I've actively sought out reviews and have yet to read a single positive review of Gnome 3. Not one.
Strange, I've read a positive review not long ago: https://kamikazow.wordpress.com/2011/03/16/short-review-of-gnome-shell/ What you may even find more surprising is that that review was written by a KDE dude and published via Planet KDE. It cites negative points like it's still GNOME so you can forget to find decent configurability via GUI but overall he gave GNOME Shell a B+ which is pretty good considering it's just a dot 0 release.
You guys do all realize that gnome-panel/metacity will still be available for GNOME3, right?
Nonono, when you point out that GNOME 3 still has the classic desktop available, there is no longer any point in flaming against GNOME. That ruins all the fun, especially as Xfce only gets releases done once every two years.
because KDE4's new graphical UI (plasma is it?) is CPU intensive and does not run smoothly on old hardware - which is where I usually install linux on.
Plasma is a framework. Plasma Desktop and Plasma Netbook are the two currently shipping workspaces (two additional are in development for touch devices).
While it's true that the Plasma Workspaces are to targeted towards ultra low performance devices, a lot of the responsiveness depends on the drivers, particularly if KWin's compositing feature is enabled. Since the 4.0 release, KDE devs started to refuse to work around driver bugs which in many cases revealed glaring bugs, especially in older NVidia drivers. The KDE devs rightfully pointed at the big-budget corporations to fix their drivers rather than have unpaid hobbyists work around bugs. The result was a time during which many NVidia owners (including myself) wanted to throw the PC against a wall. OK, I ended up using another window manager instead of KWin for a time. But now most of those NVidia bugs are fixed and the result is that today KWin runs smoother and more stable for me than any other window manager that still works around bugs that don't even exist any more.
Gnome community (..) a great lack of regard for others over their own projects/groups/goals.
I see the KDE group as entirely different. They work as a team, have the same common goals (in general) and let good ideas thrive even if it violates somebodies pet project or personal goal.
I think GNOME's problem is a result of its heritage. GNOME started as a GNU project (officially it still is but in reality it's not) with a narrow goal: Just be a truly free alternative to KDE1. If one wanted to create something overlapping with GNOME feature, he/she was advised to set up another GNU project (not a sub-project in GNOME).
This means that GNOME does not have a real infrastructure for what KDE calls Extragear: Different applications than in the main Software Compilation -- some applications may overlap in features but if one developer has ideas that work completely against the other devs of one application, he can just set up a new Playground project and if that matures move it to Extragear. Nobody's harmed and while they're at it, they share the same plugin interfaces or frameworks (get this: There are three different KDE accounting applications: KMyMoney, Skrooge, and Kraft. And while they don't share the same goal for workflow etc, they collaborate on back-ends like file format filters to import projects from proprietary accounting programs or agree on icon file names.)
True, there are applications like Banshee which is practically to Rhythmbox what Amarok is for Juk. But that's the exception in GNOME land while Extragear is the norm in KDE. Just browse through https://projects.kde.org/ to see what I mean.
I think the GNOME mindset is still not sure whether GNOME wants to be an independent project that should set up an Extragear infrastructure or be just a narrow-focused GNU project.
Untrue. GNOME requires tinkering with config files/gconf but a distributor only has to do that once and then add the modified config files to a package to serve as defaults. I can only speak for openSUSE in this specific case but for quite a few packages openSUSE has "-branding-openSUSE" packages (installed by default) as well as "-branding-upstream" packages.
I've preferred to use Gnome over recent years as I just found KDE to be not right - couldn't get on with it.
The problem with using the outdated KDE terms (ie using "KDE" as synonym for the workspace which was officially declared wrong two years ago) is that completely ignores the fact that KDE (the community) currently has two entirely different workspaces shipping with two additional ones in the pipeline. The production quality releases are Plasma Desktop and Plasma Netbook. While both use the same underlying frameworks, their workflow couldn't be further apart. In addition to those two the KDE community is working on two finger-friendly variants: One for smartphones (either running on top of MeeGo or Android using the recent KDE-hosted community-led Qt port) and another one for tablets (with MeeGo, Android, or even Windows as underlying OS).
Depending which kind of device you use, Plasma Desktop may not work well for you but Plasma Netbook does. Personally, I'm not even a netbook owner but I think of switching to Plasma Netbook as soon as the global menu bar feature has been properly upstreamed (a Qt patch is required and Nokia employees currently ignore the merge request). I'm even thinking of switching KWin to tiling mode.
maybe a bad idea to go fucking around with that just because we want a full head of hair? Fuck. No. It's a brilliant idea. (says the bald man)
It's stilly only for mice. I don't know about you but for men often when the amount hair on the head decreases, the body makes it up for hair growth in the most disgusting places. I mean... hair on the back, in the nose, in the ears,...
Pretty much everyone working on core Mac OS X components has a *BSD background -- mostly former FreeBSD developers who were hired by Apple. All major BSDs are reluctant to even allow GPLv2 in their base system. They all don't like the whole copyleft concept at all. GPLv3 is completely forbidden in the base installation.
Apple's Darwin team has a BSD culture which is apparent that Apple itself is moving away from the LGPL-like 'Apple Public Source License' to the BSDL-like Apache License 2 for Apple's own newer FOSS projects like libdispatch.
GPLv3's anti-TIVO-ization clause was just the last nail in the coffin of Apple's GPL endorsement.
Apple is a known "patents at dawn" company. That does not fit the GPLv3 mutual assured destruction patent clauses.
That's bogus. The GPLv2 has the same patent clause. In v3 the wording is just different but the meaning is the same. The real difference -- and that has already been written many times here -- is the anti-Tivo-ization clause that would force Apple to either stop signing binaries or hand over the keys.
Zypper was largely rewritten for openSUSE 11.0. It's lightning fast since then. Whenever a new openSUSE release comes out, the server are hammered. They are likely the bottleneck if anything appears slow but that's nothing in the package manager's hands.
Mono is not included in openSUSE by default because openSUSE defaults to KDE SC an no KDE application on the DVD is written using Mono (I know of no KDE app at all that's written using Mono).
openSUSE ships Mono as part of the non-default GNOME installation but so do Debian, Ubuntu,... and all other GNOME distributions that install Tomboy, Banshee,... by default.
Two or so years ago Canonical announced that Ubuntu has 8 million users (google yourself for the source). IIRC the number was based on update server connections.
If I'm not mistaken iOS' kernel is just regular Darwin XNU with proprietary drivers (but the proprietary drivers part is the same with Android). The latest source release by Apple is available here: http://opensource.apple.com/source/xnu/xnu-1504.9.26/ No idea if the same version is used in the latest iOS, though.
Better ask why the competition is making them so expensive. I mean, Apple is contracting Samsung for many parts. That means Apple pays to Samsung a price for the components (usually CPU, screen, and/or memory). Samsung cuts the middle man. They have all components already in-house! They should be able to sell their tablets at a lower price because they only have to pay production costs and not pay some middle man. They even build a smaller (thus less expensive screen) into their Galaxy pad and still it costs more!
I have two theories and the reality could even be a mixture of both (or neither obviously): 1.) The competition has a too huge development department that produces too much overhead – including in costs. Those are high-paid experts, so those can drive the cost. Apple is known for having a sleek team: Relatively few people, only working on one or two products at the time (you don't see Apple releasing a new iPod Touch, iPad, and iPhone at the same time).
2.) (I think this is more likely) The competition was trying to increase the average cost consumers are willing to pay. They can't just agree to align their prices. That's illegal pretty much everywhere. However one can test the waters, see consumers are willing to pay anyway. Often it works but it's a fine line because the units won't be moved in such a high volume. Fewer sold units still have to generate more profit than more units at a lower profit ratio. (Ironically that's the route Apple goes for Macs.) However if the whole market aligns their prices at a higher point, at some point consumers have no choice but to pay anyway (though that better works for gasoline and dairy products than electronic gadgets;-)).
Actually it's the opinion of the concensus of contributors who bother to contribute to deletion discussions.
I am a Wikipedia author since 2003 (I'm not telling my username here because I expect a ban if they find out). Over the time I came to the conclusion that actual democracy is not wanted there. First they spread discussions over so many pages, mailing lists, etc. that interested outsiders have next to no chance to get into "the scene". The admin group is also an elitist circle where personal bonds even count more than the rules they set up by themselves. Recently I stumbled over an article where an admin began an edit war in which he reverted a correct sentence into an incorrect one. Naturally without any discussion he semi-protected the site, shutting down all unregistered editors even though their edits were correct. Luckily I found a 100% clear reference and could correct the sentence. After that I filed a complain against the admin. Result: I received a warning because of misuse of the complain feature, the admin didn't even have to explain himself, and the page is still semi-protected.
In an apparently futile attempt to get you to consider the general principle. If you view those requests a whacko, can you explain how the Banshee request is different?
I already did: Banshee's request would benefit a charity. Canonical is not a charity. Helping charities is always good, helping corporations at the expense of charities is always bad (even though often legal).
That is completely wrong. Licenses do not pop out of thin air because someone was bored. They come about because the moral rights (eg the four software freedoms) that people wish to support can only be given strength through legal protection. They are a legal expression of a moral position.
So when the GPLv2 was released in 1991, the authors did think about TiVoization, DRM, and web apps? No, they didn't. So by today's rules, the GPLv2 has various loopholes that were not intended. Exploiting those loopholes is legal but not moral. GPL developers usually assume the following: "I give you the source but if you use and modify it, give the changes back." Nowadays GPL software is used in web apps and the modifications are never given back because the apps are technically not distributed (one case that comes to mind is the Meebo web-bases chat client and its use of Pidgin's source code or Google's secret modifications of Linux' kernel source code for Google's server farm). If today consciously decide to release software under GPLv2 the probably know about the loopholes and decided to accept them. But 1990's developers never consciously decided in favor of the loopholes. They simply weren't aware of them and exploiting them now is immoral. The GPL has a non-binding preamble. The preamble states the morals behind the license. In today's world the preamble is violated in so many cases, you can't even count them but the actual legally binding part of the GPL(v2) is only violated seldom.
Banshee's source code comment "Please help support Free Software through the GNOME Foundation!" is like a preamble: Non-binding but following it is the moral thing to do.
It is still Free. Nobody is suing Canonical over this. Canonical is, however, getting bad press and rightfully so, especially after Mark Shuttleworth himself claims to defends to be respectful to FOSS developers.
Otherwise what other "polite" requests might devs make? Don't port this to Windows? Don't work on this code on the Sabbath?
Why do you make those whacko requests up? It's a polite request to donate money to charity. Banshee is not a 1st party GNOME application, yet the developers decided philanthropically to create that Amazon store plugin and donate everything to a non-profit foundation. Especially someone who releases an OS called "humanity towards others" should understand this. It's not like Canonical changed the charity, eg. giving all the generated revenue to projects fighting child starvation or so. Canonical simply puts 75% of the money into its own pockets without doing nothing in return. It's not like Canonical is even developing Banshee. Banshee is developed by Novell (who has no problem with giving all the money to the foundation) and volunteers.
For Free Software to work there can be no exceptions, people have to be able to trust that the moral rights allowed for in the licence are universal and absolute.
A license is for legal rights, not for moral rights.
Cmon people, you do realise that Banshee uses Mono dont you?
Yes. So? It's not like the Mono developers ever got any of that Amazon music store money. Only the GNOME Foundation did. Now the Foundation gets only 25%...
WiFi drivers are part of the Linux kernel, GPU drivers are part of Xorg and Mesa. Canonical develops none of those. You're confusing Canonical with Red Hat, Novell and alike – those who actually develop the foundations of Linux distributions. Heck, there's even more code by Apple inside Xorg that by Canonical and Xorg on OSX is just a "nice to have but not crucial" in the eyes of Apple.
Canonical develops a handful of front-ends and has a capable theme design department but the foundations are not and never were developed by Canonical.
The GNOME Foundation is taking the desktop in no direction at all because the Foundation is not the developer. It's the legal representative and sponsor of events.
Nobody is complaining that Banshee is FOSS or advocates that Canonical should not be allowed to modify the music store plugin. However that doesn't make it the moral way to do.
The Banshee devs asked nicely to not modify the affiliate code in the plugin in order to support the GNOME Foundation (it's a comment in the source code). Canonical ignored that. It's not illegal but rude nonetheless.
Slashdot Mirror
I've actively sought out reviews and have yet to read a single positive review of Gnome 3. Not one.
Strange, I've read a positive review not long ago: https://kamikazow.wordpress.com/2011/03/16/short-review-of-gnome-shell/
What you may even find more surprising is that that review was written by a KDE dude and published via Planet KDE.
It cites negative points like it's still GNOME so you can forget to find decent configurability via GUI but overall he gave GNOME Shell a B+ which is pretty good considering it's just a dot 0 release.
You guys do all realize that gnome-panel/metacity will still be available for GNOME3, right?
Nonono, when you point out that GNOME 3 still has the classic desktop available, there is no longer any point in flaming against GNOME. That ruins all the fun, especially as Xfce only gets releases done once every two years.
because KDE4's new graphical UI (plasma is it?) is CPU intensive and does not run smoothly on old hardware - which is where I usually install linux on.
Plasma is a framework.
Plasma Desktop and Plasma Netbook are the two currently shipping workspaces (two additional are in development for touch devices).
While it's true that the Plasma Workspaces are to targeted towards ultra low performance devices, a lot of the responsiveness depends on the drivers, particularly if KWin's compositing feature is enabled.
Since the 4.0 release, KDE devs started to refuse to work around driver bugs which in many cases revealed glaring bugs, especially in older NVidia drivers. The KDE devs rightfully pointed at the big-budget corporations to fix their drivers rather than have unpaid hobbyists work around bugs. The result was a time during which many NVidia owners (including myself) wanted to throw the PC against a wall. OK, I ended up using another window manager instead of KWin for a time. But now most of those NVidia bugs are fixed and the result is that today KWin runs smoother and more stable for me than any other window manager that still works around bugs that don't even exist any more.
Unless someone implements a way to have the GNOME Shell's dock be visible all the time, additional programs are needed to have that feature.
Gnome community (..) a great lack of regard for others over their own projects/groups/goals.
I see the KDE group as entirely different. They work as a team, have the same common goals (in general) and let good ideas thrive even if it violates somebodies pet project or personal goal.
I think GNOME's problem is a result of its heritage. GNOME started as a GNU project (officially it still is but in reality it's not) with a narrow goal: Just be a truly free alternative to KDE1. If one wanted to create something overlapping with GNOME feature, he/she was advised to set up another GNU project (not a sub-project in GNOME).
This means that GNOME does not have a real infrastructure for what KDE calls Extragear: Different applications than in the main Software Compilation -- some applications may overlap in features but if one developer has ideas that work completely against the other devs of one application, he can just set up a new Playground project and if that matures move it to Extragear. Nobody's harmed and while they're at it, they share the same plugin interfaces or frameworks (get this: There are three different KDE accounting applications: KMyMoney, Skrooge, and Kraft. And while they don't share the same goal for workflow etc, they collaborate on back-ends like file format filters to import projects from proprietary accounting programs or agree on icon file names.)
True, there are applications like Banshee which is practically to Rhythmbox what Amarok is for Juk. But that's the exception in GNOME land while Extragear is the norm in KDE. Just browse through https://projects.kde.org/ to see what I mean.
I think the GNOME mindset is still not sure whether GNOME wants to be an independent project that should set up an Extragear infrastructure or be just a narrow-focused GNU project.
Not really, Gnome is essentially uncustomizeable.
Untrue. GNOME requires tinkering with config files/gconf but a distributor only has to do that once and then add the modified config files to a package to serve as defaults.
I can only speak for openSUSE in this specific case but for quite a few packages openSUSE has "-branding-openSUSE" packages (installed by default) as well as "-branding-upstream" packages.
I've preferred to use Gnome over recent years as I just found KDE to be not right - couldn't get on with it.
The problem with using the outdated KDE terms (ie using "KDE" as synonym for the workspace which was officially declared wrong two years ago) is that completely ignores the fact that KDE (the community) currently has two entirely different workspaces shipping with two additional ones in the pipeline.
The production quality releases are Plasma Desktop and Plasma Netbook. While both use the same underlying frameworks, their workflow couldn't be further apart.
In addition to those two the KDE community is working on two finger-friendly variants: One for smartphones (either running on top of MeeGo or Android using the recent KDE-hosted community-led Qt port) and another one for tablets (with MeeGo, Android, or even Windows as underlying OS).
Depending which kind of device you use, Plasma Desktop may not work well for you but Plasma Netbook does.
Personally, I'm not even a netbook owner but I think of switching to Plasma Netbook as soon as the global menu bar feature has been properly upstreamed (a Qt patch is required and Nokia employees currently ignore the merge request). I'm even thinking of switching KWin to tiling mode.
maybe a bad idea to go fucking around with that just because we want a full head of hair?
Fuck.
No.
It's a brilliant idea.
(says the bald man)
It's stilly only for mice. I don't know about you but for men often when the amount hair on the head decreases, the body makes it up for hair growth in the most disgusting places. I mean... hair on the back, in the nose, in the ears,...
The bad news it makes your dick shrink.
What use is a giant penis if baldness avoids men getting laid in the first place?
Why don't the side effects ever make your dick grow?
They do. Ever heard of that blood pressure pill called Viagra?
Pretty much everyone working on core Mac OS X components has a *BSD background -- mostly former FreeBSD developers who were hired by Apple.
All major BSDs are reluctant to even allow GPLv2 in their base system. They all don't like the whole copyleft concept at all. GPLv3 is completely forbidden in the base installation.
Apple's Darwin team has a BSD culture which is apparent that Apple itself is moving away from the LGPL-like 'Apple Public Source License' to the BSDL-like Apache License 2 for Apple's own newer FOSS projects like libdispatch.
GPLv3's anti-TIVO-ization clause was just the last nail in the coffin of Apple's GPL endorsement.
Apple is a known "patents at dawn" company. That does not fit the GPLv3 mutual assured destruction patent clauses.
That's bogus. The GPLv2 has the same patent clause. In v3 the wording is just different but the meaning is the same.
The real difference -- and that has already been written many times here -- is the anti-Tivo-ization clause that would force Apple to either stop signing binaries or hand over the keys.
Zypper was largely rewritten for openSUSE 11.0. It's lightning fast since then.
Whenever a new openSUSE release comes out, the server are hammered. They are likely the bottleneck if anything appears slow but that's nothing in the package manager's hands.
Mono is not included in openSUSE by default because openSUSE defaults to KDE SC an no KDE application on the DVD is written using Mono (I know of no KDE app at all that's written using Mono).
openSUSE ships Mono as part of the non-default GNOME installation but so do Debian, Ubuntu,... and all other GNOME distributions that install Tomboy, Banshee,... by default.
Two or so years ago Canonical announced that Ubuntu has 8 million users (google yourself for the source). IIRC the number was based on update server connections.
If I'm not mistaken iOS' kernel is just regular Darwin XNU with proprietary drivers (but the proprietary drivers part is the same with Android).
The latest source release by Apple is available here: http://opensource.apple.com/source/xnu/xnu-1504.9.26/
No idea if the same version is used in the latest iOS, though.
how is Apple making the iPad so cheap?
Better ask why the competition is making them so expensive.
I mean, Apple is contracting Samsung for many parts. That means Apple pays to Samsung a price for the components (usually CPU, screen, and/or memory).
Samsung cuts the middle man. They have all components already in-house! They should be able to sell their tablets at a lower price because they only have to pay production costs and not pay some middle man. They even build a smaller (thus less expensive screen) into their Galaxy pad and still it costs more!
I have two theories and the reality could even be a mixture of both (or neither obviously):
1.) The competition has a too huge development department that produces too much overhead – including in costs. Those are high-paid experts, so those can drive the cost. Apple is known for having a sleek team: Relatively few people, only working on one or two products at the time (you don't see Apple releasing a new iPod Touch, iPad, and iPhone at the same time).
2.) (I think this is more likely) The competition was trying to increase the average cost consumers are willing to pay. They can't just agree to align their prices. That's illegal pretty much everywhere. However one can test the waters, see consumers are willing to pay anyway. Often it works but it's a fine line because the units won't be moved in such a high volume. Fewer sold units still have to generate more profit than more units at a lower profit ratio. (Ironically that's the route Apple goes for Macs.) However if the whole market aligns their prices at a higher point, at some point consumers have no choice but to pay anyway (though that better works for gasoline and dairy products than electronic gadgets ;-)).
Actually it's the opinion of the concensus of contributors who bother to contribute to deletion discussions.
I am a Wikipedia author since 2003 (I'm not telling my username here because I expect a ban if they find out). Over the time I came to the conclusion that actual democracy is not wanted there.
First they spread discussions over so many pages, mailing lists, etc. that interested outsiders have next to no chance to get into "the scene".
The admin group is also an elitist circle where personal bonds even count more than the rules they set up by themselves.
Recently I stumbled over an article where an admin began an edit war in which he reverted a correct sentence into an incorrect one.
Naturally without any discussion he semi-protected the site, shutting down all unregistered editors even though their edits were correct.
Luckily I found a 100% clear reference and could correct the sentence. After that I filed a complain against the admin. Result: I received a warning because of misuse of the complain feature, the admin didn't even have to explain himself, and the page is still semi-protected.
In an apparently futile attempt to get you to consider the general principle. If you view those requests a whacko, can you explain how the Banshee request is different?
I already did: Banshee's request would benefit a charity. Canonical is not a charity. Helping charities is always good, helping corporations at the expense of charities is always bad (even though often legal).
That is completely wrong. Licenses do not pop out of thin air because someone was bored. They come about because the moral rights (eg the four software freedoms) that people wish to support can only be given strength through legal protection. They are a legal expression of a moral position.
So when the GPLv2 was released in 1991, the authors did think about TiVoization, DRM, and web apps?
No, they didn't. So by today's rules, the GPLv2 has various loopholes that were not intended. Exploiting those loopholes is legal but not moral.
GPL developers usually assume the following: "I give you the source but if you use and modify it, give the changes back."
Nowadays GPL software is used in web apps and the modifications are never given back because the apps are technically not distributed (one case that comes to mind is the Meebo web-bases chat client and its use of Pidgin's source code or Google's secret modifications of Linux' kernel source code for Google's server farm).
If today consciously decide to release software under GPLv2 the probably know about the loopholes and decided to accept them. But 1990's developers never consciously decided in favor of the loopholes. They simply weren't aware of them and exploiting them now is immoral.
The GPL has a non-binding preamble. The preamble states the morals behind the license. In today's world the preamble is violated in so many cases, you can't even count them but the actual legally binding part of the GPL(v2) is only violated seldom.
Banshee's source code comment "Please help support Free Software through the GNOME Foundation!" is like a preamble: Non-binding but following it is the moral thing to do.
Do you not see such a request is hypocritical?
No. It's a nice request, not a condition.
Free is Free. Free is not "Free-except-this-bit".
It is still Free. Nobody is suing Canonical over this.
Canonical is, however, getting bad press and rightfully so, especially after Mark Shuttleworth himself claims to defends to be respectful to FOSS developers.
Otherwise what other "polite" requests might devs make? Don't port this to Windows? Don't work on this code on the Sabbath?
Why do you make those whacko requests up?
It's a polite request to donate money to charity. Banshee is not a 1st party GNOME application, yet the developers decided philanthropically to create that Amazon store plugin and donate everything to a non-profit foundation. Especially someone who releases an OS called "humanity towards others" should understand this.
It's not like Canonical changed the charity, eg. giving all the generated revenue to projects fighting child starvation or so.
Canonical simply puts 75% of the money into its own pockets without doing nothing in return. It's not like Canonical is even developing Banshee. Banshee is developed by Novell (who has no problem with giving all the money to the foundation) and volunteers.
For Free Software to work there can be no exceptions, people have to be able to trust that the moral rights allowed for in the licence are universal and absolute.
A license is for legal rights, not for moral rights.
Cmon people, you do realise that Banshee uses Mono dont you?
Yes. So? It's not like the Mono developers ever got any of that Amazon music store money. Only the GNOME Foundation did. Now the Foundation gets only 25%...
WiFi drivers are part of the Linux kernel, GPU drivers are part of Xorg and Mesa.
Canonical develops none of those.
You're confusing Canonical with Red Hat, Novell and alike – those who actually develop the foundations of Linux distributions. Heck, there's even more code by Apple inside Xorg that by Canonical and Xorg on OSX is just a "nice to have but not crucial" in the eyes of Apple.
Canonical develops a handful of front-ends and has a capable theme design department but the foundations are not and never were developed by Canonical.
The GNOME Foundation is taking the desktop in no direction at all because the Foundation is not the developer. It's the legal representative and sponsor of events.
Nobody is complaining that Banshee is FOSS or advocates that Canonical should not be allowed to modify the music store plugin.
However that doesn't make it the moral way to do.
The Banshee devs asked nicely to not modify the affiliate code in the plugin in order to support the GNOME Foundation (it's a comment in the source code). Canonical ignored that. It's not illegal but rude nonetheless.
Just another reason to stick with Fedora.
Or any other distribution that supports upstream development (Debian, Arch, Gentoo, openSUSE,...).