You seem to be treating this as if a computer is an extension to a machine. While the hardware of a computer is a machine it is in the software that the wanted functionality resides. Computers essentially only do math, extremely fast math but math.
You don't patent mathematics, in the same way that a mechanical drawing doesn't patent drawing. Let's say you figure out the mathematic substrate of an algorithm: you patent that algorithm (aka process or method), not the mathematics involved. Remember, it's the method, system, or product what you are patenting.
Your argument seems to be that pure mathematics without applied use is not patentable, but apply mathematical formula and methods to a problem and it suddenly is? ludicrous. You would in essence be sectioning off certain parts of math applied to certain topics to specific people.
Any form of useful mathematics takes an input and produces and output, and could be considered a 'process' as such that transforms something. That being said, it is entirely abstract unless you argue about the computer modifying electrons, and is irrelevent to actual physical inventions
Only the program product deserves protection, and it is already protected by copyright, so what useful purpose do software patents serve except limiting what uses people can use math and abstract ideas for?
This is the problem, the patent system does not lock down ideas, it locks down implementations of ideas, or at least is meant to. The problem is that with software they are patenting the ideas themselves.
If I design a program to sort a list in the most effective way to date, then I don't believe anyone should use it without my permission
Your individual program of course not, that would be limited by copyright. But the method you used to sort?? By patenting it you would essentially be patenting the mathematics behind your algorithm, which is obviously a stupid idea from the get-go and there are reasons math is not allowed to be patented.
In conclusion, the actual instance of software is already protected enough by laws, we don't need patents to block entire segments of the market by patenting the "Idea".
Close, but I think what you mean to say is, specific implementations of algorithms in source/binary are already protected by copyright. People should be unable to patent different mathematical ways of doing the same thing, as well as the general idea.
Very hackable, very cheaply too (flash cards are a dime a dozen these days), there's an open source sdk called devkitpro that will handle all your dev needs also.
Limitations to consider though, the ds only has 4mb of ram, and it's 3d hardware is not too crash hot, it has no floating point units at all and does everything in 16-bit fixed point.
As an aside, I personally dislike those that use such words as "podcast" and "blogosphere" it is saddening that their use has become so prevalent among the young.
Take the guy who crashed his plane into the IRS building months ago. He's a terrorist.
Terrorists sole goal is to inspire terror, I doubt he had any intention of that and his motives were more to make people see some of the IRS's faults. As misguided and tragic as it was, unless you go by a very broad sense of terrorist he could not have been one.
and it has never been challenged in court, most Linux distributions which distribute CDs in the US do not include it by default. You will have to download it after installation.
Because it doesn't have to be, the results of the DeCSS trial already proved that anything along those lines (including libdvdcss) is illegal by those terms. DeCSS was just the first, and they eventually realised they could never put the genie back in the bottle and only certain targets would be worth prosecuting.
The fact they have a lot fewer developers? and that a small percentage of maintainers could be masochists that like maintaining separate forks?
When I see "you aren't contributing back" from ubuntu I think more along the lines that lots of new development work just isn't being done by them more or less. Ubuntu really doesn't have anything special about it except it's willing to include binary blobs etc.
Package maintainers do not know better than the people that wrote the code, what happens when package maintainers make/do their own patches without just submitting them upstream and using it at the next release is the whole Debian OpenSSL debacle where a simple one or two liner unknowingly destroyed the functionality of the software while appearing to work.
If someone knows that there are bug fixes Ubuntu has not submitted, why can't they go download and diff the source?
They can, but you will get the entirety of all of the changes as one diff that do different things, and it will be comparing to an older version for which there would likely be merge conflicts that would have to be solved.
So then we have the question of licensing. If the source code is under a "make changes all you want but make the changes under the same license" license, and Ubuntu is following that... why not switch to a "submit all patches back to us" license? I think I know - no one wants to be swamped by irrelevant patches. So do a "submit bug fixes back to us" license. How will that work?
Licensing is more or less irrelevant in this, the problem is not the licensing, merely inefficient workflow by making the bug fixing process more convoluted and itself buggy by skipping upstream and patching older versions yourself, rather than patching latest and submitting a diff
But if they didn't do proper formatting, or go through proper channels - you don't want that fix. So why would you want Ubuntu to submit something that will get rejected? Is it better to say that some people want Ubuntu to fix their code, but to do it the way the maintainer would do it, and only fix things that need fixing, not cosmetic changes?
It appears you have mistaken the role of the package maintainer for coder of the actual software. it is not, it is to package the software in convenient rpm/deb packages. If they can assist the main developers in fixing things and if they are the main developers, even better, but it is not their job description, they are there to ensure things play nicely and can be easily acquired.
"Fix my code, my way, and hand it to me, or I will criticise you." Those are the rules, no?
More like, "if you are going to do fixes why not do it upstream with the main developers, it saves you keeping a separate branch up to date."
And yes, keeping a separate branch over a long period is a pain in the ass, for anyone. Ubuntu package maintainers are doing themselves a disservice if they do so.
I need a distro I can install and have my development environment up and running in short order, and Ubuntu is the best I've found so far.
From a developers perspective, Fedora probably takes the cake so far as distros are concerned, you find debian hard because it's so out of date, well comparatively ubuntu is to fedora
Granted it is only 6-12 months behind fedora, but when developing it helps to have the latest stable versions of everything.
Why don't the upstream people simply look at the ubuntu fixes once they hear that ubuntu's way of doing it is better? Isn't the ubuntu code available to them?
It really doesn't work that way, and typically the changes will only be minor bugfixes which would typically not justify hunting down the version ubuntu changed, seeing if any of the more recent developer versions conflict with these changes, etc.
While there are many different ways in regards to implementation, the oss workflow works and scales very well As a primary developer you can't waste your time going through ubuntu's stuff which might not even be usable when you could be using that same time to fix more important issues, or double check peoples patches that have went through the proper channels for inclusion, and are in the right format.
My own opinion is that the fault is not with Ubuntu, but with the staggering diversity and fragmentation of the open source world. It's hard enough to create a distribution that consumes all these projects, to produce back to them is monumentally hard.
This is not a problem, package maintainers typically only maintain a few packages, it makes sense that they should be very familiar with how each of their upstream providers work in regards to versioning and patches.
No single person has to worry about all of the packages, and working with 4-5 different upstream providers is very workable even if they use completely different revision control systems.
When all else fails plain diff patches to the appropriate developer does the trick.
It is far easier for the package maintainers to get their patches upstream than it is to constantly maintain a semi-fork.
If you have over 6 years experience of using Linux you are not qualified to say what a user who has never seen Linux before should use.
One would think, that such a person would respond with "The one I set up for you" because lets face it, if someone else sets linux up for a noob, makes sure everything works right and everything they wish to do is easy for them, you will have little to no issues. (only issue I've had was one set of people destroying hardware, hardly linux's fault)
Troubleshooting guide for when packages 'aren't working right'
1. Compile latest official stable sources from the people that write the code.
If this solves your problem, then notify the packager and try to get him to build a new package, or build a new package yourself and sent it to the package maintainer for your distro for extra points.
2. If you you still have problems, get the latest svn/git version and do another build with dwarf debug information present. If it's a segfault or something similar, examine the stack trace and spend some time looking at that portion of code to see how/what/where went wrong. If unable to find the problem or fix it yourself. Go directly upstream, not to your distro, but to the people that write the software, provide symptoms, stack trace and any other relevant info.
For once off fixes if you do change code, send it in diff form to the coders of the project.
Redhat never did that for you because even though they maintain their own bug tracker etc, you are likely better dealing with the people who made the software (ok, so if you have a problem with anaconda bitch to redhat then, etc)
Or it is entirely possible that the devs conclude it suits their needs, and the needs of their clients and don't really care what other random people think of it.
Linux doesn't need to take over the world (as nice as that would be) it only needs to be good enough for your own uses for it to be of utility for yourself.
Besides Cannonical/Ubuntu went out of their way to give anyone a ISO file
Everyone gave iso files, but ubuntu marketing did one better, they sent you actual discs with art by the bucket load. I have around 25 of the 2005 first release of ubuntu, they formerly sent heaps to anyone that wanted them. Being a linux guy I gave them to a heap of people to get them on to linux.
Not really, with fedora even if it's open source if there are known patent problems with a piece of software they still won't touch it with a ten foot pole.
(Yes I know about Fedora, but clearly Ubuntu has a nicer mix in many ways.)
For the most part, all ubuntu has going for it is better marketing, better brand name in end user circles, and including proprietary codecs by default.
That and the packages are six months to a year behind fedora, which tends to be why most people consider fedora users the beta testers for everyone.
and Ironically, the first distro that I could completely get rid of my windows partition was fedora core 3, which was released about the same time as the first version of ubuntu (2005 or so I believe)
Ubuntu succeeds in marketing more than anything else, they had a clean name already when the linux desktop was becoming easier for the masses, and rode the wave.
Initially the only difference with ubuntu as compared with other distros was the inclusion of proprietary codecs and drivers.
system-wide spellchecking that actually works and isn't dependent on half a dozen choices of GPL'd spellchecker libs.
Of course, a single library (libaspell) is really so very difficult on linux, lol
And the low-latency goes away when you're forced to use VST plugins in a compatibility box.
If you are using vst's instead of native ladspa plugins and native synths, you kind of deserve all of that pain you are self inflicting upon yourself.
And if you try to say there's an open source equivalent to something as nice as Amplitube I'm going to laugh in your face.
Can't say I'm much of a fan of emulating guitar amp noise etc since I primarily deal with other instruments, however essentially the entire arturia range can be replaced very nicely by the bristol audio synth.
Here we have an emulated analog synth that sells for a few thousand dollars replaced by another program that does the exact same job that is gpl and free. This is just one example, if you wish I could find more, it becomes more of a case of people not knowing what is out there and what works well together.
Ardour's UI is downright awful but it's a cool app. It still ain't Logic or ProTools.
Of course, logic and pro-tools attempt to be all in one integrated solutions. Sequencer/synths/post processing etc all in one. Ardour is simply a digital audio workstation for recording/mastering etc.
With jack I can feed any program to any other program and chain them just fine and dandy, the interface between programs is nice and standardised and especially from a coder-musicians standpoint a lot nicer.
It's not an "option" if you're forced to put yourself through that pain just to have a complete enough toolkit to get your job done.
The right tool for the right job, different jobs require different tools, so I don't see it as a problem at all that i have different programs for sequencing and for synths etc at all. Each task is different so why make one unholy program that does it all?
My best friend is a mac user and swears by logic, but upon inspection of my setup he has commented both that it is capable of anything logic can do and some things it can't, and that the complexity of my setup scares him.
I agree more knowledge is needed than turnkey solutions such as protools and logic, but to me at least I don't see the problem with becoming knowledgeable about something that you have a passion for.
Although I did not run into the issues that you are stating, my wife is currently upset that her iPod got wiped and after doing a days worth of troubleshooting for some reason I can not get her iPod to work with anything in Linux,
How old is the ipod and/or when was it last attached to itunes? about when the third gen shuffles came out apple pushed new firmwares to the devices that screwed up syncing and the like. I use gtkpod on a second gen shuffle and it works a treat. Same with some nanos I sync for people sometimes.
As for not having to tweak everything all the time, it is already better than windows, with the lack of hunting for drivers and separately installing office/firefox/thunderbird/dev environments etc etc.
Not sure about you but it takes me days to weeks to stop having to find and install things as I need them on a new windows machine, as opposed to having everything I need from the get go on a proper size custom install like from the fedora full dvd images.
The sound subsystem is way ahead of anything for Linux.
You have obviously never used JACK the professional audio api for linux, there is an os x port too, kicks mac os x's ass in regards to latency and also more functional (you can't route arbitrary streams with core audio, need separate app for it etc etc) (and yes I do have a full digital audio workstation with seq/synths/controllers and it's quite lovely).
For example, GIMP uses GTK, Scribus uses QT. There's no GTK Scribus and no QT gimp and no theming kludge is gonna fix that.
Some people don't mind different options, or in this case different styles. While os x apps are typically extremely consistent most of us aren't OCD enough to really care so long as it just works.
Take zsnes for example, it's ui is written entirely in assembly code, resembles nothing else I've seen out there but is very nice. Or blender, completely different again and while most newbies bitch, once learned it's extremely efficient compared to other methods.
Yes, Compiz and KDE4 are pretty. Yes, they use hardware acceleration but to claim it offers any benefits besides "Oooh, pretty" and a little less CPU utilization is a joke. Quartz is VERY powerful and used for more than making windows move smoother.
For people that do actual work, who cares about form over function? while I use kde4 I disabled compiz etc just because I fail to see the usefulness of shiny.
I can see cases where the information will be abused but such risks are no match for the benefits.
Some of us would rather die fighting than succumb to having certain freedoms taken away such as you describe.
It is a slippery slope, and while I am not american, it is easy to quote "those who trade liberty for safety, deserve neither"
Their measures will fail the intended purpose though, nothing is stopping anyone serious from encrypting their emails using gpg or the like and they still can't figure out the contents of the message, only who contacted who for some unknown reason.
Slashdot Mirror
You seem to be treating this as if a computer is an extension to a machine. While the hardware of a computer is a machine it is in the software that the wanted functionality resides. Computers essentially only do math, extremely fast math but math.
You don't patent mathematics, in the same way that a mechanical drawing doesn't patent drawing. Let's say you figure out the mathematic substrate of an algorithm: you patent that algorithm (aka process or method), not the mathematics involved. Remember, it's the method, system, or product what you are patenting.
Your argument seems to be that pure mathematics without applied use is not patentable, but apply mathematical formula and methods to a problem and it suddenly is? ludicrous. You would in essence be sectioning off certain parts of math applied to certain topics to specific people.
Any form of useful mathematics takes an input and produces and output, and could be considered a 'process' as such that transforms something. That being said, it is entirely abstract unless you argue about the computer modifying electrons, and is irrelevent to actual physical inventions
Only the program product deserves protection, and it is already protected by copyright, so what useful purpose do software patents serve except limiting what uses people can use math and abstract ideas for?
Patents lock down ideas.
This is the problem, the patent system does not lock down ideas, it locks down implementations of ideas, or at least is meant to. The problem is that with software they are patenting the ideas themselves.
If I design a program to sort a list in the most effective way to date, then I don't believe anyone should use it without my permission
Your individual program of course not, that would be limited by copyright. But the method you used to sort?? By patenting it you would essentially be patenting the mathematics behind your algorithm, which is obviously a stupid idea from the get-go and there are reasons math is not allowed to be patented.
In conclusion, the actual instance of software is already protected enough by laws, we don't need patents to block entire segments of the market by patenting the "Idea".
Close, but I think what you mean to say is, specific implementations of algorithms in source/binary are already protected by copyright. People should be unable to patent different mathematical ways of doing the same thing, as well as the general idea.
Very hackable, very cheaply too (flash cards are a dime a dozen these days), there's an open source sdk called devkitpro that will handle all your dev needs also.
Limitations to consider though, the ds only has 4mb of ram, and it's 3d hardware is not too crash hot, it has no floating point units at all and does everything in 16-bit fixed point.
As an aside, I personally dislike those that use such words as "podcast" and "blogosphere" it is saddening that their use has become so prevalent among the young.
it should, albeit without network support of course.
Take the guy who crashed his plane into the IRS building months ago. He's a terrorist.
Terrorists sole goal is to inspire terror, I doubt he had any intention of that and his motives were more to make people see some of the IRS's faults. As misguided and tragic as it was, unless you go by a very broad sense of terrorist he could not have been one.
and it has never been challenged in court, most Linux distributions which distribute CDs in the US do not include it by default. You will have to download it after installation.
Because it doesn't have to be, the results of the DeCSS trial already proved that anything along those lines (including libdvdcss) is illegal by those terms. DeCSS was just the first, and they eventually realised they could never put the genie back in the bottle and only certain targets would be worth prosecuting.
because 64-bit linux has been mainstream for far far longer for linux users than 64-bit windows has for windows users.
we were using 64-bit circa 2004'ish
The fact they have a lot fewer developers? and that a small percentage of maintainers could be masochists that like maintaining separate forks?
When I see "you aren't contributing back" from ubuntu I think more along the lines that lots of new development work just isn't being done by them more or less. Ubuntu really doesn't have anything special about it except it's willing to include binary blobs etc.
Package maintainers do not know better than the people that wrote the code, what happens when package maintainers make/do their own patches without just submitting them upstream and using it at the next release is the whole Debian OpenSSL debacle where a simple one or two liner unknowingly destroyed the functionality of the software while appearing to work.
If someone knows that there are bug fixes Ubuntu has not submitted, why can't they go download and diff the source?
They can, but you will get the entirety of all of the changes as one diff that do different things, and it will be comparing to an older version for which there would likely be merge conflicts that would have to be solved.
So then we have the question of licensing. If the source code is under a "make changes all you want but make the changes under the same license" license, and Ubuntu is following that... why not switch to a "submit all patches back to us" license? I think I know - no one wants to be swamped by irrelevant patches. So do a "submit bug fixes back to us" license. How will that work?
Licensing is more or less irrelevant in this, the problem is not the licensing, merely inefficient workflow by making the bug fixing process more convoluted and itself buggy by skipping upstream and patching older versions yourself, rather than patching latest and submitting a diff
But if they didn't do proper formatting, or go through proper channels - you don't want that fix. So why would you want Ubuntu to submit something that will get rejected? Is it better to say that some people want Ubuntu to fix their code, but to do it the way the maintainer would do it, and only fix things that need fixing, not cosmetic changes?
It appears you have mistaken the role of the package maintainer for coder of the actual software. it is not, it is to package the software in convenient rpm/deb packages. If they can assist the main developers in fixing things and if they are the main developers, even better, but it is not their job description, they are there to ensure things play nicely and can be easily acquired.
"Fix my code, my way, and hand it to me, or I will criticise you." Those are the rules, no?
More like, "if you are going to do fixes why not do it upstream with the main developers, it saves you keeping a separate branch up to date."
And yes, keeping a separate branch over a long period is a pain in the ass, for anyone. Ubuntu package maintainers are doing themselves a disservice if they do so.
I need a distro I can install and have my development environment up and running in short order, and Ubuntu is the best I've found so far.
From a developers perspective, Fedora probably takes the cake so far as distros are concerned, you find debian hard because it's so out of date, well comparatively ubuntu is to fedora
Granted it is only 6-12 months behind fedora, but when developing it helps to have the latest stable versions of everything.
Why don't the upstream people simply look at the ubuntu fixes once they hear that ubuntu's way of doing it is better? Isn't the ubuntu code available to them?
It really doesn't work that way, and typically the changes will only be minor bugfixes which would typically not justify hunting down the version ubuntu changed, seeing if any of the more recent developer versions conflict with these changes, etc.
While there are many different ways in regards to implementation, the oss workflow works and scales very well As a primary developer you can't waste your time going through ubuntu's stuff which might not even be usable when you could be using that same time to fix more important issues, or double check peoples patches that have went through the proper channels for inclusion, and are in the right format.
My own opinion is that the fault is not with Ubuntu, but with the staggering diversity and fragmentation of the open source world. It's hard enough to create a distribution that consumes all these projects, to produce back to them is monumentally hard.
This is not a problem, package maintainers typically only maintain a few packages, it makes sense that they should be very familiar with how each of their upstream providers work in regards to versioning and patches.
No single person has to worry about all of the packages, and working with 4-5 different upstream providers is very workable even if they use completely different revision control systems.
When all else fails plain diff patches to the appropriate developer does the trick.
It is far easier for the package maintainers to get their patches upstream than it is to constantly maintain a semi-fork.
If you have over 6 years experience of using Linux you are not qualified to say what a user who has never seen Linux before should use.
One would think, that such a person would respond with "The one I set up for you" because lets face it, if someone else sets linux up for a noob, makes sure everything works right and everything they wish to do is easy for them, you will have little to no issues. (only issue I've had was one set of people destroying hardware, hardly linux's fault)
Troubleshooting guide for when packages 'aren't working right'
1. Compile latest official stable sources from the people that write the code.
If this solves your problem, then notify the packager and try to get him to build a new package, or build a new package yourself and sent it to the package maintainer for your distro for extra points.
2. If you you still have problems, get the latest svn/git version and do another build with dwarf debug information present. If it's a segfault or something similar, examine the stack trace and spend some time looking at that portion of code to see how/what/where went wrong. If unable to find the problem or fix it yourself. Go directly upstream, not to your distro, but to the people that write the software, provide symptoms, stack trace and any other relevant info.
For once off fixes if you do change code, send it in diff form to the coders of the project.
Redhat never did that for you because even though they maintain their own bug tracker etc, you are likely better dealing with the people who made the software (ok, so if you have a problem with anaconda bitch to redhat then, etc)
Likewise with myself and fedora. I've put it on elderly peoples first computers and they have loved it.
Or it is entirely possible that the devs conclude it suits their needs, and the needs of their clients and don't really care what other random people think of it.
Linux doesn't need to take over the world (as nice as that would be) it only needs to be good enough for your own uses for it to be of utility for yourself.
Besides Cannonical/Ubuntu went out of their way to give anyone a ISO file
Everyone gave iso files, but ubuntu marketing did one better, they sent you actual discs with art by the bucket load. I have around 25 of the 2005 first release of ubuntu, they formerly sent heaps to anyone that wanted them. Being a linux guy I gave them to a heap of people to get them on to linux.
Red Hat does that too.
Not really, with fedora even if it's open source if there are known patent problems with a piece of software they still won't touch it with a ten foot pole.
(Yes I know about Fedora, but clearly Ubuntu has a nicer mix in many ways.)
For the most part, all ubuntu has going for it is better marketing, better brand name in end user circles, and including proprietary codecs by default.
That and the packages are six months to a year behind fedora, which tends to be why most people consider fedora users the beta testers for everyone.
and Ironically, the first distro that I could completely get rid of my windows partition was fedora core 3, which was released about the same time as the first version of ubuntu (2005 or so I believe)
Ubuntu succeeds in marketing more than anything else, they had a clean name already when the linux desktop was becoming easier for the masses, and rode the wave.
Initially the only difference with ubuntu as compared with other distros was the inclusion of proprietary codecs and drivers.
system-wide spellchecking that actually works and isn't dependent on half a dozen choices of GPL'd spellchecker libs.
Of course, a single library (libaspell) is really so very difficult on linux, lol
And the low-latency goes away when you're forced to use VST plugins in a compatibility box.
If you are using vst's instead of native ladspa plugins and native synths, you kind of deserve all of that pain you are self inflicting upon yourself.
And if you try to say there's an open source equivalent to something as nice as Amplitube I'm going to laugh in your face.
Can't say I'm much of a fan of emulating guitar amp noise etc since I primarily deal with other instruments, however essentially the entire arturia range can be replaced very nicely by the bristol audio synth.
Here we have an emulated analog synth that sells for a few thousand dollars replaced by another program that does the exact same job that is gpl and free. This is just one example, if you wish I could find more, it becomes more of a case of people not knowing what is out there and what works well together.
Ardour's UI is downright awful but it's a cool app. It still ain't Logic or ProTools.
Of course, logic and pro-tools attempt to be all in one integrated solutions. Sequencer/synths/post processing etc all in one. Ardour is simply a digital audio workstation for recording/mastering etc.
With jack I can feed any program to any other program and chain them just fine and dandy, the interface between programs is nice and standardised and especially from a coder-musicians standpoint a lot nicer.
It's not an "option" if you're forced to put yourself through that pain just to have a complete enough toolkit to get your job done.
The right tool for the right job, different jobs require different tools, so I don't see it as a problem at all that i have different programs for sequencing and for synths etc at all. Each task is different so why make one unholy program that does it all?
My best friend is a mac user and swears by logic, but upon inspection of my setup he has commented both that it is capable of anything logic can do and some things it can't, and that the complexity of my setup scares him.
I agree more knowledge is needed than turnkey solutions such as protools and logic, but to me at least I don't see the problem with becoming knowledgeable about something that you have a passion for.
Although I did not run into the issues that you are stating, my wife is currently upset that her iPod got wiped and after doing a days worth of troubleshooting for some reason I can not get her iPod to work with anything in Linux,
How old is the ipod and/or when was it last attached to itunes? about when the third gen shuffles came out apple pushed new firmwares to the devices that screwed up syncing and the like. I use gtkpod on a second gen shuffle and it works a treat. Same with some nanos I sync for people sometimes.
As for not having to tweak everything all the time, it is already better than windows, with the lack of hunting for drivers and separately installing office/firefox/thunderbird/dev environments etc etc.
Not sure about you but it takes me days to weeks to stop having to find and install things as I need them on a new windows machine, as opposed to having everything I need from the get go on a proper size custom install like from the fedora full dvd images.
The sound subsystem is way ahead of anything for Linux.
You have obviously never used JACK the professional audio api for linux, there is an os x port too, kicks mac os x's ass in regards to latency and also more functional (you can't route arbitrary streams with core audio, need separate app for it etc etc) (and yes I do have a full digital audio workstation with seq/synths/controllers and it's quite lovely).
For example, GIMP uses GTK, Scribus uses QT. There's no GTK Scribus and no QT gimp and no theming kludge is gonna fix that.
Some people don't mind different options, or in this case different styles. While os x apps are typically extremely consistent most of us aren't OCD enough to really care so long as it just works.
Take zsnes for example, it's ui is written entirely in assembly code, resembles nothing else I've seen out there but is very nice. Or blender, completely different again and while most newbies bitch, once learned it's extremely efficient compared to other methods.
Yes, Compiz and KDE4 are pretty. Yes, they use hardware acceleration but to claim it offers any benefits besides "Oooh, pretty" and a little less CPU utilization is a joke. Quartz is VERY powerful and used for more than making windows move smoother.
For people that do actual work, who cares about form over function? while I use kde4 I disabled compiz etc just because I fail to see the usefulness of shiny.
I can see cases where the information will be abused but such risks are no match for the benefits.
Some of us would rather die fighting than succumb to having certain freedoms taken away such as you describe.
It is a slippery slope, and while I am not american, it is easy to quote "those who trade liberty for safety, deserve neither"
Their measures will fail the intended purpose though, nothing is stopping anyone serious from encrypting their emails using gpg or the like and they still can't figure out the contents of the message, only who contacted who for some unknown reason.