I just seriously wish someone would figure out a way to play videos inside a browser without having to use flash. This functionality is really badly needed. I'm not a web developer, but no Free alternative comes to mind.
Well, at least they were cool enough to provide an MPEG4 option.
I'll point out one thing again you MS apoligists. Beta software is supposed to be pretty good with a couple of faults. That means a few more bugs that need to be ironed out.
People are not pissed because of a few bugs - people are pissed because the whole fucking thing is fundamentally flawed. You don't fix a crappy permission system in the time between beta and release. No one does. You don't fix the complete lack of drivers between beta and release. Ever see BSD or Linux triple the number of drivers in the time between beta and release? No. You never did.
Want to know why? Because if you have a fundamental problem in beta, it doesn't get fixed by release. As funny as it sounds, MS are not going to be making any substantial improvements to the number of drivers between now and release. The Hardware companies don't want to write them, and Microsoft don't have the documentation available.
The Xbox doesn't have a history of making a profit. Both Xboxes have made a loss on the initial sale. The original loss was an overall loss also. We have to wait and see if the new Xbox turns out to be as profitable as the risky gameplan hoped.
I know that Sony lose money on consoles, and that MS lose overall, but are you sure they don't make it back on game sales? I realise that Nintendo make large mark ups on both the console and games, but are you totally sure that Sony made a loss last generation?
It's worth noting that capitalism actually creates monopolies. Because you mix free competition and strong law, you allow companies to manipulate legal bodies in order to create law that is to their advantage.
Please don't tar libertarianism with the same brush as capitialism. Under libertarianism, there would be fewer laws that could be used to create monopolies or duopolies. This would mean that you've probably end up with a large number of smaller businesses, with few reaching into multiple areas.
The problem with the Net Neutrality issue currently is not that we need a law in order to protect the internet from these multi-tiered systems (because as it is, if Bell try anything, they're unlikely to succeed), but that we need a law to protect from a law artifically empowering these multi-tier systems.
In short, libertarianism would mean that there would be no political merchants (such as senators) for the businesses to buy, because the effect of law would be so small. The internet would continue the way it always has done, because a) you probably wouldn't get large, powerful monopolising businesses like Bell to cause these issues, b) creating an "empowerment law" like Bell need would be impossible and c) smaller businesses with mean more competition, and enough newcomers to ensure that no companies take "fat cat" payola like the multi-tier system.
Libertarianism is very different to capitalism. If we want to start moving there the first thing we have to do is to make sure that we're very careful about the order of removal of the laws. It's important to make sure that large businesses don't lure us into only taking the deregulaion stance on areas where it benefits them. If we run a system that is fair and democratic, then our first mission is to make sure that the system stays fair and democratic at all points in the move towards libertarianism.
People who take the "He's more Libertarian! I like it!" policy are being seduced by large businesses (the grand parents is a case in point). It's better, from a liberty point of view, to ensure that Net Neutrality is legislated on. Otherwise we risk having a massively capitalist state because we've selectively deregulated (deregulation is needed to be equal in all areas, or massive problems are generated). In libertarianism, the issue of Net Neutrality wouldn't get far.
So please let me explain the ugly truth: this is an all or nothing game. Either the copyright lords are going to control how we use information, or they aren't. Sorry charlie, there is no nice way out there is no happy middle ground. Get used to it, wake up and smell the hummis, pull your head out, quit being stupid! All or nothing. Sony, the RIAA, and MPAA seem to understand this perfectly well, their actions are obvious, they plan on it, they act on it, they clearly understand it, so why don't we?
Absolutley correct. I debate this point with people everyday who want record companies, publishers and the like to offer "legal downloads", and I tell them they've missed the point entirely. You summed it all up there.
Meh. Wikipedia runs entirely on Fedora. It might have some slight dependance on skill of your hackers, but other than that they'res not much difference.
So, because the GNU project can't develop a kernel, their input into the discussion on ideology is worthless? Bullshit.
In producing a kernel, the GNU project has not been successful. However, they produce a large amount of the software that goes into most Linux-based distributions. Argueing the the GNU project exists just to create a kernel is illogical. No one is going to measure the success of the GNU project by their ability to create a kernel. They've spread an ideology that is very important to our communities culture. They also happen to create masses of software. There's several important pieces of software they make: the compiler, emacs, bash, coreutils, gnome and the gimp.
Considering this, the fact that they haven't managed to create a kernel is perhaps forgivable. The Linux kernel isn't of nearly the same magnitude of the GNU project. The Linux kernel is just one piece of the Operating System, and the GNU project has created most of the other pieces. I think Stallman just wants some credit for his organisation; it's not some fucking political position.
The hacker community has always been largely based on recognition for good work; he doesn't feel like the GNU project gets enough. It's a very small point in the grand scheme of things, but I am inclined to agree.
But that's beside the point; thanks to the proprietary "mpq" format, it doesn't matter what player you like, or he likes or I like - we can't use it.
Agreed. That's reason enough to hate it. It's not like you have to bring in the lack of visualisations into the mix in order to criticise. It's non-free. Enough said.
Yeah, visualisations and supporting the proprietory keyboard buttons are the hallmark of a good media player. Not that I'm supporting this DRM crap, but you obviously have some strange ideas about what a good player should be. Look up mplayer. You won't like it: but I do.
Gentoo doesn't actually distribute Sun Java. It's not hosted on any of the servers. The users must download and place the files themselves.
Just because an ebuild is in the tree, doesn't mean that Gentoo distribute it. Gentoo simply allows the user to use it, much like any other distribution.
As soon as GLEP 23 gets put into place, this kind of confusion will disappear.
Slashdot Mirror
I happen to think that mplayer is perfect. :p
The mplayerplug-in actually does sound like the trick for the job. Pity it doesn't have wider use.
I just seriously wish someone would figure out a way to play videos inside a browser without having to use flash. This functionality is really badly needed. I'm not a web developer, but no Free alternative comes to mind.
Well, at least they were cool enough to provide an MPEG4 option.
I'll point out one thing again you MS apoligists. Beta software is supposed to be pretty good with a couple of faults. That means a few more bugs that need to be ironed out.
People are not pissed because of a few bugs - people are pissed because the whole fucking thing is fundamentally flawed. You don't fix a crappy permission system in the time between beta and release. No one does. You don't fix the complete lack of drivers between beta and release. Ever see BSD or Linux triple the number of drivers in the time between beta and release? No. You never did.
Want to know why? Because if you have a fundamental problem in beta, it doesn't get fixed by release. As funny as it sounds, MS are not going to be making any substantial improvements to the number of drivers between now and release. The Hardware companies don't want to write them, and Microsoft don't have the documentation available.
The original loss was an overall loss also.
should be
The original Xbox was an overall loss also.
Whoops.
The Xbox doesn't have a history of making a profit. Both Xboxes have made a loss on the initial sale. The original loss was an overall loss also. We have to wait and see if the new Xbox turns out to be as profitable as the risky gameplan hoped.
No, the Aeron chair is perfect. The subtle ironies of throwing an Aeron chair at a company that got big in the dot-com boom are excellent.
I know that Sony lose money on consoles, and that MS lose overall, but are you sure they don't make it back on game sales? I realise that Nintendo make large mark ups on both the console and games, but are you totally sure that Sony made a loss last generation?
It's worth noting that capitalism actually creates monopolies. Because you mix free competition and strong law, you allow companies to manipulate legal bodies in order to create law that is to their advantage.
Please don't tar libertarianism with the same brush as capitialism. Under libertarianism, there would be fewer laws that could be used to create monopolies or duopolies. This would mean that you've probably end up with a large number of smaller businesses, with few reaching into multiple areas.
The problem with the Net Neutrality issue currently is not that we need a law in order to protect the internet from these multi-tiered systems (because as it is, if Bell try anything, they're unlikely to succeed), but that we need a law to protect from a law artifically empowering these multi-tier systems.
In short, libertarianism would mean that there would be no political merchants (such as senators) for the businesses to buy, because the effect of law would be so small. The internet would continue the way it always has done, because a) you probably wouldn't get large, powerful monopolising businesses like Bell to cause these issues, b) creating an "empowerment law" like Bell need would be impossible and c) smaller businesses with mean more competition, and enough newcomers to ensure that no companies take "fat cat" payola like the multi-tier system.
Libertarianism is very different to capitalism. If we want to start moving there the first thing we have to do is to make sure that we're very careful about the order of removal of the laws. It's important to make sure that large businesses don't lure us into only taking the deregulaion stance on areas where it benefits them. If we run a system that is fair and democratic, then our first mission is to make sure that the system stays fair and democratic at all points in the move towards libertarianism.
People who take the "He's more Libertarian! I like it!" policy are being seduced by large businesses (the grand parents is a case in point). It's better, from a liberty point of view, to ensure that Net Neutrality is legislated on. Otherwise we risk having a massively capitalist state because we've selectively deregulated (deregulation is needed to be equal in all areas, or massive problems are generated). In libertarianism, the issue of Net Neutrality wouldn't get far.
#1 in profit? Not to doubt, but are you able to back that up. If so, I've been seriously underestimating them for a while.
The same one in which pigs are known for their flight.
Absolutley correct. I debate this point with people everyday who want record companies, publishers and the like to offer "legal downloads", and I tell them they've missed the point entirely. You summed it all up there.
You make a good point. I have changed my mind.
I'm not an American, jackass. The fact of the matter is that Google still ended up censoring China.
"Well! At least it's better than killing them!"
Meh. Wikipedia runs entirely on Fedora. It might have some slight dependance on skill of your hackers, but other than that they'res not much difference.
You were right to ignore Godwin in this instance. The Nazis are a legitimate comparision in this particular instance.
Yeah, but the whole contentious issue is that making a nice search engine doesn't nullify censoring Chinese communications.
That fact is that Castro might look good compared to Stalin, but that doesn't make him a good example of a fair government.
Yeah, it might have something to do with the fact that the country is effectively a dictatorship. Think about that next time.
So, because the GNU project can't develop a kernel, their input into the discussion on ideology is worthless? Bullshit.
In producing a kernel, the GNU project has not been successful. However, they produce a large amount of the software that goes into most Linux-based distributions. Argueing the the GNU project exists just to create a kernel is illogical. No one is going to measure the success of the GNU project by their ability to create a kernel. They've spread an ideology that is very important to our communities culture. They also happen to create masses of software. There's several important pieces of software they make: the compiler, emacs, bash, coreutils, gnome and the gimp.
Considering this, the fact that they haven't managed to create a kernel is perhaps forgivable. The Linux kernel isn't of nearly the same magnitude of the GNU project. The Linux kernel is just one piece of the Operating System, and the GNU project has created most of the other pieces. I think Stallman just wants some credit for his organisation; it's not some fucking political position.
The hacker community has always been largely based on recognition for good work; he doesn't feel like the GNU project gets enough. It's a very small point in the grand scheme of things, but I am inclined to agree.
But that's beside the point; thanks to the proprietary "mpq" format, it doesn't matter what player you like, or he likes or I like - we can't use it.
Agreed. That's reason enough to hate it. It's not like you have to bring in the lack of visualisations into the mix in order to criticise. It's non-free. Enough said.
Yeah, visualisations and supporting the proprietory keyboard buttons are the hallmark of a good media player. Not that I'm supporting this DRM crap, but you obviously have some strange ideas about what a good player should be. Look up mplayer. You won't like it: but I do.
In the spirit of Debian; it's Free Software - not Open Source. ;)
Gentoo doesn't actually distribute Sun Java. It's not hosted on any of the servers. The users must download and place the files themselves.
Just because an ebuild is in the tree, doesn't mean that Gentoo distribute it. Gentoo simply allows the user to use it, much like any other distribution.
As soon as GLEP 23 gets put into place, this kind of confusion will disappear.
You act like HURD is the only project that GNU have. Might want to check the Free Software Directory again.
It's a very similar experience to what you effectively get with Ubuntu, minus the installer and a few other niceities.