Actually, some of us use Ubuntu and the 'easier;' distros because (a) we're tied of screwing around getting things to work like we did 6-7 years ago
FWIW:
Five years ago I started using Debian. There was some screwing around, but I got a system that worked the way I want it to.
Today, with Ubuntu, getting my system set up the way I want is a struggle; there's less screwing around (hacking config files), but a lot more pawing around on the 'net for the documentation that isn't there.
Network configuration, for one; I only recently found a good guide for setting up wpa_supplicant such that I don't have to do anything to connect to the access points I frequently "visit" (and I can even make my box run a vpn client on the appropriate networks). Making NetworkManager do the right thing? Automatically? Good luck.
And setting all the fun options for your input devices (EmulateWheel, etc.)? I found this nice comment in my xorg.conf: "Note that some configuration settings that could be done previously in this file, now are automatically configured by the server and settings here are ignored." (my bold.) Great. Some of the things I write in xorg.conf won't work. Which ones? Where do I find out? Okay, so you make HAL do the work; fine. Why don't you make HAL import my configuration from xorg.conf, such that the man pages I read don't lie to me? Or at least fix the man pages?
And PulseAudio? You mean all my sound dies just because I restart X? No thanks, I don't want that. (Luckily you can just uninstall it.)
Ubuntu does some things right, let me be the first to say that. But I think some of the choices are making the distro less usable for me.
so they disposed of it how almost every group disables potential bombs, by shooting it.
Would it be possible to design a bomb that goes off when shot? That way, you-the-bomber get around the most popular technique for defusing rather easily...
And then there's a bunch of other stuff you may or may not know about, such as the Amoeba distributed OS, a free anonymous p2p network called Turtle, and probably a few other knick-knacks along the way.
If you worry about us, a bunch of tech geeks, not having heard about them, they haven't made a huge impact, have they?
I believe this one guy from Finland wrote an OS called Linux based on another OS called Minix discussed in that book (and even got into the flamefest of the century with the Finnish guy!)
Right. If AST is the hot shot writing OSes, why aren't we all using GNU/Minix? The answer is in the flamefest: Minix is meant to be a teaching tool, not a production OS.
"tech expert"? That's a big step down from "CS god."
I think it's as step sideways. Andy seems like a great teacher (I'm TA'ing off of his Structured Computer Organization ATM) and a great Computer Scientist. But being a teacher/scientist and being an engineer/innovator that puts useful technology in the hands of the people are two different things.
It is important to have people design p2p systems nobody uses. But to make use of the useful ideas generated by science, we also need people to translate "Relational Algebra" into plain ol' reading and writing a varchar(140).
And there's a lot more read-and-write-a-varchar going on than anonymous distributed microkernel multiparty something. Many things we need we already know how to write (just not how to write well).
if it's not acceptable that a DVD player refuses to start at odd moments or randomly stops working, why would the same be acceptable in [...] an OS?
How do you define "Fitness for its purpose" when the purpose is defined differently by each individual user? That's both the power and challenge of software: it can do anything. General-purpose OSes are meant to let you do anything.
They're also big enough (i.e. consisting of a large number of interacting components) that if you want to define exactly what users can and can't expect (and can/can't do), you'll end up with either an insanely long list, or overly broad items on that list.
Either "No warranty unless file C:\etc\blah matches this context-sensitive grammar" (repeat 1e6 times over for different files) or "No warranty if the user tinkers with C:\Windows".
Also, what if you get hit by malware which does something that would void the warranty if you did it yourself, and then the malware deletes itself?
Defining Acceptable User Behaviour and Acceptable Software Behaviour is going to be arduous. What would be gained?
Would people refund Windows and replace it with... a different-but-just-as-broken OS? A different-and-less-broken-but-still-broken OS? Or an OS that doesn't do anything? It's not like there are per-unit software manufacturing defects...
It's a fairly simple game, right? You have an.mp3 file, and paired with it you have a file containing a list of tuples (time, subset of buttons {1,2,3,4,5}), then you "play back" those two files simultaneously and see if the users strums while holding down the correct subsets within some well-defined window of time.
You can put the game in a "broken" state (requiring you to back out to the main menu); I don't recall exactly how, but I think it's when you, from practice mode, change the practice speed, you get dumped back to a dysfunctional practice mode screen.
If you tell the game your monitor (TV) has a certain delay, when you practice at less than 1x regular speed, apparently the game thinks it should not just scale the time differences in the list-of-subsets file but also that your monitor takes longer time to show pictures. Morons.
And the menu structure is big, menu items are inconsistently named, and the structure itself is poorly aligned with what people want to do. Bad usability. Example: I want to give up on a song, so I choose quit; "Do you really want to quit; unsaved progress will be lost?" (wtf, there's no way to actually save progress...). Well, "Yes I want to quit". "Ok, where do you want to quit to? Main menu, song list, or retry this song?" What??? If I wanted to retry the song, I would have selected the "retry song" menu item. The only reason having a choice here is good is because it takes so unbearably long to navigate from the song list to the main menu.
And couldn't they have added an option to compensate for broken TVs which not only have picture lag, but have slightly desynchronized audio and picture? Would that really have been too hard? (Well, apparently...)
For such a brilliantly designed game play, the implementation (and the design of the things that go around the game play) is unbelievably crappy. I'm seriously doubting whether they tested it.
(And what was that thing about shipping discs with mono audio?)
Seriously, avoid GH3/Wii. If you must show off by completing (or FC'ing) TTFAF on expert, do it some other platform. It's for your own good.
I posted in this thread to undo a moderation misclick. That has wiped my 'Funny' moderation of my parent's post. Sorry. Someone please mod parent Funny:)
Did you mean to reply to my previous parent? I was correcting his correction of your post. Even if we apply your correction to your previous post, my previous parent is still wrong.
Major correction. We do want people embracing open source [...] If it happens to be free software as well, they just need to release the source code to their new product as well.
You are aware that the GPL is both an Open Source and a Free Software license, right? How does the label you choose to attach to it (OSS vs. FS) change what the redistributor has to do? Right, it doesn't. I think you're confusing OSS with F/OSS and Free Software with Copyleft.
Very few open source licenses forbid the commercialization of code.
That would be zero. "The license shall not restrict any party from selling [...]". It's the same for free software.
We want people embracing F/OSS, taking the code, creating their own product, and selling it, as long as they are in compliance with all the relevant licenses, no matter whether those licenses are Open Source, Free or both; no matter whether the licenses are copyleft or not. Make a killing, and we're all happy as long as you stick to the licenses.
Stallman is consistent about his beliefs. [...] proceed directly to the GPL, and to Stallman's presentations [...] Stallman is a visionary, not an "extremenist".
First of all, I want the GNU project to succeed, and I want to be able to put my computers to good use (for both work and play) using only Free Software. Heck, I even "wave the GNU banner" in my email address (and proudly so).
I also agree with Stallman that the goal shouldn't be "using free software" but "not using non-free software". That is, that's a goal I want to pursue. (But damn ATI and NVIDIA for closed drivers and damn Intel for slow chips... lose-lose:\)
However, my dislike of proprietary software stops when I can use Free Software to replace the functionality of the proprietary offerings (i.e. I don't mind the existence of Notepad as long as I'm free to use Emacs, and I don't mind Word when I can use oowriter, except I think oowriter is slow and bloated:|).
Not so with RMS---and this is where I think he starts sliding from "Visionary" to "Extremist visionary." I think he wants to rid the world of proprietary software and have everyone use only Free Software, and I think he sees the mere existence of proprietary software as a threat to our freedoms.
Now, he might be right, of course; in fact, I think there's a good chance he is.
But I also think that his view is hard to sell to Jo(e) Public, because it is at one end of a continuum---that is, it's extremist.
I support the GNU project because it's about creating the world I want to live in. And I think RMS has done wonders for it, and that the net contribution is a huge positive despite some of the things he do which put some people off.
But I still think his views are extreme, and that lately the good Pro-Free core has been drowned out too much below Anti-Proprietary noise.
He who owns the system makes the rules. Where's the news?
Bill Moyers said in a speech (which you can download off freepress.org; sorry I can't remember which or where, but search around if you're really paranoid that I'm lying), as best as I can remember relaying the words of someone else:
"'Real News' is the things we need to know to keep our freedoms."
To keep our freedom, our right to property, we must know that it is being eroded.
Even if it hasn't changed, it's still Real News. Heck, even if the tree of liberty hasn't lost its need to be periodically watered by the blood of patriots and tyrants, if people have forgotten this lesson (or forgotten how to apply it), that knowledge is Real News.
And, sadly, I see too little of that kind of Real News in the news.
pills are effective, and counselling is not [...]. Psychoanalysis has been practiced for 100 years and going
Well, psychoanalysis is just wrong. Not a good model of the world. Doesn't work. Bunk.
I take it you know enough about the subject and are smart enough to realise that !(counselling == psychoanalysis).
Other kinds of counselling may work. I don't have any evidence to point you at (I leave that to other/.ers), I just present an idea for the open mind to ingest, chew on, and then either spit or swallow according to taste in evidence:)
Ah, yes, you went with the "trillion-dollar sector of nostalgic nerds" answer.
The "trillion" bit is sarcasm. I think nostalgic nerds are already avid consumers of technology, with not much room to increase their consumption in. Why would you want two $newthing anyway? Oh, I might convince my aunt Tillie to buy $newthing from $company rather than $competitor, but that's a zero-sum game.
If it makes sense for all these many companies to open up $thing, why have none done it yet? Are all the managers stupid, unknowing, caught in inefficient and restrictive bureaucracy, or is it the final missing option (which I can't tell you or it wouldn't be missing)?
Cool, awesome. If I work for that company and it does open source $thing, does the money spent on paying the new people to do that work come out of my paycheck?
Or does the community fund the necessary work? Or, failing that, what's the economic incentive for $company to do it? To increase demand for the newer products in the trillion-dollar sector of nostalgic nerds?
It's all fine and good to say "but I want that pony!". It's even better to say "but it's good for society!". The companies are going to do what's good for them, and by law they owe that to their shareholders. Explain to me again why(/how) open-sourcing old technology is good for the company and the shareholders (I must have missed it the first n-1 times; sorry for not paying attention).
Slashdot Mirror
If you add a complex technical solution on top of your disorganization [...]
I agree.
Get organized
"Then a miracle occurs" // "I think you need to be more explicit in step two."
If you're disorganized, does it help you to be told "Get organized"?
They both drop(ped) calls at about the same rate.
Could you please explain to a confused European what dropped calls look like? Is it (from both ends) as if the other party hung up?
(I hope I'm not coming off as smug about our wønderful telephøne system; I'm just curious.)
Actually, some of us use Ubuntu and the 'easier;' distros because (a) we're tied of screwing around getting things to work like we did 6-7 years ago
FWIW:
Five years ago I started using Debian. There was some screwing around, but I got a system that worked the way I want it to.
Today, with Ubuntu, getting my system set up the way I want is a struggle; there's less screwing around (hacking config files), but a lot more pawing around on the 'net for the documentation that isn't there.
Network configuration, for one; I only recently found a good guide for setting up wpa_supplicant such that I don't have to do anything to connect to the access points I frequently "visit" (and I can even make my box run a vpn client on the appropriate networks). Making NetworkManager do the right thing? Automatically? Good luck.
And setting all the fun options for your input devices (EmulateWheel, etc.)? I found this nice comment in my xorg.conf: "Note that some configuration settings that could be done previously in this file, now are automatically configured by the server and settings here are ignored." (my bold.) Great. Some of the things I write in xorg.conf won't work. Which ones? Where do I find out? Okay, so you make HAL do the work; fine. Why don't you make HAL import my configuration from xorg.conf, such that the man pages I read don't lie to me? Or at least fix the man pages?
And PulseAudio? You mean all my sound dies just because I restart X? No thanks, I don't want that. (Luckily you can just uninstall it.)
Ubuntu does some things right, let me be the first to say that. But I think some of the choices are making the distro less usable for me.
so they disposed of it how almost every group disables potential bombs, by shooting it.
Would it be possible to design a bomb that goes off when shot? That way, you-the-bomber get around the most popular technique for defusing rather easily...
(not that I encourage bombing stuff)
And then there's a bunch of other stuff you may or may not know about, such as the Amoeba distributed OS, a free anonymous p2p network called Turtle, and probably a few other knick-knacks along the way.
If you worry about us, a bunch of tech geeks, not having heard about them, they haven't made a huge impact, have they?
I believe this one guy from Finland wrote an OS called Linux based on another OS called Minix discussed in that book (and even got into the flamefest of the century with the Finnish guy!)
Right. If AST is the hot shot writing OSes, why aren't we all using GNU/Minix? The answer is in the flamefest: Minix is meant to be a teaching tool, not a production OS.
"tech expert"? That's a big step down from "CS god."
I think it's as step sideways. Andy seems like a great teacher (I'm TA'ing off of his Structured Computer Organization ATM) and a great Computer Scientist. But being a teacher/scientist and being an engineer/innovator that puts useful technology in the hands of the people are two different things.
It is important to have people design p2p systems nobody uses. But to make use of the useful ideas generated by science, we also need people to translate "Relational Algebra" into plain ol' reading and writing a varchar(140).
And there's a lot more read-and-write-a-varchar going on than anonymous distributed microkernel multiparty something. Many things we need we already know how to write (just not how to write well).
if it's not acceptable that a DVD player refuses to start at odd moments or randomly stops working, why would the same be acceptable in [...] an OS?
How do you define "Fitness for its purpose" when the purpose is defined differently by each individual user? That's both the power and challenge of software: it can do anything. General-purpose OSes are meant to let you do anything.
They're also big enough (i.e. consisting of a large number of interacting components) that if you want to define exactly what users can and can't expect (and can/can't do), you'll end up with either an insanely long list, or overly broad items on that list.
Either "No warranty unless file C:\etc\blah matches this context-sensitive grammar" (repeat 1e6 times over for different files) or "No warranty if the user tinkers with C:\Windows".
Also, what if you get hit by malware which does something that would void the warranty if you did it yourself, and then the malware deletes itself?
Defining Acceptable User Behaviour and Acceptable Software Behaviour is going to be arduous. What would be gained?
Would people refund Windows and replace it with... a different-but-just-as-broken OS? A different-and-less-broken-but-still-broken OS? Or an OS that doesn't do anything? It's not like there are per-unit software manufacturing defects...
Have any of you played Guitar Hero 3 for the Wii?
It's a fairly simple game, right? You have an .mp3 file, and paired with it you have a file containing a list of tuples (time, subset of buttons {1,2,3,4,5}), then you "play back" those two files simultaneously and see if the users strums while holding down the correct subsets within some well-defined window of time.
You can put the game in a "broken" state (requiring you to back out to the main menu); I don't recall exactly how, but I think it's when you, from practice mode, change the practice speed, you get dumped back to a dysfunctional practice mode screen.
If you tell the game your monitor (TV) has a certain delay, when you practice at less than 1x regular speed, apparently the game thinks it should not just scale the time differences in the list-of-subsets file but also that your monitor takes longer time to show pictures. Morons.
And the menu structure is big, menu items are inconsistently named, and the structure itself is poorly aligned with what people want to do. Bad usability. Example: I want to give up on a song, so I choose quit; "Do you really want to quit; unsaved progress will be lost?" (wtf, there's no way to actually save progress...). Well, "Yes I want to quit". "Ok, where do you want to quit to? Main menu, song list, or retry this song?" What??? If I wanted to retry the song, I would have selected the "retry song" menu item. The only reason having a choice here is good is because it takes so unbearably long to navigate from the song list to the main menu.
And couldn't they have added an option to compensate for broken TVs which not only have picture lag, but have slightly desynchronized audio and picture? Would that really have been too hard? (Well, apparently...)
For such a brilliantly designed game play, the implementation (and the design of the things that go around the game play) is unbelievably crappy. I'm seriously doubting whether they tested it.
(And what was that thing about shipping discs with mono audio?)
Seriously, avoid GH3/Wii. If you must show off by completing (or FC'ing) TTFAF on expert, do it some other platform. It's for your own good.
$ apt-cache search GINA dll
$
Dammit, now I can't check out COFEE :(
I posted in this thread to undo a moderation misclick. That has wiped my 'Funny' moderation of my parent's post. Sorry. Someone please mod parent Funny :)
Sorry for moderating you overrated. I meant to click 'Funny'. Posting to undo.
Sorry, sorry, sorry for yelling in the title.
Parent characterizes open source, free software and the different between those quite inaccurately. See my longer explanation at http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1478140&cid=30441788
(Also, non-copyleft licenses can be free, so parent's claim of "Free Software (implies) Must Release Source" is wrong as well).
Would someone please see to it that this post which spreads misinformation (innocently, I assume) isn't modded informative?
Did you mean to reply to my previous parent? I was correcting his correction of your post. Even if we apply your correction to your previous post, my previous parent is still wrong.
My friend was simply reading the poem allowed
That's unlawfully delicious irony ;)
Major correction. We do want people embracing open source [...] If it happens to be free software as well, they just need to release the source code to their new product as well.
You are aware that the GPL is both an Open Source and a Free Software license, right? How does the label you choose to attach to it (OSS vs. FS) change what the redistributor has to do? Right, it doesn't. I think you're confusing OSS with F/OSS and Free Software with Copyleft.
See http://www.opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical -- you'll notice that the GPL is on there. And here's the definition: http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php
Very few open source licenses forbid the commercialization of code.
That would be zero. "The license shall not restrict any party from selling [...]". It's the same for free software.
We want people embracing F/OSS, taking the code, creating their own product, and selling it, as long as they are in compliance with all the relevant licenses, no matter whether those licenses are Open Source, Free or both; no matter whether the licenses are copyleft or not. Make a killing, and we're all happy as long as you stick to the licenses.
Why do you need two stick to kill an ad director??
the advertising executive for that commercial gets a 24 kvolt shock
Stanley Milgram, is that you??
NOME
Please pronounce a hard 'g' in NOM... oh, wait ;)
Stallman is consistent about his beliefs. [...] proceed directly to the GPL, and to Stallman's presentations [...] Stallman is a visionary, not an "extremenist".
First of all, I want the GNU project to succeed, and I want to be able to put my computers to good use (for both work and play) using only Free Software. Heck, I even "wave the GNU banner" in my email address (and proudly so).
I also agree with Stallman that the goal shouldn't be "using free software" but "not using non-free software". That is, that's a goal I want to pursue. (But damn ATI and NVIDIA for closed drivers and damn Intel for slow chips... lose-lose :\)
However, my dislike of proprietary software stops when I can use Free Software to replace the functionality of the proprietary offerings (i.e. I don't mind the existence of Notepad as long as I'm free to use Emacs, and I don't mind Word when I can use oowriter, except I think oowriter is slow and bloated :|).
Not so with RMS---and this is where I think he starts sliding from "Visionary" to "Extremist visionary." I think he wants to rid the world of proprietary software and have everyone use only Free Software, and I think he sees the mere existence of proprietary software as a threat to our freedoms.
Now, he might be right, of course; in fact, I think there's a good chance he is.
But I also think that his view is hard to sell to Jo(e) Public, because it is at one end of a continuum---that is, it's extremist.
I support the GNU project because it's about creating the world I want to live in. And I think RMS has done wonders for it, and that the net contribution is a huge positive despite some of the things he do which put some people off.
But I still think his views are extreme, and that lately the good Pro-Free core has been drowned out too much below Anti-Proprietary noise.
He who owns the system makes the rules. Where's the news?
Bill Moyers said in a speech (which you can download off freepress.org; sorry I can't remember which or where, but search around if you're really paranoid that I'm lying), as best as I can remember relaying the words of someone else:
"'Real News' is the things we need to know to keep our freedoms."
To keep our freedom, our right to property, we must know that it is being eroded.
Even if it hasn't changed, it's still Real News. Heck, even if the tree of liberty hasn't lost its need to be periodically watered by the blood of patriots and tyrants, if people have forgotten this lesson (or forgotten how to apply it), that knowledge is Real News.
And, sadly, I see too little of that kind of Real News in the news.
pills are effective, and counselling is not [...]. Psychoanalysis has been practiced for 100 years and going
Well, psychoanalysis is just wrong. Not a good model of the world. Doesn't work. Bunk.
I take it you know enough about the subject and are smart enough to realise that !(counselling == psychoanalysis).
Other kinds of counselling may work. I don't have any evidence to point you at (I leave that to other /.ers), I just present an idea for the open mind to ingest, chew on, and then either spit or swallow according to taste in evidence :)
After five revisions, will they superior in strength and agility, and at least equal in intelligence, to the hardware engineers who created them?
Or will they just have a screensaver with electric sheep? ;)
It's not right that everyone in the airplane has to put up with your stench^W health risks if you haven't quit smoking yet.
FTFY. Or do you think farting in tight spaces should be illegal too?
However PEOPLE ARE ALLOWED TO BE STUPID.
And people are allowed to be inconsiderate asshats.
(as long as they're not systematically being an asshat towards the same person(s) so as for it to be considered harassment.)
Ah, yes, you went with the "trillion-dollar sector of nostalgic nerds" answer.
The "trillion" bit is sarcasm. I think nostalgic nerds are already avid consumers of technology, with not much room to increase their consumption in. Why would you want two $newthing anyway? Oh, I might convince my aunt Tillie to buy $newthing from $company rather than $competitor, but that's a zero-sum game.
If it makes sense for all these many companies to open up $thing, why have none done it yet? Are all the managers stupid, unknowing, caught in inefficient and restrictive bureaucracy, or is it the final missing option (which I can't tell you or it wouldn't be missing)?
[~10x "$Company should open source $thing"]
Cool, awesome. If I work for that company and it does open source $thing, does the money spent on paying the new people to do that work come out of my paycheck?
Or does the community fund the necessary work? Or, failing that, what's the economic incentive for $company to do it? To increase demand for the newer products in the trillion-dollar sector of nostalgic nerds?
It's all fine and good to say "but I want that pony!". It's even better to say "but it's good for society!". The companies are going to do what's good for them, and by law they owe that to their shareholders. Explain to me again why(/how) open-sourcing old technology is good for the company and the shareholders (I must have missed it the first n-1 times; sorry for not paying attention).
That can happen with bad IRC behaviour as well: http://bash.org/?117002