Microsoft presentations boring? What is boring about seeing a billionaire jump around and scream on stage? Or shout your job title fourteen times?
And as far as Apple being "pricy designer stuff that does the same thing as cheap stuff", it is not. Yes, you can get the same functionality out of them, but you can also get the same functionality out of a luxury car and a bicycle. Mac OS X provides an intuitive interface that makes it easy to do what you want. Beyond that, the Jobs's claim about Dell being $1000 more is correct.
You can make it look sort of like it, though "sort of like it" may be an exaggeration, but you can't give it the interface the same functionality or intuitiveness. It's like putting a paper mache Ferrari on a Malibu. It'll sort of work, and kind of look okay, but it won't be anything like the Ferrari.
Your right to walk the streets unmolested by the police outweighs my right not to get blown up.
Really? Does that mean I can run down the street with a bomb, and throw it at you? Then walk away? Perhaps the rights must be balanced, but neither is absolutely above the other.
The "People's defense"? What about "the people"? If a lot of people voted with their wallet and did not buy Windows, or PCs with it, instead using *nix or OS X, Microsoft would have to fix some of its problems. But people don't because they are apathetic, so why should we delegate powers to some entity to attack Microsoft in an unfair manner, when we are unwilling to do so in a fair way?
There might have been 3 people who switched during the couple of months before apple released xnu for intel because of that. And I doubt there were that many.
You'll have to enable the string parsing concatenation recompilation matrix kit, and possibly the array flattening engine libraries. If you want a GUI, you'll need to pass the build argument "QT_UNDECELERATE_FRAMEWORK". If your OS runs a non-57 bitrate clock register, you'll need to use type 874r function register matrix libraries. When you build you'll need to bypass kernel remapping protocol structures to endianize the unclock processor. Other than those steps, it shouldn't be too hard.
OS X does use Mach in its kernel, but BSD is also very important.
My metric is how many people find it useful. Making someone money is useful. Increasing someone's productivity is useful.
How does a software developer make money if not by charging for software or support, and if he gives all his software and code away? There might be some market for customizing software for a business, but it isn't huge. And lets say this developer makes a normal application(rather than libraries), an RSS reader, web browser, text editor, etc.
GPL3 will have the same kind of power to defend free software from the corporations that want to kill it.
The final battle, with a literal interpretation of the above statement:
*RMS is overseeing the final moments of the Battle of Redmond, when Balmer appears*
Balmer : Die you communist scum! *throws chair at RMS*
RMS: Haha, I have the GPL *holds up a paper copy of the GPL*
*the chair bounces off of the license, and goes back at Balmer*
BSD is more popular than Linux. Mac OS X is based off of it, and I believe Microsoft uses some BSD code. Apple releases most of their modifications.
You might not consider it a victory because those are proprietary operating systems, but they wrote good software which a lot of people found useful.
The main BSDs aren't as popular as Linux because they don't have buzzword status and none are focused on an easy to use Desktop OS.
In the FSF's ideal world, there is no proprietary software. In such a world, programmers wouldn't be able to make money (Some might, but good Desktop software shouldn't require enough support to pay for its development). My favorite software is mostly from very small software companies that wouldn't exist if they had to be open source.
We'd only have a fraction of the software we have, and most of it would be for people who know Linux very well, not the novices that use 90% of computers.
Proprietary software serves consumers, because it needs them to survive. OSS serves computer enthusiasts, because it needs them to survive.
As for Microsoft not serving consumers as well as it could, that is only due to lack of competition.
The article indicates it is the neighbor's fault and asks for help. People are giving advice for a problem. I could ask "What is a good book for learning Ruby, I already know C". There would be no reason to assume I am lying about knowing C for the purpose of commenting.
He'll probably figure out eventually (when people nearby aren't cringing). Plus, you shouldn't violate his property in such a way, unless absolutely necessary. And, he is still being a jerk. The best way to fix it would be for one of his neighbors to get one that operates a wavelength he can hear, or, if you must, alter his such that it makes a noise he can hear.
Open source software is great. It allows people to contribute to its development. It allows unlimited, albeit uncertain, resources in getting a product made, ported, etc.
Proprietary software is great. It allows companies to hire groups of dedicated engineers to build a product and then fund further development and improvement. It helps meet consumers, and not just developers, needs. It is generally faster and more focused than open source. It gives people control over their creations. Most of all, it provides incentive to create them.
I, personally, don't like the GPL as the only license for software. I see open source as a tool to create better software and share it, not as a philosophy. If OSS helps a proprietary software company, why not let them use it? Just because they don't want to give away their software for free?
I hope that someone commercializes and adds a nice interface to some *nix OS and gets about 30% marketshare. Open standards would improve and gain popularity, Windows would improve, OSS would gain more mindshare, etc.
The companies you listed are doing very good things. Competition would be great, but the day when they are quoted below $1 will be a victory for no one.
Much of the inventive to create an easy to use Linux distribution has been to get people to switch. If there was no proprietary software, the people that make OSS would again focus on making software targeted at people like themselves, and it would not be easy to use.
I use Mac OS X for the excellent interface and prevalence of great software. OSS does not provide as much.
There are no "simultaneous" actions on a time scale of weeks.
I don't understand. It seems to me that on a time scale of weeks, there are far more simultaneous actions. When your army is doing something, so is mine. If my scouts see your army moving to my base, I don't wait my turn to begin fortifying.
Yes, but no one takes turns, which I find to be extremely ridiculous. And, at least in modern times, Generals know what is happening as it happens and can often change things.
A game wouldn't be fun if you had to wait a month for your army to get to a city. Most RTS's are downscaled in numbers and time, such that you don't need to manage thousands of little people, and you don't need to wait forever to do things. If you wanted to have a real strategy game, your interface would be an office with pictures and advisors, but that would be boring.
You complain that modern strategy games make you do things too fast. In relation to how fast things are happening, that is not true, and you can pause the game.
The resource management is pretty ridiculous, and in my opinion being able to make people at a building is too. Myst covered those problems.
I have no problem with people making copies of intellectual property and putting them on multiple devices for your own use, if you are licensed to use it. I do not think that it is theft. If you entered into a license agreement, you should follow it, though. If you don't like it, vote with your money.
I do think that pirating intellectual property is theft.
Copyright infringement is stealing intellectual property. Musicians, writers, and programmers are making something, and it is their property unless they agree to give it to others, in which case others obtain all of their rights over it, or allow others to use it. Without laws enforcing this, we would not have most software, literature, and music.
I don't necessarily approve of all of the RIAA's actions, and I strongly dislike DRM. But stealing from them will only make their policies worse, and is morally wrong. The solution is to stop buying from them.
1. Evidence? You might be right, but we sure have a lot of cell phones.
2. I was under the impression that American television was very popular in Europe. And we have some very good shows (Lost, 24, The Office [which I understand is based off a british show]). But I wouldn't be all that surprised, with all of these ridiculous reality tv shows.
3. What take on IE and ODF? Provide some facts.
4. Sort of. I'll admit there has been something of a lack of inspiration is American cars. We've still got some good ones, though. There are very good European cars, but Japanese cars are more economical. No one makes cars as nice as the British.
5. The Kyoto protocol is flawed. It places different requirements on different nations, and some of the lowest requirements are for the worst polluters. Now Europe may produce less pollution, although I'd not assume that without proof, but it produces a lot less.
6. In what way? Facts?
7. By making people who are not responsible for it pay for it?
8. Proof? A lot of software development, both OSS and proprietary, is done in the US, and despite any ridiculous zealotry, neither philosophy is inherently better.
As other have pointed out, the music costs money to produce, but regardless, they can charge whatever they want. You don't need to buy from them. That is why they are not "de facto government". When they start holding guns to people's heads and saying "buy a CD, now", I'll side with your viewpoint.
If you want to show your disapproval of these companies don't buy from them. Stealing is incentive for them to create DRM and raise prices.
Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft presentations boring? What is boring about seeing a billionaire jump around and scream on stage? Or shout your job title fourteen times?
And as far as Apple being "pricy designer stuff that does the same thing as cheap stuff", it is not. Yes, you can get the same functionality out of them, but you can also get the same functionality out of a luxury car and a bicycle. Mac OS X provides an intuitive interface that makes it easy to do what you want. Beyond that, the Jobs's claim about Dell being $1000 more is correct.
Why not print them from the Mac? Textedit (free with the OS) and Office for Mac will print them.
You can make it look sort of like it, though "sort of like it" may be an exaggeration, but you can't give it the interface the same functionality or intuitiveness. It's like putting a paper mache Ferrari on a Malibu. It'll sort of work, and kind of look okay, but it won't be anything like the Ferrari.
Your right to walk the streets unmolested by the police outweighs my right not to get blown up.
Really? Does that mean I can run down the street with a bomb, and throw it at you? Then walk away? Perhaps the rights must be balanced, but neither is absolutely above the other.
The "People's defense"? What about "the people"? If a lot of people voted with their wallet and did not buy Windows, or PCs with it, instead using *nix or OS X, Microsoft would have to fix some of its problems. But people don't because they are apathetic, so why should we delegate powers to some entity to attack Microsoft in an unfair manner, when we are unwilling to do so in a fair way?
There might have been 3 people who switched during the couple of months before apple released xnu for intel because of that. And I doubt there were that many.
You'll have to enable the string parsing concatenation recompilation matrix kit, and possibly the array flattening engine libraries. If you want a GUI, you'll need to pass the build argument "QT_UNDECELERATE_FRAMEWORK". If your OS runs a non-57 bitrate clock register, you'll need to use type 874r function register matrix libraries. When you build you'll need to bypass kernel remapping protocol structures to endianize the unclock processor. Other than those steps, it shouldn't be too hard.
The iMac has a very good built in screen.
OS X does use Mach in its kernel, but BSD is also very important.
My metric is how many people find it useful. Making someone money is useful. Increasing someone's productivity is useful.
How does a software developer make money if not by charging for software or support, and if he gives all his software and code away? There might be some market for customizing software for a business, but it isn't huge. And lets say this developer makes a normal application(rather than libraries), an RSS reader, web browser, text editor, etc.
GPL3 will have the same kind of power to defend free software from the corporations that want to kill it.
The final battle, with a literal interpretation of the above statement:
*RMS is overseeing the final moments of the Battle of Redmond, when Balmer appears*
Balmer : Die you communist scum! *throws chair at RMS*
RMS: Haha, I have the GPL *holds up a paper copy of the GPL*
*the chair bounces off of the license, and goes back at Balmer*
I suspect that HURD will be used by Windows Vista.
That doesn't mean "vote with your wallet" doesn't work. It means that most of the "voters" will support DRM out of apathy.
Sorry, but your scientific method gives us an infinite loop. Revise it.
BSD is more popular than Linux. Mac OS X is based off of it, and I believe Microsoft uses some BSD code. Apple releases most of their modifications.
You might not consider it a victory because those are proprietary operating systems, but they wrote good software which a lot of people found useful.
The main BSDs aren't as popular as Linux because they don't have buzzword status and none are focused on an easy to use Desktop OS.
In the FSF's ideal world, there is no proprietary software. In such a world, programmers wouldn't be able to make money (Some might, but good Desktop software shouldn't require enough support to pay for its development). My favorite software is mostly from very small software companies that wouldn't exist if they had to be open source.
We'd only have a fraction of the software we have, and most of it would be for people who know Linux very well, not the novices that use 90% of computers.
Proprietary software serves consumers, because it needs them to survive. OSS serves computer enthusiasts, because it needs them to survive.
As for Microsoft not serving consumers as well as it could, that is only due to lack of competition.
The consumer does have the choice of DRMed CDs and DRMless CDs right now. And they could go without CDs if they cared enough about DRM.
If people stop buying the product, it will hurt the company. So what if they buy DRMed hardware once? They can still get DRMless hardware.
If DRM isn't stopped by consumer choice, it will be because most people don't care.
The article indicates it is the neighbor's fault and asks for help. People are giving advice for a problem. I could ask "What is a good book for learning Ruby, I already know C". There would be no reason to assume I am lying about knowing C for the purpose of commenting.
He'll probably figure out eventually (when people nearby aren't cringing). Plus, you shouldn't violate his property in such a way, unless absolutely necessary. And, he is still being a jerk. The best way to fix it would be for one of his neighbors to get one that operates a wavelength he can hear, or, if you must, alter his such that it makes a noise he can hear.
Open source software is great. It allows people to contribute to its development. It allows unlimited, albeit uncertain, resources in getting a product made, ported, etc.
Proprietary software is great. It allows companies to hire groups of dedicated engineers to build a product and then fund further development and improvement. It helps meet consumers, and not just developers, needs. It is generally faster and more focused than open source. It gives people control over their creations. Most of all, it provides incentive to create them.
I, personally, don't like the GPL as the only license for software. I see open source as a tool to create better software and share it, not as a philosophy. If OSS helps a proprietary software company, why not let them use it? Just because they don't want to give away their software for free?
I hope that someone commercializes and adds a nice interface to some *nix OS and gets about 30% marketshare. Open standards would improve and gain popularity, Windows would improve, OSS would gain more mindshare, etc.
The companies you listed are doing very good things. Competition would be great, but the day when they are quoted below $1 will be a victory for no one.
Much of the inventive to create an easy to use Linux distribution has been to get people to switch. If there was no proprietary software, the people that make OSS would again focus on making software targeted at people like themselves, and it would not be easy to use.
I use Mac OS X for the excellent interface and prevalence of great software. OSS does not provide as much.
There are no "simultaneous" actions on a time scale of weeks.
I don't understand. It seems to me that on a time scale of weeks, there are far more simultaneous actions. When your army is doing something, so is mine. If my scouts see your army moving to my base, I don't wait my turn to begin fortifying.
Maybe they'll make them explode if someone keeps or damages them.
Yes, but no one takes turns, which I find to be extremely ridiculous. And, at least in modern times, Generals know what is happening as it happens and can often change things.
A game wouldn't be fun if you had to wait a month for your army to get to a city. Most RTS's are downscaled in numbers and time, such that you don't need to manage thousands of little people, and you don't need to wait forever to do things. If you wanted to have a real strategy game, your interface would be an office with pictures and advisors, but that would be boring.
You complain that modern strategy games make you do things too fast. In relation to how fast things are happening, that is not true, and you can pause the game.
The resource management is pretty ridiculous, and in my opinion being able to make people at a building is too. Myst covered those problems.
I have no problem with people making copies of intellectual property and putting them on multiple devices for your own use, if you are licensed to use it. I do not think that it is theft. If you entered into a license agreement, you should follow it, though. If you don't like it, vote with your money.
I do think that pirating intellectual property is theft.
Copyright infringement is stealing intellectual property. Musicians, writers, and programmers are making something, and it is their property unless they agree to give it to others, in which case others obtain all of their rights over it, or allow others to use it. Without laws enforcing this, we would not have most software, literature, and music.
I don't necessarily approve of all of the RIAA's actions, and I strongly dislike DRM. But stealing from them will only make their policies worse, and is morally wrong. The solution is to stop buying from them.
1. Evidence? You might be right, but we sure have a lot of cell phones. 2. I was under the impression that American television was very popular in Europe. And we have some very good shows (Lost, 24, The Office [which I understand is based off a british show]). But I wouldn't be all that surprised, with all of these ridiculous reality tv shows. 3. What take on IE and ODF? Provide some facts. 4. Sort of. I'll admit there has been something of a lack of inspiration is American cars. We've still got some good ones, though. There are very good European cars, but Japanese cars are more economical. No one makes cars as nice as the British. 5. The Kyoto protocol is flawed. It places different requirements on different nations, and some of the lowest requirements are for the worst polluters. Now Europe may produce less pollution, although I'd not assume that without proof, but it produces a lot less. 6. In what way? Facts? 7. By making people who are not responsible for it pay for it? 8. Proof? A lot of software development, both OSS and proprietary, is done in the US, and despite any ridiculous zealotry, neither philosophy is inherently better.
As other have pointed out, the music costs money to produce, but regardless, they can charge whatever they want. You don't need to buy from them. That is why they are not "de facto government". When they start holding guns to people's heads and saying "buy a CD, now", I'll side with your viewpoint.
If you want to show your disapproval of these companies don't buy from them. Stealing is incentive for them to create DRM and raise prices.