You should not need to modify the damned code in order to configure it in a very reasonable way. Did you even look at Linus's patches? Do you have the knowledge necessary to judge his contributions?
I looked at them, and he's certainly right about the code being cleaner now that he's done with it. For some stupid reason, the title-bar click events were hard-coded. Linus made them configurable, but DID NOT CHANGE THE DEFAULT BEHAVIOR. Anything SHOULD be configurable. The maxim "easy to do simple and common things, possible to do esoteric things" should apply specifically to window managers!
being embarrassingly out of touch with the norms of human interaction in a public forum.
That's nice. Too bad he's still right.
GNOME's strategy of refusing to offer the users the option to change something to better suit them is a killer. I used to use GNOME until it started feeling like I was operating my computer through a gigantic pair of rubber gloves. Then I switched to KDE, which lets me configure things my way if I don't like the defaults.
The jackasses who call KDE bloated obviously haven't been using GNOME lately, too. (I can be running a standard KDE desktop and a standard GNOME desktop, and the KDE one invariably takes up less memory with the same or equivalent programs running. Not smaller by much, but GNOME gets no credit by calling KDE bloated.)
The GPL* is chains, to keep companies from using the code in a way that hurts the overall community. Same with the BSD. Same with most anything not public domain. Yet I am sure YOU don't public domain your code, right? So stop with the appeals to emotion.
BSD "keeps companies from using the code in a way that hurts the overall community"? What crack are you smoking? You can do pretty much anything with code licensed under the BSD license. There isn't even that obnoxious advertising clause in the more commonly used three-clause BSD license.
And if I do happen to come up with code that is worth sharing--something new and different, say--the GPL is right out, whereas the BSD license is worthy of serious consideration. The BSD license is an actual Free license, as opposed to the "you can't do things because we don't like them" GPL.
Don't like it? Take your own advice and make a new OS.
Why? I have the perfectly useful BSD operating system. I use Linux out of convenience, but switching to BSD will not be a hardship.
The software monkeys of the FSF have no right to impose hardware restrictions on a manufacturer. How are they any better than the requirement for HDCP on an HDMI-compliant device?
Oh, right, because they care about "freedom."
rms's "freedom" is just another kind of chains. If TiVo's business model is so abhorrent, then someone ought to build a better TiVo-esque device and market it.
See how far you get on your "we're Free as in Freedom!" line.
http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16813058 What a joke. I too spent days trying to figure out what was going on with "my" laptop and "my" VPN connection. I even went as far as rebuilding my system thinking I was hijacked. A "dead domain" to Earthlink does NOT equal a dead domain on my company's intranet but Earthlink makes it so by redirecting you to their own earthlink-help.net site. Needless to say, my email and internal chat was not working either, leaving me dead in the water.
Broken DNS services pull stuff like the above. And that is the fault of an ISP when they violate the standard way DNS is implemented. You can apologize for morons like Earthlink and Charter 'till you're blue in the face, but that does not change the fact that they have altered the way their systems work to the detriment of their users and the Internet as a whole. When your systems don't work the same way as everyone else's in order for you to scrape a few bucks out of people who are already paying you a monthly fee for services, you are wrong.
If this "improves DNS server performance" and is so bloody grand, why does it also intercept pings, ssh, ftp, and other non-http transmissions?
Oh, wait. Because that's...right, right, that's improving performance.
Software applications depend on DNS working properly to do their thing. If it returns a page instead of a 404, that means that the software doesn't know the page doesn't exist--leading to new, ambiguous errors at best, hard crashes at worst.
It's also a violation of the DNS standard and breaks compatbility with...well...I dunno, everything!
Why do they let people like this out on the Internet? Can we blame AOL?:(
Can we begin with "it probably doesn't do a damn thing" and go from there?
Seriously--how is this supposed to "help stop phishing"? I just don't see it.
And you do not seem to understand the simple concept that your definition is wrong in context. If you're allowed to redefine terms the way you want to, you forgo the opportunity to attack them for operating under theirs.
In short--you're a fuckin' hypocrite. And near-illiterate too, it seems, unless both of your shift keys are magically broken.
In English-speaking countries, libertarianism usually refers to a political philosophy maintaining that every person is the absolute owner of their own life and should be free to do whatever they wish with their person or property, as long as they respect the liberty of others. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism
Your definition of terms is horseshit.
Much like those liberals and conservatives who you say "smother because they care" (what a joke), you are trying to redefine the discussion in terms that make your cockeyed, batshit viewpoint acceptable. It isn't. It's a slander against the only philosophy that advocates freedom instead of control.
But that control's okay, because "they care." Right, buddy.
And learn to fucking type. They make a shift key for a reason, for God's sake.
Now, I'm not saying samba is there yet - I can't say I've personally used half of its domain-oriented functions - just enough for around the house. But, if it DID get there why wouldn't companies use it? To the end users there is no difference, and to all but the most closely involved IT folks there would also be no difference. The biggest difference would be in the finanace department...
Never underestimate moron management with a hard-on for Microsoft.
The Samba folks are already previewing Samba 4 which allows you to replace Windows AD Domain controllers with a Samba box. Whatever Microsoft might give Novell it isn't likely to be nearly as cool as that.
I wonder about that. Novell is obviously targeting customers who already have Microsoft AD controllers.
As for the GNU userspace there are a lot of GNU tools that are basically essential to the working of the operating system. Take bash, for example, I imagine that lots of SuSE customers have shell scripts that haven't ever been tested in anything but bash. Replacing bash with another version of sh would almost certainly cause some pain. SuSE customers also almost certainly use gcc and the rest of the GNU toolchain, and chances are good that switching from a GNU userspace to a BSD userspace would break all sorts of things.
SuSE customers wouldn't lose any of these things. They'd be able to use the last GPLv2 version of the software. How have the GNU userspace tools really improved in the last...hell, five years? gcc is the only one I can think of that I use every day that has had a Big Shiny Version Number Change in recent memory, and at this point I don't think there's a lot to do to improve it.
And that's just the obvious stuff. I wouldn't be surprised if SuSE's installer uses GNU parted under the covers, and it basically goes without saying that SuSE uses GNU ghostscript. A lot of documentation uses GNU info formats and tools. Tons of utilities link against readline (which is GPLed), or use aspell. I know of at least one systems administrator that uses nano instead of vi, etc. Don't even get me started about a Linux distribution that didn't include Emacs.
And Novell doesn't lose rights to using any of these--they lose rights to using new versions of these. Which of those have been improved noticeably in recent memory? Parted, maybe, but extending parted on their own couldn't be too hard.
What would be interesting from my point of view (as a Debian/Ubuntu guy, but one who loathes the way the FSF throws its weight around) is a system that would run based on GPLv2, and then, as part of the install process, download individual GPLv3 applications and install them independent of the rest of the system. Might be interesting to see whether that would be legal.
Slashdot Mirror
Of course there are only so many things you can do by double-clicking a window bar.
But you should be able to do them.
I notice you posted AC, how cute.
You should not need to modify the damned code in order to configure it in a very reasonable way. Did you even look at Linus's patches? Do you have the knowledge necessary to judge his contributions?
I looked at them, and he's certainly right about the code being cleaner now that he's done with it. For some stupid reason, the title-bar click events were hard-coded. Linus made them configurable, but DID NOT CHANGE THE DEFAULT BEHAVIOR. Anything SHOULD be configurable. The maxim "easy to do simple and common things, possible to do esoteric things" should apply specifically to window managers!
When someone actually proves that Linus is wrong, though, he'll recant.
These GNOMEheads seem to not be so enlightened.
being embarrassingly out of touch with the norms of human interaction in a public forum.
That's nice. Too bad he's still right.
GNOME's strategy of refusing to offer the users the option to change something to better suit them is a killer. I used to use GNOME until it started feeling like I was operating my computer through a gigantic pair of rubber gloves. Then I switched to KDE, which lets me configure things my way if I don't like the defaults.
The jackasses who call KDE bloated obviously haven't been using GNOME lately, too. (I can be running a standard KDE desktop and a standard GNOME desktop, and the KDE one invariably takes up less memory with the same or equivalent programs running. Not smaller by much, but GNOME gets no credit by calling KDE bloated.)
I donated to the FSF.
I was obviously misapplying my funds.
The GPL* is chains, to keep companies from using the code in a way that hurts the overall community. Same with the BSD. Same with most anything not public domain. Yet I am sure YOU don't public domain your code, right? So stop with the appeals to emotion.
BSD "keeps companies from using the code in a way that hurts the overall community"? What crack are you smoking? You can do pretty much anything with code licensed under the BSD license. There isn't even that obnoxious advertising clause in the more commonly used three-clause BSD license.
And if I do happen to come up with code that is worth sharing--something new and different, say--the GPL is right out, whereas the BSD license is worthy of serious consideration. The BSD license is an actual Free license, as opposed to the "you can't do things because we don't like them" GPL.
Don't like it? Take your own advice and make a new OS.
Why? I have the perfectly useful BSD operating system. I use Linux out of convenience, but switching to BSD will not be a hardship.
My faith in the justice system has been restored!
It shall fall again to the standard low expectations at the beep.
beeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeep...
Modded Offtopic, yet the parent post is modded 3, Informative. The Slashbots are out in force today!
Except the GPLv3 restricts freedom far more than its predecessor and makes it dangerous.
I don't have the programming chops to maintain the code for a GPLv2 version of the GNU userland, but I will not switch to GPLv3, ever.
That's not "fixing" it. That's breaking it.
The software monkeys of the FSF have no right to impose hardware restrictions on a manufacturer. How are they any better than the requirement for HDCP on an HDMI-compliant device?
Oh, right, because they care about "freedom."
rms's "freedom" is just another kind of chains. If TiVo's business model is so abhorrent, then someone ought to build a better TiVo-esque device and market it.
See how far you get on your "we're Free as in Freedom!" line.
Horseshit and worse terms.
http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16813058
What a joke. I too spent days trying to figure out what was going on with "my" laptop and "my" VPN connection. I even went as far as rebuilding my system thinking I was hijacked. A "dead domain" to Earthlink does NOT equal a dead domain on my company's intranet but Earthlink makes it so by redirecting you to their own earthlink-help.net site. Needless to say, my email and internal chat was not working either, leaving me dead in the water.
Broken DNS services pull stuff like the above. And that is the fault of an ISP when they violate the standard way DNS is implemented. You can apologize for morons like Earthlink and Charter 'till you're blue in the face, but that does not change the fact that they have altered the way their systems work to the detriment of their users and the Internet as a whole. When your systems don't work the same way as everyone else's in order for you to scrape a few bucks out of people who are already paying you a monthly fee for services, you are wrong.
If this "improves DNS server performance" and is so bloody grand, why does it also intercept pings, ssh, ftp, and other non-http transmissions?
Oh, wait. Because that's...right, right, that's improving performance.
Phishers change their websites faster than some people I know change their clothes.
Are you fucking cracked?
:(
Software applications depend on DNS working properly to do their thing. If it returns a page instead of a 404, that means that the software doesn't know the page doesn't exist--leading to new, ambiguous errors at best, hard crashes at worst.
It's also a violation of the DNS standard and breaks compatbility with...well...I dunno, everything !
Why do they let people like this out on the Internet? Can we blame AOL?
Can we begin with "it probably doesn't do a damn thing" and go from there? Seriously--how is this supposed to "help stop phishing"? I just don't see it.
Gotcha.
You forgot about feeding rms's god complex.
And you do not seem to understand the simple concept that your definition is wrong in context. If you're allowed to redefine terms the way you want to, you forgo the opportunity to attack them for operating under theirs.
In short--you're a fuckin' hypocrite. And near-illiterate too, it seems, unless both of your shift keys are magically broken.
Guy with mommy issues tries to destroy the world. Film at 1997.
First hit for "libertarianism":
In English-speaking countries, libertarianism usually refers to a political philosophy maintaining that every person is the absolute owner of their own life and should be free to do whatever they wish with their person or property, as long as they respect the liberty of others.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism
Your definition of terms is horseshit.
Much like those liberals and conservatives who you say "smother because they care" (what a joke), you are trying to redefine the discussion in terms that make your cockeyed, batshit viewpoint acceptable. It isn't. It's a slander against the only philosophy that advocates freedom instead of control.
But that control's okay, because "they care." Right, buddy.
And learn to fucking type. They make a shift key for a reason, for God's sake.
Now, I'm not saying samba is there yet - I can't say I've personally used half of its domain-oriented functions - just enough for around the house. But, if it DID get there why wouldn't companies use it? To the end users there is no difference, and to all but the most closely involved IT folks there would also be no difference. The biggest difference would be in the finanace department...
Never underestimate moron management with a hard-on for Microsoft.
I've never seen someone with a 5-digit Slashdot ID be quite so... ...special.
So in other words, he's an asshat on the scale of RMS.
So...in other words, it was cheap. How much do you think everyone else paid?
The Samba folks are already previewing Samba 4 which allows you to replace Windows AD Domain controllers with a Samba box. Whatever Microsoft might give Novell it isn't likely to be nearly as cool as that.
I wonder about that. Novell is obviously targeting customers who already have Microsoft AD controllers.
As for the GNU userspace there are a lot of GNU tools that are basically essential to the working of the operating system. Take bash, for example, I imagine that lots of SuSE customers have shell scripts that haven't ever been tested in anything but bash. Replacing bash with another version of sh would almost certainly cause some pain. SuSE customers also almost certainly use gcc and the rest of the GNU toolchain, and chances are good that switching from a GNU userspace to a BSD userspace would break all sorts of things.
SuSE customers wouldn't lose any of these things. They'd be able to use the last GPLv2 version of the software. How have the GNU userspace tools really improved in the last...hell, five years? gcc is the only one I can think of that I use every day that has had a Big Shiny Version Number Change in recent memory, and at this point I don't think there's a lot to do to improve it.
And that's just the obvious stuff. I wouldn't be surprised if SuSE's installer uses GNU parted under the covers, and it basically goes without saying that SuSE uses GNU ghostscript. A lot of documentation uses GNU info formats and tools. Tons of utilities link against readline (which is GPLed), or use aspell. I know of at least one systems administrator that uses nano instead of vi, etc. Don't even get me started about a Linux distribution that didn't include Emacs.
And Novell doesn't lose rights to using any of these--they lose rights to using new versions of these. Which of those have been improved noticeably in recent memory? Parted, maybe, but extending parted on their own couldn't be too hard.
What would be interesting from my point of view (as a Debian/Ubuntu guy, but one who loathes the way the FSF throws its weight around) is a system that would run based on GPLv2, and then, as part of the install process, download individual GPLv3 applications and install them independent of the rest of the system. Might be interesting to see whether that would be legal.
And your pedantry is stupid.