While I'm sure that Gnome and KDE developers can get something out of HIG docs, I'm sure they already are! As a user of both Gnome and MacOS Tiger, I think that Gnome is in many ways _more_ consistent!
On my Mac, Finder, Address Book, and iCal are brushed metal, whereas Mail and iTunes are uniform grey. Preview is different again. What the hell?!? Over the last 3 years, MacOS has become _less_ consistent, whereas Gnome has become much more so.
So you don't like the default colours on Ubuntu - change them. It's very easy to do, even for newbies - personally I find them refreshing from the over-pervasive blueness of most desktops, but you can make it blue if you want!
I'm not saying Gnome is perfect (I haven't used KDE much for a while) - I doubt anyone would say that - but it's certainly not as inferior as you're making out.
The thing I think is interesting is MS's deal with Novell. If MS really had this big patent portfolio on which Linux was infringing, then Novell would have been in a very weak bargaining position.
Instead we see the opposite - MS paid Novell a lot of money for that deal. To me this says that MS is full of shit, its patents are hollow (or uninfringed), and they were paying a lot of $$$ to Novell to try and add credence to their dubious claims.
But what would I know - I'm just a hippy Linux user;-)
Why don't they come out and say what is infringing? Probably because that number is bullshit.
I wonder how many patents MS infringe? Not directly relevant, but it means some immunity it companies like IBM are being infringed by MS.
I love this quote: "We live in a world where we honor, and support the honoring of, intellectual property,"...yup: that world is Microsoft-land, where only MS owns intellectual property, and everyone else are MS's intellectual serfs.
As a Free-Software user I don't feel intimidated by this - nor would I if I were using Free Software in my business. I view this as a sign of desperation by MS, in fact the article even says as much: "And as a mature company facing unfavorable market trends and fearsome competitors like Google"... so prepare yourself to kick back and watch the MS share-price tumble. Personally, I'll be looking on and laughing, with a can of beer in my hand.
Nonsense. You've just made the exact point that the article is refuting. In fact, you've made it completely without evidence. This is 'Insightful' how?
If you oppose copyright, but can't do anything about the existence of copyright, you can at least put stuff into the public domain without allowing someone to wrap it up in copyright and resell it. That's basically all the GPL does, and I don't see any conflict there at all.
Maybe if copyright was written differently, or not at all, we wouldn't have _need_ of the GPL, but that's a different story.
"The legislation is supposed to stop the sale of counterfeit and/or stolen music CDs"
This is clearly irrelevant, since they should then apply this to the sale of _any_ second-hand goods - any of which _might_ be stolen or counterfeit. Even if they did that, what is the point of "in-store credit"? Will they then stipulate that said credit can _only_ be used for the purchase of _new_ media, rather than other second-hand media?
Gosh, I'm glad I only live in a US colony (Australia) instead of mainland US! It seems the RIAA-pists won't be happy until there's an income tax component for "expected music/media consumption."
Oh come on - we're talking about terrorists and pirates here! Something must be done. If you want to make an omelette, you've got to break a few eggs you know.
Well, it's not hard to imagine that the RIAA contract out the process of finding and identifying "pirates". If the contractor is paid per person identified then there wouldn't be much incentive to be thorough..
That's probably wrong. Once computers come close (within an order of magnitude) to human intelligence, they will be more capable of looking after themselves. Could take 20 - 50 years though.
"what is a legitimate post for you is a troll for others" There's certainly some truth to this. However there are many instances where this is not the case, and comments are (I think) inappropriately modded. I realise that the posts are not _removed_ - however, most censorship does not actually _totally_remove_ the censored information it just makes it inaccessible so that _most_ people don't/can't read it.
"arguing that your opinion is better than anyone else's" I'm not saying that. I have previously (check my history) called attention to posts (with which I disagree) being inappropriately negatively modded.
"you're also complaining about the censoring that you're doing yourself." As I said, a couple of interesting, but "-1 Troll" posts hidden in a sea of cruft may as well not be there.
"I'm guessing this is your first foray into online debate. Congratulations..." Very patronising - seems unwarranted to me.
"You're confusing your ability to write what you want with my ability to call you an idiot when I read your opinion."
No I'm not. As I said, people use "offtopic" and "troll" moderators to (effectively) remove posts with which they disagree. This is not what the moderation scheme is for - it's intended to reduce the incidence of trolling, abusive posts, etc. Modding down a legitamate post just because you disagree with it is really a form of censorship.
"But it's a fallacy to take somebody else's words, attach an "implied conclusion" to it, and then complain that there's a logical fallacy. If there's a logical fallacy, then maybe it's with the "implied conclusion" that you just made up, and not with the person's words themselves."
That is certainly true. It appears that we disagree of the meaning behind the GP's post (and hence the implied conclusion).
"Some environmentalists favor human extinction."
Seems fair. However, it ignores the bit about Apple. I'd interpret it thus:
"Apple should ignore environmentalists" or "Apple should ignore extreme environmentalists"
and I guess the difference between these two depends on one's interpretation of the tone of the GP... (on which we disagree;-)
(for the record, the Major_Blud has been modded as 'flamebait' and 'troll' which I think is highly unfair - I wish mods wouldn't abuse the system)
"when your most outspoken proponents come off like rambling kooks"
Tell me about it. There _are_ some wacko-environmentalists out there, and they do a lot to discredit all the well-reasoned environmentalists. As I said, the nuclear power issue is a classic example. If I mention that I'm against nuclear power, many people will assume I have a hysterical objection to nuclear, and have not looked at the data and drawn my own conclusions.
"i said I was Republican" Partisan politics sucks. We have the same problem in Australia (just different party names). I wish humanity could get over the whole "my tribe, your tribe" thing. Politics isn't sport! (in theory anyway...;-)
I was not "blowing my wad" - I thought your statement was disingenuous.
"it was supposed to be funny" I honestly can't see how you intended that to be humorous - perhaps you'd like to clarify? While you're at it - maybe you could also clarify what exactly you meant, if not what I concluded?
Thank you for your mature and reasoned rebuttal, however.
Actually, I think implied statements are quite reasonable to enunciate. "Saying something without saying it" is a very common tool when trying to mislead someone (just listen to some political-talk).
Try and summarise the GP in 5 words, and see what you come up with.
I still think it's a fair comment, but it won't stop people who disagree with me from moderating it 'Troll' or 'overrated'.
What a ridiculous comment. Even if it's true, so what? Your implied conclusion is "therefore, don't bother with environmentalism."
How about this logical fallacy: "Some buisness leaders are so greedy they won't be happy until we're all working down in the coal mine for nothing - therefore we should be communist."
See how stupid you sound? I'm sick of people making sweeping generalisations like this - I hear/read it all the time with regard to nuclear power, as if it's impossible to have a reasoned opposition without being a psycho-greenie.
> "safe in the anonymousity of the web" I doubt it. While there are certainly times that people take advantage of anonymity to seem brave, I don't think this is one of those times. I think more relevant is the fact that the group of people who are knowledgeable about this are diffuse, and the internet is the place they can meet and converse.
> "If anything, online petitions... have proven [that] when people complain on the web, nothing happens." I think there's been ample evidence in the past decade that people protesting in the street does little to sway a determined government too. I don't think that means we should just roll over and accept it.
Being afraid to speak openly because of fear of reprisals does not make one a coward.
I sympathise. I'm finishing up a PhD in signal processing, and all my coding has been in Matlab. I love Matlab - it's a fantastic package - but licensing is a pain in the ass. The number of times I've been unable to use (my legitamate copy of) Matlab because of some issue with the license server... It's cost me at least a couple of weeks' productivity. I know many other students in the same boat.
For my post-doc work, I'll be using another package. I'll definitely be investigating SciPy (http://www.scipy.org/) - it looks pretty cool.
I use Protools, too, for music recording - don't even get me started on that;-)
Slashdot Mirror
the GP is an old troll - don't bother with them
While I'm sure that Gnome and KDE developers can get something out of HIG docs, I'm sure they already are! As a user of both Gnome and MacOS Tiger, I think that Gnome is in many ways _more_ consistent!
On my Mac, Finder, Address Book, and iCal are brushed metal, whereas Mail and iTunes are uniform grey. Preview is different again. What the hell?!? Over the last 3 years, MacOS has become _less_ consistent, whereas Gnome has become much more so.
So you don't like the default colours on Ubuntu - change them. It's very easy to do, even for newbies - personally I find them refreshing from the over-pervasive blueness of most desktops, but you can make it blue if you want!
I'm not saying Gnome is perfect (I haven't used KDE much for a while) - I doubt anyone would say that - but it's certainly not as inferior as you're making out.
The thing I think is interesting is MS's deal with Novell. If MS really had this big patent portfolio on which Linux was infringing, then Novell would have been in a very weak bargaining position.
Instead we see the opposite - MS paid Novell a lot of money for that deal. To me this says that MS is full of shit, its patents are hollow (or uninfringed), and they were paying a lot of $$$ to Novell to try and add credence to their dubious claims.
But what would I know - I'm just a hippy Linux user
Why don't they come out and say what is infringing? Probably because that number is bullshit.
...yup: that world is Microsoft-land, where only MS owns intellectual property, and everyone else are MS's intellectual serfs.
... so prepare yourself to kick back and watch the MS share-price tumble. Personally, I'll be looking on and laughing, with a can of beer in my hand.
I wonder how many patents MS infringe? Not directly relevant, but it means some immunity it companies like IBM are being infringed by MS.
I love this quote:
"We live in a world where we honor, and support the honoring of, intellectual property,"
As a Free-Software user I don't feel intimidated by this - nor would I if I were using Free Software in my business. I view this as a sign of desperation by MS, in fact the article even says as much:
"And as a mature company facing unfavorable market trends and fearsome competitors like Google"
Nonsense. You've just made the exact point that the article is refuting. In fact, you've made it completely without evidence. This is 'Insightful' how?
If you oppose copyright, but can't do anything about the existence of copyright, you can at least put stuff into the public domain without allowing someone to wrap it up in copyright and resell it. That's basically all the GPL does, and I don't see any conflict there at all.
Maybe if copyright was written differently, or not at all, we wouldn't have _need_ of the GPL, but that's a different story.
"The legislation is supposed to stop the sale of counterfeit and/or stolen music CDs"
This is clearly irrelevant, since they should then apply this to the sale of _any_ second-hand goods - any of which _might_ be stolen or counterfeit.
Even if they did that, what is the point of "in-store credit"? Will they then stipulate that said credit can _only_ be used for the purchase of _new_ media, rather than other second-hand media?
Gosh, I'm glad I only live in a US colony (Australia) instead of mainland US! It seems the RIAA-pists won't be happy until there's an income tax component for "expected music/media consumption."
"people are not eggs"
Amen.
Golly - the way the price of college is going, even an Atari 800 won't pay for it. You need to get your hands on an ENIAC.. ..or something...
Oh come on - we're talking about terrorists and pirates here! Something must be done. If you want to make an omelette, you've got to break a few eggs you know.
Ahh idealism - it's so last century.
Well, it's not hard to imagine that the RIAA contract out the process of finding and identifying "pirates". If the contractor is paid per person identified then there wouldn't be much incentive to be thorough..
That's probably wrong. Once computers come close (within an order of magnitude) to human intelligence, they will be more capable of looking after themselves. Could take 20 - 50 years though.
"what is a legitimate post for you is a troll for others"
There's certainly some truth to this. However there are many instances where this is not the case, and comments are (I think) inappropriately modded. I realise that the posts are not _removed_ - however, most censorship does not actually _totally_remove_ the censored information it just makes it inaccessible so that _most_ people don't/can't read it.
"arguing that your opinion is better than anyone else's"
I'm not saying that. I have previously (check my history) called attention to posts (with which I disagree) being inappropriately negatively modded.
"you're also complaining about the censoring that you're doing yourself."
As I said, a couple of interesting, but "-1 Troll" posts hidden in a sea of cruft may as well not be there.
"I'm guessing this is your first foray into online debate. Congratulations..."
Very patronising - seems unwarranted to me.
Heh heh.. yeah.. I guess I'm asking for that
"You're confusing your ability to write what you want with my ability to call you an idiot when I read your opinion."
;-)
No I'm not. As I said, people use "offtopic" and "troll" moderators to (effectively) remove posts with which they disagree. This is not what the moderation scheme is for - it's intended to reduce the incidence of trolling, abusive posts, etc. Modding down a legitamate post just because you disagree with it is really a form of censorship.
You're an idiot.
Many people favour free speech. Fewer support it when people say things they don't like.
It happens on slashdot too - look how people abuse the moderation system to supress opinions with which they disagree..
"But it's a fallacy to take somebody else's words, attach an "implied conclusion" to it, and then complain that there's a logical fallacy. If there's a logical fallacy, then maybe it's with the "implied conclusion" that you just made up, and not with the person's words themselves."
;-)
That is certainly true. It appears that we disagree of the meaning behind the GP's post (and hence the implied conclusion).
"Some environmentalists favor human extinction."
Seems fair. However, it ignores the bit about Apple. I'd interpret it thus:
"Apple should ignore environmentalists"
or
"Apple should ignore extreme environmentalists"
and I guess the difference between these two depends on one's interpretation of the tone of the GP... (on which we disagree
(for the record, the Major_Blud has been modded as 'flamebait' and 'troll' which I think is highly unfair - I wish mods wouldn't abuse the system)
"when your most outspoken proponents come off like rambling kooks"
Tell me about it. There _are_ some wacko-environmentalists out there, and they do a lot to discredit all the well-reasoned environmentalists. As I said, the nuclear power issue is a classic example. If I mention that I'm against nuclear power, many people will assume I have a hysterical objection to nuclear, and have not looked at the data and drawn my own conclusions.
"i said I was Republican"
Partisan politics sucks. We have the same problem in Australia (just different party names). I wish humanity could get over the whole "my tribe, your tribe" thing. Politics isn't sport! (in theory anyway...
I was not "blowing my wad" - I thought your statement was disingenuous.
"it was supposed to be funny"
I honestly can't see how you intended that to be humorous - perhaps you'd like to clarify? While you're at it - maybe you could also clarify what exactly you meant, if not what I concluded?
Thank you for your mature and reasoned rebuttal, however.
Actually, I think implied statements are quite reasonable to enunciate. "Saying something without saying it" is a very common tool when trying to mislead someone (just listen to some political-talk).
Try and summarise the GP in 5 words, and see what you come up with.
I still think it's a fair comment, but it won't stop people who disagree with me from moderating it 'Troll' or 'overrated'.
Yes - that's a fair point. Thanks.
What a ridiculous comment. Even if it's true, so what? Your implied conclusion is "therefore, don't bother with environmentalism."
How about this logical fallacy:
"Some buisness leaders are so greedy they won't be happy until we're all working down in the coal mine for nothing - therefore we should be communist."
See how stupid you sound? I'm sick of people making sweeping generalisations like this - I hear/read it all the time with regard to nuclear power, as if it's impossible to have a reasoned opposition without being a psycho-greenie.
> "safe in the anonymousity of the web"
... have proven [that] when people complain on the web, nothing happens."
I doubt it. While there are certainly times that people take advantage of anonymity to seem brave, I don't think this is one of those times. I think more relevant is the fact that the group of people who are knowledgeable about this are diffuse, and the internet is the place they can meet and converse.
> "If anything, online petitions
I think there's been ample evidence in the past decade that people protesting in the street does little to sway a determined government too. I don't think that means we should just roll over and accept it.
Being afraid to speak openly because of fear of reprisals does not make one a coward.
I sympathise. I'm finishing up a PhD in signal processing, and all my coding has been in Matlab. I love Matlab - it's a fantastic package - but licensing is a pain in the ass. The number of times I've been unable to use (my legitamate copy of) Matlab because of some issue with the license server... It's cost me at least a couple of weeks' productivity. I know many other students in the same boat.
For my post-doc work, I'll be using another package. I'll definitely be investigating SciPy (http://www.scipy.org/) - it looks pretty cool.
I use Protools, too, for music recording - don't even get me started on that
"drinking establishment" - only on slashdot would you read that. It's a bloody pub, mate.
;-)
(yes, I'm Australian
You forgot:
-iTunes doesn't run on Linux
(I'd love a Linux iTunes client tho... I plan to actually shop there when they ditch DRM)