I'm unaware of any fundamental reason why a programmer in Quebec is less intelligent or capable than a programmer in Redmond, so I see no reason for Quebec to export their money to Redmond to get an item they could otherwise get locally.
Because enterprise-level support for the entire provincial government is almost certainly beyond the relatively small-scale software companies you'll find in Quebec, whereas Microsoft (and Sun, too, but hey--the money's still going out of the province, so you're still screwed) does have that experience.
It's not just "OMG, slap a patch on it." And it's not just "oh, hire a programmer to maintain it." Support is the most important consideration in the enterprise, so long as the features are comparable. MS Office is supported. OpenOffice is more or less not supported, and something tells me you won't find a Quebec-native company capable of providing enterprise-level support for it on such a scale.
If a major government branch is using it, then it is reasonable to assume that local software companies will invest a little bit in making sure they have someone with at least a passing familiarity with the OO.o codebase (or, failing that, someone who can acquire said familiarity quickly when a lucrative contract appears).
Wow, this is one of the more clueless things that I've read here in a while.
Rolling your own patches means you have to support those patches. If you want to pay Sun to support your installation (which any enterprise would--no, "local software companies" are not an alternative to an enterprise-level contract with one of the Big Guys) and they start seeing your guys inserting custom patches, they're gonna walk. And support is everything in the enterprise. You might get further by paying Sun to roll those patches, but guess what? The money's still--OMG!--going out of the country.
Or, as is far more likely, it won't, and it'll be a retarded waste of effort for all involved. If you stopped to think about the proposition for...oh, about ten seconds, you'd realize the insanity of it.
A similar situation: Lead paint was banned for residential use in 1978. Millions of houses are still coated with lead paint. Lead paint arguably has direct harm to many people, but still, there are millions of homes coated in lead paint. Why? It's too much of a hassle. Repainting a house is relatively cheap, but it's enough of a hassle that people don't want to do it. The OMG SOLAR EVERYWHEEEERE idiots are proposing something that's more of an assache to actually do, plus it's pretty expensive. Yeah, that's gonna get some traction.
In any case, it's not the government's job to favor technologies in what is an economy that leans much more toward the market side of things.
Keep beating that idealist's drum, though! Maybe someday you'll get a dose of realism that will help you not make stupid statements like the one in your last post.
Developers have moved on. IE is one of those things you test for once you've finished your work in Firefox.
Nonsense. IE remains the majority browser. Developers who want to actually produce a product that works correctly for the majority of users target IE first (because Firefox usually does the right thing when dealing with IE-isms, and IE-isms are easier to undo to target Firefox than vice versa).
This private browsing thing, if it wasn't a closed source application from a group that has a history of co-operating with US intelligence gathering organizations, might be vaguely interesting.
But the circumstances being what they are, it strikes me as a way to help the overstaffed NSA by red flagging your most sensitive items for their attention.
FUD FUD FUD FUD, FUD FUD FUD FUD, FUD-UD-UD-UD-UD-UDDDDD...FUD!
Like hell. There's a very common saying, and it's pretty damn true: "BSD users use BSD because they love Unix. Linux users use Linux because they hate Windows."
Go look at Ubuntu Forums or Linux Questions or any of the other community sites; it's a huge whack of Microsoft hate (often leading them to convince themselves that what they're using is better than it actually is, but hey, that's part of the open-source gig these days).
I didn't say it wasn't capable. I said (or, rather, implied) that you aren't getting the ability to browse the "entire Internet" effectively without Flash, which is banned under the terms of the iPhone SDK. The claim is thus incorrect. (It's at least possible to create a FTP client--Java and Flash are not allowed at all.)
People don't need a FTP client to effectively browse the web. These days, they do need a Flash player. Not for Youtube and the like (although, really, for most people that'd be a big win), but for the multitude of websites out there that require Flash. (No, "don't visit those sites" is not an acceptable workaround.)
This isn't hard to understand. You just sound like a troll disagreeing for the sake of disagreement.
For a platform that claims to offer "the entire Internet", it's not unreasonable to expect that a major part of most users' browsing experience--Flash--can run. Yyou can run FTP clients on an iPhone. Java and Flash, on the other hand, are against the license terms of the iPhone SDK.
Pretty greedy of the author to automatically expect people to pay him/her. How about I create something and expect you to pay for it.
If it was of value to me, I'd pay a reasonable price. If the price was unreasonable, I'd do without or make a substitute (which is why software patents, and not copyright, are bad--they prevent competition).
If they want me to pay them for work then the price is negotiated before they start, I'm not going to just pay someone on their command.
You aren't being commanded to pay them. Stop being intentionally disingenuous. The terms of their business offer are "if you want to use my product, you must pay to license it." It is a quid pro quo: the creator does something for you (provides a product that provides you utility), you do something for him (pay him for his time and effort). Ignoring that and downloading it simply because you don't feel like paying for it is reprehensible. You are turning it from quid pro quo into a one-way street for your own convenience.
Please explain the harm in using something that someone has created?
The societally accepted agreement (and don't give me that shit about "well, I didn't decide that"--you live here, follow the fucking law or move) is that a creator has the right to demand payment for his work if you wish to avail yourself of it. That said, if you're using it, it's obviously providing utility to you. Since it's providing utility to you, it can be safely assumed that you would purchase it if it was not available illegally for free (the "I wouldn't use it if I had to pay for it" argument is patent hogwash), if the utility was great enough. The fact that you're contravening the license to use it lends credence to the idea that you would purchase it. Thus, the author is losing potential sales because of piracy. While not all of those potential sales would necessarily manifest, some will--and you are, in effect, depriving the creator of what very well may be your livelihood. It's not your right to erase those potential sales simply because you want it without paying.
Now that looks nice. From those screenshots, Flock's rendering looks better than IE, too.
Now if only I could get that in Firefox.:|
(Also, it's kind of funny that three people found it necessary to mod my original post Overrated, which can't be metamodded, because I dared say something other than "OMG FIREFOX IS AWESOME!!!1!11".)
One thing I have noticed is that Cairo's font rendering isn't as "overall pretty" as FF2 with IFE... but it is more readable. IFE, on all but the lowest settings blurred the fonts too much, as Windows on most of it's settings do. That especially (or mostly) applies to small text... but that is mostly what I use.
Maybe that's what you see as "sucks"? I prefer the text a little less anti-aliased to make the smaller fonts more readable - it especially helps where sites select font sizes using CSS, and the browser's minimum font size is set really low (which I do, to allow a site to render how it wants).
First--I believe that Firefox used GDI+ for rendering in Fx2, but may use Cairo in Fx3.
I browse on an LCD from about two feet away (laptop). This is IE7's text on the "Smallest" setting: http://i37.tinypic.com/dcaee9.jpg Dunno about you, but that looks a lot easier to read than a similar size on Firefox: http://i34.tinypic.com/rhtymo.jpg I already closed Safari and can't be assed to reopen it, but it looks very poor at small sizes, much worse than either Firefox or IE7.
Could just be me/my monitor, admittedly, but hey--not to put too fine a point on it, but if IE can do it right, Firefox ought to be able to.
No antialiasing/hinting in Firefox; it's harder to read (on an LCD, at least, probably easier on a CRT). Of the three viewed on this LCD screen, IE looks nicest, Safari next, and Firefox last.
As for the freezing issues--I've seen it only on two computers, this laptop (Dell Inspiron E1505) and on a MacBook Pro running Windows. I haven't looked on others. I've been tempted to file a bug report, but since every previous time I've filed a bug against a Mozilla product it was shot down as "works for me" or "not a bug" (despite, you know...not being correct and, in fact, being changed later), to hell with 'em.
And it's noticeably slower than IE7. I use Firefox mostly because it has the extensions I like and because IE7's UI is annoying and weird, but I've been thinking about switching to Maxthon (which I really think Microsoft should buy up, because they actually get how to make a usable browser on the IE core).
Nethack's gameplay is far superior to what Diablo offers, because Diablo is static. Woohoo, the maps regenerate. It's still the same game every time--and can't even begin to touch the complexity and entertainment value of Nethack. Of course, the main bitch about Nethack (aside from "too hard," which is hilarious) is that it doesn't have graphics, so they've lost half the droolers out there (and a good thing, too--maybe they can lose the other half?).
I wouldn't want to compare with Starcraft, because Starcraft fucking sucks. Simplistic gameplay, retarded technical failures (rendering a unit--the Valkyrie, I think?--useless because half the time it can't shoot its weapons because of sprite limits? Are you fucking kidding?), and a community of asshats. No thanks.
And there are excellent ASCII-based strategy games. Dwarf Fortress is head and shoulders above anything Blizzard, or the rest of the mainstream gaming industry, has done since DOS 6 was the new hotness.
-Firefox 3 randomly pegs my CPU and freezes for ten seconds at a time. It's not extensions; I've tested. -Firefox's font rendering sucks compared to IE or even Safari (seriously, it's ugly in comparison). -Firefox is often slower than IE7 (no extensions installed, no Greasemonkey, nothing, and it takes longer to load).
The IE security holes are more or less a non-issue for the vast majority of people. They're quickly patched (hi, Windows Update) and are generally found in the wild on sketchy sites that people with sense know to avoid.
I use Firefox, but saying that it's better these days is pretty disingenuous. Both suck in different and annoying ways.
why should I compensate the creator? what for exactly.
He created something you find useful. Not compensating the creator for his expended time and effort is wrong (unless the creator specifically rebuffs compensation, i.e. freeware). (This does include open-source, though there compensation can also come in the form of code contributions.)
I do buy software sometimes but if I choose not to donate or buy that's my choice.
Um, what? How the hell do you figure? Donations, sure (though you're a leech if you don't donate or contribute to an open-source project you find useful), but buy? The creator says "pay me if you want to use what I created" and you think you have some sort of right to say "no, but I'll use it anyway"? What the hell is wrong with you?
It is wrong because you have not compensated the creator. The idea that the creator must lose something in order to deserve compensation is laughable. The creator has expended effort, time, and in most cases money to create that product; it is his right to be compensated for it. If the creator is not compensated for his effort yet you still appropriate his creation, it is at his expense--this is plainly obvious.
These mental gymnastics are really impressive. It seems that many in this thread manage to simultaneously think that a work is worth using or enjoying, but not worth compensating the creator of the work for the utility or enjoyment that his work provided. It's really quite interesting; it smacks of cheapness and miserdom more than anything else, of "I want it for free, so fuck him and the work he put into it."
And despite the most fervent wishes of the pirating crowd, people are hurt. "I wouldn't have bought it anyway" -- but it's worth using? That's an endorsement of the product, an acknowledgement that, if it was important enough to you, you would purchase it. But instead, you can appropriate it for nothing and shaft the creator, so you do. The harm is plainly apparent to those without a stake in getting these works for free.
One must wonder how many of these "the supply is infinite, he loses nothing" people would take an unattended item if they knew they would not get caught. My bet is that many would, for the consequences are equally nonexistent to software piracy. They may say "someone would be harmed, so I wouldn't," but my money's on that being a lie.
Re:Every country has a different threshold
on
China Blocks iTunes
·
· Score: 1
There are legitimate reasons to knock on somebody's door at midnight, and I don't want to be greeted with a gun.
Right, but the thing is--somebody competent and trained in the proper use of a firearm for self-defense won't do that. Mine's within easy reach, but I am trained to determine whether a threat exists. Only in obvious cases--a shattering window, for example--would I draw a weapon before investigating.
Yes, there are stupid people (hi, Texans!) who won't do this, but I find it silly to restrict everyone because of stupid people. (We let stupid people drive...)
But you're gaining something without the right to do so. You are profiting, in terms of enjoyment (a benefit to you), without compensating the creator. Hence the moral wrong you are committing.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm unaware of any fundamental reason why a programmer in Quebec is less intelligent or capable than a programmer in Redmond, so I see no reason for Quebec to export their money to Redmond to get an item they could otherwise get locally.
Because enterprise-level support for the entire provincial government is almost certainly beyond the relatively small-scale software companies you'll find in Quebec, whereas Microsoft (and Sun, too, but hey--the money's still going out of the province, so you're still screwed) does have that experience.
It's not just "OMG, slap a patch on it." And it's not just "oh, hire a programmer to maintain it." Support is the most important consideration in the enterprise, so long as the features are comparable. MS Office is supported. OpenOffice is more or less not supported, and something tells me you won't find a Quebec-native company capable of providing enterprise-level support for it on such a scale.
If a major government branch is using it, then it is reasonable to assume that local software companies will invest a little bit in making sure they have someone with at least a passing familiarity with the OO.o codebase (or, failing that, someone who can acquire said familiarity quickly when a lucrative contract appears).
Wow, this is one of the more clueless things that I've read here in a while.
Rolling your own patches means you have to support those patches. If you want to pay Sun to support your installation (which any enterprise would--no, "local software companies" are not an alternative to an enterprise-level contract with one of the Big Guys) and they start seeing your guys inserting custom patches, they're gonna walk. And support is everything in the enterprise. You might get further by paying Sun to roll those patches, but guess what? The money's still--OMG!--going out of the country.
Or, as is far more likely, it won't, and it'll be a retarded waste of effort for all involved. If you stopped to think about the proposition for...oh, about ten seconds, you'd realize the insanity of it.
A similar situation: Lead paint was banned for residential use in 1978. Millions of houses are still coated with lead paint. Lead paint arguably has direct harm to many people, but still, there are millions of homes coated in lead paint. Why? It's too much of a hassle. Repainting a house is relatively cheap, but it's enough of a hassle that people don't want to do it. The OMG SOLAR EVERYWHEEEERE idiots are proposing something that's more of an assache to actually do, plus it's pretty expensive. Yeah, that's gonna get some traction.
In any case, it's not the government's job to favor technologies in what is an economy that leans much more toward the market side of things.
Keep beating that idealist's drum, though! Maybe someday you'll get a dose of realism that will help you not make stupid statements like the one in your last post.
Developers have moved on. IE is one of those things you test for once you've finished your work in Firefox.
Nonsense. IE remains the majority browser. Developers who want to actually produce a product that works correctly for the majority of users target IE first (because Firefox usually does the right thing when dealing with IE-isms, and IE-isms are easier to undo to target Firefox than vice versa).
This private browsing thing, if it wasn't a closed source application from a group that has a history of co-operating with US intelligence gathering organizations, might be vaguely interesting.
But the circumstances being what they are, it strikes me as a way to help the overstaffed NSA by red flagging your most sensitive items for their attention.
FUD FUD FUD FUD, FUD FUD FUD FUD, FUD-UD-UD-UD-UD-UDDDDD...FUD!
Most of us just love Linux.
Like hell. There's a very common saying, and it's pretty damn true: "BSD users use BSD because they love Unix. Linux users use Linux because they hate Windows."
Go look at Ubuntu Forums or Linux Questions or any of the other community sites; it's a huge whack of Microsoft hate (often leading them to convince themselves that what they're using is better than it actually is, but hey, that's part of the open-source gig these days).
Because there are a lot more Chinese/Japanese users than Arabic users.
I don't disagree, but the idea that there's going to be a massive push to put solar panels on every building is a joke.
I agree. It's the magical-hand-of-government morons that I was poking at.
Solar panels on every building in America? How do you propose to pay for it?
I didn't say it wasn't capable. I said (or, rather, implied) that you aren't getting the ability to browse the "entire Internet" effectively without Flash, which is banned under the terms of the iPhone SDK. The claim is thus incorrect. (It's at least possible to create a FTP client--Java and Flash are not allowed at all.)
People don't need a FTP client to effectively browse the web. These days, they do need a Flash player. Not for Youtube and the like (although, really, for most people that'd be a big win), but for the multitude of websites out there that require Flash. (No, "don't visit those sites" is not an acceptable workaround.)
This isn't hard to understand. You just sound like a troll disagreeing for the sake of disagreement.
For a platform that claims to offer "the entire Internet", it's not unreasonable to expect that a major part of most users' browsing experience--Flash--can run. Yyou can run FTP clients on an iPhone. Java and Flash, on the other hand, are against the license terms of the iPhone SDK.
Flash is a de facto standard for delivering rich media. Claims to the contrary ignore reality.
what very well may be his livelihood
Pretty greedy of the author to automatically expect people to pay him/her. How about I create something and expect you to pay for it.
If it was of value to me, I'd pay a reasonable price. If the price was unreasonable, I'd do without or make a substitute (which is why software patents, and not copyright, are bad--they prevent competition).
If they want me to pay them for work then the price is negotiated before they start, I'm not going to just pay someone on their command.
You aren't being commanded to pay them. Stop being intentionally disingenuous. The terms of their business offer are "if you want to use my product, you must pay to license it." It is a quid pro quo: the creator does something for you (provides a product that provides you utility), you do something for him (pay him for his time and effort). Ignoring that and downloading it simply because you don't feel like paying for it is reprehensible. You are turning it from quid pro quo into a one-way street for your own convenience.
Please explain the harm in using something that someone has created?
The societally accepted agreement (and don't give me that shit about "well, I didn't decide that"--you live here, follow the fucking law or move) is that a creator has the right to demand payment for his work if you wish to avail yourself of it. That said, if you're using it, it's obviously providing utility to you. Since it's providing utility to you, it can be safely assumed that you would purchase it if it was not available illegally for free (the "I wouldn't use it if I had to pay for it" argument is patent hogwash), if the utility was great enough. The fact that you're contravening the license to use it lends credence to the idea that you would purchase it. Thus, the author is losing potential sales because of piracy. While not all of those potential sales would necessarily manifest, some will--and you are, in effect, depriving the creator of what very well may be your livelihood. It's not your right to erase those potential sales simply because you want it without paying.
Now that looks nice. From those screenshots, Flock's rendering looks better than IE, too.
Now if only I could get that in Firefox. :|
(Also, it's kind of funny that three people found it necessary to mod my original post Overrated, which can't be metamodded, because I dared say something other than "OMG FIREFOX IS AWESOME!!!1!11".)
Well, at least you're honest about being artistically bankrupt.
One thing I have noticed is that Cairo's font rendering isn't as "overall pretty" as FF2 with IFE... but it is more readable. IFE, on all but the lowest settings blurred the fonts too much, as Windows on most of it's settings do. That especially (or mostly) applies to small text... but that is mostly what I use.
Maybe that's what you see as "sucks"? I prefer the text a little less anti-aliased to make the smaller fonts more readable - it especially helps where sites select font sizes using CSS, and the browser's minimum font size is set really low (which I do, to allow a site to render how it wants).
First--I believe that Firefox used GDI+ for rendering in Fx2, but may use Cairo in Fx3.
I browse on an LCD from about two feet away (laptop). This is IE7's text on the "Smallest" setting: http://i37.tinypic.com/dcaee9.jpg Dunno about you, but that looks a lot easier to read than a similar size on Firefox: http://i34.tinypic.com/rhtymo.jpg I already closed Safari and can't be assed to reopen it, but it looks very poor at small sizes, much worse than either Firefox or IE7.
Could just be me/my monitor, admittedly, but hey--not to put too fine a point on it, but if IE can do it right, Firefox ought to be able to.
IE: http://i37.tinypic.com/a4ne44.png
Safari: http://i35.tinypic.com/m7qdyh.jpg
Firefox: http://i36.tinypic.com/152gwsl.png
No antialiasing/hinting in Firefox; it's harder to read (on an LCD, at least, probably easier on a CRT). Of the three viewed on this LCD screen, IE looks nicest, Safari next, and Firefox last.
As for the freezing issues--I've seen it only on two computers, this laptop (Dell Inspiron E1505) and on a MacBook Pro running Windows. I haven't looked on others. I've been tempted to file a bug report, but since every previous time I've filed a bug against a Mozilla product it was shot down as "works for me" or "not a bug" (despite, you know...not being correct and, in fact, being changed later), to hell with 'em.
And it's noticeably slower than IE7. I use Firefox mostly because it has the extensions I like and because IE7's UI is annoying and weird, but I've been thinking about switching to Maxthon (which I really think Microsoft should buy up, because they actually get how to make a usable browser on the IE core).
Nethack's gameplay is far superior to what Diablo offers, because Diablo is static. Woohoo, the maps regenerate. It's still the same game every time--and can't even begin to touch the complexity and entertainment value of Nethack. Of course, the main bitch about Nethack (aside from "too hard," which is hilarious) is that it doesn't have graphics, so they've lost half the droolers out there (and a good thing, too--maybe they can lose the other half?).
I wouldn't want to compare with Starcraft, because Starcraft fucking sucks. Simplistic gameplay, retarded technical failures (rendering a unit--the Valkyrie, I think?--useless because half the time it can't shoot its weapons because of sprite limits? Are you fucking kidding?), and a community of asshats. No thanks.
And there are excellent ASCII-based strategy games. Dwarf Fortress is head and shoulders above anything Blizzard, or the rest of the mainstream gaming industry, has done since DOS 6 was the new hotness.
Except...Firefox isn't better in a lot of ways.
-Firefox 3 randomly pegs my CPU and freezes for ten seconds at a time. It's not extensions; I've tested.
-Firefox's font rendering sucks compared to IE or even Safari (seriously, it's ugly in comparison).
-Firefox is often slower than IE7 (no extensions installed, no Greasemonkey, nothing, and it takes longer to load).
The IE security holes are more or less a non-issue for the vast majority of people. They're quickly patched (hi, Windows Update) and are generally found in the wild on sketchy sites that people with sense know to avoid.
I use Firefox, but saying that it's better these days is pretty disingenuous. Both suck in different and annoying ways.
why should I compensate the creator? what for exactly.
He created something you find useful. Not compensating the creator for his expended time and effort is wrong (unless the creator specifically rebuffs compensation, i.e. freeware). (This does include open-source, though there compensation can also come in the form of code contributions.)
I do buy software sometimes but if I choose not to donate or buy that's my choice.
Um, what? How the hell do you figure? Donations, sure (though you're a leech if you don't donate or contribute to an open-source project you find useful), but buy? The creator says "pay me if you want to use what I created" and you think you have some sort of right to say "no, but I'll use it anyway"? What the hell is wrong with you?
It is wrong because you have not compensated the creator. The idea that the creator must lose something in order to deserve compensation is laughable. The creator has expended effort, time, and in most cases money to create that product; it is his right to be compensated for it. If the creator is not compensated for his effort yet you still appropriate his creation, it is at his expense--this is plainly obvious.
These mental gymnastics are really impressive. It seems that many in this thread manage to simultaneously think that a work is worth using or enjoying, but not worth compensating the creator of the work for the utility or enjoyment that his work provided. It's really quite interesting; it smacks of cheapness and miserdom more than anything else, of "I want it for free, so fuck him and the work he put into it."
And despite the most fervent wishes of the pirating crowd, people are hurt. "I wouldn't have bought it anyway" -- but it's worth using? That's an endorsement of the product, an acknowledgement that, if it was important enough to you, you would purchase it. But instead, you can appropriate it for nothing and shaft the creator, so you do. The harm is plainly apparent to those without a stake in getting these works for free.
One must wonder how many of these "the supply is infinite, he loses nothing" people would take an unattended item if they knew they would not get caught. My bet is that many would, for the consequences are equally nonexistent to software piracy. They may say "someone would be harmed, so I wouldn't," but my money's on that being a lie.
There are legitimate reasons to knock on somebody's door at midnight, and I don't want to be greeted with a gun.
Right, but the thing is--somebody competent and trained in the proper use of a firearm for self-defense won't do that. Mine's within easy reach, but I am trained to determine whether a threat exists. Only in obvious cases--a shattering window, for example--would I draw a weapon before investigating.
Yes, there are stupid people (hi, Texans!) who won't do this, but I find it silly to restrict everyone because of stupid people. (We let stupid people drive...)
But you're gaining something without the right to do so. You are profiting, in terms of enjoyment (a benefit to you), without compensating the creator. Hence the moral wrong you are committing.