These are problems with human intelligence and behavior patterns. An OS can only do so much, but at least Linux aspires to enforce some kind of good user habits.
Ahh, but when it comes to commercial software, Linux doesn't do much of anything with that regard.
Let me clarify. Linux installation is no better than Windows when Linux's PM system fails, that is, when a developer distributes software that doesn't participate or comply with the PM standards. Civil rights and good organization: both require practice and active participation or you'll lose them.
No one is going to use a package format or manager that is not sufficient to their needs. If I was tasked with setting up a game port to Linux with an installer, I would not use the package manager that ships on any Linux distro I've used. It is easier and less buggy to do it the same way as Windows.
For now, Linux PMs are a good start.
Yeah, they're fine so long as you don't foresee a future where Linux is mainstream for home users and supported by commercial vendors. If you do look for that, however, every package being made right now is one more piece of software that may or may not be updated to work with a more functional package manager. The longer Linux distros put off putting the right architecture in place, the harder the transition and the more software will establish practices that do not conform. Also, the more home users will try it and be frustrated and whose buying power will not be motivating developers to target Linux.
It would be nice if it didn't. Crap/ad/nagware is what drove a lot of us to try out Linux, and it's the only thing you really lose when you comply with a package manager system.
That is a good reason to use open source software. It is not a good reason to make it hard to use closed source software when needed. I'd kind of like to be able to play Starcraft 3 on Linux some day and not have to waste half an hour at the beginning of the LAN party bringing everyone's copies up to the same version, because Linux keeps it up to date and because Blizzard is supporting Linux because developers made it easy for them to do so.
Registrations and serial validation systems don't change. It's just as futile to try to prevent piracy in Linux as it is in Windows...
Actually, there are some pretty effective registration/validation systems out there, some of which are way more intrusive than I am comfortable with. Part of the benefit to having an official registration service is to remove the motivation for companies who think they need to install a rootkit on your machine to stop you from pirating their game. The main point of registration systems is to stop casual piracy, and I've seen some fairly convincing evidence that they do stop enough people to motivate more sales.
so there's nothing stopping you from offering a locked version of your software through a package manager (I've seen this done in SUSE). It would also probably be pretty easy to put a registration-code check in at installation time, if that's not already built in somewhere.
I've seen this in stand alone installers and I've seen this where it run the first time the application runs. I have never seen it integrated with the package manager (which is a natural place for serial/certificate/license management) and I've certainly never seen it for paid upgrades of software.
I like OS X, but I'm the one who has to install OS X apps for my non-computer-savvy girlfriend on her iBook. So there you go. No system is simple enough.
Nothing can ever be simple enough, but simpler is better and reaches more people....and even my mother figured out she can drag the application icon onto the desktop and it works. Are you, perhaps, referring to installation via the installer or a stand alone installer on OS X? I might mention, OS X also suffe
check out smart. on my openSUSE 10.2 system, it does just what you said: you can add some random repo from the internet, and smart handles dependency calculations and updates.
There are a number of managers that will handle multiple repositories (possibly most of them?) What I advocate is one that will automatically add the repository associated with a package that is double clicked on, regardless of where that copy came from. This requires the package to include a URL for its repository, which I don't think most do. As far as I can tell from the docs, smart does not handle that case (nor could it without the package format being updated).
Also, I did not see any mention of support for registration of commercial software or license key management, something fairly impossible to exclude if you're trying to get commercial software publishers to use a supported package format.
It does look like a nice project that at least handles multiple formats well, but it is analogous to GAIM. GAIM lets you use a variety of different chat services at once partially mitigating the fact that most services are walled gardens. What I'm advocating is more like a switch to Jabber+VoIP. I'd like to see people all move to one unified system that has more functionality than any current system, although it is probably wishful thinking on my part. Linux seems very resistant to architectural changes these days, even when they offer significant improvements for the desktop.
It seems to me that what you are saying is that you want something that has all the benefits of centralized packaging, but without a centralized packager.
Well, sort of. I want the benefits of a package manager applied to decentralized package sources. The only functionality that is really tied to packages being centralized is the discovery feature.
But even that still has a centralized repository. How do you suggest that we have something that acts like a centralized packager without actually being centralized?
The synaptic package manager supports multiple repositories. All that needs to be done to support decentralized package management is to include a repository URL in the package format itself and adjust the package manager to automatically add repositories that are in a package and not yet added. That is the easy part.
The hard part is adding the registration aspect. You need an official standard for exchanging keys and verifying the legitimacy of some key for some software. I'm no expert on registration mechanisms, but I don't think it is impossible. You'd need to tie a key to a software install or upgrade, including integrating with a redirect to a Web site for payment.
The final component, and I think the least critical, is the discovery component, which is pretty much tied to a central list of some sort, although it could be a list that includes software repository submissions from any and all parties, it would pretty much need to be centrally maintained by a distro or group to prevent abuse.
You realize that a Festiva is simply a rebadged Kia, don't you?
Most cars are rebadged something, possible with some quality control requirements. Ford put their name on it, so it certainly reflects on what else Ford might put their name on.
And since the Festiva in question was rusty, it was likely older. Older cars tend to have more problems. Older cars that were cheap to start with tend to not get much in the way of regular maintenance and repairs.
Yeah, and how does this reflect on the brand again? I posted the anecdote because it was funny, not because it is logical proof that Ford makes inferior machines. For that I look at the longterm reliability ratings of their vehicles, which to date have been pretty poor in comparison to say, a Honda in the same price range.
If you download a.deb then double-click it, Ubuntu knows to launch gdebi, which will let you install the package onto your system. It will then also be in Synaptic where it can be removed.
Commercial software companies won't use the package formats or the repositories. Official repositories are not an option for them because they need to control redistribution rights (legally and for risk management). Further, even if they did use the official package format and the repository they still need to contact their own servers to handle registration of the software and updates to the software (since not all updates are free). Given that, it makes more sense right now for them to roll their own installers that include all this functionality.
Package managers are insufficient for commercial companies because they don't include:
discovery of software hosted by a publisher instead of in the official repository
updates of software whose original source is a DVD or random Web site and whose update location is hosted by the publisher
registration of software with a key at the publisher's server
free and paid updates for the same software and registration and payment for them
Unless this changes, any commercial games or applications that are ported to linux will bypass the package manager and thus be just as limited as Windows, except that users have to juggle two different methods of doing things.
The *real* solution is for Ubuntu to achieve World Domination so that.deb is used by everyone.:-)
I'm all for standardization, but I'm not really seeing.deb as the ideal package format. Rather, I'd like to see a new format that is an extension of OpenStep packages. This would allow for portable packages that can be run off of a USB drive or CD without modification, that can be e-mailed or IM'd, that can be moved anywhere on the disk without problems, that support FAT binaries for different distros, OS's, and chipsets, and that can include source and build instructions for custom binaries all in a single "file." It would also allow OS X and Linux to share a package and would make it easier to find and extract resources from the packages.
I mean if we're going to choose a single package format for the future, lets make it a versatile and extensible open standard one appropriate for desktops of the future.
If you double-click a.DEB package on Ubuntu, using both GNOME and KDE, a nice dialogue will appear asking for you password, and the package will be promptly installed.
Ubuntu will not, however, keep that package up to date by checking anywhere other than the repository for updates. Commercial software developers who are selling a program, won't use.deb or the official repositories. Every repository would need to negotiate redistribution rights. The repository and installer still would not handle registering that software. If the developer already has to handle helping the user discover the software and connecting to their servers for registration and their own update system, then they will almost certainly combine those functions in an installer and bypass the package manager entirely. This is because the package manager is not functional enough for their needs. To fix this problem, you need to expand the functionality of package managers. Unless this happens, installing and maintaining software on Linux, for the home user, will be as bad or even worse than on Windows.
If you forget which technique applies, you try the first. If you were wrong, you try the other...
You don't understand how that can be a usability issue? Think of a new user who has only used Windows before. They install Linux from a CD, then stick a CD with the Linux program they want to run into the drive and double click on it. Will this user ever realize there is a way to download packages from a repository or will they assume Linux operates like Windows?
Picture the new user who installs Linux and reads how Linux manages packages for them. They then install it and grab some stuff they want from the package manager. One day they download a game from Web site and it has an installer which they run and all is good. A year later they want to trash the game to free up space. Will they remember they used a stand alone installer. How long will they look in the package manager for the application? Will they be frustrated?
Picture the same new user, but instead of a game they are downloading, they download a tax return software package that has an installer. Will they trust the installer of decide maybe it is malware since it does not install the right way? Will they just do their taxes on their roommate's Windows machine?
Windows doesn't make this any easier by 'sticking with one technique,' because all the different vendors have different agendas in mind for you when you install. They set up new tricks, new startup scripts, new registry entries, new 'license managers', which may or may not get wiped clean with the vendor's proscribed uninstallation technique, or and may or may not get fully removed using Windows Add/Remove. This isn't less confusing for anyone, and it's a long way from 'one technique.'
First being as good as Windows for usability is kind of like being as good as China for civil rights. This should not be a goal, but rather an embarrassment. People in general don't choose to use Windows because it is good, they just use it because it is the only option they've seen for sale. If you want them to make a choice, you have to actually give them a good choice. Second, you're not looking at this from an end user perspective. They don't see lots of techniques and problems. They don't know something didn't fully uninstall. They just know to double click on the installer and to go to the remove programs setting.
Now, Linux package managers are far from perfect, but they have a better goal and a better execution..deb and.rpm managers handle somewhere between most and the vast majority of the software, and they can uninstall that software cleanly.
That's true. It is also true almost all Linux software is OSS distributed via repositories. You don't think this will change if Linux users finally convinced commercial developers like games developers to target their platform? Package managers are significantly better on Linux, but only if developers use them, which most people selling software won't. If Linux wants to retain this advantage, they need to adapt package managers to handle all packages from any source the same, including auto-updates even if the software ships on a DVD or is sent via e-mail or is downloaded from the publisher's Web page. There needs to be a way for commercial publishers to host their own downloads, but also let users discover their software via the package manager. There needs to be an official, built in way for developers to handle registration of their software, so they are discouraged from all doing this differently and using custom installers for that purpose.
Anything that's more trouble than that is a major exception, but it's the same hassle you would get in the Windows world.
And still a huge pain in the ass. Personally, I'd like to see major Linux distros deprecate all their current package formats and move to something portable and contained and with room for expansion, like OpenStep. I'd love
I don't see why market share would be a prerequisite for this sort of feature, unless you meant that increased market share would make it necessary.
For expert users or people working on a system centrally managed for them, this is not a significant issue. For OSS software distributed from repositories this is not a problem. It is only when you combine regular home users and commercial software that it becomes a problem. If Linux is to make inroads into the home market, I contend it needs to be better than Windows in every way possible and package management is one of its strengths... if that strength can be applied to all software including the kind normal users are likely to be installing, like commercial games, productivity apps, and random home user junk.
Installations this way won't do updates, but yikes, that's a really tall order and that's what repositories are for.
Most software that is commercial and pay will not use a repository because existing repositories do not allow them to control the distribution and because repositories do not support software registration anyway. If they have to roll their own registration system and their own update system, they might as well go with a stand alone installer application because it is less work.
I've heard an argument many times about whether Linux desktop distros are trying to be the best or just trying to be Windows clones. Well, the auto-update and centralized management of applications is one big area where Linux is ahead for desktop usability... unless of course that advantage is not maintained when it comes to commercial games and productivity apps and anything else that can't be distributed from a central repository for some reason. Then it is Linux just behaving like Windows not because it is better, but because nobody cared to do it the right way when they had the chance.
As for things that are not packaged, these are often installed quite easily.
Sure it is, but it bypasses the package management system which means users learn two ways of doing things instead of one, neither of which has all the benefits of the other. That's just fine for current Linux users. That's just fine for centrally managed workstations. It is far from ideal for home users and will be a serious problem when/if Linux ever attempts to really reach that market and commercial software companies consider supporting Linux as a platform.
People are making a problem here where there really isn't one.
You're right there isn't a problem, because there really aren't any normal home users that run Linux, only geeks and people who have their systems managed for them by a geek in the family. Some people would say Linux's lack of penetration into the desktop is a problem and the lack of software for the platform that results is a problem, but that all depends upon your perspective.
I stopped reading after this. Anyone who thinks Ubuntu's package management 'compares favourably' to add/remove programs is not in his senses.
While Ubuntu's package management is technically much, much, much better than that on Windows since it includes application discovery and acquisition and updates, it is in some practical, workflows inferior. No matter how large your software repository is, there will always be binaries distributed via a Website or on CD or via some other mechanism. On Windows this means you do discovery, acquisition, and updates by hand, the same as every other program. On Linux it means you have a special case where you do all those by hand as well as installation and uninstallation by hand. This means users have to juggle two techniques and remember which applies to which software. This is an area where Linux in general could improve. Package managers are built around the concept of open source software and thus everything you need can be in a repository. When software is not in a repository, it is not handled well and I don't know any package manager for Linux that supports using a software package from some random Website, and managing the install, registration, and updates for that application through the standard package manager. Hopefully this deficiency can be addressed if linux ever gains serious market share on the desktop.
Ok go for it. Explain how well OSX Server works in place of another *nix, because as you say, it supports the standards 'clean'.
We were discussing workstations, not servers. Neither Apple nor MS is king in the server space, so the argument makes no sense applied to them. As for interoperability, Apple's storage servers are excellent for their support for open standards for interoperability. As for their other servers, well I don't use them, but they are one of the only ones we could find that came with the open IM standard Jabber installed and supported, when we were looking for such.
And this isn't even touching all upper stuff like the non-Open audio video used on OSX to even iChat.
Actually, Apple's audio video is an open standard, although not a free standard. It is just one that is not really implemented a lot by others.
Lets take a basic example. Samba.
What? Samba is and always has been an aberration when it comes to MS protocols. I already provided an example, kereberos. Do explain how MS's implementation is not intentionally breaking interoperability. Or you could discuss MAPI for mail if you wanted; or NTFS for disk.
So if you have NO use for Active Directory and are using LDAP or other 'standards' then nothing you are running is reverse engineered. And if you are primarily *nix, why on earth would you want Active Directory controling your ACLs
I think what you're missing is the idea of managing mixed environments with standardized tools. With LDAP you can manage everything the same way, no matter if they are Linux boxes, or OS X workstations, or NetBSD appliances, or an old IRIX graphics workstation, or something new entirely. MS workstations, however, require special work because in general they are not built upon standards that everyone can modify or access.
I can't imagine a person who has run a mixed environment of systems (more than just MS resellers) who has not noticed this.
Err, I really don't understand what you are getting at. By choosing the GPL, MySQL gained a lot of free press and mindshare...
Okay. Let me explain it another way. Every move a company makes is either a feature or an anti-feature. Adding a person to your phone support team is a feature because customers get through faster. This costs the company money, which they make up by having happier customers who renew contracts. Removing a support person is an anti-feature for the same reason. It cuts costs though so may allow users to buy at a lower cost. Both measures are designed to make more money for the company in the long run, as is everything a company does.
A lot of people look at GPL licensing and don't understand that it is a feature instead of an anti-feature. It costs the company money in licensing in the short run, but allows for free input from the community and spurs adoption in the long run. Since licenses are generally anti-features, designed to restrict customers more a lot of people have trouble changing this mindset.
GPL licensing is about making users happy which will in turn make the company money. It is not about forcing those users to fork over more cash.
Software doesn't stand still. Even in something as age-old as databases, new features are constantly being added. There is always room for innovation. Red Hat, MySQL, Trolltech, etc. have been around for an awfully long time, selling GPD'd software. Sure, a fork could succeed, it's a risk, but there's no guarantee it will in the long run.
I think you're confusing the terms "making a profit from OSS" and "selling OSS." At some point in the maturity of a software field, selling OSS becomes a losing proposition because the cost of a fork is less than the cost of the license that is worthwhile to sell. You can make money from OSS in the long term (I should know, we're making millions developing/using it right now), but it is unlikely you will be able to sell it in the long term.
It has taken off already, on the server-side backend.
Redhat has already given up on selling to the desktop, for the most part and they make their money off of support as their main revenue stream. The problem with this is that it brings development goals that conflict with users needs. Users want software that requires minimal support and as the server industry matures this will become more and more the case. Redhat had momentum, but anyone can see that they are losing a lot of it in recent years. As you mention, they have tried to artificially "close" Linux by making maintaining forks inconvenient, but it has not really worked well from what I've seen.
They can be forked just like anybody else. What is Google really paying them for? Once the Google toolbar is part of Firefox, Mozilla doesn't have a monopoly.
You're missing my point. Because the Mozilla team is not selling Firefox directly, that motivation for forking is gone. Sure people still can and will fork the project for various reasons, but not in ways that threaten Mozilla's revenue stream directly. Mozilla doesn't make money by selling Firefox. They make money by developing software and providing advertising ties in that software. Google pays the Mozilla team because Firefox sends Web searchers to Google first and because it benefits Google strategically to not be dependent upon their competitor (MS).
How is Mozilla's situation different than any other GPL-based company?
Mozilla is in the same situation as many OSS-based companies. They are different from the MySQL team, in that they do not directly sell the product they make, but profit from a more sustainable business model of revenue from development directly (paid changes for people with money) and through marketing ties.
But here's the thing, if 50% of businesses switch to Macs then close to 100% of those businesses will have identical computers down to the hardware.
How do you figure? Macs come in a variety of hardware models and change over time and have differing drivers for that hardware, the same as any other vendor. As I said, we currently have Apple and Lenovo as laptop vendors, and there is not any more or less variation among what we get from them. Further, if Apple ever reached 50% of the hardware market, that would mean MS's ability to leverage their monopoly would be gone, making Linux a viable option and a subject of serious investment. It would also mean Apple would probably start to lose that market share unless they divorced their hardware and software businesses so there is a good chance they would do so.
Not so if they are running their PCs now (while they may be very similar, a driver hack on one machine will only work with companies who have the same hardware, instead of any company).
Since having 50% of the market is pretty unlikely anytime soon, lets consider the current market. There are more machines out there susceptible to the same Toshiba or HP or Gateway driver problem than there are subject to the same Apple driver problem. Also, more vulnerabilities are OS dependent than are driver dependent, by a huge margin. The risks of vulnerabilities to ay company that switches to all macs versus the risk to a company that uses any other kind of computer or even a mix of all different vendors of Windows boxes still favors the mac and will for the foreseeable future.
What about things like a hard disk? What are going to send the box with the broken hard disk that may have info on it that you don't want others to see to some vendor or do you just put a new disk in?
Actually, we do ship laptops back with failed disks while the user gets a new one, but we're not an enterprise business (yet). For the enterprises we work with, most of them have files stored in two ways: on the network servers and on local, encrypted drives. And yes, they do just ship the machine back at the vendor's expense while the user takes a spare box. Most of these companies also have on site support with their server vendors who have a lot more access to important data, but I don't know that anyone considers it a large risk. When you have a premium support contract and are a premier customer, you use that contract rather than spending more time and money doing things internally. I've seen budgets with as much as 20% allocated for renewing these support contracts and no one spends that money without getting real return on it.
I guess a monoculture environment is only bad if it's Windows PCs?
Actually a monoculture within an organization has certain benefits, and for enterprise business there is usually a short list of approved hardware vendors anyway, with workstations bought in lots. In fact, where I currently work we have to approved laptop vendors and Apple is one of them. Changing that to Dell, would not make us any more or less varied for the hardware we have, it would just change the names on them.
The danger is when the entire world is a monoculture because then someone in Russia can code malware that attacks everyone everywhere running that given OS. If 50% of all companies switched to using macs, that would ameliorate the problem to a great degree. If a company is considering switching entirely to macs for workstations, I don't think they have to worry about the dangerous affects of a monoculture for a long, long, long time, if ever.
If you think all Apple's implementations are 'clean' you are reading the marketing and not actually using the products.
Umm, do you have any specifics you'd like to point out, or only open rhetoric. About half our machines here are Macs and they seem to work just fine with standard Linux servers for authentication, accounting, logging, calendaring, e-mail, IM, video conferencing, and collaborative editing.
If you think MS's support of 99.9% of protocols is 'changed' or 'reverse engineered' again, you have no idea what you are talking about.
I said MS uses closed protocols and interoperability with those MS machines/protocols is achieved by reverse engineering them. Do you have any idea what you're talking about? Who doesn't know this stuff? I suppose you could, however, claim that MS protocols are "changed" versions of other protocols legitimately (although I never made that argument and I'm not sure where you got it from). Just take a look at their Kereberos support, or even IE's Web standards support.
People forget MS owned Xenix before Linux existed.
That has pretty much nothing to do with adherence to standards.
A while back I happened to be standing on the side of the road in front of a Ford factory with a giant Ford logo in front, while a rusty Ford Festiva tried again and again to make it up the fairly small hill the road went up. It stalled out about 5 times then went back the way it came. If only I'd had a video camera. Seriously though, I replaced almost every critical part of my old Ford at least twice while I was in school and they would have to do a hell of a lot to ever win me back as a customer.
Enterprise Computer systems need to be easy to open up and the mini is not easy to do so and the mac pro cost is too high.
Umm, in what enterprise? I do business with a few large enterprises and for the most part machines are interchangeable and there are hot spares available. If it breaks, a spare is swapped in and the broken box is shipped to the vendor who replaces it. Upgrades are in batches and also done on contract. I can see why a small operation that cannot afford the overhead for spare machines might want to be able to do quick service and upgrades, but that is not what I've seen in enterprise businesses.
Although i am a mac user, I often wonder why a company would intentionally want to introduce a Mac into the enterprise.
They do so for the same reason they introduce anything else, it is the most cost effective solution they can find to a given problem.
The MS PC can be a relative inexpensive, interchangeable cog for the worker bees.
Or it can be more expensive overall, if you include the cost of security cleanup, support, downtime, legal liability, and security risks. That all depends upon the use, doesn't it?
What I find frustrating is that in many cases a Mac cannot be used, and there is really no legitimate reason. To continue the above analogy, while their may not be Snap-On tools for all, certain persons might use such tools, and some persons might wish to buy such tools. There is nothing that says "only Stanley tools can be used in this shop". And I am not talking about application or support issues.
Analogies are fine, but you have to provide a hint as to what your analogue is supposedly corresponding to. You find it frustrating that Macs can't be used for no legitimate reason? If there is no legitimate reason, then why don't you use them? Perhaps what you need to provide is an example, instead of an analogy.
Are you suggesting that children can kill people at will because they don't get to vote? How about convicted felons who can't vote either, do they get a free pass? Legal and illegal aliens?
According to the rules of ethics, a person is only responsible for actions when they have a right corresponding to that action. For example, a person who has no right to decide if they possess a gun has no ethical responsibility for accidentally shooting someone with one. With children most of their basic human rights are held in abeyance until they reach their majority. Their parents and the state claim ownership of their rights and as such are ethically responsible for the consequences of actions that correspond to those rights. Legally, in many places the laws follow this same convention, with a number of exceptions.
As the children killing at will, legally a child does have the right to live and neither their parent nor the state can kill them at will, thus a child does not have the right to willfully kill another, although legally the punishment or so doing is correspondingly limited based upon their degree of responsibility. The same applies to felons and illegal aliens. As to the right to vote, well that is where we get into a regression with all other rights legally enforced, at least in theory, by the process of voting. Ethically, if you are not given the option to opt into the legal system, then you have no ethical obligation to abide by its decisions. That does not mean it won't take actions against you. It only speaks to ethical responsibility.
There is significant risk in that strategy. First, it would be useless without a valid license to Windows which costs money and gives MS more cash to abuse. Second there is the danger of losing native software as some software developers would consider the mac market to be more cost effectively reached via the Windows emulation option.
I suspect they mean that Macs integrate with all the open standard protocols and tools that Linux does (think LDAP) instead of the MS controlled closed protocols where interoperability is always a little broken since it is achieved via reverse engineering.
...are illegal activities made legal when you are young?
No, but for the most part you cannot be held responsible for doing them. There is a relationship between responsibility and rights that seems sadly overlooked by our educational system. If you do not have legal protection for freedom of speech, then it is unethical to hold someone legally responsible for whatever speech they make. If you don't have the legal right to go where you want and buy a car if you want and apply for a driver's license and legally purchase and consume alcohol, then legally you cannot be held responsible for doing those things. Children's rights are held in trust for them and managed by their parents and by the state. It is, therefor, the legal responsibility of the parents and the state to prevent children from drunk driving.
Parents don't seem to care what their kids do, unless they are caught. Of course, since there's a huge push for kids being allowed to do whatever they want and that parents shouldn't force any sort of morals on their kids and stuff like that, it just makes sense. But seriously, parents should know what their kids are doing.
Parents along with the state are legally responsible for what their children do, so if they are intelligent then they certainly should know what their children are doing and take reasonable steps to control those actions. The problem is when new technology runs into legislation in ways the parents don't even know exist, especially when the ethics of those laws are highly questionable in the first place and are enforced only a tiny fraction of the time.
Whether or not you like the RIAA, pirated music IS illegal, is it not?
Actually, no it probably is not. Distributing copies of copyrighted music is grounds for a civil lawsuit, which is not quite as simple as "pirated music is illegal."
Whether or not you're seven years old.
At 7 years old can you legally use the computer whenever you want to upload whatever you want without your parents being legally able to physically stop you? Do you have the right to do those things, even if your parents tell you not to? If so, then sure hold her legally responsible, but I've never heard of any such legal protection for children.
Copyrights apply to minors.
You know this is taking the whole "ignorance of the law is no excuse" thing to absurd new degrees. You honestly think it is just to hold a 7 year old child responsible for knowing and obeying, literally millions of lines of rules, many of which are accessible only at locations to which they don't have access and which are written in a strange mix of archaic english and latin? If you were seven and your dad smacked you for not obeying a rule you had never been taught, you'd think that is justice? Your perspective, or lack thereof, is tragic.
While the RIAA is consistently criticized (and perhaps rightly so), very few suggestions are made for protecting copyrighted music.
Music copyrights don't need protection at this point. Rather, citizens need protection from absurd copyrights. Copyright law is an artificial restriction that is supposed to exist only for the benefit of society as a whole. I think it is clear at this point that the laws have been corrupted to such an extent by simple greed that they are a detriment to society. Until such a time as they are reformed, It would be better if they were abolished or not enforced at all.
and copyrights can be a rather helpful thing, because there are people that will steal and even promote it as their own
How can one steal a granted right?
...taking royalties or sales or whatever you like.
That is not stealing, by definition. That is committing copyright infringement, which is to say exercising one's basic human right to free expression without
Surely you realize the fallacy in this. My sig sums it succinctly: ignorance is curable, stupid is forever. One can educate the ignorant, but instiling reason or the capacity for rational thought in the stupid (inferior) mind is not possible. Sorry, education will not work, nor will coercion.
Values can be taught, including the value of using reason. Logic is a formal process as is rhetoric and they certainly can be taught and can enable anyone to learn to better make decisions. In any case, the verdict on nature versus nurture has been in for a long time. Basically, nurture is dominant with nature accounting for 20-40% of success in intellectual endeavors depending on the endeavor and the study (using separated genetic twin, double blinds only). Education can and has already made a huge difference. My assertion is that education is focusing on the wrong things in many cases, such as memorization of facts and appreciation for literature, whereas it should be stressing basic tools for thinking, like logic and reason.
Yet you reference "capitalizing" on human nature to subvert/redirect actions based thereon. I guess I do not understand. Are you suggesting infringing "hate speech" as a means to derail group-think/mob mentality? Or the sharing/proliferation of ideas?
The hate speech most people are concerned about is public forum and within large organizations. Mass violence that is a self sustaining cycle is the result of escalating actions between groups that are self-identifying and which have a common belief and opposition. Without all of these characteristics, the cycle does not continue. If there is not reinforcement of one given common belief and an attachment to a specific opposition, then the cycle does not build. The idea of stopping hate speech is not to stop people from irrationally blaming others or having prejudices, but to prevent them from identifying one opposition group consistently with an idea, as opposed to many ideas and many opposition groups without consistent attachment so violence does not build between two groups.
It is not really an easy concept to explain, but there has been some success at re-engineering society via these mechanisms. There aren't a lot of Nazis in Germany anymore. If you haven't read it, I strongly recommend you pick up the book "Freakonomics." It is a quick read and very entertaining, but it contains one interesting story that might help you understand the idea conceptually. It tells how superman decimated the KKK in real life.
Here is a fact damn few will acknowledge: Interracial prejudice, bigotry, and hatred has existed as long as Man has excisted, and will continue to exist as long as Man exists. The roots probably lie in interspecies or intertribal conflicts predating language. Whatever the reason, hate is a reality, and no amount of education or legislation will ever change that.
Reason and logic are tools a human can use to understand the world and make proper decisions and effective actions. It will not remove the emotion of hate, but it may change the way people deal with it. An irrational person will blame the failings in their life on another race or religion because it is easy. They will believe the illogical and unsupported accusations of rabble rousers. A rational person will understand with some certainty the real reasons for what happens in their life and will not blame it on a religion or genetic trait of others, but upon their own actions and the way our society is constructed and the limitations of our abilities. Instead of irrationally attacking others to release their emotions, they can understand those emotions and channel them to take real actions to change things for the better. Before this happens, however, they need the mental tools to do so.
Frankly, it is probably better to give hate speech (short of calls for real-world violence) free reign rather than try to stifle it. "Venting" hatred with words relieves pent-up frustration and ameliorates violent propensities. Stifle that release, and sentiments fester then burst as acts of real violence.
It is now and for a long time has been resulting in real world violence against other races and religions and nations and any other group that someone can villain-ize as a way to gain power. A man gets angry because he is poor and can't find a job and needs to vent that anger. If that man hears a speech about how it is all the indians taking our jobs, he may well use them as a scapegoat and attack a person of that race while uttering racial slurs. The attacked person then tells others and probably reacts with racism in the other direction and the situation escalates. If, on the other hand, that same man is not given a scapegoat by an organized movement or political speaker, he will still probably find a scapegoat and lash out, but since he will not be lashing out at the same person or thing that other people are, it is just a regular act of violence and does not lead to the same type of escalation and formation of polarized "sides" which make the violence an ongoing process, bigger than any of the individuals involved. In this latter case it is not a white american attacking an indian immigrant, but just an angry guy attacking some other guy.
The concept behind stopping hate rhetoric is to break that cycle where people form semi-organized self sustaining hate groups. I doubt it would work, but there is some logic to the idea that does capitalize upon human nature, rather than trying to change it.
Slashdot Mirror
These are problems with human intelligence and behavior patterns. An OS can only do so much, but at least Linux aspires to enforce some kind of good user habits.
Ahh, but when it comes to commercial software, Linux doesn't do much of anything with that regard.
Let me clarify. Linux installation is no better than Windows when Linux's PM system fails, that is, when a developer distributes software that doesn't participate or comply with the PM standards. Civil rights and good organization: both require practice and active participation or you'll lose them.
No one is going to use a package format or manager that is not sufficient to their needs. If I was tasked with setting up a game port to Linux with an installer, I would not use the package manager that ships on any Linux distro I've used. It is easier and less buggy to do it the same way as Windows.
For now, Linux PMs are a good start.
Yeah, they're fine so long as you don't foresee a future where Linux is mainstream for home users and supported by commercial vendors. If you do look for that, however, every package being made right now is one more piece of software that may or may not be updated to work with a more functional package manager. The longer Linux distros put off putting the right architecture in place, the harder the transition and the more software will establish practices that do not conform. Also, the more home users will try it and be frustrated and whose buying power will not be motivating developers to target Linux.
It would be nice if it didn't. Crap/ad/nagware is what drove a lot of us to try out Linux, and it's the only thing you really lose when you comply with a package manager system.
That is a good reason to use open source software. It is not a good reason to make it hard to use closed source software when needed. I'd kind of like to be able to play Starcraft 3 on Linux some day and not have to waste half an hour at the beginning of the LAN party bringing everyone's copies up to the same version, because Linux keeps it up to date and because Blizzard is supporting Linux because developers made it easy for them to do so.
Registrations and serial validation systems don't change. It's just as futile to try to prevent piracy in Linux as it is in Windows...
Actually, there are some pretty effective registration/validation systems out there, some of which are way more intrusive than I am comfortable with. Part of the benefit to having an official registration service is to remove the motivation for companies who think they need to install a rootkit on your machine to stop you from pirating their game. The main point of registration systems is to stop casual piracy, and I've seen some fairly convincing evidence that they do stop enough people to motivate more sales.
so there's nothing stopping you from offering a locked version of your software through a package manager (I've seen this done in SUSE). It would also probably be pretty easy to put a registration-code check in at installation time, if that's not already built in somewhere.
I've seen this in stand alone installers and I've seen this where it run the first time the application runs. I have never seen it integrated with the package manager (which is a natural place for serial/certificate/license management) and I've certainly never seen it for paid upgrades of software.
I like OS X, but I'm the one who has to install OS X apps for my non-computer-savvy girlfriend on her iBook. So there you go. No system is simple enough.
Nothing can ever be simple enough, but simpler is better and reaches more people. ...and even my mother figured out she can drag the application icon onto the desktop and it works. Are you, perhaps, referring to installation via the installer or a stand alone installer on OS X? I might mention, OS X also suffe
There are a number of managers that will handle multiple repositories (possibly most of them?) What I advocate is one that will automatically add the repository associated with a package that is double clicked on, regardless of where that copy came from. This requires the package to include a URL for its repository, which I don't think most do. As far as I can tell from the docs, smart does not handle that case (nor could it without the package format being updated).
Also, I did not see any mention of support for registration of commercial software or license key management, something fairly impossible to exclude if you're trying to get commercial software publishers to use a supported package format.
It does look like a nice project that at least handles multiple formats well, but it is analogous to GAIM. GAIM lets you use a variety of different chat services at once partially mitigating the fact that most services are walled gardens. What I'm advocating is more like a switch to Jabber+VoIP. I'd like to see people all move to one unified system that has more functionality than any current system, although it is probably wishful thinking on my part. Linux seems very resistant to architectural changes these days, even when they offer significant improvements for the desktop.
Well, sort of. I want the benefits of a package manager applied to decentralized package sources. The only functionality that is really tied to packages being centralized is the discovery feature.
But even that still has a centralized repository. How do you suggest that we have something that acts like a centralized packager without actually being centralized?The synaptic package manager supports multiple repositories. All that needs to be done to support decentralized package management is to include a repository URL in the package format itself and adjust the package manager to automatically add repositories that are in a package and not yet added. That is the easy part.
The hard part is adding the registration aspect. You need an official standard for exchanging keys and verifying the legitimacy of some key for some software. I'm no expert on registration mechanisms, but I don't think it is impossible. You'd need to tie a key to a software install or upgrade, including integrating with a redirect to a Web site for payment.
The final component, and I think the least critical, is the discovery component, which is pretty much tied to a central list of some sort, although it could be a list that includes software repository submissions from any and all parties, it would pretty much need to be centrally maintained by a distro or group to prevent abuse.
Most cars are rebadged something, possible with some quality control requirements. Ford put their name on it, so it certainly reflects on what else Ford might put their name on.
And since the Festiva in question was rusty, it was likely older. Older cars tend to have more problems. Older cars that were cheap to start with tend to not get much in the way of regular maintenance and repairs.Yeah, and how does this reflect on the brand again? I posted the anecdote because it was funny, not because it is logical proof that Ford makes inferior machines. For that I look at the longterm reliability ratings of their vehicles, which to date have been pretty poor in comparison to say, a Honda in the same price range.
Commercial software companies won't use the package formats or the repositories. Official repositories are not an option for them because they need to control redistribution rights (legally and for risk management). Further, even if they did use the official package format and the repository they still need to contact their own servers to handle registration of the software and updates to the software (since not all updates are free). Given that, it makes more sense right now for them to roll their own installers that include all this functionality.
Package managers are insufficient for commercial companies because they don't include:
Unless this changes, any commercial games or applications that are ported to linux will bypass the package manager and thus be just as limited as Windows, except that users have to juggle two different methods of doing things.
The *real* solution is for Ubuntu to achieve World Domination so thatI'm all for standardization, but I'm not really seeing .deb as the ideal package format. Rather, I'd like to see a new format that is an extension of OpenStep packages. This would allow for portable packages that can be run off of a USB drive or CD without modification, that can be e-mailed or IM'd, that can be moved anywhere on the disk without problems, that support FAT binaries for different distros, OS's, and chipsets, and that can include source and build instructions for custom binaries all in a single "file." It would also allow OS X and Linux to share a package and would make it easier to find and extract resources from the packages.
I mean if we're going to choose a single package format for the future, lets make it a versatile and extensible open standard one appropriate for desktops of the future.
Ubuntu will not, however, keep that package up to date by checking anywhere other than the repository for updates. Commercial software developers who are selling a program, won't use .deb or the official repositories. Every repository would need to negotiate redistribution rights. The repository and installer still would not handle registering that software. If the developer already has to handle helping the user discover the software and connecting to their servers for registration and their own update system, then they will almost certainly combine those functions in an installer and bypass the package manager entirely. This is because the package manager is not functional enough for their needs. To fix this problem, you need to expand the functionality of package managers. Unless this happens, installing and maintaining software on Linux, for the home user, will be as bad or even worse than on Windows.
If you forget which technique applies, you try the first. If you were wrong, you try the other...
You don't understand how that can be a usability issue? Think of a new user who has only used Windows before. They install Linux from a CD, then stick a CD with the Linux program they want to run into the drive and double click on it. Will this user ever realize there is a way to download packages from a repository or will they assume Linux operates like Windows?
Picture the new user who installs Linux and reads how Linux manages packages for them. They then install it and grab some stuff they want from the package manager. One day they download a game from Web site and it has an installer which they run and all is good. A year later they want to trash the game to free up space. Will they remember they used a stand alone installer. How long will they look in the package manager for the application? Will they be frustrated?
Picture the same new user, but instead of a game they are downloading, they download a tax return software package that has an installer. Will they trust the installer of decide maybe it is malware since it does not install the right way? Will they just do their taxes on their roommate's Windows machine?
Windows doesn't make this any easier by 'sticking with one technique,' because all the different vendors have different agendas in mind for you when you install. They set up new tricks, new startup scripts, new registry entries, new 'license managers', which may or may not get wiped clean with the vendor's proscribed uninstallation technique, or and may or may not get fully removed using Windows Add/Remove. This isn't less confusing for anyone, and it's a long way from 'one technique.'
First being as good as Windows for usability is kind of like being as good as China for civil rights. This should not be a goal, but rather an embarrassment. People in general don't choose to use Windows because it is good, they just use it because it is the only option they've seen for sale. If you want them to make a choice, you have to actually give them a good choice. Second, you're not looking at this from an end user perspective. They don't see lots of techniques and problems. They don't know something didn't fully uninstall. They just know to double click on the installer and to go to the remove programs setting.
Now, Linux package managers are far from perfect, but they have a better goal and a better execution. .deb and .rpm managers handle somewhere between most and the vast majority of the software, and they can uninstall that software cleanly.
That's true. It is also true almost all Linux software is OSS distributed via repositories. You don't think this will change if Linux users finally convinced commercial developers like games developers to target their platform? Package managers are significantly better on Linux, but only if developers use them, which most people selling software won't. If Linux wants to retain this advantage, they need to adapt package managers to handle all packages from any source the same, including auto-updates even if the software ships on a DVD or is sent via e-mail or is downloaded from the publisher's Web page. There needs to be a way for commercial publishers to host their own downloads, but also let users discover their software via the package manager. There needs to be an official, built in way for developers to handle registration of their software, so they are discouraged from all doing this differently and using custom installers for that purpose.
Anything that's more trouble than that is a major exception, but it's the same hassle you would get in the Windows world.
And still a huge pain in the ass. Personally, I'd like to see major Linux distros deprecate all their current package formats and move to something portable and contained and with room for expansion, like OpenStep. I'd love
For expert users or people working on a system centrally managed for them, this is not a significant issue. For OSS software distributed from repositories this is not a problem. It is only when you combine regular home users and commercial software that it becomes a problem. If Linux is to make inroads into the home market, I contend it needs to be better than Windows in every way possible and package management is one of its strengths... if that strength can be applied to all software including the kind normal users are likely to be installing, like commercial games, productivity apps, and random home user junk.
Most software that is commercial and pay will not use a repository because existing repositories do not allow them to control the distribution and because repositories do not support software registration anyway. If they have to roll their own registration system and their own update system, they might as well go with a stand alone installer application because it is less work.
I've heard an argument many times about whether Linux desktop distros are trying to be the best or just trying to be Windows clones. Well, the auto-update and centralized management of applications is one big area where Linux is ahead for desktop usability... unless of course that advantage is not maintained when it comes to commercial games and productivity apps and anything else that can't be distributed from a central repository for some reason. Then it is Linux just behaving like Windows not because it is better, but because nobody cared to do it the right way when they had the chance.
As for things that are not packaged, these are often installed quite easily.Sure it is, but it bypasses the package management system which means users learn two ways of doing things instead of one, neither of which has all the benefits of the other. That's just fine for current Linux users. That's just fine for centrally managed workstations. It is far from ideal for home users and will be a serious problem when/if Linux ever attempts to really reach that market and commercial software companies consider supporting Linux as a platform.
People are making a problem here where there really isn't one.You're right there isn't a problem, because there really aren't any normal home users that run Linux, only geeks and people who have their systems managed for them by a geek in the family. Some people would say Linux's lack of penetration into the desktop is a problem and the lack of software for the platform that results is a problem, but that all depends upon your perspective.
While Ubuntu's package management is technically much, much, much better than that on Windows since it includes application discovery and acquisition and updates, it is in some practical, workflows inferior. No matter how large your software repository is, there will always be binaries distributed via a Website or on CD or via some other mechanism. On Windows this means you do discovery, acquisition, and updates by hand, the same as every other program. On Linux it means you have a special case where you do all those by hand as well as installation and uninstallation by hand. This means users have to juggle two techniques and remember which applies to which software. This is an area where Linux in general could improve. Package managers are built around the concept of open source software and thus everything you need can be in a repository. When software is not in a repository, it is not handled well and I don't know any package manager for Linux that supports using a software package from some random Website, and managing the install, registration, and updates for that application through the standard package manager. Hopefully this deficiency can be addressed if linux ever gains serious market share on the desktop.
We were discussing workstations, not servers. Neither Apple nor MS is king in the server space, so the argument makes no sense applied to them. As for interoperability, Apple's storage servers are excellent for their support for open standards for interoperability. As for their other servers, well I don't use them, but they are one of the only ones we could find that came with the open IM standard Jabber installed and supported, when we were looking for such.
And this isn't even touching all upper stuff like the non-Open audio video used on OSX to even iChat.Actually, Apple's audio video is an open standard, although not a free standard. It is just one that is not really implemented a lot by others.
Lets take a basic example. Samba.What? Samba is and always has been an aberration when it comes to MS protocols. I already provided an example, kereberos. Do explain how MS's implementation is not intentionally breaking interoperability. Or you could discuss MAPI for mail if you wanted; or NTFS for disk.
So if you have NO use for Active Directory and are using LDAP or other 'standards' then nothing you are running is reverse engineered. And if you are primarily *nix, why on earth would you want Active Directory controling your ACLsI think what you're missing is the idea of managing mixed environments with standardized tools. With LDAP you can manage everything the same way, no matter if they are Linux boxes, or OS X workstations, or NetBSD appliances, or an old IRIX graphics workstation, or something new entirely. MS workstations, however, require special work because in general they are not built upon standards that everyone can modify or access.
I can't imagine a person who has run a mixed environment of systems (more than just MS resellers) who has not noticed this.
Okay. Let me explain it another way. Every move a company makes is either a feature or an anti-feature. Adding a person to your phone support team is a feature because customers get through faster. This costs the company money, which they make up by having happier customers who renew contracts. Removing a support person is an anti-feature for the same reason. It cuts costs though so may allow users to buy at a lower cost. Both measures are designed to make more money for the company in the long run, as is everything a company does.
A lot of people look at GPL licensing and don't understand that it is a feature instead of an anti-feature. It costs the company money in licensing in the short run, but allows for free input from the community and spurs adoption in the long run. Since licenses are generally anti-features, designed to restrict customers more a lot of people have trouble changing this mindset.
GPL licensing is about making users happy which will in turn make the company money. It is not about forcing those users to fork over more cash.
Software doesn't stand still. Even in something as age-old as databases, new features are constantly being added. There is always room for innovation. Red Hat, MySQL, Trolltech, etc. have been around for an awfully long time, selling GPD'd software. Sure, a fork could succeed, it's a risk, but there's no guarantee it will in the long run.I think you're confusing the terms "making a profit from OSS" and "selling OSS." At some point in the maturity of a software field, selling OSS becomes a losing proposition because the cost of a fork is less than the cost of the license that is worthwhile to sell. You can make money from OSS in the long term (I should know, we're making millions developing/using it right now), but it is unlikely you will be able to sell it in the long term.
It has taken off already, on the server-side backend.Redhat has already given up on selling to the desktop, for the most part and they make their money off of support as their main revenue stream. The problem with this is that it brings development goals that conflict with users needs. Users want software that requires minimal support and as the server industry matures this will become more and more the case. Redhat had momentum, but anyone can see that they are losing a lot of it in recent years. As you mention, they have tried to artificially "close" Linux by making maintaining forks inconvenient, but it has not really worked well from what I've seen.
They can be forked just like anybody else. What is Google really paying them for? Once the Google toolbar is part of Firefox, Mozilla doesn't have a monopoly.You're missing my point. Because the Mozilla team is not selling Firefox directly, that motivation for forking is gone. Sure people still can and will fork the project for various reasons, but not in ways that threaten Mozilla's revenue stream directly. Mozilla doesn't make money by selling Firefox. They make money by developing software and providing advertising ties in that software. Google pays the Mozilla team because Firefox sends Web searchers to Google first and because it benefits Google strategically to not be dependent upon their competitor (MS).
How is Mozilla's situation different than any other GPL-based company?Mozilla is in the same situation as many OSS-based companies. They are different from the MySQL team, in that they do not directly sell the product they make, but profit from a more sustainable business model of revenue from development directly (paid changes for people with money) and through marketing ties.
How do you figure? Macs come in a variety of hardware models and change over time and have differing drivers for that hardware, the same as any other vendor. As I said, we currently have Apple and Lenovo as laptop vendors, and there is not any more or less variation among what we get from them. Further, if Apple ever reached 50% of the hardware market, that would mean MS's ability to leverage their monopoly would be gone, making Linux a viable option and a subject of serious investment. It would also mean Apple would probably start to lose that market share unless they divorced their hardware and software businesses so there is a good chance they would do so.
Not so if they are running their PCs now (while they may be very similar, a driver hack on one machine will only work with companies who have the same hardware, instead of any company).Since having 50% of the market is pretty unlikely anytime soon, lets consider the current market. There are more machines out there susceptible to the same Toshiba or HP or Gateway driver problem than there are subject to the same Apple driver problem. Also, more vulnerabilities are OS dependent than are driver dependent, by a huge margin. The risks of vulnerabilities to ay company that switches to all macs versus the risk to a company that uses any other kind of computer or even a mix of all different vendors of Windows boxes still favors the mac and will for the foreseeable future.
Actually, we do ship laptops back with failed disks while the user gets a new one, but we're not an enterprise business (yet). For the enterprises we work with, most of them have files stored in two ways: on the network servers and on local, encrypted drives. And yes, they do just ship the machine back at the vendor's expense while the user takes a spare box. Most of these companies also have on site support with their server vendors who have a lot more access to important data, but I don't know that anyone considers it a large risk. When you have a premium support contract and are a premier customer, you use that contract rather than spending more time and money doing things internally. I've seen budgets with as much as 20% allocated for renewing these support contracts and no one spends that money without getting real return on it.
Actually a monoculture within an organization has certain benefits, and for enterprise business there is usually a short list of approved hardware vendors anyway, with workstations bought in lots. In fact, where I currently work we have to approved laptop vendors and Apple is one of them. Changing that to Dell, would not make us any more or less varied for the hardware we have, it would just change the names on them.
The danger is when the entire world is a monoculture because then someone in Russia can code malware that attacks everyone everywhere running that given OS. If 50% of all companies switched to using macs, that would ameliorate the problem to a great degree. If a company is considering switching entirely to macs for workstations, I don't think they have to worry about the dangerous affects of a monoculture for a long, long, long time, if ever.
Umm, do you have any specifics you'd like to point out, or only open rhetoric. About half our machines here are Macs and they seem to work just fine with standard Linux servers for authentication, accounting, logging, calendaring, e-mail, IM, video conferencing, and collaborative editing.
If you think MS's support of 99.9% of protocols is 'changed' or 'reverse engineered' again, you have no idea what you are talking about.I said MS uses closed protocols and interoperability with those MS machines/protocols is achieved by reverse engineering them. Do you have any idea what you're talking about? Who doesn't know this stuff? I suppose you could, however, claim that MS protocols are "changed" versions of other protocols legitimately (although I never made that argument and I'm not sure where you got it from). Just take a look at their Kereberos support, or even IE's Web standards support.
People forget MS owned Xenix before Linux existed.That has pretty much nothing to do with adherence to standards.
You forgot:
FORD: "Fucked Over Rebuilt Dodge"
A while back I happened to be standing on the side of the road in front of a Ford factory with a giant Ford logo in front, while a rusty Ford Festiva tried again and again to make it up the fairly small hill the road went up. It stalled out about 5 times then went back the way it came. If only I'd had a video camera. Seriously though, I replaced almost every critical part of my old Ford at least twice while I was in school and they would have to do a hell of a lot to ever win me back as a customer.
Umm, in what enterprise? I do business with a few large enterprises and for the most part machines are interchangeable and there are hot spares available. If it breaks, a spare is swapped in and the broken box is shipped to the vendor who replaces it. Upgrades are in batches and also done on contract. I can see why a small operation that cannot afford the overhead for spare machines might want to be able to do quick service and upgrades, but that is not what I've seen in enterprise businesses.
They do so for the same reason they introduce anything else, it is the most cost effective solution they can find to a given problem.
The MS PC can be a relative inexpensive, interchangeable cog for the worker bees.Or it can be more expensive overall, if you include the cost of security cleanup, support, downtime, legal liability, and security risks. That all depends upon the use, doesn't it?
What I find frustrating is that in many cases a Mac cannot be used, and there is really no legitimate reason. To continue the above analogy, while their may not be Snap-On tools for all, certain persons might use such tools, and some persons might wish to buy such tools. There is nothing that says "only Stanley tools can be used in this shop". And I am not talking about application or support issues.Analogies are fine, but you have to provide a hint as to what your analogue is supposedly corresponding to. You find it frustrating that Macs can't be used for no legitimate reason? If there is no legitimate reason, then why don't you use them? Perhaps what you need to provide is an example, instead of an analogy.
According to the rules of ethics, a person is only responsible for actions when they have a right corresponding to that action. For example, a person who has no right to decide if they possess a gun has no ethical responsibility for accidentally shooting someone with one. With children most of their basic human rights are held in abeyance until they reach their majority. Their parents and the state claim ownership of their rights and as such are ethically responsible for the consequences of actions that correspond to those rights. Legally, in many places the laws follow this same convention, with a number of exceptions.
As the children killing at will, legally a child does have the right to live and neither their parent nor the state can kill them at will, thus a child does not have the right to willfully kill another, although legally the punishment or so doing is correspondingly limited based upon their degree of responsibility. The same applies to felons and illegal aliens. As to the right to vote, well that is where we get into a regression with all other rights legally enforced, at least in theory, by the process of voting. Ethically, if you are not given the option to opt into the legal system, then you have no ethical obligation to abide by its decisions. That does not mean it won't take actions against you. It only speaks to ethical responsibility.
There is significant risk in that strategy. First, it would be useless without a valid license to Windows which costs money and gives MS more cash to abuse. Second there is the danger of losing native software as some software developers would consider the mac market to be more cost effectively reached via the Windows emulation option.
I suspect they mean that Macs integrate with all the open standard protocols and tools that Linux does (think LDAP) instead of the MS controlled closed protocols where interoperability is always a little broken since it is achieved via reverse engineering.
...are illegal activities made legal when you are young?
No, but for the most part you cannot be held responsible for doing them. There is a relationship between responsibility and rights that seems sadly overlooked by our educational system. If you do not have legal protection for freedom of speech, then it is unethical to hold someone legally responsible for whatever speech they make. If you don't have the legal right to go where you want and buy a car if you want and apply for a driver's license and legally purchase and consume alcohol, then legally you cannot be held responsible for doing those things. Children's rights are held in trust for them and managed by their parents and by the state. It is, therefor, the legal responsibility of the parents and the state to prevent children from drunk driving.
Parents don't seem to care what their kids do, unless they are caught. Of course, since there's a huge push for kids being allowed to do whatever they want and that parents shouldn't force any sort of morals on their kids and stuff like that, it just makes sense. But seriously, parents should know what their kids are doing.
Parents along with the state are legally responsible for what their children do, so if they are intelligent then they certainly should know what their children are doing and take reasonable steps to control those actions. The problem is when new technology runs into legislation in ways the parents don't even know exist, especially when the ethics of those laws are highly questionable in the first place and are enforced only a tiny fraction of the time.
Whether or not you like the RIAA, pirated music IS illegal, is it not?
Actually, no it probably is not. Distributing copies of copyrighted music is grounds for a civil lawsuit, which is not quite as simple as "pirated music is illegal."
Whether or not you're seven years old.
At 7 years old can you legally use the computer whenever you want to upload whatever you want without your parents being legally able to physically stop you? Do you have the right to do those things, even if your parents tell you not to? If so, then sure hold her legally responsible, but I've never heard of any such legal protection for children.
Copyrights apply to minors.
You know this is taking the whole "ignorance of the law is no excuse" thing to absurd new degrees. You honestly think it is just to hold a 7 year old child responsible for knowing and obeying, literally millions of lines of rules, many of which are accessible only at locations to which they don't have access and which are written in a strange mix of archaic english and latin? If you were seven and your dad smacked you for not obeying a rule you had never been taught, you'd think that is justice? Your perspective, or lack thereof, is tragic.
While the RIAA is consistently criticized (and perhaps rightly so), very few suggestions are made for protecting copyrighted music.
Music copyrights don't need protection at this point. Rather, citizens need protection from absurd copyrights. Copyright law is an artificial restriction that is supposed to exist only for the benefit of society as a whole. I think it is clear at this point that the laws have been corrupted to such an extent by simple greed that they are a detriment to society. Until such a time as they are reformed, It would be better if they were abolished or not enforced at all.
and copyrights can be a rather helpful thing, because there are people that will steal and even promote it as their own
How can one steal a granted right?
...taking royalties or sales or whatever you like.
That is not stealing, by definition. That is committing copyright infringement, which is to say exercising one's basic human right to free expression without
Values can be taught, including the value of using reason. Logic is a formal process as is rhetoric and they certainly can be taught and can enable anyone to learn to better make decisions. In any case, the verdict on nature versus nurture has been in for a long time. Basically, nurture is dominant with nature accounting for 20-40% of success in intellectual endeavors depending on the endeavor and the study (using separated genetic twin, double blinds only). Education can and has already made a huge difference. My assertion is that education is focusing on the wrong things in many cases, such as memorization of facts and appreciation for literature, whereas it should be stressing basic tools for thinking, like logic and reason.
Yet you reference "capitalizing" on human nature to subvert/redirect actions based thereon. I guess I do not understand. Are you suggesting infringing "hate speech" as a means to derail group-think/mob mentality? Or the sharing/proliferation of ideas?The hate speech most people are concerned about is public forum and within large organizations. Mass violence that is a self sustaining cycle is the result of escalating actions between groups that are self-identifying and which have a common belief and opposition. Without all of these characteristics, the cycle does not continue. If there is not reinforcement of one given common belief and an attachment to a specific opposition, then the cycle does not build. The idea of stopping hate speech is not to stop people from irrationally blaming others or having prejudices, but to prevent them from identifying one opposition group consistently with an idea, as opposed to many ideas and many opposition groups without consistent attachment so violence does not build between two groups.
It is not really an easy concept to explain, but there has been some success at re-engineering society via these mechanisms. There aren't a lot of Nazis in Germany anymore. If you haven't read it, I strongly recommend you pick up the book "Freakonomics." It is a quick read and very entertaining, but it contains one interesting story that might help you understand the idea conceptually. It tells how superman decimated the KKK in real life.
Reason and logic are tools a human can use to understand the world and make proper decisions and effective actions. It will not remove the emotion of hate, but it may change the way people deal with it. An irrational person will blame the failings in their life on another race or religion because it is easy. They will believe the illogical and unsupported accusations of rabble rousers. A rational person will understand with some certainty the real reasons for what happens in their life and will not blame it on a religion or genetic trait of others, but upon their own actions and the way our society is constructed and the limitations of our abilities. Instead of irrationally attacking others to release their emotions, they can understand those emotions and channel them to take real actions to change things for the better. Before this happens, however, they need the mental tools to do so.
Frankly, it is probably better to give hate speech (short of calls for real-world violence) free reign rather than try to stifle it. "Venting" hatred with words relieves pent-up frustration and ameliorates violent propensities. Stifle that release, and sentiments fester then burst as acts of real violence.It is now and for a long time has been resulting in real world violence against other races and religions and nations and any other group that someone can villain-ize as a way to gain power. A man gets angry because he is poor and can't find a job and needs to vent that anger. If that man hears a speech about how it is all the indians taking our jobs, he may well use them as a scapegoat and attack a person of that race while uttering racial slurs. The attacked person then tells others and probably reacts with racism in the other direction and the situation escalates. If, on the other hand, that same man is not given a scapegoat by an organized movement or political speaker, he will still probably find a scapegoat and lash out, but since he will not be lashing out at the same person or thing that other people are, it is just a regular act of violence and does not lead to the same type of escalation and formation of polarized "sides" which make the violence an ongoing process, bigger than any of the individuals involved. In this latter case it is not a white american attacking an indian immigrant, but just an angry guy attacking some other guy.
The concept behind stopping hate rhetoric is to break that cycle where people form semi-organized self sustaining hate groups. I doubt it would work, but there is some logic to the idea that does capitalize upon human nature, rather than trying to change it.