that said, it's just as easy for numbskulls to write bad COBOL as to write bad C++ or bad Ruby.
People like to say the same sort of thing about PHP and VB. What they neglect to consider is that all of these languages try to be seen as and are seen as numbskull-friendly languages, and thus have a wholly disproportionate amount of numbskulls using them. Furthermore, while it may be just as easy to write bad code in any language, how easy it is to write good code is very dependent on language and just as important if not more so, and COBOL is certainly lacking at this compared to Ruby or C++ (though less so the latter).
Also, many people would probably consider the second item of your list one of the greatest failings of COBOL; specialized notations are usually used for specialized purposes for good reason.
Not always, but the "paranoid retard" market is certainly what they're aiming for; "people who have a legitimate use for something like this" is an insignificant speck by comparison. Don't kid yourself into thinking they're making this out of compassion for the few people it would actually help. They're just in it to make a lot of quick and easy money by playing into the ridiculous delusions of the masses.
I'm quite capable of figuring out when to wank on my own ("all the time", roughly), I don't think the government can offer any assistance on this front. In particular, being under stress due to believing my life is at risk tends to not be the best time for such a thing. The feminists would never let it stand either. They'd be complaining that women masturbate too, so using a word like "wank" is sexist. Also I'm pretty sure that "showing the terrorists what we think of them" in that way would just make them want to kill us even more. Overall, your plan is rather poor and unlikely to help things.
Just like most other companies contributing drivers to the kernel through Greg K-H's Linux Driver Project, as Greg points out himself
Specifically, it says this:
Now, on one hand this is no different from any other company that I have worked with through the driver project. We are averaging about 2 new companies a month right now, working with them to get their code cleaned up and merged into the Linux kernel tree. Stuff like this happens all the time with new companies becoming part of the Linux kernel community every day.
This hardly seems like he's saying "most companies who contribute drivers only due it because they were infringing the GPL". But even ignoring that, that alone isn't the problem. The problem is them doing that and then trying to pass it off as an act of pure altruism, like they're some kind of code Santa here to bring love and joy to the open source community. It has a section on "What motivated Microsoft to do this?" but not only does it not mention the GPL violation, the whole thing is basically just a bunch of marketing speak that simply hurts to read. If they just came out up front and said "hey guys we were violating the GPL so we released this code", I'd have some respect for them, but instead they just gave a bunch of lies and half-truths to make themselves look better.
It's still better than some other industry-standard languages such as, I dunno, C and C++. Show me their standardized network, threading, GUI libraries please?
C and C++ are rather low-level. Such things are largely beyond their scope, though we already have standards that include such things, such as POSIX. Nevertheless, C++0x is planning to include threading support. Also, the Boost C++ libraries, which are popular, work on many implementations of C++ as opposed to just one, and are under a permissive open source license, some of which are planned to be included in C++, have networking support among many other things. And lastly, the GUI library is one of the Windows-only Microsoft-only parts of C#.
When did an open-source Java become useable: before or after Microsoft came with open-source C#?
Microsoft never "came with open-source C#". They just standardized some of it. And their assistance for the Mono project has been lacking anyway, and as such it continues to lag behind Microsoft's own implementation. And even if they did, that sentence seems a bit of a non sequitur anyway.
In the old days, C# would never have been standardized,
I'll give you this, though again, only parts of it were standardized.
it would've been bundled with all their applications,
No it wouldn't, because there wouldn't be any point to adding a couple dozen MB to every single download. And I'm pretty sure all their programs that use.NET can download the runtime from the installer. And it's also included with Windows itself since Vista. And I don't really see why you're acting like this is a bad thing anyway.
and dev kits would cost thousands
Microsoft doesn't make just C# stuff, and the price of their non-C# stuff has dropped significantly too. Unless you're saying them dropping the price of their C++ compiler is them being nicer to open source, this isn't really related.
They would've counter-sued to oblivion anybody complaining about their linux drivers.
Yes, because in the old days the GPL didn't have multiple cases in both the US and other countries firmly establishing legal force behind it, and Linux didn't have large companies with deep pockets (and IBM even has deeper pockets than them) and a vested interest in defending it.
A lot has changed since the old days that's not the result of Microsoft being nicer to open source. While Microsoft
Shockingly, if you time and time again fuck people over, they stop putting so much trust in you.
Microsoft releases a driver for Linux under the GPL and spins it as them working towards accepting open source more. Except it doesn't really help anyone but them. And later it turns out that they were only doing so because they were breaking the GPL. And then later that the code was shit and has taken a bunch of effort to get into decent shape and they've been completely ignoring emails on the subject.
Microsoft puts C# and the CLI under the "Microsoft Community Promise" and trumpets as it being a win for interoperability and open source. Except it only covers the core standardized parts. All the libraries specific to Microsoft's implementation that are widely used aren't included. As a result it basically only makes it easier to move from other implementations to theirs, and not the other way around, and the only one who wins is Microsoft.
Microsoft works towards standardizing the new format for the new version of Office, and yet again plays up the interoperability aspects. Except the standard is a bloated mess, poorly defines things, in many cases says "just do it like that other program did" and doesn't specify what that means, and is in general just shit. It's nigh-impossible for anyone but them to properly implement. It replicates an existing standard, a better one, for no purpose beyond continued lock-in. Even Office doesn't properly support it and won't until the next version. It has myriad serious problems with its standardization process.
Is it really a surprise that people don't trust them when they're constantly doing things like that? If they made a serious effort, they could win most people over, but they so far haven't. And even if they do eventually do so, it'll be entirely reasonable for people to be cautious at first, because they have an extensive and still growing history of being deceptive with this sort of thing.
Who said anything about it pointing toward any existing model. This observation is something that was not predicted by the old model, yet will have significant consequences on thermal inputs.
I suppose you're right there. It'll be an entirely new bullshit denialist 'theory' that'll be proven wrong quickly.
This is why I always describe global warming people as cultists.
Because they have lots of research and data on their side and you have nothing? Yeah, really sounds like a cult there.
Any "attack" on their dogma
Oh, I don't perceive it as an "attack" on my "dogma", I perceive it as some poor fellow who is deeply set in his belief and won't let decades of good science get in his way.
is immediately met with ridicule and belittlement, rather than an actual defense.
Hmm? Since when do I have an obligation to explain the myriad issues and why you are very wrong every time some idiot claims AGW is disproven? This isn't school, and I'm not your teacher. It's like ID, homeopathy, or free energy machines. Sure, there's plenty of people who make the (largely futile) effort to educate these people, but there's also plenty of us who are content to just point and laugh at their continued willful ignorance.
Of course, anti-global warming people are just as bad, it's just that I happen to agree with their thesis,
Saying "both sides suck" doesn't make you any less wrong. It's like saying "I don't like that Hitler fellow but I think genocide is just fine" (hi there Godwin).
that is, that global warming is cyclical
That's what some of them think, not all of them.
and not significantly anthropogenic,
If it isn't that's some fucking impressive timing there, nature.
and if it were to be real,
Oh so now we've gone from "it's real but cyclic and not man-made" to "it's not real but WHAT IF" in the very same sentence.
it would actually be a positive for mankind, as warm periods always create Renaissance-type situations in civilization, while cold periods tend bring an end to great cultures.
You see, there's such a thing as too much of a good thing. Pretty much every temperature reconstruction of the past millennium agrees that recent temperatures are a fair bit above anything that's occurred in the past. Even the Medieval Warm Period wasn't as warm as it is now. "warmer was good in the past" is not a valid argument because this is not like the past.
Yeah, this one thing completely changes everything and discredits the one well-accepted well-supported model in favor of the well-discredited models with no evidence for them. You teach the controversy, you rebel maverick science dude!
You are greatly misunderstanding the problem before you, as many others do.
Going vegan is easy. Convincing a single other person to go vegan if they're not already leaning in that direction is nigh-impossible. To completely eliminate the suffering of animals from farming by means of veganism, you must convince not just one person, not just a few, but billions to switch.
There are three options here: 1. Don't reduce the suffering of the animals with no effort 2. Significantly reduce the suffering of the animals for a reasonable amount of effort 3. Completely eliminate the suffering of the animals for an unreasonable amount of effort
Ideals are nice, but unfortunately we live in reality, not fantasyland, and demanding the entire world go vegan overnight is simply not going to work. At all. You can have a compromise, or you can have nothing.
I mean what's next? Engineer ourselves to not feel pain? Then is it OK to murder?
Murder is still murder even if it's painless. Killing someone in their sleep will not get you out of murder charges.
Which does raise the question, would people really have never added these to GIF, or developed PNG,
GIF is AFAIK not really extensible in any way, and certainly not enough to incorporate those sorts of changes. You'd have to develop a new format, either way.
if it weren't for the GIF patent?
Irrelevant. I never said anything about patents, only that your technical assessment of GIF and PNG is horribly inaccurate, which it is.
Yet is still used for, to take an obvious example, AJAX spinners.
There is such a thing as a bad feature. For example, consider two computers, completely identical, except that one randomly kicks you in the nuts, and the other does not. Clearly, the former has more features, but nobody sane would argue that it's better.
PNG has better compression, support for proper RGBA and not just tiny palettes with a special 'completely transparent' entry, along with a few other types of channels, including palettes like GIF, all at various depths, better interlacing, support for gamma and colorspace information, and more. Yes, GIF really was "that bad", and PNG was a major improvement on it. And GIF's only "advantage" is mostly used for distracting annoyances, and it would be quite reasonable to consider it a disadvantage.
We're creating a community site that's going to enable the fans to get revved up about what each other is doing. They're showing their choices and consequences to friends. Even though it's single-player, you can still reveal those choices to each other and have fun doing it. It enables some of that stuff that occurs anecdotally amongst friends at the water cooler: 'Hey, did you play this yet? Did you go this way?' 'No, I didn't run into that. I did it this way.' 'Really? I didn't run into that at all!' You can meet people who are across the world and enable them to see those kinds of things, too, which I think will lead to a lot of fun discussion and collaboration in the community.
Is this supposed to be some sort of social networking web 2.0 porn site? Because that's what it sounds like.
Yeah, and then you get the bright idea to give it gigantic breasts, reach over slowly and with excitement to enjoy your newfound toys, and find only disappointment and the disconcerting appearance of your hands buried halfway into another person (unless you happen to like that sort of thing, of course).
And forcing someone to live when they for whatever reason dislike life so much that they want to fucking die is just the most kind and selfless thing ever, right?
That sort of thing is about the most ridiculous and disgusting argument against suicide possible, and you should really feel deeply ashamed for even considering it reasonable. (The people who modded this garbage up are idiots too)
What's that? You aren't responsible for the deaths of millions of Jews and others in the Holocaust? Oh really, then why don't you just apologize and get on with life? What, no apology? Gee, I guess you don't think it was wrong huh?
But restricting the abilities of companies to develop products that the vast majority of us would like them to make, is.
When did this become a discussion about the patent system?
I see this argument occasionally, and I always think, "Is this a bad troll or is this guy really that stupid?". The GPL doesn't restrict your ability to develop products. It restricts your ability to take an existing product, modify it, and lock it up solely for your own benefit. And if you don't like it, the thing you should be bitching about is copyright law, because it by default gives you almost no rights. The GPL kindly gives you the right to do pretty much anything you want with it that doesn't involve the metaphorical face-stabbing, and if you don't like it you can write your own damn code.
Do you see the Linux kernel gravitating to BSD? Do you see GIMP gravitating to BSD? Do you see OO.o gravitating to BSD?
Sorry to shatter your masturbatory fantasies, but the GPL is still the most popular license among open source projects. The only "freedom" it removes is the freedom to harm the freedoms of other users of the software, much like the law restricts your freedom to stab me in the face. Calling it "closed" is utterly absurd. Most people, except for a tiny bit of fanatical free software advocates, prefer the LGPL over the GPL for libraries. Not because it's on the path to BSD-like permissive licenses, but because they feel it is more in line with their reason for using the GPL, i.e., to ensure their code stays open and other people can't make closed forks or incorporate parts of the code into closed projects. They object to the GPL for this purpose because when used for a library it ends up going beyond this and additionally forcing everyone who uses it (which is, you know, the whole point of libraries) to open their code. Nothing more.
You are just misinterpreting and distorting the facts and outright lying to support your deep-seated preconception that "OMG BSD LICENSE IS THE BEST THING EVER GPL SUXXX". To say your conclusions are on shaky ground would be the understatement of the millennium.
People like to make responses like this, but "Wii" sounded kinda silly for about a few hours. In comparison, "mebibyte" has managed to continue to sound absurd for a solid decade now, and not just to some tiny, immature minority, and to the extent that it has quite seriously harmed usage of it. Even GIMP hasn't been affected nearly this much by its name. At this point it should be obvious that the binary prefixes aren't like other well-established names that sounded kinda funny a bit at first, but rather are terrible to an extent that few other names these days can match.
Yes, from now on all system calls on OS X will report sizes in 10 bit decimal bytes instead of the confusing and nonstandard 8 bit bytes in current usage.
Yes, in the wonderful land of Real Life, everything has a reaction. Sometimes these are very negative reactions. Often this is for good reason, but sometimes it is very much not. Having a place where people can express unpopular, or even in some places of the world, illegal, opinions without fear of retribution is a very good thing and for each of these legitimate uses I think even a billion childish, racist, sexist, misanthropic trolls foaming at the mouth is a small price to pay.
Basically what they are saying here is that after over a ten years of Linux development they are unable to effortlessly and painlessly port the game to the platform
Gee, I wonder why? It's not like Linux is a different OS and id Tech 5 is a gigantic codebase or anything like that? Oh wait.
Besides, he never said "OMG LUNIX IS THE WORST THING EVER GUYS I CAN'T PORT IT TO THIS PIECE OF SHIT LOL", he said "It isn't out of the question, but I don't think we will be able to justify the work." That's hardly the scathing criticism of Linux you so desperately try to make it out to be. Hell, it isn't even a criticism of Linux at all.
or without taking some hard measures that could backfire, being nasty or buggy.
He said nothing of the sort, you're just making shit up here. RTFA. What he said was that it'd probably only work on closed source drivers. Not that he can't get it running on Linux without accidentally opening a gateway far into the depths of hell.
There is little criticism in the Linux community in general,
No, not really.
so you would never really hear the X-windows system is probably the worst piece of software ever written
No, not even close. It's got a lot of cruft, but it's still managed to keep up with the times quite well. Furthermore, most of the complaints people make about are absurd, outdated, or just plain wrong. Like the ever classic "X uses a server and has network transparency so it uses the network for everything even locally so it's SLOW LOL". Which would be a fine complaint if it weren't for the fact that it is wrong. Locally it'd use Unix sockets, a very different thing from network sockets. Actually, it wouldn't even use that, it'd use shared memory, directly communicating with the server, and avoiding any overhead. So yes, you wouldn't hear that sort of complaint much except from idiots.
or that Linux drivers do not really exist as the frequent kernel changes makes vendor software drivers invalid,
It sure makes things easier when you completely redefine words to your liking, doesn't it? The lack of a stable driver API doesn't mean "drivers don't exist". People can either update their drivers themselves to keep up with the latest kernels, or get them in the kernel itself and not have to worry about such a thing anymore. However just because the driver might break on newer versions doesn't make it stop working on older versions and doesn't make it "not exist". In fact, quite a few of them exist; probably more than any other OS comes with out of the box, even Windows. (Certainly more than any OS that's not Windows comes with)
lots of people got alienated over the years and even enthusiast now say something like that they've stopped worrying about Linux and love Windows.
Oh hey that's funny because lots of people I know got alienated by Windows over the years and now say something like they've stopped worrying about Windows and love Linux! Clearly the year of the Linux desktop is finally at hand! (If you don't get what I'm going for here, "the plural of anecdote is not data", especially not anecdotes personally gathered from acquaintances, a, too put it lightly, rather biased group.)
A sad story.
The only thing sad is how your post consists entirely of bullshit, nonsense, and outright lies.
Slashdot Mirror
People like to say the same sort of thing about PHP and VB. What they neglect to consider is that all of these languages try to be seen as and are seen as numbskull-friendly languages, and thus have a wholly disproportionate amount of numbskulls using them. Furthermore, while it may be just as easy to write bad code in any language, how easy it is to write good code is very dependent on language and just as important if not more so, and COBOL is certainly lacking at this compared to Ruby or C++ (though less so the latter).
Also, many people would probably consider the second item of your list one of the greatest failings of COBOL; specialized notations are usually used for specialized purposes for good reason.
Not always, but the "paranoid retard" market is certainly what they're aiming for; "people who have a legitimate use for something like this" is an insignificant speck by comparison. Don't kid yourself into thinking they're making this out of compassion for the few people it would actually help. They're just in it to make a lot of quick and easy money by playing into the ridiculous delusions of the masses.
I'm quite capable of figuring out when to wank on my own ("all the time", roughly), I don't think the government can offer any assistance on this front. In particular, being under stress due to believing my life is at risk tends to not be the best time for such a thing. The feminists would never let it stand either. They'd be complaining that women masturbate too, so using a word like "wank" is sexist. Also I'm pretty sure that "showing the terrorists what we think of them" in that way would just make them want to kill us even more. Overall, your plan is rather poor and unlikely to help things.
Specifically, it says this:
This hardly seems like he's saying "most companies who contribute drivers only due it because they were infringing the GPL". But even ignoring that, that alone isn't the problem. The problem is them doing that and then trying to pass it off as an act of pure altruism, like they're some kind of code Santa here to bring love and joy to the open source community. It has a section on "What motivated Microsoft to do this?" but not only does it not mention the GPL violation, the whole thing is basically just a bunch of marketing speak that simply hurts to read. If they just came out up front and said "hey guys we were violating the GPL so we released this code", I'd have some respect for them, but instead they just gave a bunch of lies and half-truths to make themselves look better.
C and C++ are rather low-level. Such things are largely beyond their scope, though we already have standards that include such things, such as POSIX. Nevertheless, C++0x is planning to include threading support. Also, the Boost C++ libraries, which are popular, work on many implementations of C++ as opposed to just one, and are under a permissive open source license, some of which are planned to be included in C++, have networking support among many other things. And lastly, the GUI library is one of the Windows-only Microsoft-only parts of C#.
Microsoft never "came with open-source C#". They just standardized some of it. And their assistance for the Mono project has been lacking anyway, and as such it continues to lag behind Microsoft's own implementation. And even if they did, that sentence seems a bit of a non sequitur anyway.
I'll give you this, though again, only parts of it were standardized.
No it wouldn't, because there wouldn't be any point to adding a couple dozen MB to every single download. And I'm pretty sure all their programs that use .NET can download the runtime from the installer. And it's also included with Windows itself since Vista. And I don't really see why you're acting like this is a bad thing anyway.
Microsoft doesn't make just C# stuff, and the price of their non-C# stuff has dropped significantly too. Unless you're saying them dropping the price of their C++ compiler is them being nicer to open source, this isn't really related.
Yes, because in the old days the GPL didn't have multiple cases in both the US and other countries firmly establishing legal force behind it, and Linux didn't have large companies with deep pockets (and IBM even has deeper pockets than them) and a vested interest in defending it.
A lot has changed since the old days that's not the result of Microsoft being nicer to open source. While Microsoft
Shockingly, if you time and time again fuck people over, they stop putting so much trust in you.
Microsoft releases a driver for Linux under the GPL and spins it as them working towards accepting open source more. Except it doesn't really help anyone but them. And later it turns out that they were only doing so because they were breaking the GPL. And then later that the code was shit and has taken a bunch of effort to get into decent shape and they've been completely ignoring emails on the subject.
Microsoft puts C# and the CLI under the "Microsoft Community Promise" and trumpets as it being a win for interoperability and open source. Except it only covers the core standardized parts. All the libraries specific to Microsoft's implementation that are widely used aren't included. As a result it basically only makes it easier to move from other implementations to theirs, and not the other way around, and the only one who wins is Microsoft.
Microsoft works towards standardizing the new format for the new version of Office, and yet again plays up the interoperability aspects. Except the standard is a bloated mess, poorly defines things, in many cases says "just do it like that other program did" and doesn't specify what that means, and is in general just shit. It's nigh-impossible for anyone but them to properly implement. It replicates an existing standard, a better one, for no purpose beyond continued lock-in. Even Office doesn't properly support it and won't until the next version. It has myriad serious problems with its standardization process.
Is it really a surprise that people don't trust them when they're constantly doing things like that? If they made a serious effort, they could win most people over, but they so far haven't. And even if they do eventually do so, it'll be entirely reasonable for people to be cautious at first, because they have an extensive and still growing history of being deceptive with this sort of thing.
I suppose you're right there. It'll be an entirely new bullshit denialist 'theory' that'll be proven wrong quickly.
Because they have lots of research and data on their side and you have nothing? Yeah, really sounds like a cult there.
Oh, I don't perceive it as an "attack" on my "dogma", I perceive it as some poor fellow who is deeply set in his belief and won't let decades of good science get in his way.
Hmm? Since when do I have an obligation to explain the myriad issues and why you are very wrong every time some idiot claims AGW is disproven? This isn't school, and I'm not your teacher. It's like ID, homeopathy, or free energy machines. Sure, there's plenty of people who make the (largely futile) effort to educate these people, but there's also plenty of us who are content to just point and laugh at their continued willful ignorance.
Saying "both sides suck" doesn't make you any less wrong. It's like saying "I don't like that Hitler fellow but I think genocide is just fine" (hi there Godwin).
That's what some of them think, not all of them.
If it isn't that's some fucking impressive timing there, nature.
Oh so now we've gone from "it's real but cyclic and not man-made" to "it's not real but WHAT IF" in the very same sentence.
You see, there's such a thing as too much of a good thing. Pretty much every temperature reconstruction of the past millennium agrees that recent temperatures are a fair bit above anything that's occurred in the past. Even the Medieval Warm Period wasn't as warm as it is now. "warmer was good in the past" is not a valid argument because this is not like the past.
Yeah, this one thing completely changes everything and discredits the one well-accepted well-supported model in favor of the well-discredited models with no evidence for them. You teach the controversy, you rebel maverick science dude!
You are greatly misunderstanding the problem before you, as many others do.
Going vegan is easy. Convincing a single other person to go vegan if they're not already leaning in that direction is nigh-impossible. To completely eliminate the suffering of animals from farming by means of veganism, you must convince not just one person, not just a few, but billions to switch.
Does it still look so easy now?
There are three options here:
1. Don't reduce the suffering of the animals with no effort
2. Significantly reduce the suffering of the animals for a reasonable amount of effort
3. Completely eliminate the suffering of the animals for an unreasonable amount of effort
Ideals are nice, but unfortunately we live in reality, not fantasyland, and demanding the entire world go vegan overnight is simply not going to work. At all. You can have a compromise, or you can have nothing.
Murder is still murder even if it's painless. Killing someone in their sleep will not get you out of murder charges.
GIF is AFAIK not really extensible in any way, and certainly not enough to incorporate those sorts of changes. You'd have to develop a new format, either way.
Irrelevant. I never said anything about patents, only that your technical assessment of GIF and PNG is horribly inaccurate, which it is.
And you can use nukes for spacecraft propulsion. A couple of minor good uses doesn't balance out myriad terrible abuses.
There is such a thing as a bad feature. For example, consider two computers, completely identical, except that one randomly kicks you in the nuts, and the other does not. Clearly, the former has more features, but nobody sane would argue that it's better.
PNG has better compression, support for proper RGBA and not just tiny palettes with a special 'completely transparent' entry, along with a few other types of channels, including palettes like GIF, all at various depths, better interlacing, support for gamma and colorspace information, and more. Yes, GIF really was "that bad", and PNG was a major improvement on it. And GIF's only "advantage" is mostly used for distracting annoyances, and it would be quite reasonable to consider it a disadvantage.
Is this supposed to be some sort of social networking web 2.0 porn site? Because that's what it sounds like.
Except the DMCA is an innovation in technology law, not technology itself. Sadly there is no shortage of innovation in that area.
Yeah, and then you get the bright idea to give it gigantic breasts, reach over slowly and with excitement to enjoy your newfound toys, and find only disappointment and the disconcerting appearance of your hands buried halfway into another person (unless you happen to like that sort of thing, of course).
And forcing someone to live when they for whatever reason dislike life so much that they want to fucking die is just the most kind and selfless thing ever, right?
That sort of thing is about the most ridiculous and disgusting argument against suicide possible, and you should really feel deeply ashamed for even considering it reasonable. (The people who modded this garbage up are idiots too)
What's that? You aren't responsible for the deaths of millions of Jews and others in the Holocaust? Oh really, then why don't you just apologize and get on with life? What, no apology? Gee, I guess you don't think it was wrong huh?
When did this become a discussion about the patent system?
I see this argument occasionally, and I always think, "Is this a bad troll or is this guy really that stupid?". The GPL doesn't restrict your ability to develop products. It restricts your ability to take an existing product, modify it, and lock it up solely for your own benefit. And if you don't like it, the thing you should be bitching about is copyright law, because it by default gives you almost no rights. The GPL kindly gives you the right to do pretty much anything you want with it that doesn't involve the metaphorical face-stabbing, and if you don't like it you can write your own damn code.
Do you see the Linux kernel gravitating to BSD? Do you see GIMP gravitating to BSD? Do you see OO.o gravitating to BSD?
Sorry to shatter your masturbatory fantasies, but the GPL is still the most popular license among open source projects. The only "freedom" it removes is the freedom to harm the freedoms of other users of the software, much like the law restricts your freedom to stab me in the face. Calling it "closed" is utterly absurd. Most people, except for a tiny bit of fanatical free software advocates, prefer the LGPL over the GPL for libraries. Not because it's on the path to BSD-like permissive licenses, but because they feel it is more in line with their reason for using the GPL, i.e., to ensure their code stays open and other people can't make closed forks or incorporate parts of the code into closed projects. They object to the GPL for this purpose because when used for a library it ends up going beyond this and additionally forcing everyone who uses it (which is, you know, the whole point of libraries) to open their code. Nothing more.
You are just misinterpreting and distorting the facts and outright lying to support your deep-seated preconception that "OMG BSD LICENSE IS THE BEST THING EVER GPL SUXXX". To say your conclusions are on shaky ground would be the understatement of the millennium.
People like to make responses like this, but "Wii" sounded kinda silly for about a few hours. In comparison, "mebibyte" has managed to continue to sound absurd for a solid decade now, and not just to some tiny, immature minority, and to the extent that it has quite seriously harmed usage of it. Even GIMP hasn't been affected nearly this much by its name. At this point it should be obvious that the binary prefixes aren't like other well-established names that sounded kinda funny a bit at first, but rather are terrible to an extent that few other names these days can match.
Yes, from now on all system calls on OS X will report sizes in 10 bit decimal bytes instead of the confusing and nonstandard 8 bit bytes in current usage.
Because they sound fucking ridiculous.
Yes, in the wonderful land of Real Life, everything has a reaction. Sometimes these are very negative reactions. Often this is for good reason, but sometimes it is very much not. Having a place where people can express unpopular, or even in some places of the world, illegal, opinions without fear of retribution is a very good thing and for each of these legitimate uses I think even a billion childish, racist, sexist, misanthropic trolls foaming at the mouth is a small price to pay.
Gee, I wonder why? It's not like Linux is a different OS and id Tech 5 is a gigantic codebase or anything like that? Oh wait.
Besides, he never said "OMG LUNIX IS THE WORST THING EVER GUYS I CAN'T PORT IT TO THIS PIECE OF SHIT LOL", he said "It isn't out of the question, but I don't think we will be able to justify the work." That's hardly the scathing criticism of Linux you so desperately try to make it out to be. Hell, it isn't even a criticism of Linux at all.
He said nothing of the sort, you're just making shit up here. RTFA. What he said was that it'd probably only work on closed source drivers. Not that he can't get it running on Linux without accidentally opening a gateway far into the depths of hell.
No, not really.
No, not even close. It's got a lot of cruft, but it's still managed to keep up with the times quite well. Furthermore, most of the complaints people make about are absurd, outdated, or just plain wrong. Like the ever classic "X uses a server and has network transparency so it uses the network for everything even locally so it's SLOW LOL". Which would be a fine complaint if it weren't for the fact that it is wrong. Locally it'd use Unix sockets, a very different thing from network sockets. Actually, it wouldn't even use that, it'd use shared memory, directly communicating with the server, and avoiding any overhead. So yes, you wouldn't hear that sort of complaint much except from idiots.
It sure makes things easier when you completely redefine words to your liking, doesn't it? The lack of a stable driver API doesn't mean "drivers don't exist". People can either update their drivers themselves to keep up with the latest kernels, or get them in the kernel itself and not have to worry about such a thing anymore. However just because the driver might break on newer versions doesn't make it stop working on older versions and doesn't make it "not exist". In fact, quite a few of them exist; probably more than any other OS comes with out of the box, even Windows. (Certainly more than any OS that's not Windows comes with)
Oh hey that's funny because lots of people I know got alienated by Windows over the years and now say something like they've stopped worrying about Windows and love Linux! Clearly the year of the Linux desktop is finally at hand! (If you don't get what I'm going for here, "the plural of anecdote is not data", especially not anecdotes personally gathered from acquaintances, a, too put it lightly, rather biased group.)
The only thing sad is how your post consists entirely of bullshit, nonsense, and outright lies.
So, how does it feel to be completely lacking empathy or any sort of care for your fellow humans?
The Phenom is one of "8048, 8051, 8086 and DEC Vax"?