited amicus curiae briefs.
I don't know that is unusual. In cases where one party has huge legal resources and one party has none and where large issues such as constitutionality are a factor, I'd hope any decent judge would encourage them in an attempt to have a fair trial.
That only works for applications for which you have the source. Not all commercial software is open source, and limiting yourself to only open-source (er, "ships as source") software is quite limiting in a business enviornment[sic].
Please clarify what you're talking about. I made several comments. Obviously you can't compile software without the source, but that holds true for Linux as much as Windows or OS X. Commercial, closed source software can and is packaged.
So, essentially, I could write a letter, citing my level of expertise to appear credible and try to influence the court to follow my train of logic and sway them to create a verdict I deem favorable, because I might be affected by it some time later?
Yeah you could, but unless you have some useful precedent to cite or verifiable facts that have not been presented, they will probably ignore you.
Well, it sure looks like this time, the influencing is done in the right direction, but still, the rather foul taste lingers.
I don't understand why you'd have a foul taste. People shouldn't be able to voice their opinions? So long as you aren't sending cash or promises along with your opinions, why would there be a problem?
Well, I didn't know the phrase amicus curiae before, so I looked it up in Wikipedia and... I can't help it, it sounds a tad bit like "lobbying for courtrooms". How do courts keep this from happening? Or do they, actually?
For the most part, amicus curiae briefs are encouraged, much like pro bono work. Anyone with enough money can hire lawyers to exhaustively research legally grey areas looking for precedents. Friend of the court briefs are generally used to help even the odds for people without those kind of resources. In this case, for example, an important precedent being discussed and high priced lawyers funded by a huge cartel (convicted of criminal actions) is suing an individual with no real resources. When concerned experts volunteer their time to help the court have all the information from the other side, well I think that is a good thing.
Yes, this means that you aren't the target customer for the people who need problems solved.
The point I was making is that it is hard for developers to easily get their software into a single format that all their customers can easily use. The fact that in my examples I'm not the target for LSB does not matter. I'm the customer of their target, and when it is a pain for me to get and install software because the developer had to choose to target either Debian or RedHat or waste time trying to target both with different procedures, well that is the exact problem they're supposedly working on solving.
Third party software shouldn't be packaged, it should install into a subdirectory of /opt in the same way that Windows software uses "\Program Files".
I kind of prefer my third party software to be packaged so I can manage the install, uninstall, and update process from the same location as all the rest of my software. I strongly prefer it to be a self contained, executable package so I can run it from removable media without having to install it locally as well and so that all the files it uses are self contained for security and management reasons.
If you're compiling from source well then, yes - of course you're going to have trouble.
Why? Instead of typing the same commands on the CLI every time, why can't my package manager handle that step? Is there some reason why this step should have poor usability?
Not as much as if you were trying to do the same thing in Windows or OS X though.
% ./configure
% make
% make install
The above seems to work on OS X and Linux exactly the same for most of the software I run. For that matter, the only things I compile myself on Windows use the same procedure within Cygwin.
The quote in the summary reads:
'It is critically important for Linux to have an easy way for software developers to write to distro 'N,' whether it's Red Hat, Ubuntu or Novell,"
Personally (as a Linux on the desktop user), I'm a lot more concerned about easily acquiring installing software, than whether it has problems with my distro. For the most part I can get software to run, but it can be a huge pain in the butt. I wish LSB would focus on extending and standardizing package formats and creating advanced standards for package managers to simplify that part of my workflow. I never wonder, "will this run on Ubuntu," so much as "which package format is this in, or how hard is it going to be to compile and update."
Could this have been what took Apple so long? Not as entertaining as posting "Apple sucks", but worth a look nonetheless.
That's an interesting theory, but doesn't look too likely. The flawed patches are the ones ending in "P1" which seem to be what OS X systems are upgraded to. Maybe they worked around that with other code, but there is not really any evidence to support that theory. Someone should probably test it.
But, as always, it didn't got[sic] the respectable place in /.'s front page.
Did you submit it?
I am also dissapointed in the fact that Wikipedia didn't even say a single word about Opera supporting the same spec.
You know what works better than being disappointed? Adding it to the wikipedia article. It's Wikipedia... you can edit it.
If you're not seeing 100/100 on Acid3 with a WebKit nightly build on Mac OS X or Windows you should file a bug report [webkit.org].
I saw 100/100 on an older version of the nightlies, but I assume they had to regress some item temporarily. I'm also sure they run the Acid3 test themselves as part of their regression. Try it yourself.
Just needed to point out that Red Hat doesn't even make the binaries available to anyone who doesn't pay and doesn't even let CentOS use their name on thier webpage [centos.org].
I have no problem at all with the trademark thing. If RedHat or Sun doesn't want their brand on a product that has been tweaked and is being distributed by another company or group, that is cool with me. The difference between Linux and VirtualBox is, there are a lot of Linux distros out there tailored to different needs and it is easy for different companies to contribute to Linux and create projects with ongoing development shared. With most of Sun's projects, this has not been the case. If I want to use Linux for my enterprise workstations, I can go with Redhat or IBM or Canonical and I know all of them can get bug fixes done and all will benefit from one another. If I want to use VirtualBox, where else can I go if Sun is unresponsive or just doesn't care about my needs? If another company starts working on it aiming at my market, will their changes get into the main codebase, or will they constantly be back porting them to the latest release from Sun? With Linux, I can get binaries from somewhere, even tweaked for use in my home, but where do I get binaries for VirtualBox if Sun doesn't distribute them and will Sun play nice with whatever company is "competing" with them by distributing said binaries?
Even now, it is a real pain in the butt to actually get a copy of OpenSolaris and install it as a normal user. They make you install a proprietary download manager and give them a bunch of personal info.
How long ago was that? Last week I downloaded an iso straight from opensolaris.com and had it running in virtualbox soon after without having to give any personal information and without needing any download manager.
That was a few months back. I just took a look at their new site, and it sounds like they listened to their feedback (either mine or that of many others). I'm downloading a new iso now, and have some hope, although my success rate for installing the current OpenSolaris release inside a VM optimized for it has only been about 50%.
The slightly longer answer is that they are actually trying to compete with Linux. And some people will even say that Solaris is, in some ways, better than Linux. That's apostasy of the highest order for the Slashdot crowd. A longer answer still is that most people on Slashdot are probably exposed to the worst of Sun as part of their jobs: the 10-year old behemoths.
Here's my perspective. My experience with Sun lately has been with Solaris. Technically, as it now stands, it may be more advanced than Linux in many ways. Unfortunately, not all is wine and roses.
As a normal user looking for a workstation, Solaris is so late to the game that almost everyone is already invested in linux. Applications are designed for Linux and take advantage of Linux's features to a greater extent than Solaris. Getting Solaris, is a pain as well, because of all the hoopla Sun makes you go through. In short it is not very compelling.
As a developer looking for a base OS to make a custom distro or an appliance, Solaris also fails. Getting minor customizations or changes into Solaris is an exercise in frustration compared to the ease of Linux. Whatever its faults, Linux takes input from everyone and has a well tested apparatus for lots of people to contribute and lots of experienced coders available to hire for that purpose.
Sun was and is simply too reluctant to commit to being part of the OSS community. They were too late open sourcing Solaris and are still not good about encouraging others to contribute to it or even making that process not a slow and painful experience. The same thing goes for OpenOffice and any number of other Sun OSS projects. As I mentioned in other places, I appreciate their contributions and the quality of technology they create, but they get a C-minus when it comes to being part of the community and facilitating uses for their software where they don't see the immediate benefit to their bottom line.
My company shelled out for version 3, and I played with the beta of version 2. Version 3 has been stable as I could want and they were fairly responsive to the one bug I reported.