But the point is that we shouldn't be forced to choose hardware based on what OS we want
So if I want to build a PC and sell it with Windows on it, you are saying that *I* should be forced to sell it to you without Windows, instead?
Sorry, I don't get the entire gripe in most of the comments here. So what if an OEM is selling it with Windows? If you want to find an OEM that sells setups with Linux or OpenSolaris or whatever, what's the problem? I don't think there's a hardware restriction that requires you to buy Windows if you buy this or that hardware. It's the person putting together the hardware that is "forcing" you to buy Windows, isn't it?
Example: I can buy all the hardware I want at Fry's or NewEgg or wherever and not have to buy or use or pay for Windows at all.
Yeah, maybe you can't go to Dell or Amazon or something and buy a pre-fab computer with any hardware you want with any OS you want. But so what.. isn't that an OEM choice? Maybe I'm missing something, here. I just don't see what's stopping Entrepreneur OEM Rig Setter-Upper from buying hardware, putting it together, slapping Ubuntu on it, and selling it. Maybe that's just not profitable enough to sustain?
Yeah, that will show them. They violated the GPL. The proper response, after getting mad them for violating GPL, is to violate THEIR licensing. That will show them that businesses should be trustworthy and should do the lawful and right thing!.... [/sarcasm]
I dunno. I'm interested when Microsoft itself (and not just "hey, maybe this is it"... those ones, I agree, are not very news-worthy and are just rumors) says it's the RTM build
Meh, there's a few things in Win 7 that IS actually pretty cool and not just eye candy. The home group thing looked interesting, for example. I find some of the UI differences very intuitive and a lot easier to work with than (dare I say it) my Ubuntu 9.04 install on my laptop.
I'm not one of the MS Windows 7 software engineers so I don't know what, if anything, really changed under the hood, but it's the above-the-surface stuff that typically will make applications work well (or just *feel* like they work well) or not. Example that's very ready on my mind: GnuCash. I'm looking for a home finance program (just to keep track of budget vs. expenses, pretty much). GnuCash does everything but has, IMO, an awful and very user-unfriendly UI. It'd be a great program if the UI was less confusing and less cluttered.
If nothing else, Win 7 has done a good job with that part of user-friendliness, which isn't just for John Doe at home. Even a programmer/software tester/whatever like me enjoys using an easy-to-use OS when I don't need a unix style shell but just need a text editor, a word processor, or want to play a game.
I had Vista x64 for a while and now the RC1, too. Quad core, 8gb ram... I did notice a performance increase between Vista x64 and 7x64. Not a whole lot, but boot times and program startup times definitely improved, if nothing else.
Depends on the device. For the most part, I agree with you. However, my desktop's power supply consumes about 3KW when plugged in but with the PS switch on. PS switch effectively kills the power draw though, so that's good.
I'm guessing the same reason every new kernel release is slashdot news...
Nerds/geeks/whatever can use Windows, too.
Which makes an RC for what is looking like a pretty popular OS a pretty good candidate for slashdot news. More-so than, say, a statistic that says game sales for an extremely specific and narrow genre are declining.;)
This is still [a company meant gain profit], folks. It's always a trap.
Somehow, I'm fairly certain that no company that wants to profit from software sales is going to pass up an opportunity to allow popular software to be used and NOT be compatible with their own software? Oh. It's a trap. It can't be simple profit-driven motives...
I recently read about Chernobyl on wikipedia. That entire episode was apparently... well, incredibly stupid and mismanaged. It was more of a "Titanic" incident than anything else I can think of in history. (The "nothing will go wrong" mentality that leads to some really, really stupid actions)
I doubt they are "cheap" netbooks if they have 128gb ssd's in them. On the other hand, "cheap" relative to the prices of the 256gb flash drive is perhaps a relevant discussion... hehe.
You should suggest it to gmail. After all, they already have a way to change the timestamp of the e-mail you sent so it looks like you sent it earlier than you did, why not just delete e-mails you've sent no matter where they are!
Hmm. Yes, the important part is the rights themselves, but when arguing about what rights we have (or don't have), the source of those rights is very important when discussing whether or not it's ok to take away a "right." Example: what about the "right" to "entertainment." Or how about the "right to die" (euthanasia). How about the "right" to have an abortion?
The question of where those "rights" come from is pretty important. It's the fashion nowadays to claim they don't come from a "religion" (or Deity, etc) because that's promoting one religion/belief/whatever over another. Instead, it seems that many... let's just say "humanists" think that it's the people that decide who has what rights.
One example of this being an issue is California's voters deciding homosexual couples can't be called "married." They denied them that "right." The source of the "right" is very important there, because a lot of people would argue they didn't have that "right" to begin with, so we're not suddenly deciding to "revoke" the right.
Definitely a much smaller scope than not being able to talk badly about a given religion, but still shows the point of the source of rights as being pretty important to the discussion of whether or not it should be allowed or denied.
As I said, if I want to speak against Islam or Scientology or the FSM, then I have to permit others to speak against my God.
I agree with that. That's how a "free democracy" sort of thing works.
But the question still exists... where do inherent rights come from? I believe Jefferson was a Deist and believe they came, ultimately, from God, didn't he? Kinda throws a wrench into "separation of church and state," which most seem to think means "separation of anything related to religion/God/non-"natural" and state." I would argue that true freedom that makes sense is not going to come apart from saying where the freedom comes from.
Unless, as you say, my freedom comes from the will of the people or the will of the government... which, actually, I would agree with you in disagreeing with that proposition. (i.e., I agree that government can only restrict rights).
Sorry if I am rambling too much. Actually enjoying the discussion. Maybe that's the problem;)
ut you choose whether you follow a religion or not.
Says whom? And on what basis? I don't see why, if a gay says "I didn't choose to be gay" and you believe him, I can't say "I didn't choose to be [insert religion]" and be believed.
I'm not arguing for either position here. I'm saying you're accepting this based largely on the statements of those that ARE gay, or ARE of whatever religion. Of course, most "religionists" don't say they had no choice in the matter. So let's say you're right; you don't choose to be gay, and you choose to be a certain religion. I guess I have no right to CHOOSE to be anything; I am only allowed to have the right to be what I DIDN'T choose to be.
I somehow doubt that will fly very far in most people's minds. The RIGHT TO CHOOSE seems to be far greater, in most people's eyes, than the right to be what I DIDN'T CHOOSE to be.:)
I agree, female mutilation isn't OK. Incidentally, it's the "Well it's their culture, we shouldn't tell them it's wrong" opinions tend to be less on the "Let's base things on the Bible/God/whatever" side and more on the "We need to base things on the way they have been in history" side.
Religious censorship or non-religious-censorship isn't OK because their culture allows it. I agree. That's a bad basis of "OK" and "not OK." On the other hand, saying it's NOT ok simply because YOU think it's a violation of these "inherent" (inherent to what?) human rights doesn't seem like a logical argument either. Rights are things that are given. No, all rights are not given "by God." But rights ARE given by "the government." Or taken away. Etc. Whether or not they government SHOULD give/take those rights is what we're discussing, thus the "OK" has to be based on something higher than human government... so here we are again: who decides?
And... why is Ireland's basis for their decision better or worse than yours?
Again, I'm not advocating for or against the law, but arguing that the position taken by most "This is awful!" people seems like it tends to be based on a vague "this violates my inalienable rights" idea with no explanation of where these "inalienable" rights came from.
Slashdot Mirror
But the point is that we shouldn't be forced to choose hardware based on what OS we want
So if I want to build a PC and sell it with Windows on it, you are saying that *I* should be forced to sell it to you without Windows, instead?
Sorry, I don't get the entire gripe in most of the comments here. So what if an OEM is selling it with Windows? If you want to find an OEM that sells setups with Linux or OpenSolaris or whatever, what's the problem? I don't think there's a hardware restriction that requires you to buy Windows if you buy this or that hardware. It's the person putting together the hardware that is "forcing" you to buy Windows, isn't it?
Example: I can buy all the hardware I want at Fry's or NewEgg or wherever and not have to buy or use or pay for Windows at all.
Yeah, maybe you can't go to Dell or Amazon or something and buy a pre-fab computer with any hardware you want with any OS you want. But so what.. isn't that an OEM choice? Maybe I'm missing something, here. I just don't see what's stopping Entrepreneur OEM Rig Setter-Upper from buying hardware, putting it together, slapping Ubuntu on it, and selling it. Maybe that's just not profitable enough to sustain?
paying for my copy of windows this time round
Yeah, that will show them. They violated the GPL. The proper response, after getting mad them for violating GPL, is to violate THEIR licensing. That will show them that businesses should be trustworthy and should do the lawful and right thing! .... [/sarcasm]
Why make humans go there before it's ready for humans to inhabit though?
Truly didn't post it, samzenpus did.
squandered this opportunity to build trust, something which is sadly lacking in most people's dealings with Microsoft.
This sentence could have been much broader and still been accurate. Something like:
squandered this opportunity to build trust, something which is sadly lacking in most people's dealings.
Or you'll find that there's no such thing. It depends which link you click.
I'm attempting to remember (difficult these days). The meter was giving wattages readings. 3W power usage when 'off.' I suppose that's 3W per hour.
* CannonballHead slinks back to work where he left the other 99% of his brain. ;)
I dunno. I'm interested when Microsoft itself (and not just "hey, maybe this is it" ... those ones, I agree, are not very news-worthy and are just rumors) says it's the RTM build
Very much beg to differ :)
Meh, there's a few things in Win 7 that IS actually pretty cool and not just eye candy. The home group thing looked interesting, for example. I find some of the UI differences very intuitive and a lot easier to work with than (dare I say it) my Ubuntu 9.04 install on my laptop.
I'm not one of the MS Windows 7 software engineers so I don't know what, if anything, really changed under the hood, but it's the above-the-surface stuff that typically will make applications work well (or just *feel* like they work well) or not. Example that's very ready on my mind: GnuCash. I'm looking for a home finance program (just to keep track of budget vs. expenses, pretty much). GnuCash does everything but has, IMO, an awful and very user-unfriendly UI. It'd be a great program if the UI was less confusing and less cluttered.
If nothing else, Win 7 has done a good job with that part of user-friendliness, which isn't just for John Doe at home. Even a programmer/software tester/whatever like me enjoys using an easy-to-use OS when I don't need a unix style shell but just need a text editor, a word processor, or want to play a game.
Er, that's kWh not KW. Whoops.
I had Vista x64 for a while and now the RC1, too. Quad core, 8gb ram... I did notice a performance increase between Vista x64 and 7x64. Not a whole lot, but boot times and program startup times definitely improved, if nothing else.
Depends on the device. For the most part, I agree with you. However, my desktop's power supply consumes about 3KW when plugged in but with the PS switch on. PS switch effectively kills the power draw though, so that's good.
I'm guessing the same reason every new kernel release is slashdot news...
Nerds/geeks/whatever can use Windows, too.
Which makes an RC for what is looking like a pretty popular OS a pretty good candidate for slashdot news. More-so than, say, a statistic that says game sales for an extremely specific and narrow genre are declining. ;)
Is there a digitized version of the recording? I don't have a tape player but I'd love to see POWER! ;)
Hm.
This is still Apple, folks. It's always a trap.
This is still Novell, folks. It's always a trap.
This is still [a company meant gain profit], folks. It's always a trap.
Somehow, I'm fairly certain that no company that wants to profit from software sales is going to pass up an opportunity to allow popular software to be used and NOT be compatible with their own software? Oh. It's a trap. It can't be simple profit-driven motives...
Bah. We should take that mercury and put it on our teeth! Solve toxic waste AND overpopulation at the same time!
I recently read about Chernobyl on wikipedia. That entire episode was apparently ... well, incredibly stupid and mismanaged. It was more of a "Titanic" incident than anything else I can think of in history. (The "nothing will go wrong" mentality that leads to some really, really stupid actions)
I doubt they are "cheap" netbooks if they have 128gb ssd's in them. On the other hand, "cheap" relative to the prices of the 256gb flash drive is perhaps a relevant discussion... hehe.
You should suggest it to gmail. After all, they already have a way to change the timestamp of the e-mail you sent so it looks like you sent it earlier than you did, why not just delete e-mails you've sent no matter where they are!
by picking up loose change.
Especially if the change is loose in someone's pocket ;)
Hmm. Yes, the important part is the rights themselves, but when arguing about what rights we have (or don't have), the source of those rights is very important when discussing whether or not it's ok to take away a "right." Example: what about the "right" to "entertainment." Or how about the "right to die" (euthanasia). How about the "right" to have an abortion?
The question of where those "rights" come from is pretty important. It's the fashion nowadays to claim they don't come from a "religion" (or Deity, etc) because that's promoting one religion/belief/whatever over another. Instead, it seems that many ... let's just say "humanists" think that it's the people that decide who has what rights.
One example of this being an issue is California's voters deciding homosexual couples can't be called "married." They denied them that "right." The source of the "right" is very important there, because a lot of people would argue they didn't have that "right" to begin with, so we're not suddenly deciding to "revoke" the right.
Definitely a much smaller scope than not being able to talk badly about a given religion, but still shows the point of the source of rights as being pretty important to the discussion of whether or not it should be allowed or denied.
Thanks for the conversation. :)
As I said, if I want to speak against Islam or Scientology or the FSM, then I have to permit others to speak against my God.
I agree with that. That's how a "free democracy" sort of thing works.
But the question still exists ... where do inherent rights come from? I believe Jefferson was a Deist and believe they came, ultimately, from God, didn't he? Kinda throws a wrench into "separation of church and state," which most seem to think means "separation of anything related to religion/God/non-"natural" and state." I would argue that true freedom that makes sense is not going to come apart from saying where the freedom comes from.
Unless, as you say, my freedom comes from the will of the people or the will of the government... which, actually, I would agree with you in disagreeing with that proposition. (i.e., I agree that government can only restrict rights).
Sorry if I am rambling too much. Actually enjoying the discussion. Maybe that's the problem ;)
ut you choose whether you follow a religion or not.
Says whom? And on what basis? I don't see why, if a gay says "I didn't choose to be gay" and you believe him, I can't say "I didn't choose to be [insert religion]" and be believed.
I'm not arguing for either position here. I'm saying you're accepting this based largely on the statements of those that ARE gay, or ARE of whatever religion. Of course, most "religionists" don't say they had no choice in the matter. So let's say you're right; you don't choose to be gay, and you choose to be a certain religion. I guess I have no right to CHOOSE to be anything; I am only allowed to have the right to be what I DIDN'T choose to be.
I somehow doubt that will fly very far in most people's minds. The RIGHT TO CHOOSE seems to be far greater, in most people's eyes, than the right to be what I DIDN'T CHOOSE to be. :)
Here we go again, though:
as they are inherent violations of human rights
Who gets to define what human rights I have?
I agree, female mutilation isn't OK. Incidentally, it's the "Well it's their culture, we shouldn't tell them it's wrong" opinions tend to be less on the "Let's base things on the Bible/God/whatever" side and more on the "We need to base things on the way they have been in history" side.
Religious censorship or non-religious-censorship isn't OK because their culture allows it. I agree. That's a bad basis of "OK" and "not OK." On the other hand, saying it's NOT ok simply because YOU think it's a violation of these "inherent" (inherent to what?) human rights doesn't seem like a logical argument either. Rights are things that are given. No, all rights are not given "by God." But rights ARE given by "the government." Or taken away. Etc. Whether or not they government SHOULD give/take those rights is what we're discussing, thus the "OK" has to be based on something higher than human government... so here we are again: who decides?
And ... why is Ireland's basis for their decision better or worse than yours?
Again, I'm not advocating for or against the law, but arguing that the position taken by most "This is awful!" people seems like it tends to be based on a vague "this violates my inalienable rights" idea with no explanation of where these "inalienable" rights came from.