The same issues exist in Britain, Germany, and everywhere else that socialized medicine is the norm. It may be a better situation for people who couldn't normally afford the treatment, but for anyone who can afford it's fucking horrible.
This is nonsense.
For example, in England if you can afford to pay for treatment you are free to do so, if you want to take out insurance to pay for treatment you are free to do so, if you want to use the National Health Service for your treatment you are free to do so.
It's better for everyone except the insurance companies.
Courts in more than one country have decided that Microsoft is a monopoly, therefore in those countries they are legally a monopoly and are to be treated as such.
I used to have a Morini.
A 3 1/2 Sport. Lovely little bike, but not without it's foibles. The carburettors would fall off and the nipple would pull off the front brake cable.
...for me and many people X11, a browser, sun java (the gnu one is just a little too broken) are as necessary as any of the gnu stuff.
The difference is the computer wouldn't operate without the GNU stuff, but it would operate without the programs you mentioned. These programs are added to provide the functionality you require but don't become part of the operating system just because you've installed them.
...But maybe I am wrong. please point me at something that is uniquely GNU that's required for Linux
There appears to be a misunderstanding here. The Linux kernel doesn't require that you use GNU tools to provide the functionality it requires to operate. You could use other tools or write your own. But it does require some tools to be functional. Similarly the GNU tools don't need the Linux kernel to be useful, you could use another kernel or write your own. But they do require a kernel. So what we have here is a symbiotic relationship, a kernel requires tools and tools require a kernel. In this case the kernel is Linux and the tools are GNU, remove either and the computer wont work.
Now you have a functioning computer you can add programs as required to provide a GUI, internet access or whatever.
Ah, now we get to rub. If the computer doesn't do something that you think is worthwhile, it's not operating. But if it doesn't do something my parents think is worthwhile, it could still be operating.
This seems to be the cause of your confusion. It doesn't have to do something that I think is worthwhile. The OS is the base on which all the other functionality is built. Once you have an OS you can add programs to achieve this functionality, but the added programs do not become part of the OS.
Can paving-slab operate it? Only then is it operating.
Can anyone operate it? Only then is it operating. Fixed it for you.
...your "simple definition" is not as simple as you think because people have different definitions of what a functional computer is...
You are confused.
You are confusing what some random person may consider a functional computer with an operating system.
...what if we booted the kernel and then it didn't load anything, not even init. No GNU system needed. Just because you have no use for it doesn't mean it's not operating...
If I can't operate it it fails as an operating system. The clue is in the words used to describe it.
Just because your parents have no use for a computer without GUI doesn't mean it's not operating.
Consider a handheld device made specifically for browsing the web. Well, that's gonna need a browser to be operational. So now the OS is Opera/X/GNU/Linux?
You appear to be confused.
What you should have written is:-
Consider a handheld device made specifically for browsing the web. Well, that's gonna need a browser for the device (not the OS!) to be operational. The Browser is going to need an OS to run on.
All your examples are programs that are run by the OS, and the OS will continue to function without them.
Let me put it like this. You can remove all the programs from your computer except for the GNU tools and the kernel and you have a perfectly valid stand alone computer. However if you remove the GNU tools and leave every other program including the kernel on there it simply wont work.
If you don't think that making the computer work is part of the OS's job then we are talking about different things.
Wait, so you think that there are irreplaceable/irremovable gnu components in Linux?
Duh! No, you could use other components to make it work, such as the fictional UNG tools. Then you would have UNG/Linux. Just as you could use a different kernel with GNU tools such as the Hurd kernel and have GNU/Hurd.
...I mean by their logic at this point most people should be calling it Mozilla-Gnome-Sun-Gnu/Linux...
A simple test for you. If you can remove the software and the computer still operates then it is being run by the operating system, it is not part of it.
And if language continues to evolve in this way we'll end up saying "oook" to each other again. (In fact we just have).
What I don't understand is how this sort of nonsense starts.
I can only imagine an office somewhere, where some idiot in management first uses the word. "How was this architected?". (Hey, my spellchecker doesn't recognise it as a word!)
Now, surely any sane person would have said "Don't you mean designed?" or "What the fuck does architected mean?", but for some reason they didn't. Maybe they thought it was cool, or they were scared of their boss, who knows?
If I asked builders how much it would cost to have some work done I would much rather they had a look at the job and gave me an estimate than sat in their office and guessed.
I can guess the age of your neighbour, but I can't estimate it.
An estimate can only be given if some details are known and are taken into account, you can only take a guess if you don't know any (enough?) details or do know some but choose to ignore them.
Actually, we should keep using the term "Distribution" because, for example, Debian and Ubuntu are the same operating system configured differently, and "distribution" and "operating system" mean different things.
And Linux is not a complete OS as it wouldn't work without the GNU tools or their equivalent to perform various necessary tasks.
What I was trying to get across is that you can provide without bundling, but you can't bundle without providing.
However, according to wikipedia (for what it's worth) "Microsoft originally released Internet Explorer 1.0 in August 1995 in two packages: at retail in Microsoft Plus! add-on for Windows 95 and via the simultaneous OEM release of Windows 95"
The competition is in who can give the users what they want, the fastest.
Within the framework that the competition is held.
The assumption here is that it *needs* defending. The point I'm trying to make is that the industry was proceeding in exactly the same way it (and numerous others) had previously. Competitively.
And the point I was trying to get across was that they actually proceeded anti-competitively. I believe there are court cases that add a certain amount of weight to my position.
Well, there's little difference that I can see between "provided" and "bundled"...
MS provided IE in 1995, but you had to download Microsoft Plus to get it (or install it off of the CD). They now provide IE but it is bundled with the OS.
Why on Earth would anyone expect software vendors in that sort of situation to sit on their hands and wait for a "standards committee" to tell them what functionality their customers were clamouring for that they could and could not give provide ? Remember that whole "competition is good" meme ?
Well, I really doubt anyone was "clamouring" for anything, but if they have some useful additions to the spec then by all means implement them, but let everyone else implement them as well. The competition is in the efficacy of the browser, not who can lock competitors out of the most functionality.
Netscape were doing *exactly* the same thing. How soon we forget who came up with "blink" and HTML email.
I fail to see that pointing the finger at another company and saying they did it too is an adequate defense. (And no-one who was around at the time can forget the crime against humanity that was the "blink" tag!)
Slashdot Mirror
This is nonsense.
For example, in England if you can afford to pay for treatment you are free to do so, if you want to take out insurance to pay for treatment you are free to do so, if you want to use the National Health Service for your treatment you are free to do so.
It's better for everyone except the insurance companies.
Whether they are right or wrong, and whether I trust them or not, Microsoft are legally a monopoly.
What you think is totally irrelevant.
Courts in more than one country have decided that Microsoft is a monopoly, therefore in those countries they are legally a monopoly and are to be treated as such.
I used to have a Morini. A 3 1/2 Sport. Lovely little bike, but not without it's foibles. The carburettors would fall off and the nipple would pull off the front brake cable.
Well, your nearly right. Linux isn't an OS, GNU/Linux is an OS. Red Hat, Debian, Ubuntu etc. are distributions.
Here are some more then.
Except they weren't
Except you didn't
I know. Innacceptable? Wtf?
Are you sure Longhorn is better than Hardy?
And anyway, how can a Longhorn be Microsoft?
The difference is the computer wouldn't operate without the GNU stuff, but it would operate without the programs you mentioned. These programs are added to provide the functionality you require but don't become part of the operating system just because you've installed them.
There appears to be a misunderstanding here. The Linux kernel doesn't require that you use GNU tools to provide the functionality it requires to operate. You could use other tools or write your own. But it does require some tools to be functional. Similarly the GNU tools don't need the Linux kernel to be useful, you could use another kernel or write your own. But they do require a kernel. So what we have here is a symbiotic relationship, a kernel requires tools and tools require a kernel. In this case the kernel is Linux and the tools are GNU, remove either and the computer wont work.
Now you have a functioning computer you can add programs as required to provide a GUI, internet access or whatever.
This seems to be the cause of your confusion. It doesn't have to do something that I think is worthwhile. The OS is the base on which all the other functionality is built. Once you have an OS you can add programs to achieve this functionality, but the added programs do not become part of the OS.
Can anyone operate it? Only then is it operating. Fixed it for you.
You are confused.
You are confusing what some random person may consider a functional computer with an operating system.
If I can't operate it it fails as an operating system. The clue is in the words used to describe it.
Yes it is.
Just because your parents have no use for a computer without GUI doesn't mean it's not operating.
You appear to be confused.
What you should have written is:- Consider a handheld device made specifically for browsing the web. Well, that's gonna need a browser for the device (not the OS!) to be operational. The Browser is going to need an OS to run on.
All your examples are programs that are run by the OS, and the OS will continue to function without them.
Let me put it like this. You can remove all the programs from your computer except for the GNU tools and the kernel and you have a perfectly valid stand alone computer. However if you remove the GNU tools and leave every other program including the kernel on there it simply wont work.
If you don't think that making the computer work is part of the OS's job then we are talking about different things.
Duh! No, you could use other components to make it work, such as the fictional UNG tools. Then you would have UNG/Linux. Just as you could use a different kernel with GNU tools such as the Hurd kernel and have GNU/Hurd.
A simple test for you. If you can remove the software and the computer still operates then it is being run by the operating system, it is not part of it.
And if language continues to evolve in this way we'll end up saying "oook" to each other again. (In fact we just have).
What I don't understand is how this sort of nonsense starts.
I can only imagine an office somewhere, where some idiot in management first uses the word. "How was this architected?". (Hey, my spellchecker doesn't recognise it as a word!)
Now, surely any sane person would have said "Don't you mean designed?" or "What the fuck does architected mean?", but for some reason they didn't. Maybe they thought it was cool, or they were scared of their boss, who knows?
There is already a word for this, and you used it yourself. It's designed.
You mean like a painting?
I find I can't agree with you.
If I asked builders how much it would cost to have some work done I would much rather they had a look at the job and gave me an estimate than sat in their office and guessed.
I can guess the age of your neighbour, but I can't estimate it.
An estimate can only be given if some details are known and are taken into account, you can only take a guess if you don't know any (enough?) details or do know some but choose to ignore them.
I think they are using the term "guess" when they really mean "estimate".
Actually, we should keep using the term "Distribution" because, for example, Debian and Ubuntu are the same operating system configured differently, and "distribution" and "operating system" mean different things.
And Linux is not a complete OS as it wouldn't work without the GNU tools or their equivalent to perform various necessary tasks.
So is your obsession with twitter. Get some help.
And yet they didn't. They 'just' had the first successful recorded flight of a powered aeroplane.
Efforts to tackle the engineering problems associated with powered flight began well before the Wright brothers' famous trials at Kitty Hawk.
What I was trying to get across is that you can provide without bundling, but you can't bundle without providing.
However, according to wikipedia (for what it's worth) "Microsoft originally released Internet Explorer 1.0 in August 1995 in two packages: at retail in Microsoft Plus! add-on for Windows 95 and via the simultaneous OEM release of Windows 95"
Within the framework that the competition is held.
And the point I was trying to get across was that they actually proceeded anti-competitively. I believe there are court cases that add a certain amount of weight to my position.
MS provided IE in 1995, but you had to download Microsoft Plus to get it (or install it off of the CD). They now provide IE but it is bundled with the OS.
Well, I really doubt anyone was "clamouring" for anything, but if they have some useful additions to the spec then by all means implement them, but let everyone else implement them as well. The competition is in the efficacy of the browser, not who can lock competitors out of the most functionality.
I fail to see that pointing the finger at another company and saying they did it too is an adequate defense. (And no-one who was around at the time can forget the crime against humanity that was the "blink" tag!)