If you bought an IBM/Lenovo recently, you already have one. Had to deal with IBM's ridiculous scheme of 'supported hardware' when replacing a hard drive in a laptop. It simply was not 'supported' and therefore the BIOS would warn me every boot. I'll never buy a IBM/Lenovo. IBM is also one of the biggest supporters of the TPM.
I disagree. Why didn't they keep up with the kernel as it progressed instead of now having to do a complete overhaul if they want their 'stuff' to work with 2.6.24? Things change in the kernel for good reason. If it's an embedded device I would not be worried much about using 2.6.9 vs 2.6.24 or eve 2.6.25 (also somewhat incompatible with 2.6.24).
Agreed. Why is the Olympics such a big deal? Every time the Olympics comes around, it displaces numerous amounts of people. This time in China the number was up to 1.5 million people, forced out of their homes, and anyone who protested was jailed. Innocent people forced out of their homes just so China can get a record-breaking amount of tourism and commercialism. I also hate the idea of watching any televised sports. Olympics prove nothing and are a total waste. Every second someone is watching the Olympics, they could be doing something ACTUALLY PRODUCTIVE. Of course not, though, because televised sports get more coverage than anything important. It is all just to keep the mind inactive and passive, whilst people in power can do whatever they want, like pass the DMCA and PATRIOT acts.
I did the job too, for RuffaloCODY. Automated computer system that calls alumni of schools. Yes, it was awful. Yes, there were some people who lost their temper with me, especially when the computer had called them 'randomly' 5 times in the same week. We did not have extreme incentive to get their money (only had to get about 2-5/20 calls), but we had extreme incentive to collect credit cards (it meant more money in your paycheck). And yes, this job pays more than anywhere else for some reason. That is why it attracts so many students, including myself. The frustration was just so much that I had to quit on my own, plus it was affecting my school work. The first thing I did when I got the job was painstakingly work every possible hour (since they require 12 hours, but you can work any hours you want) for two weeks. Got a full paycheck and it was well over $500. Worth it? Not sure. But I was set for a while.
No, I haven't RTFA yet. But regardless, I think Windows has no user interface guidelines really, or nobody reads them or has any sense of what kind of user interface guidelines. One commenter said that UNIX applications are generally made to work well with other UNIX applications. I think this is great and all. The same thing happens in Windows. We have the Drag-n-Drop functionality (which is workable with nearly all applications because it's built into the API), at the very least.
Windows is not a great example when it comes to usability, either. Microsoft has set a defacto standard for how Windows applications should look but they keep changing it. Now they don't even want menus apparently. I see hardly any 'standards' in Windows when it comes to interface, especially when talking about 3rd party developers. At least in XP, consider Windows Explorer and Internet Explorer 7. Windows Explorer and IE7 are pretty different, not even the same navigational buttons; refresh button is in an entirely random place in my opinion in IE7. Then consider the normal range of applications ever Windows user has. Let us consider the average user with XP installed. They have Norton (yes I know it's terrible, but it's what a lot of users have) AntiVirus 2008, ZoneAlarm Pro for firewall, Ad-Aware Pro for anti-spyware, Microsoft Office 2003, and Adobe Reader. Norton has this all-yellow (extremely ugly) interface that follows no standards whatsoever other than Symantec's crappy 'home user interface' standards; it hardly references the Windows API directly. All of its interface is custom-made to seem easy to any user it seems, even though it hardly looks like a Windows application since it looks drastically different from Explorer. It does not even have a Windows border. ZoneAlarm Pro is nearly the same story, a completely custom-made perhaps 'themeable' interface. Again, it hardly looks like a Windows programme. It's not like the popups from the tray even look like the Windows ones (AFAIK you cannot have a button in one of those with the standard Windows API). They have different colour scheme, etc. The interface is of course, another custom interface made to be 'easy to use'. Ad-Aware is again the same. It is a skinnable interface (there are skins available to choose from), and no buttons look like Windows API buttons. It does not even use standard OK/Cancel//Yes/No dialogues. Office 2003: toolbars that are styled differently from other Windows applications (I forget what the style is called), hard-coded fonts, etc. I don't think I really need to mention about Adobe Reader, we know how that is, especially after version 8. At the very least, Adobe Reader still makes a lot of usage of the Windows API directly (dialog boxes, especially).
I am not advocating the use of the Windows API over any other API. It is just that these 'theme' interfaces are in my opinion a terrible idea. They do not ease the use of the application at all and they make the application use way more RAM, just for what? A nice looking gradient-filled interface? Pointless at best. An anti-virus program should be fast as hell in my opinion, and Norton is the epitome, leading people to think that their computer is supposed to be so slow. I hardly ever see a 'theme' interface in a GUI application in Linux. They stick with Qt or GTK+ (which can of course mean following KDE or GNOME standards), or even Tk, among a few others. It must not be a total waste of money/resources/time for Symantec to hire graphics designers to make a very graphical interface (meaning the buttons are not just Windows buttons, they are coloured or have a gradient behind them, rounded edges, crap like that).
I am advocating standardising any GOOD user interface. I do not think any of them are perfect right now. At the very least, GIMP now uses FreeDesktop icons which are supposed to be standard. What would be great is if this standard could be cross-platform too. So far we have something we are just used to, not really standard, and probably not even very efficient. Consider our menu. W
I have a dv5030us of the dv5000 series. But this applies to nearly all Pavilion models. If you take out the Broadcom card and replace it with something that is not Broadcom (or does not have its ID in the BIOS), then the BIOS will boot and say "Unsupported hardware detected. Remove and reboot." I wanted official support for wireless. I bought an Atheros card off eBay, installed it, got exactly what everyone was saying it would do. Then, I found this web site: http://www.richud.com/HP-Pavilion-104-Bios-Fix/ . And, I had to hex edit my BIOS and reflash as well. Quite something, HP, doing a hardware lock-in with a vendor who refuses to release specs on their hardware.
Evil and company maybe do not belong in the same sentence. Regardless, Microsoft has done nothing good for the technology industry. It has only held it back, probably by 10 or more years. They keep pushing features as newApple is on their own developing the 'latest and greatest' (I'm no Apple fanboy) and what has Microsoft got to say to that? A Zune? How many people have a Zune? The iPhone vs Windows Mobile, seriously. There is so much competition for Microsoft now that they cannot even handle these two things. Then of course the big one. OS X vs Windows vs Linux. Apple says 'virtual workspaces', Linux users say 'we have had these since the first GNOME or KDE', Windows still has none. Apple says 'Safari' (a browser which uses WebKit), Linux users say 'Firefox' (which will eventually use WebKit according to sources), Windows fanboys say IE and now IE7 or even IE8 (all of which are terrible). Microsoft has a lot of changes to do if they want to compete.
It's called history. Those things you mentioned about companies changing their minds are of a totally different nature than Microsoft doing something like this. I hate Microsoft and if I 'owned' such a project I would be more than willing to not allow them to join it. 'Sorry, fuck you. Mono? A joke. Moonlight? Another joke. You ABSOLUTELY CANNOT join this project whatsoever' would be my response. Microsoft has definite plans to turn what's known as LAMP into WAMP. I, and I'm sure so many people as well, do not want this whatsoever.
Microsoft can open up as much code as they want, but they have not got to the core, or helped the Wine project and would never be willing, or even just restarted from scratch like Apple did. They really are that scared of breaking backward compatibility ABIs (even though they broke many with Vista). Apple is a better example company because regardless of what the users liked about OS 9, OS X was a huge improvement, built 'from scratch' based on Nextstep. For a few years by coincidence, users could run OS 9 apps almost as much as they needed. And even for now, many PPC OS X programs work good enough under Rosetta. They also took the BSD versions of coreutils and replaced X/Xorg with something of their own, which (I would say) is much stabler than X (even though I'm using Linux right now).
Microsoft does not have to change their business model entirely and start making all their software GPL or LGPL. I cannot figure out a cut and clear solution to getting them 'out of the ground' from where they are now. My plan would be as follows to start: destroy IE entirely/replace with Firefox, support the Wine project with source code and not money, allow Mono and Wine to work together so native code can run wherever Mono is.
Another thing to definitely get the next Windows to be the best one yet is the thing I've been saying over and over: virtualise all Windows versions that have been produced up to their final version, build a new version of Windows based on BSD or just from scratch. Work with hardware vendors to make sure they produce drivers, marketing marketing and more marketing. The virtualised Windows would be optional upon installation, so if a user seriously does not need them, he reduces security risk ten-fold if not more. All old hardware can be run with the Windows drivers but they are also virtualised with a hypervisor. Security and not backward compatibility would be top priority in this new version of Windows.
Think of the virtualised Windows like a Wine desktop, but feels native and interacts with the native environment fine. This is a real task at hand for Microsoft if they care about backward compatibility so much. But this will reduce security risks so much as well.
If Microsoft truly 'blesses' LGPL, they will release a lot of their OWN work under LGPL.
Some parts are true. My ID is also kinda long. I don't like the idea of a user name being a URL. Could've been done better, like one HUGE DB that sites validate against, with mirrors to back up too.
I hate activation too, I use a volume licence copy. At work, I have to reinstall OEM copies onto customer machines (it is a computer repair shop) often. For each machine, I use the correct version (pro, home, or MCE) with a silent install that uses a generic key that works to get through installation. After that, install all drivers (most of the time Windows will not activate unless all drivers are installed or most), then run the activation program that will keep nagging, usually after a reboot. 9 times out of 10, I click Telephone, then Change Product Key, go back to online activation, and it activates online without an issue. Otherwise, it is a call on the phone that is completely automated (no speaking to someone in India) that takes about 5 minutes. Because I am getting paid to do it, does not bother me. Once all that is done, Windows activation really really is not that bad. For myself, I never see it since I use a volume licence copy, but I never really see activation problems on customer machines (90% are OEM, some are retail editions), especially since service pack 2.
If you want to swap your dead motherboard for the same, activation probably will not be required. If it has been 120+ days since you last activated, activation is required. And if you are transferring an OEM key to another machine (something that technically violates the EULA), if it has been 120+ days since the last activation of that key, online activation will generally work. If less time has passed, the phone call never fails as long as it is not a blacklisted key (basically any key on a COA). FCKGW, yes they will catch you for that one, among others, like XJM6Q, etc.
Dumb, but MS is paying the bills for me right now. I am however a Linux user. I just know how to fix Windows.
How long is this going to take Microsoft? Yes, there are third party apps (including nVidia's nView), but I would prefer it were built into the system. So annoying how I have to play around with the GUI to make one window on top of another to be able to use information from one to another.
Would not it be easier for web developers who use text editors to have an always on top button for their text editor so they can preview their site behind the text editor (even if not all is shown)? That's how I do it in KDE quite a lot. I restore Kate to a size about 1/4 my screen size then click refresh on Firefox. Quick edits are easy and no having to click between windows on the task bar whatsoever.
I bet on your Vista it came with all this HP crap and all the usual crapware. Would not surprise me if the SUSE installation would have done that, from HP. It is a good thing you chose to install a distro yourself.
Hilarious. Seriously, and also I do not care what anyone says. I've been wanting to write something similar like that for some time. And note the following:
# zgrep 'REISER'/proc/config.gz # CONFIG_REISERFS_FS is not set
And that is permanent. No MurdererFS on my system. I do not care how good it is. Ext with journalling forever!
I cannot disagree with the way you do your software either, whether its freeware, shareware, or retail. If in the latter two, you are in the philosophy/thought that you need money and NOW, which is perfectly fine. We all have to eat. Indeed, I do leave a little space for the proprietary software (for the moment I cannot imagine a GPL game coming out that can beat something like Halo or GTA). I guess it is a necessary evil to live with now, and I deal with it. What I hate is that I have to fight with my Linux installation sometimes to make things work, and its mainly because hardware and software developers do not wish to release their source/specifications or do not produce software/modules for Linux at all. I know RMS will not put up with it for one second, so he can go ahead and visit Flash websites and see nothing at all and just say to himself 'I am against Flash philosophically so therefore not seeing it in action is a blessing'. I want to see these sites, even if I too am against Flash in every way until it is open source (compatible with GPL), fully 64-bit, and working in Linux as stably as it does in Windows. I do not think it is hypocritical to use non-free software and be against it simultaneously. It is just how things are now. You can go ahead and get an all-free distro, or free OS, and not be able to do anything. Or you can just use the non-free software for now, until something better that is free/open source, comes out to replace it. Gnash (free Flash decoder, essentially) is most certainly making strides.
Apple took those rough ideas and polished them to a wonderful degree, then brought them to the world.
I believe you are correct somewhat in your post. We have so many projects and 'alternatives' in the free software community. Think of the number of distros, the number or programmes that do the exact same thing with little to no difference (other than fitting into their GUI; think KMail [KDE] vs Evolution [GNOME]). People seem to be forgetting one of the main ideas of open source: re-use existing code and modify it to your programme's needs. Problem is quality control. Is X programme that does this functionality going to be helpful in my Y programme that does that from X and this? Sometimes, the answer is no simply because of the programming practises of the other developer. I know a good example is mdf2iso (converts proprietary Alcohol 120% MDF/MDS format to ISO, now changed to iat which works pretty good). MDF2ISO was literally one page of C (not a bad thing) but it was very simplistic and did not even work half the time. So you are a developer wanting to make a programme that implements that functionality, X programme is GNU GPL, so as long as yours is GPL you can take that code and modify it to your needs. Then you figure out that X's code is almost worthless. This has got to account for the amount of 'duplicate' programmes in the 'open source world'.
I am not saying we should not have diversity. Some people like GNOME and some people like KDE. Going back to your argument, both need serious polishing (just as Apple did with their GUI used in OS X). The motivation is most certainly their to make these environments accessible to developers and power users, but not so much the 'average user'. I work at a computer shop part time and know what an 'average user' is like. They do not expect to have to manually modify their programmes menu to add one programme (much like adding a shortcut in Windows to their Start menu). They do not want to have to compile programmes just because their distro does not have its own binary, and they certainly don't care about./configure's options, which could help optimise a programme to their exact needs. This is where distros like Ubuntu are making strides with every new release. GNOME and KDE both need serious polishing with the end-user in mind, which is what Apple did. However, where is the motivation and the users who would be willing to test GNOME and report back over and over again (much like how Windows is beta-tested, with lots of end-user and developer responses, for a year before it gets released).
GNU/Linux (Gentoo with KDE 3.5.9) works for me but I know it will be a while before I can even hand an Ubuntu disc to someone and say 'go ahead' and expect it to just work out of the box. Part of the reason being hardware developers being so reluctant to release their code, and the other reason being that GNOME, KDE, Xfce and all the other DEs/WMs are not made for the end-user in mind so much as they are made for the developers. Unfortunate and no one wants to admit as they strive to promote GPL software as much as possible (almost everyone on Slashdot), but it is almost 100% true. There are success stories here and there ('my grandmother has no problem using Ubuntu on her old laptop', etc), but these are most certainly rare and it's not like said person set up Ubuntu; the 'technical guy' did, and showed the user how to use the software a bit. This 2nd piece looks like it needs to go away. Perhaps every OS should be installable by the end-user, and usable by its end user without needing a complete tutorial. For Microsoft it is even worse, because they have MCSE, A+ and all these certifications in place to promote their software making it seem as though you need 'professionals' to use Windows and manage a network, such as an Active Directory. Yes, I know how to fix Windows and work at a computer shop. Will I ever get A+ or any MCSE? Never.
Well, it has just come to be for me, that I refuse to use any proprietary software (freeware, shareware, retail, etc) if there is a free/open source alternative. IE (freeware essentially with Windows) vs Firefox, FlashFXP (shareware) vs FileZilla, and the one people will probably flame me about: Microsoft Office (expensive retail software) vs OpenOffice (although I use TeX 90% of the time for any papers). I do not think he thinks the developers personally are evil; they are in their position because they want money NOW. Very simple. They do not care what it takes (whether it means leaving major security wholes because of deadlines, etc). Meanwhile, open source developers (many and perhaps the majority) are just looking to get that 'Wow I impressed the community' feeling. Totally different ideals. You have developers who simply want money immediately vs developers who just want to make a community contribution (for the most part). I am not advocating either, but myself, I would go for the latter (people always make donations to free/open source projects they like). It is not like the developers of the latter type are not paid; otherwise they would be starving to death with most certainly no motivation to do what they do.
Is free software going to feed people and cure disease?
Quite possibly, yes. Look at projects like OLPC and the fact that '3rd-world' countries are buying cheap laptops for all their students, most of which are loaded with a Linux distro. Why? If students see the possibilities and learn something from their computers (having their own that they can do whatever they wish with is way different than having 10 or so at the local school), then they get themselves out of poverty. Yes, it will require work, but projects like OLPC are going to make a big difference. If said computers run Windows, they will be slow, bloat-feeling, need I go on... Yes there is Express edition of MSVC and all, but students (when they are at that level of programming skill) could even modify GCC, or contribute. I think the hope for projects like OLPC is to promote free software and to motivate students to get themselves out of poverty, instead of relying upon organisations, including Gates'. I think it is also to promote computer programming (regardless of language) as a general computer skill most everyone should have, and this would be very powerful. People are always saying that the governments who buy OLPC or eee PC's should instead be focusing on their own real problem: hunger and starvation. However, lack of education is definitely a cause of this, and OLPC and projects similar will definitely help to feed. Yes, these children (and adults) need our immediate help to have food (or else they will certainly starve to death), but what good does it bring that there is a whole other sector of the world (the '3rd world') who just needs our help 24/7/365 it seems? These people need our help in a better way, one of which is to bring them technology and teach them how to use it to their advantage. Maybe then, students who grew up using an OLPC will be able to have their attempt at making their country's first working water treatment plant, power plant, etc. The information is even out there (Wikipedia, etc), and I am sure plenty of acclaimed books would be donated to teach children things like engineering of all fields (what they need most in my opinion).
So yes, free software will help feed children. Hardware can never be free, but the fact that the hardware uses Linux means most certainly the software is free and not just as in beer, but free as in freedom. When the students are up to that level of programming ability, they could even modify their Linux kernel code to do what they wish.
Governments of these 3rd world countries are not stupid. They see the potential if their children learn how to use technology to their advantage, looking at Western society's examples (although not all is well in Western society).
Slashdot Mirror
If you bought an IBM/Lenovo recently, you already have one. Had to deal with IBM's ridiculous scheme of 'supported hardware' when replacing a hard drive in a laptop. It simply was not 'supported' and therefore the BIOS would warn me every boot. I'll never buy a IBM/Lenovo. IBM is also one of the biggest supporters of the TPM.
I disagree. Why didn't they keep up with the kernel as it progressed instead of now having to do a complete overhaul if they want their 'stuff' to work with 2.6.24? Things change in the kernel for good reason. If it's an embedded device I would not be worried much about using 2.6.9 vs 2.6.24 or eve 2.6.25 (also somewhat incompatible with 2.6.24).
Agreed. Why is the Olympics such a big deal? Every time the Olympics comes around, it displaces numerous amounts of people. This time in China the number was up to 1.5 million people, forced out of their homes, and anyone who protested was jailed. Innocent people forced out of their homes just so China can get a record-breaking amount of tourism and commercialism. I also hate the idea of watching any televised sports. Olympics prove nothing and are a total waste. Every second someone is watching the Olympics, they could be doing something ACTUALLY PRODUCTIVE. Of course not, though, because televised sports get more coverage than anything important. It is all just to keep the mind inactive and passive, whilst people in power can do whatever they want, like pass the DMCA and PATRIOT acts.
I did the job too, for RuffaloCODY. Automated computer system that calls alumni of schools. Yes, it was awful. Yes, there were some people who lost their temper with me, especially when the computer had called them 'randomly' 5 times in the same week. We did not have extreme incentive to get their money (only had to get about 2-5/20 calls), but we had extreme incentive to collect credit cards (it meant more money in your paycheck). And yes, this job pays more than anywhere else for some reason. That is why it attracts so many students, including myself. The frustration was just so much that I had to quit on my own, plus it was affecting my school work. The first thing I did when I got the job was painstakingly work every possible hour (since they require 12 hours, but you can work any hours you want) for two weeks. Got a full paycheck and it was well over $500. Worth it? Not sure. But I was set for a while.
I prefer to use ' over " at any given time. On paper, it even saves ink.
what version? I have version 8.1.2. Shows black boxes correctly for me.
No, I haven't RTFA yet. But regardless, I think Windows has no user interface guidelines really, or nobody reads them or has any sense of what kind of user interface guidelines. One commenter said that UNIX applications are generally made to work well with other UNIX applications. I think this is great and all. The same thing happens in Windows. We have the Drag-n-Drop functionality (which is workable with nearly all applications because it's built into the API), at the very least.
Windows is not a great example when it comes to usability, either. Microsoft has set a defacto standard for how Windows applications should look but they keep changing it. Now they don't even want menus apparently. I see hardly any 'standards' in Windows when it comes to interface, especially when talking about 3rd party developers. At least in XP, consider Windows Explorer and Internet Explorer 7. Windows Explorer and IE7 are pretty different, not even the same navigational buttons; refresh button is in an entirely random place in my opinion in IE7. Then consider the normal range of applications ever Windows user has. Let us consider the average user with XP installed. They have Norton (yes I know it's terrible, but it's what a lot of users have) AntiVirus 2008, ZoneAlarm Pro for firewall, Ad-Aware Pro for anti-spyware, Microsoft Office 2003, and Adobe Reader. Norton has this all-yellow (extremely ugly) interface that follows no standards whatsoever other than Symantec's crappy 'home user interface' standards; it hardly references the Windows API directly. All of its interface is custom-made to seem easy to any user it seems, even though it hardly looks like a Windows application since it looks drastically different from Explorer. It does not even have a Windows border. ZoneAlarm Pro is nearly the same story, a completely custom-made perhaps 'themeable' interface. Again, it hardly looks like a Windows programme. It's not like the popups from the tray even look like the Windows ones (AFAIK you cannot have a button in one of those with the standard Windows API). They have different colour scheme, etc. The interface is of course, another custom interface made to be 'easy to use'. Ad-Aware is again the same. It is a skinnable interface (there are skins available to choose from), and no buttons look like Windows API buttons. It does not even use standard OK/Cancel//Yes/No dialogues. Office 2003: toolbars that are styled differently from other Windows applications (I forget what the style is called), hard-coded fonts, etc. I don't think I really need to mention about Adobe Reader, we know how that is, especially after version 8. At the very least, Adobe Reader still makes a lot of usage of the Windows API directly (dialog boxes, especially).
I am not advocating the use of the Windows API over any other API. It is just that these 'theme' interfaces are in my opinion a terrible idea. They do not ease the use of the application at all and they make the application use way more RAM, just for what? A nice looking gradient-filled interface? Pointless at best. An anti-virus program should be fast as hell in my opinion, and Norton is the epitome, leading people to think that their computer is supposed to be so slow. I hardly ever see a 'theme' interface in a GUI application in Linux. They stick with Qt or GTK+ (which can of course mean following KDE or GNOME standards), or even Tk, among a few others. It must not be a total waste of money/resources/time for Symantec to hire graphics designers to make a very graphical interface (meaning the buttons are not just Windows buttons, they are coloured or have a gradient behind them, rounded edges, crap like that).
I am advocating standardising any GOOD user interface. I do not think any of them are perfect right now. At the very least, GIMP now uses FreeDesktop icons which are supposed to be standard. What would be great is if this standard could be cross-platform too. So far we have something we are just used to, not really standard, and probably not even very efficient. Consider our menu. W
Turn off "Safe search" much?
I have a dv5030us of the dv5000 series. But this applies to nearly all Pavilion models. If you take out the Broadcom card and replace it with something that is not Broadcom (or does not have its ID in the BIOS), then the BIOS will boot and say "Unsupported hardware detected. Remove and reboot." I wanted official support for wireless. I bought an Atheros card off eBay, installed it, got exactly what everyone was saying it would do. Then, I found this web site: http://www.richud.com/HP-Pavilion-104-Bios-Fix/ . And, I had to hex edit my BIOS and reflash as well. Quite something, HP, doing a hardware lock-in with a vendor who refuses to release specs on their hardware.
Evil and company maybe do not belong in the same sentence. Regardless, Microsoft has done nothing good for the technology industry. It has only held it back, probably by 10 or more years. They keep pushing features as newApple is on their own developing the 'latest and greatest' (I'm no Apple fanboy) and what has Microsoft got to say to that? A Zune? How many people have a Zune? The iPhone vs Windows Mobile, seriously. There is so much competition for Microsoft now that they cannot even handle these two things. Then of course the big one. OS X vs Windows vs Linux. Apple says 'virtual workspaces', Linux users say 'we have had these since the first GNOME or KDE', Windows still has none. Apple says 'Safari' (a browser which uses WebKit), Linux users say 'Firefox' (which will eventually use WebKit according to sources), Windows fanboys say IE and now IE7 or even IE8 (all of which are terrible). Microsoft has a lot of changes to do if they want to compete.
It's called history. Those things you mentioned about companies changing their minds are of a totally different nature than Microsoft doing something like this. I hate Microsoft and if I 'owned' such a project I would be more than willing to not allow them to join it. 'Sorry, fuck you. Mono? A joke. Moonlight? Another joke. You ABSOLUTELY CANNOT join this project whatsoever' would be my response. Microsoft has definite plans to turn what's known as LAMP into WAMP. I, and I'm sure so many people as well, do not want this whatsoever.
Microsoft can open up as much code as they want, but they have not got to the core, or helped the Wine project and would never be willing, or even just restarted from scratch like Apple did. They really are that scared of breaking backward compatibility ABIs (even though they broke many with Vista). Apple is a better example company because regardless of what the users liked about OS 9, OS X was a huge improvement, built 'from scratch' based on Nextstep. For a few years by coincidence, users could run OS 9 apps almost as much as they needed. And even for now, many PPC OS X programs work good enough under Rosetta. They also took the BSD versions of coreutils and replaced X/Xorg with something of their own, which (I would say) is much stabler than X (even though I'm using Linux right now).
Microsoft does not have to change their business model entirely and start making all their software GPL or LGPL. I cannot figure out a cut and clear solution to getting them 'out of the ground' from where they are now. My plan would be as follows to start: destroy IE entirely/replace with Firefox, support the Wine project with source code and not money, allow Mono and Wine to work together so native code can run wherever Mono is.
Another thing to definitely get the next Windows to be the best one yet is the thing I've been saying over and over: virtualise all Windows versions that have been produced up to their final version, build a new version of Windows based on BSD or just from scratch. Work with hardware vendors to make sure they produce drivers, marketing marketing and more marketing. The virtualised Windows would be optional upon installation, so if a user seriously does not need them, he reduces security risk ten-fold if not more. All old hardware can be run with the Windows drivers but they are also virtualised with a hypervisor. Security and not backward compatibility would be top priority in this new version of Windows.
Think of the virtualised Windows like a Wine desktop, but feels native and interacts with the native environment fine. This is a real task at hand for Microsoft if they care about backward compatibility so much. But this will reduce security risks so much as well.
If Microsoft truly 'blesses' LGPL, they will release a lot of their OWN work under LGPL.
Some parts are true. My ID is also kinda long. I don't like the idea of a user name being a URL. Could've been done better, like one HUGE DB that sites validate against, with mirrors to back up too.
Read that as 'TechCrunch Wants to Create an Open Source Toilet' and I was like 'Hell...yeah'.
Custom hacked firmware that allows backups and homebrew to boot now? No mod-chip required.
Sources: Engadget
DCEmu
So this here may have caused an influx of sales.
I hate activation too, I use a volume licence copy. At work, I have to reinstall OEM copies onto customer machines (it is a computer repair shop) often. For each machine, I use the correct version (pro, home, or MCE) with a silent install that uses a generic key that works to get through installation. After that, install all drivers (most of the time Windows will not activate unless all drivers are installed or most), then run the activation program that will keep nagging, usually after a reboot. 9 times out of 10, I click Telephone, then Change Product Key, go back to online activation, and it activates online without an issue. Otherwise, it is a call on the phone that is completely automated (no speaking to someone in India) that takes about 5 minutes. Because I am getting paid to do it, does not bother me. Once all that is done, Windows activation really really is not that bad. For myself, I never see it since I use a volume licence copy, but I never really see activation problems on customer machines (90% are OEM, some are retail editions), especially since service pack 2.
If you want to swap your dead motherboard for the same, activation probably will not be required. If it has been 120+ days since you last activated, activation is required. And if you are transferring an OEM key to another machine (something that technically violates the EULA), if it has been 120+ days since the last activation of that key, online activation will generally work. If less time has passed, the phone call never fails as long as it is not a blacklisted key (basically any key on a COA). FCKGW, yes they will catch you for that one, among others, like XJM6Q, etc.
Dumb, but MS is paying the bills for me right now. I am however a Linux user. I just know how to fix Windows.
How long is this going to take Microsoft? Yes, there are third party apps (including nVidia's nView), but I would prefer it were built into the system. So annoying how I have to play around with the GUI to make one window on top of another to be able to use information from one to another.
Would not it be easier for web developers who use text editors to have an always on top button for their text editor so they can preview their site behind the text editor (even if not all is shown)? That's how I do it in KDE quite a lot. I restore Kate to a size about 1/4 my screen size then click refresh on Firefox. Quick edits are easy and no having to click between windows on the task bar whatsoever.
I totally agree.
I bet on your Vista it came with all this HP crap and all the usual crapware. Would not surprise me if the SUSE installation would have done that, from HP. It is a good thing you chose to install a distro yourself.
Must get these out of my system. ./configure --without-nina
KILLNINA=1 make
man nina
Formatting page, please wait...
Nina is this bitch that must DIE! -- Hans Reiser
Hilarious. Seriously, and also I do not care what anyone says. I've been wanting to write something similar like that for some time. And note the following:
# zgrep 'REISER' /proc/config.gz
# CONFIG_REISERFS_FS is not set
And that is permanent. No MurdererFS on my system. I do not care how good it is. Ext with journalling forever!
Me too. I cannot wait till Flash is replaced with SVG+Javascript or anything else. It sucks
I cannot disagree with the way you do your software either, whether its freeware, shareware, or retail. If in the latter two, you are in the philosophy/thought that you need money and NOW, which is perfectly fine. We all have to eat. Indeed, I do leave a little space for the proprietary software (for the moment I cannot imagine a GPL game coming out that can beat something like Halo or GTA). I guess it is a necessary evil to live with now, and I deal with it. What I hate is that I have to fight with my Linux installation sometimes to make things work, and its mainly because hardware and software developers do not wish to release their source/specifications or do not produce software/modules for Linux at all. I know RMS will not put up with it for one second, so he can go ahead and visit Flash websites and see nothing at all and just say to himself 'I am against Flash philosophically so therefore not seeing it in action is a blessing'. I want to see these sites, even if I too am against Flash in every way until it is open source (compatible with GPL), fully 64-bit, and working in Linux as stably as it does in Windows. I do not think it is hypocritical to use non-free software and be against it simultaneously. It is just how things are now. You can go ahead and get an all-free distro, or free OS, and not be able to do anything. Or you can just use the non-free software for now, until something better that is free/open source, comes out to replace it. Gnash (free Flash decoder, essentially) is most certainly making strides.
Apple took those rough ideas and polished them to a wonderful degree, then brought them to the world.
I believe you are correct somewhat in your post. We have so many projects and 'alternatives' in the free software community. Think of the number of distros, the number or programmes that do the exact same thing with little to no difference (other than fitting into their GUI; think KMail [KDE] vs Evolution [GNOME]). People seem to be forgetting one of the main ideas of open source: re-use existing code and modify it to your programme's needs. Problem is quality control. Is X programme that does this functionality going to be helpful in my Y programme that does that from X and this? Sometimes, the answer is no simply because of the programming practises of the other developer. I know a good example is mdf2iso (converts proprietary Alcohol 120% MDF/MDS format to ISO, now changed to iat which works pretty good). MDF2ISO was literally one page of C (not a bad thing) but it was very simplistic and did not even work half the time. So you are a developer wanting to make a programme that implements that functionality, X programme is GNU GPL, so as long as yours is GPL you can take that code and modify it to your needs. Then you figure out that X's code is almost worthless. This has got to account for the amount of 'duplicate' programmes in the 'open source world'.
I am not saying we should not have diversity. Some people like GNOME and some people like KDE. Going back to your argument, both need serious polishing (just as Apple did with their GUI used in OS X). The motivation is most certainly their to make these environments accessible to developers and power users, but not so much the 'average user'. I work at a computer shop part time and know what an 'average user' is like. They do not expect to have to manually modify their programmes menu to add one programme (much like adding a shortcut in Windows to their Start menu). They do not want to have to compile programmes just because their distro does not have its own binary, and they certainly don't care about ./configure's options, which could help optimise a programme to their exact needs. This is where distros like Ubuntu are making strides with every new release. GNOME and KDE both need serious polishing with the end-user in mind, which is what Apple did. However, where is the motivation and the users who would be willing to test GNOME and report back over and over again (much like how Windows is beta-tested, with lots of end-user and developer responses, for a year before it gets released).
GNU/Linux (Gentoo with KDE 3.5.9) works for me but I know it will be a while before I can even hand an Ubuntu disc to someone and say 'go ahead' and expect it to just work out of the box. Part of the reason being hardware developers being so reluctant to release their code, and the other reason being that GNOME, KDE, Xfce and all the other DEs/WMs are not made for the end-user in mind so much as they are made for the developers. Unfortunate and no one wants to admit as they strive to promote GPL software as much as possible (almost everyone on Slashdot), but it is almost 100% true. There are success stories here and there ('my grandmother has no problem using Ubuntu on her old laptop', etc), but these are most certainly rare and it's not like said person set up Ubuntu; the 'technical guy' did, and showed the user how to use the software a bit. This 2nd piece looks like it needs to go away. Perhaps every OS should be installable by the end-user, and usable by its end user without needing a complete tutorial. For Microsoft it is even worse, because they have MCSE, A+ and all these certifications in place to promote their software making it seem as though you need 'professionals' to use Windows and manage a network, such as an Active Directory. Yes, I know how to fix Windows and work at a computer shop. Will I ever get A+ or any MCSE? Never.
Well, it has just come to be for me, that I refuse to use any proprietary software (freeware, shareware, retail, etc) if there is a free/open source alternative. IE (freeware essentially with Windows) vs Firefox, FlashFXP (shareware) vs FileZilla, and the one people will probably flame me about: Microsoft Office (expensive retail software) vs OpenOffice (although I use TeX 90% of the time for any papers). I do not think he thinks the developers personally are evil; they are in their position because they want money NOW. Very simple. They do not care what it takes (whether it means leaving major security wholes because of deadlines, etc). Meanwhile, open source developers (many and perhaps the majority) are just looking to get that 'Wow I impressed the community' feeling. Totally different ideals. You have developers who simply want money immediately vs developers who just want to make a community contribution (for the most part). I am not advocating either, but myself, I would go for the latter (people always make donations to free/open source projects they like). It is not like the developers of the latter type are not paid; otherwise they would be starving to death with most certainly no motivation to do what they do.
Is free software going to feed people and cure disease?
Quite possibly, yes. Look at projects like OLPC and the fact that '3rd-world' countries are buying cheap laptops for all their students, most of which are loaded with a Linux distro. Why? If students see the possibilities and learn something from their computers (having their own that they can do whatever they wish with is way different than having 10 or so at the local school), then they get themselves out of poverty. Yes, it will require work, but projects like OLPC are going to make a big difference. If said computers run Windows, they will be slow, bloat-feeling, need I go on... Yes there is Express edition of MSVC and all, but students (when they are at that level of programming skill) could even modify GCC, or contribute. I think the hope for projects like OLPC is to promote free software and to motivate students to get themselves out of poverty, instead of relying upon organisations, including Gates'. I think it is also to promote computer programming (regardless of language) as a general computer skill most everyone should have, and this would be very powerful. People are always saying that the governments who buy OLPC or eee PC's should instead be focusing on their own real problem: hunger and starvation. However, lack of education is definitely a cause of this, and OLPC and projects similar will definitely help to feed. Yes, these children (and adults) need our immediate help to have food (or else they will certainly starve to death), but what good does it bring that there is a whole other sector of the world (the '3rd world') who just needs our help 24/7/365 it seems? These people need our help in a better way, one of which is to bring them technology and teach them how to use it to their advantage. Maybe then, students who grew up using an OLPC will be able to have their attempt at making their country's first working water treatment plant, power plant, etc. The information is even out there (Wikipedia, etc), and I am sure plenty of acclaimed books would be donated to teach children things like engineering of all fields (what they need most in my opinion).
So yes, free software will help feed children. Hardware can never be free, but the fact that the hardware uses Linux means most certainly the software is free and not just as in beer, but free as in freedom. When the students are up to that level of programming ability, they could even modify their Linux kernel code to do what they wish.
Governments of these 3rd world countries are not stupid. They see the potential if their children learn how to use technology to their advantage, looking at Western society's examples (although not all is well in Western society).