Is that a virtualisation? Is it a PowerPC emulator? Yeah, I don't think that the license covers that, right?
> I mean, it's technically not allowed Well, that's all it is, isn't it? OSX only runs on Apple hardware, Vista home doesn't run virtualised, it's all technical nitpicking and rule inventing.
I'm not saying that! I think lock-in sucks the big one, but this doesn't change the fact that there is no way I can legally run OSX on anything but a Macintosh computer. Does this suck? Yes. Can I change it? No.
For me, a Mac is now the perfect machine. It's expensive, but it does and runs everything I want, and can do so without tripping over any license agreements. If you must run OSX, you have to buy a Mac, however hard to swallow. Running OSX on your home machine from a torrent is nice for geek bonus points, but in a professional environment it's not justifiable.
I'm a web developer and I need to test on all platforms. As such, at this point in time, the only legal option is to get a mac, run osx and windows in parallels. All browsers, all the time, on one box that you can carry around.
As a professional, I cannot afford running pirated software. The only other option would be to have two computers, so that would mean your $1500 Asus + an old iBook or something, for let's say $200. That's $1700 AND you have two machines instead of one. In other words, there is no other option.
"Various regulatory branches and legislators made up of in-bred idiots who have apparently never read the constitution have tried multiple times to pull such worthless crap..." Ah, you're talking about George W. Bush!
You bring up a couple of good points, and could also have brought up that the farms are likely to be held by large corps as well.
> The number of people still living in these conditions rather than moving to Africa is a pretty good indicator this is a general opinion. I have to take issue with that though. Although correct on the surface, you are skipping over a lot of reasons for staying in the place where you are. Loads of people (like me) take 'modern society' for what it is, the goods and the bads. There's not really something I can do about it. So yes, the goods > the bads, but that doesn't mean the bads aren't bad. I don't think there's a way back from this modern society to a point where things are more sane, we can only go forward and hopefully regain some sanity. This is why I don't really know if the African countries should follow us first worlders down this particular road. So, I don't really disagree with you, and would very much like Africa to develop a modern society, just as long as it's not directly modelled after ours. My fingers are crossed.
> Because it's physically very hard work involving long hours and with your rewards. You make it sound like no-one would want to be a farmer, ever. There are still farmers farming, even in our first world, so it can't be that bad. (See what I did there?)
Also, I don't think that Monsanto made these seeds/crops to liberate people from the land.
These people have been paid for FIFTY YEARS for a one-time job!
If they had a hit song, they're likely rich. Richer than riding a desk for 50 years, probably.
In the mean time, they could have invested the money and have gone from Rich to Very Rich Indeed. Or, you know, they could have made another recording. A second album. They could have gone on tour, making a lot of money with tickets. They could have decided to sell goodies, like tshirts and stuff (RHCP used to not sell tshirts, when they did they bought a nice house in Hollywood for it. All of them. (source: documentary on TV)).
Your examples, however great artists they are or were, are not people we need to feel very sorry for in a monetary sense. Monetarily sorry. They have ample cash to live out there lives like a king without having to lift another finger.
Besides, they won't be recording any new songs when they die, so who benefits?
Yes, who will benefit? Their offspring? Perhaps. Stella McCartney is doing well for herself though. So is Lennon's kid. I don't think any of the Stones' offspring need to worry about their direct future. Madonna? Britney? Set for a couple of lifetimes. The record labels will benefit, that's who. Too bad that the record labels aren't creative in any way. They don't deserve the monopoly granted by the government. They will never be able to record the next Satisfaction or Love Me Do. They have bands for that. Sure, a label has its role and should be compensated, but not through a government granted monopoly that wasn't even intended to be used in this sense. And to see these old bats act as their spokesperson is sickening.
How is this work less fun than working the line in the factory? At least these people make something that benefits them directly. Working in a factory will most likely produce cheap radios or something like that, owned by a foreign multinational. The people in Africa are more likely to need food than radios.
You list some "benefits" of modern society. Without going into a philosophical debate here, aren't these what are causing the problems we're discussing now? These people don't need radios, but they need corporate overlords even less. Really, like us.
> I can't think of any product which has Y and would really benefit from X but doesn't have it.
Microsoft Windows (tm) does not have "security". Linux (tm) has "security". So does Apple OSX (tm). Windows (tm) would very much benefit from "security".
(Silly example, since security isn't patented. I'm sure you can come up with something better.)
You can't take the code, implement new features in it, redistribute it WITHOUT the new stuff also being GPL. That's likely the most annoying restriction to closed software people. What about all the modems and other hardware that use the Linux kernel and are obliged to include the source code? Definitely a restriction.
These restrictions enable us (other coders) to build upon builders instead of reinventing (and patenting) the wheel, making them good things in our view, but they're still restrictions when compared to the total freedom you have with public domain stuff.
It took years and years longer than predicted, features were dropped left and right, and still you're right saying it was rushed to market. How do they do it?
> if you don't play DRM'd media you will never ever see DRM.
Not in this version, perhaps. It's exactly this kind of thinking that got you in the state you're in though. Just wait a couple more years and your computer will do exactly what Bill wants. And your constitution will be in a museum.
Thank you for your eloquent and thoughtful answer.
I understand your point about breaking the story, placing the SW post above the fold. I'm not saying it's not a good find, and I will definitely admit that the blog system with its comments is a good way of dispersing information like this, in its ubiquity there seems to be a way for important information to bubble to the top.
The danger with trusting editors to select and summarise news for us is that we don't form our own opinion, instead, having them formed for us. This is very obvious in contemporary culture, just look at/. or Fox News or whatever. A lot of the articles are leading us to an opinion that's not necessarily ours. I'm not saying that Rosenberg did that, I'm saying that's a pitfall we should be aware of. Rosenberg made a short and sweet summary, but the actual article itself isn't all that long. This isn't a 50 page legal document we have to plough through, there were only three paragraphs of very readable text. If the goal was to speed things up for/. readers, why not include a direct link to the actual thing?
I think we can agree that it would have been nice if the/. comment would have said something like "Rosenberg(link to blog) finds story about Shuttleworth saying no to MS deal(link to SW post)", add Rosenberg's short, short summary to taste.
The "contempt for democracy" part of your post made me chuckle out loud, and I'm at work. Your post is really very interesting and raises some good points about blogging and its place and status in our culture. Thanks for making/. that much more interesting! This is exactly why I keep coming back here.
> Rosenberg broke that story by exhuming it from lots of other content on Shuttleworth's very active blog. I don't think that word means what you think it means? Shuttleworth "broke the story," Rosenberg "commented on his blog."
> Shuttleworth clearly took the time to make sure that his comments were diplomatic and well-rounded So basically you're saying that these comments weren't good enough? They shouldn't be diplomatic or well-rounded, they should be blog-o-ready, bite-size soundbytes?
We're heading towards a watered down global culture. Blogs, for the most part, add nothing but fluff. Slashdot is the place where busy readers can read the summary, then link to the original material. There is way too much link-my-blahg going on as is.
Sure, if the Rosenberg blog adds something or makes some really good points or combines news stories or has an interesting opinion or anything, it would be nice to add a link as an aside or afterthought. Or if Steve Rosenberg would be someone we know? Or if, like you say, he actually found the story himself at least? Now it's the main link and the actual thing isn't even linked in the/. summary.
> (Thanks to commenter Zeke for tipping me to this item) Let's find commenter Zeke and link to HIS blog.
And come on, good fucking grief, the actual story is THREE PARAGRAPHS LONG. THREE! It's pasted in its entirety in the linked blog entry! Rosenberg adds four lines of summary and that's it! Deserving of nothing. Get your priorities straight.
Thank you. My thoughts exactly. Science shouldn't be a race or a competition. Healthy competition is good, but this is just nationalism. I understand it though, everyone is hoarding their IP.
That's what I didn't understand at all.... We're in the web development business, so testing out new browsers is part of the deal. We installed on two different computers, and both had exactly the same kind of problems. Both have Norton installed, for what it's worth. Both German XP Pro with the works.
Disabling Norton's auto protect doesn't help things either. Safari is slow and displays a lot of stuff incorrectly.
Anyway, they'll fix it, most likely. I wonder why they came out with the windows version at all?
Hmmm. It may be because I'm on a German XP. A colleague's installation is showing the same trouble but I haven't heard any other complaints on the web. It's slower than molasses as well on this computer. I don't understand.
Oh well, it's not like I was going to really use this browser anyway.
Slashdot Mirror
Is that a virtualisation? Is it a PowerPC emulator? Yeah, I don't think that the license covers that, right?
> I mean, it's technically not allowed
Well, that's all it is, isn't it? OSX only runs on Apple hardware, Vista home doesn't run virtualised, it's all technical nitpicking and rule inventing.
Nope.
1) it's a beta, so who knows?
2) different platform
3) different fonts
4) different widgets (I thin, unsure)
Even if the executables were binary equal, the OS would still be different. Regrettably, this won't work.
I'm not saying that! I think lock-in sucks the big one, but this doesn't change the fact that there is no way I can legally run OSX on anything but a Macintosh computer. Does this suck? Yes. Can I change it? No.
For me, a Mac is now the perfect machine. It's expensive, but it does and runs everything I want, and can do so without tripping over any license agreements. If you must run OSX, you have to buy a Mac, however hard to swallow. Running OSX on your home machine from a torrent is nice for geek bonus points, but in a professional environment it's not justifiable.
OSX doesn't run on it, at least not legally.
I'm a web developer and I need to test on all platforms. As such, at this point in time, the only legal option is to get a mac, run osx and windows in parallels. All browsers, all the time, on one box that you can carry around.
As a professional, I cannot afford running pirated software. The only other option would be to have two computers, so that would mean your $1500 Asus + an old iBook or something, for let's say $200. That's $1700 AND you have two machines instead of one. In other words, there is no other option.
I mean, three weeks ago no-one even knew what a rootkit was!
"Various regulatory branches and legislators made up of in-bred idiots who have apparently never read the constitution have tried multiple times to pull such worthless crap..."
Ah, you're talking about George W. Bush!
"...and been shot down."
Oh wait, you weren't.
You bring up a couple of good points, and could also have brought up that the farms are likely to be held by large corps as well.
> The number of people still living in these conditions rather than moving to Africa is a pretty good indicator this is a general opinion.
I have to take issue with that though. Although correct on the surface, you are skipping over a lot of reasons for staying in the place where you are. Loads of people (like me) take 'modern society' for what it is, the goods and the bads. There's not really something I can do about it. So yes, the goods > the bads, but that doesn't mean the bads aren't bad. I don't think there's a way back from this modern society to a point where things are more sane, we can only go forward and hopefully regain some sanity. This is why I don't really know if the African countries should follow us first worlders down this particular road.
So, I don't really disagree with you, and would very much like Africa to develop a modern society, just as long as it's not directly modelled after ours. My fingers are crossed.
> Because it's physically very hard work involving long hours and with your rewards.
You make it sound like no-one would want to be a farmer, ever. There are still farmers farming, even in our first world, so it can't be that bad. (See what I did there?)
Also, I don't think that Monsanto made these seeds/crops to liberate people from the land.
These people have been paid for FIFTY YEARS for a one-time job!
If they had a hit song, they're likely rich. Richer than riding a desk for 50 years, probably.
In the mean time, they could have invested the money and have gone from Rich to Very Rich Indeed. Or, you know, they could have made another recording. A second album. They could have gone on tour, making a lot of money with tickets. They could have decided to sell goodies, like tshirts and stuff (RHCP used to not sell tshirts, when they did they bought a nice house in Hollywood for it. All of them. (source: documentary on TV)).
Your examples, however great artists they are or were, are not people we need to feel very sorry for in a monetary sense. Monetarily sorry. They have ample cash to live out there lives like a king without having to lift another finger.
Besides, they won't be recording any new songs when they die, so who benefits?
Yes, who will benefit? Their offspring? Perhaps. Stella McCartney is doing well for herself though. So is Lennon's kid. I don't think any of the Stones' offspring need to worry about their direct future. Madonna? Britney? Set for a couple of lifetimes.
The record labels will benefit, that's who. Too bad that the record labels aren't creative in any way. They don't deserve the monopoly granted by the government. They will never be able to record the next Satisfaction or Love Me Do. They have bands for that. Sure, a label has its role and should be compensated, but not through a government granted monopoly that wasn't even intended to be used in this sense. And to see these old bats act as their spokesperson is sickening.
?
How is this work less fun than working the line in the factory? At least these people make something that benefits them directly. Working in a factory will most likely produce cheap radios or something like that, owned by a foreign multinational. The people in Africa are more likely to need food than radios.
You list some "benefits" of modern society. Without going into a philosophical debate here, aren't these what are causing the problems we're discussing now? These people don't need radios, but they need corporate overlords even less. Really, like us.
> I can't think of any product which has Y and would really benefit from X but doesn't have it.
Microsoft Windows (tm) does not have "security".
Linux (tm) has "security". So does Apple OSX (tm).
Windows (tm) would very much benefit from "security".
(Silly example, since security isn't patented. I'm sure you can come up with something better.)
???
They do, right?
You can't take the code, implement new features in it, redistribute it WITHOUT the new stuff also being GPL. That's likely the most annoying restriction to closed software people.
What about all the modems and other hardware that use the Linux kernel and are obliged to include the source code? Definitely a restriction.
These restrictions enable us (other coders) to build upon builders instead of reinventing (and patenting) the wheel, making them good things in our view, but they're still restrictions when compared to the total freedom you have with public domain stuff.
> rushed to market
The doublespeak is making my head spin!
It took years and years longer than predicted, features were dropped left and right, and still you're right saying it was rushed to market. How do they do it?
> if you don't play DRM'd media you will never ever see DRM.
Not in this version, perhaps. It's exactly this kind of thinking that got you in the state you're in though. Just wait a couple more years and your computer will do exactly what Bill wants. And your constitution will be in a museum.
As noted above: Unclean Hands.
I call BS! The earth is not older than 2000 years, so man and astroman and dinosaurs and now giant penguins roamed the earth TOGETHER! In harmony!
I think the lessons are licensed as CC Attrib - Non commercial - Non deriv.
It's a game for PS2, PSP and Wii. These platforms don't do Steam.
Thank you for your eloquent and thoughtful answer.
/. or Fox News or whatever. A lot of the articles are leading us to an opinion that's not necessarily ours. I'm not saying that Rosenberg did that, I'm saying that's a pitfall we should be aware of. Rosenberg made a short and sweet summary, but the actual article itself isn't all that long. This isn't a 50 page legal document we have to plough through, there were only three paragraphs of very readable text. If the goal was to speed things up for /. readers, why not include a direct link to the actual thing?
/. comment would have said something like "Rosenberg(link to blog) finds story about Shuttleworth saying no to MS deal(link to SW post)", add Rosenberg's short, short summary to taste.
/. that much more interesting! This is exactly why I keep coming back here.
I understand your point about breaking the story, placing the SW post above the fold. I'm not saying it's not a good find, and I will definitely admit that the blog system with its comments is a good way of dispersing information like this, in its ubiquity there seems to be a way for important information to bubble to the top.
The danger with trusting editors to select and summarise news for us is that we don't form our own opinion, instead, having them formed for us. This is very obvious in contemporary culture, just look at
I think we can agree that it would have been nice if the
The "contempt for democracy" part of your post made me chuckle out loud, and I'm at work. Your post is really very interesting and raises some good points about blogging and its place and status in our culture. Thanks for making
> Rosenberg broke that story by exhuming it from lots of other content on Shuttleworth's very active blog.
/. summary.
I don't think that word means what you think it means? Shuttleworth "broke the story," Rosenberg "commented on his blog."
> Shuttleworth clearly took the time to make sure that his comments were diplomatic and well-rounded
So basically you're saying that these comments weren't good enough? They shouldn't be diplomatic or well-rounded, they should be blog-o-ready, bite-size soundbytes?
We're heading towards a watered down global culture. Blogs, for the most part, add nothing but fluff. Slashdot is the place where busy readers can read the summary, then link to the original material. There is way too much link-my-blahg going on as is.
Sure, if the Rosenberg blog adds something or makes some really good points or combines news stories or has an interesting opinion or anything, it would be nice to add a link as an aside or afterthought. Or if Steve Rosenberg would be someone we know? Or if, like you say, he actually found the story himself at least? Now it's the main link and the actual thing isn't even linked in the
> (Thanks to commenter Zeke for tipping me to this item)
Let's find commenter Zeke and link to HIS blog.
And come on, good fucking grief, the actual story is THREE PARAGRAPHS LONG. THREE! It's pasted in its entirety in the linked blog entry! Rosenberg adds four lines of summary and that's it! Deserving of nothing. Get your priorities straight.
Wait, there are simtrayless phones in the states? Really? I didn't even know something like that existed... How do you switch operators?
Thank you. My thoughts exactly. Science shouldn't be a race or a competition. Healthy competition is good, but this is just nationalism. I understand it though, everyone is hoarding their IP.
That's what I didn't understand at all.... We're in the web development business, so testing out new browsers is part of the deal. We installed on two different computers, and both had exactly the same kind of problems. Both have Norton installed, for what it's worth. Both German XP Pro with the works.
Disabling Norton's auto protect doesn't help things either. Safari is slow and displays a lot of stuff incorrectly.
Anyway, they'll fix it, most likely. I wonder why they came out with the windows version at all?
Hmmm. It may be because I'm on a German XP. A colleague's installation is showing the same trouble but I haven't heard any other complaints on the web. It's slower than molasses as well on this computer. I don't understand.
Oh well, it's not like I was going to really use this browser anyway.
Right. That would never ever happen in the land of the brave and the free. Ever.
Damn, I meant to say anything doesn't render in the first sentence.