It is Apple's fault because they have forced their users into AT&T's service. AT&T is a telco and we all know that the suck-age of a telco is roughly proportional to 1/(amount of competition); and right now, AT&T has a monopoly on these devices.
You say Apple's control of their consumers' devices is Apple's strength, and there is a small amount of truth in that. But it is a far greater weakness. They are trying to limit badness instead of promoting goodness. Like the Roman Catholic Church of the Middle Ages which spent so much work trying to stomp out heresy instead of teaching their own people to read Scripture and make rational decisions for themselves.
Foxit is a great improvement from the Adobe Reader. I didn't know they had a linux version; however, I wonder if anyone actually uses it. In my experience, Evince and KPDF both beat Foxit hands down.
If material cost were not an issue, now or ever, who would pick OO over MS Office
I would. Some of us actually care about open formats. Our data is important to us. Now if MS Word implemented ODT support, that would be totally different.
Otherwise, there will just be too much code mass, and it will take a long long time for 3.0 to be accepted. Such a stall is bad news for an OSS project.
Oh darn? It's happened before, and they lived. I'm sure Guido would be interested in your ideas on how to run a successful open-source language implementation, 'mathgenius'.
Well python is much larger now, so the effects of a new version will be more profound. However, I don't think it's as bad as the GP makes it out to be and we're not in a hurry anyways. Python 2 is pretty good.
Apple wants to be the only way that music gets on iPods for some business reason.
Reminds me of another large computer company that has word hard to do the same thing with their web browser. I find it sad when Apple fanboys lament Microsoft's domination through immoral business tactics. Apple will do the same the moment it stands to make a buck or two.
Sick people will do sick things regardless of external stimulus
Oh yay, now we have a bunch of zombies on the loose!
Seriously, external stimuli don't explain a lot of things, but they are still important. Remember, there's a difference between a necessary cause and a sufficient cause.
I know you where just making a joke and such, but your post raises an issue with seems to be a problem with a lot of people here. There is the assumption that boy or men require sexual satisfaction in the same way they require food, and if you don't give them a little (porn) they will go an get their own (sleep around, etc).
The premise of this argument is silliness. Completely ignoring sex and pretending it doesn't exist is unhealthy too, but our society seems to have good both ways! In the fact that we deify sex and damn it at the same time indicates a rather unhealthy and twisted view of sex.
Even if the premise is true, the argument is not quite rational. This is a bad analogy, but I think you will find that starving people are no more likely to gorge themselves than over-feed people.
A fraction of the time the big UNIX vendors wasted sitting around arguing about "standards" and deriding PCs as "toys."
Yeah, because vendor lock-in is way more fun! And don't think it won't happen the moment Apple gains control. They've already avoid all things open as much as possible: their office tools don't support ODF, Mail.app uses a proprietary format for storing email, the list goes on.
Moreover, what is this UNIX you speak of. The UNIX I know, mainly consists of 3 parts:
A brand name
A collection of standards
A collection of philosophies (the Art of Unix Programming gives good examples).
Now, the brand name is important, but by itself, it is valueless. You speak of UNIX as if it was a good thing, but deride the only parts that were ever worth anything. At least the Windows freaks are consistent. I think they are wrong, but at least they are rational about it and I can respect that.
If you are given the source, then you can change it and run it.
Exactly how are you going to run it? You can't consider code outside of context. What good is Tivo source code if it can only be run on a system which can't be modified.
Think of the following case which has nothing to do with DRM. I write some code under the GPL 2. However, I'm feeling particularly nasty and instead of using something like C, I make my own compiler for a custom language that nobody knows which I make sure no one gets access too. I release the program and it's source code to the masses. Now, I have complied with the license, but my program is no more free than Microsoft Office. Sure, my users can get my source code, but it's entirely worthless to them.
No, definitely not. A free market would hurt MS Office significantly. Remember that MS Office costs money. The fact that OpenOffice is free and it would be "good enough" for most non-business users. So a decent number of users (students, etc) would move to OpenOffice. Internet Explorer wouldn't have a hope against Firefox if the you had to shell out $50 for the web browser.
"converted" is incorrect in this situation, because it implies a change in the original product. This isn't the case. If I have public-domain code that someone puts in BSD license software, the exact same thing happens. The only difference is where the restrictions lie (which is important, but that's a separate argument).
ZFS wouldn't work on OpenSolaris either unless they cross-license it under the GPL. If they do, we can get it on Linux too. (There is one exception, of course. If it's under the GPL-3 or later, we'll have to wait till Linux is available under the GPL-3 to, but I think that's just a matter of time).
Your knowledge of these so-called "false" gospels could use some education. There was basically two categories. First, some of them where not really heretical to any degree, them didn't make the short list because they weren't terribly popular, but that's pretty much it. Some of these books will still be used from time to time in some churches, nobody really cares.
There were a bunch of books that actually are heretical. These didn't start showing up until after the original gospels had all been written — well after Jesus' death. They're so far removed from the man himself that they end up shedding far more evidence on the heresies than they do on Christ.
Not true. There are significant differences in the licenses. The GPL has a section in it that states "if you violate this license, you forfeit your right to use it". So the violator no longer has a license for the software and they must either stop using it or use it without a license (which is copyright infringement).
Additionally, IMHO, those all violate the spirit of the GPL. Unlike some BSD nuts think, the GPL is not simply a "all your codes are belong to us" license. It doesn't restrict what the users can do with the software (which all of the above do). It merely protects some of their rights.
Also, as far as I can tell, this hypervisor thing is a feature, not a bug. It seems completely fine to me. User's still retain the freedoms the GPL provided for, they just don't have some that are out of the GPLs scope.
Oh, no! People are using the Internet! We'd better stop that. Crazy customers, thinking they actually paying for more than just the paper their bill is printed on.
One can try to work around such blockage by using non-standard port numbers, but I understand that it's possible for ISPs to filter based on the content of packets, and not just the port numbers.
Not if you use encryption like SSL. If you do, there's not possible way for them to tell the difference between bittorrent and online banking.
Because the newbies make up about 90% of their audience, intermediates get 8%, and experts get the rest. Don't forget the whole "I read sysadmin magazines, ergo I'm an expert" thing that newbies seem to love.
In case you haven't noticed, any application that has to do things fast, has to be reliable, or deal with large datasets... is still written in C/C++. I know of one particular application that is a background service written in java, and its great, because it crashes constantly.
FWIW, my experience says that's simply not true. When it comes to reliability, neither C nor C++ shine. Both languages make it very easy to shoot yourself in the foot. The reason C/C++ programs tend to be pretty good is because few bad programmers can wrap their minds around it (although you might be surprised what your find). One I've learnt is that C/C++ code tends to be more difficult to understand and thus it means more work to debug and test which means less debugging and testing. This is also somewhat true of Java too, but not as bad.
As far as speed, most of the time this is a non-issue. Java can be pretty fast, certainly fast enough, as long as your not writing a kernel or something. If you are, you can always pack the core parts in JNI or something. The same can be said about Python and many other languages.
As for JRE incompatibilities. Code using features in Vista and not XP won't be compatible with XP either. This has nothing to do with Java itself and is just the nature of any evolving platform. C/C++ has it to, although their APIs tend to develop slower. And seriously, crashing can happen in any language. It's much easier to do in C/C++ than Java. I'm sorry if you have crappy software, but don't blame it on the language.
Actually, that analogy isn't terrible, but your example missed out some important facts. Water consumption is, by-and-large, fairly even across the board. It's not like some people flush the toilet once a month while others flush it 10 times every second. If your water consumption doubles in a month, you'll probably get a visit from some technician to see if a pipe got busted. If your water consumption stays abnormally high, you might get a visit from police to make sure you're not growing weed.
Just because something is a public service doesn't mean its unregulated. I won't get very far trying to ship my 20 kg suitcase with a 48 cent stamp.
That would be my guess. Obviously it can have other uses too, but since it was designed to be practically invisible to 99% of users, I think it's safe to say that that's its primary purpose. Firefox has several other features like this too: about:config, the DOM inspector, the error console, and probably more that I don't know about. These aren't things that have been added on to make it more like Mozilla, they've been around since day 1. In fact, the DOM inspector is now optional and disabled by default (it used to be built-in).
These tools actually have a point. The primary goal of Firefox is to be a simple and effective all-purpose web browser. They've (mostly) succeeded on that model by providing an extension system, so that the browser itself could be simple, but those with special needs. For web developers, extentions like Firebug are a huge benefit. The important bit here, is that it needs to be fairly easy to write and debug extensions, otherwise you'll end up with a huge, bloody mess on your hands from amateurs developing and distributing buggy extensions.
Also, remember that Firefox gets a large amount of it's Q&A from geeky users who want to try out betas. By making it safer and easier to test these out, they can get more valuable feedback, which in turn means a more bug-free browser.
Slashdot Mirror
It is Apple's fault because they have forced their users into AT&T's service. AT&T is a telco and we all know that the suck-age of a telco is roughly proportional to 1/(amount of competition); and right now, AT&T has a monopoly on these devices.
You say Apple's control of their consumers' devices is Apple's strength, and there is a small amount of truth in that. But it is a far greater weakness. They are trying to limit badness instead of promoting goodness. Like the Roman Catholic Church of the Middle Ages which spent so much work trying to stomp out heresy instead of teaching their own people to read Scripture and make rational decisions for themselves.
Foxit is a great improvement from the Adobe Reader. I didn't know they had a linux version; however, I wonder if anyone actually uses it. In my experience, Evince and KPDF both beat Foxit hands down.
I would. Some of us actually care about open formats. Our data is important to us. Now if MS Word implemented ODT support, that would be totally different.
Well python is much larger now, so the effects of a new version will be more profound. However, I don't think it's as bad as the GP makes it out to be and we're not in a hurry anyways. Python 2 is pretty good.
Reminds me of another large computer company that has word hard to do the same thing with their web browser. I find it sad when Apple fanboys lament Microsoft's domination through immoral business tactics. Apple will do the same the moment it stands to make a buck or two.
Oh yay, now we have a bunch of zombies on the loose!
Seriously, external stimuli don't explain a lot of things, but they are still important. Remember, there's a difference between a necessary cause and a sufficient cause.
I know you where just making a joke and such, but your post raises an issue with seems to be a problem with a lot of people here. There is the assumption that boy or men require sexual satisfaction in the same way they require food, and if you don't give them a little (porn) they will go an get their own (sleep around, etc).
The premise of this argument is silliness. Completely ignoring sex and pretending it doesn't exist is unhealthy too, but our society seems to have good both ways! In the fact that we deify sex and damn it at the same time indicates a rather unhealthy and twisted view of sex.
Even if the premise is true, the argument is not quite rational. This is a bad analogy, but I think you will find that starving people are no more likely to gorge themselves than over-feed people.
Yeah, because vendor lock-in is way more fun! And don't think it won't happen the moment Apple gains control. They've already avoid all things open as much as possible: their office tools don't support ODF, Mail.app uses a proprietary format for storing email, the list goes on.
Moreover, what is this UNIX you speak of. The UNIX I know, mainly consists of 3 parts:
Now, the brand name is important, but by itself, it is valueless. You speak of UNIX as if it was a good thing, but deride the only parts that were ever worth anything. At least the Windows freaks are consistent. I think they are wrong, but at least they are rational about it and I can respect that.
Exactly how are you going to run it? You can't consider code outside of context. What good is Tivo source code if it can only be run on a system which can't be modified.
Think of the following case which has nothing to do with DRM. I write some code under the GPL 2. However, I'm feeling particularly nasty and instead of using something like C, I make my own compiler for a custom language that nobody knows which I make sure no one gets access too. I release the program and it's source code to the masses. Now, I have complied with the license, but my program is no more free than Microsoft Office. Sure, my users can get my source code, but it's entirely worthless to them.
No, definitely not. A free market would hurt MS Office significantly. Remember that MS Office costs money. The fact that OpenOffice is free and it would be "good enough" for most non-business users. So a decent number of users (students, etc) would move to OpenOffice. Internet Explorer wouldn't have a hope against Firefox if the you had to shell out $50 for the web browser.
"converted" is incorrect in this situation, because it implies a change in the original product. This isn't the case. If I have public-domain code that someone puts in BSD license software, the exact same thing happens. The only difference is where the restrictions lie (which is important, but that's a separate argument).
ZFS wouldn't work on OpenSolaris either unless they cross-license it under the GPL. If they do, we can get it on Linux too. (There is one exception, of course. If it's under the GPL-3 or later, we'll have to wait till Linux is available under the GPL-3 to, but I think that's just a matter of time).
That was only true in Ancient Israel, the modern situation is entirely different.
Your knowledge of these so-called "false" gospels could use some education. There was basically two categories. First, some of them where not really heretical to any degree, them didn't make the short list because they weren't terribly popular, but that's pretty much it. Some of these books will still be used from time to time in some churches, nobody really cares.
There were a bunch of books that actually are heretical. These didn't start showing up until after the original gospels had all been written — well after Jesus' death. They're so far removed from the man himself that they end up shedding far more evidence on the heresies than they do on Christ.
Not true. There are significant differences in the licenses. The GPL has a section in it that states "if you violate this license, you forfeit your right to use it". So the violator no longer has a license for the software and they must either stop using it or use it without a license (which is copyright infringement).
Additionally, IMHO, those all violate the spirit of the GPL. Unlike some BSD nuts think, the GPL is not simply a "all your codes are belong to us" license. It doesn't restrict what the users can do with the software (which all of the above do). It merely protects some of their rights.
Also, as far as I can tell, this hypervisor thing is a feature, not a bug. It seems completely fine to me. User's still retain the freedoms the GPL provided for, they just don't have some that are out of the GPLs scope.
How is that different from, say, subversion?
Oh, no! People are using the Internet! We'd better stop that. Crazy customers, thinking they actually paying for more than just the paper their bill is printed on.
Not if you use encryption like SSL. If you do, there's not possible way for them to tell the difference between bittorrent and online banking.
I don't understand. Regardless of parole it's still illegal to commit a crime, is it not?
Because the newbies make up about 90% of their audience, intermediates get 8%, and experts get the rest. Don't forget the whole "I read sysadmin magazines, ergo I'm an expert" thing that newbies seem to love.
FWIW, my experience says that's simply not true. When it comes to reliability, neither C nor C++ shine. Both languages make it very easy to shoot yourself in the foot. The reason C/C++ programs tend to be pretty good is because few bad programmers can wrap their minds around it (although you might be surprised what your find). One I've learnt is that C/C++ code tends to be more difficult to understand and thus it means more work to debug and test which means less debugging and testing. This is also somewhat true of Java too, but not as bad.
As far as speed, most of the time this is a non-issue. Java can be pretty fast, certainly fast enough, as long as your not writing a kernel or something. If you are, you can always pack the core parts in JNI or something. The same can be said about Python and many other languages.
As for JRE incompatibilities. Code using features in Vista and not XP won't be compatible with XP either. This has nothing to do with Java itself and is just the nature of any evolving platform. C/C++ has it to, although their APIs tend to develop slower. And seriously, crashing can happen in any language. It's much easier to do in C/C++ than Java. I'm sorry if you have crappy software, but don't blame it on the language.
A poor analogy is like a leaky screwdriver ...
Actually, that analogy isn't terrible, but your example missed out some important facts. Water consumption is, by-and-large, fairly even across the board. It's not like some people flush the toilet once a month while others flush it 10 times every second. If your water consumption doubles in a month, you'll probably get a visit from some technician to see if a pipe got busted. If your water consumption stays abnormally high, you might get a visit from police to make sure you're not growing weed.
Just because something is a public service doesn't mean its unregulated. I won't get very far trying to ship my 20 kg suitcase with a 48 cent stamp.
That would be my guess. Obviously it can have other uses too, but since it was designed to be practically invisible to 99% of users, I think it's safe to say that that's its primary purpose. Firefox has several other features like this too: about:config, the DOM inspector, the error console, and probably more that I don't know about. These aren't things that have been added on to make it more like Mozilla, they've been around since day 1. In fact, the DOM inspector is now optional and disabled by default (it used to be built-in).
These tools actually have a point. The primary goal of Firefox is to be a simple and effective all-purpose web browser. They've (mostly) succeeded on that model by providing an extension system, so that the browser itself could be simple, but those with special needs. For web developers, extentions like Firebug are a huge benefit. The important bit here, is that it needs to be fairly easy to write and debug extensions, otherwise you'll end up with a huge, bloody mess on your hands from amateurs developing and distributing buggy extensions.
Also, remember that Firefox gets a large amount of it's Q&A from geeky users who want to try out betas. By making it safer and easier to test these out, they can get more valuable feedback, which in turn means a more bug-free browser.