No true free economy allows laws that protect certain markets and business models. Obama is up to his ears in jobs loss. As a consequence these MPAA/RIAA lobbyists go to him claiming that they are loosing billions and millions of jobs in an industry that "can't" be off-shored--nothing like American movies and music.
What's wrong is that he thinks that these efforts will result in recovery of lost jobs and income. In reality, when the economy recovers, if it ever does, these industries (with their protected and outdated business models) will be in control beyond what was intended, and it will have set a precedent for other industries to try the same thing, thus leaving America, and the world, with massive abusive businesses controlling ever more of Congress.
All this silliness. They react like they would being touched by a branch of a tree. It's an inanimate object. Though it may have utility in purpose most would view it as a thing, an object, nothing more.
One has to rightly point out that Yahoo uses Bing's search engine and Yahoo gets paid by Microsoft.
Microsoft's market-share comes mostly from those that don't change their search engine because they don't know how or why. Microsoft also gets share with drive-by installs of that bing bar. Both Microsoft and Yahoo participate in a practice that makes it difficult to change your search provider through something called Search Protection (which is a program that's installed). Their purpose isn't to keep the malicious toolbars and search engines from being used, but to keep you from switching to Google. Most people seeing that warning are unsure and don't act on the change because of the warning.
Why did they reduce the price of the original iPhone? It was what, $599? They reduced it to $399 shortly after release. They reduce it to encourage people to purchase. It's a valid economic principle to reduce the cost to gain more sales. Many apps from Apples app store were $3.99, $2.99, etc but when the vendor went to.99 they saw their profits increase a thousand fold.
I don't think i would want that. It sticks out and has a great potential to break the data/power connector on the bottom. I was hoping for a solution that would be internal to the iPad.
Yeah, just looking at that made me cringe. I would not want that.
I don't know, but is it just me, am I the only one that wasn't impressed? Each of these features were a "given" before the release. I actually expected Apple to reduce the cost by 50%. Now that would have been motivation to purchase one. The software bundle isn't a factor for me as I would use it for a short time or never at all.
As far as the apps comparison goes, I think that was pure bunk. It's all relative. At one point Apple was 100,000+ apps ahead of a newly introduced Android. And were they really comparing 65,000 apps for a tablet PC when Android 3.x hasn't even been released yet? Where we stand now whether you have 200,000 or 100,000 apps really doesn't mean much. I can't sift through that many, I wouldn't need that many, and I certainly wouldn't use even a fraction, a tiny fraction of what's available. Those apps are too tiny to really have an impact on what I do day to day. Sure, social networking apps are cool, and a few good utilities, and a couple creative games and I'm at my peak. I want to listen to music, browse the web, save content, look at pictures, etc.
Did Apple say they were adding a standard USB port? Or a flash card port? If it did I might consider it just to use with my photography. It's nice to be able remove the card and go through the photos zapping the ones I don't want while I'm out there. It's tedious to do that on the camera's LCD.
It seems Microsoft's intent isn't to forge alliances it's to steal the baby with the bathwater. If they can use a carrot to lure away the best programmers they'll be able to undercut open source.
This is not an example of Microsoft playing nice or forging alliances, indeed it is just the opposite.
Two of the last companies I worked for tried this. I read it and asked if I had to sign. They said if I didn't want to sign then I shouldn't. I kept the job in both cases. On the last job I told them explicitly that anything I create on my own is mine. They agreed. They asked me to develop some stuff for in house use. I told them that if I did I retained full rights to it. They agreed.
Gnome's registry does exist, but gnome does not maintain the settings for Linux and the various program. It only maintains settings for itself, the desktop manager.
Clearly because it is a significant point of failure. It is also an overly complex system that could be better handled in other ways. The debate still rages over whether individual configuration files work better. Other operating systems besides windows clearly show that individual configuration files are not a detrimental way in managing configurations.
Yeah, let's stay with one freaking file (though there may be 3 it only takes one) that when it becomes corrupt it takes everything down. A better system would be one that decentralizes this task and only affects one or a few programs (and not the OS). If you aren't aware of it, and it really makes your argument seem silly, is that every program writes tons of files to their folders. Some write them all over the place. To look at what there was (with.ini files) and what we have today (the registry) and you consider that programs can place hundreds if not thousands of files on your computer in various folders, one would have to admit that them putting their little.ini file into their folder isn't going to add much to the complexity. The registry is a poor solution that was never improved and it is a single point of failure on the whole system that causes more than its share of grief for users.
And, as far as how Linux accomplishes the same feat you appear to be clueless about the configuration files. I actually see no detriment to being able to show hidden files and to locate the ones that correspond to the program in question and to rename them in an effort to debug issues.
And, as far as incompatible formats go, why would my photo editor need to know the file format of my CD player program's configuration file? And since when do we not have total incompatibility, even in the Windows registry, amongst programs? Why would my photo editor need to know what's happening to the registry settings (or configuration file settings) of my CD player program? They don't know anything about each other nor do they need to know.
Is it really going to take you forever to realize that the bubbles are the icons that they allegedly replace? So, the bubbles are bigger and may be animated or live even, and user created. Using a bubble, where clicking on them brings up actions/tasks that you can do to the bubble, is not any different than right clicking and bringing up a context menu. Using a cellphone or other such type device to control (as a touchpad), or stream to, isn't radical at all. Many systems support that. I've done it with Linux, the Mac, and Windows. That doesn't make them radical.
If they plan on designing this around surface PCs, well, that's just impractical. People aren't going to replace their current system with something that replaces icons with bubbles and more cash outlay.
As far as I'm concerned the desktop needs to be cleared of icons, especially in Windows, as too many slow the computer down, and as the desktop crashes (which it does for everyone) the automatic reload is irritating and slows us down. Change of this sort can be accomplished without a trick which changes the icons into circles (bubbles) while requiring new hardware to accomplish.
Wikipedia is NOT the official weights and measure system for the internet. By it's very nature and the nature of people to be fanboish about what they own, know, and use, you can't trust statistics bantered about on the likes of Wikipedia, especially for something as difficult to measure as OS use.
The most definitive estimate, based on 20,000 sites over the past 15 years indicate that Linux has 4-5% of the market. When you look at Canonical and Fedora they claim 12 and 24 million respectively (as of last year). That doesn't account for a year's worth of installs, nor does it account for other distributions. For that matter it doesn't even account for those machines that are in use that are not exposed to the net.
If you go to Microsoft's site you are going to encounter users that use Windows. You will only see a small percentage that use Mac or Linux. If you go to Apple's site you will encounter mostly Mac users. The point is that unless you have a fair system, measured over a long period of time, you will never get a true count. And most certainly someone claiming a certain percentage in a publicly editable document is no true measure.
Some of it is the illusion that you loose control of your software when you port to Linux. Some of it has to do with Microsoft's total cost of ownership that makes it so expensive to create with their tools that you can really only invest so much money and that goes into the desktop with the largest target audience. Some of it has to do with the incessant FUD spread by the likes of those fanboi Windows and Mac users that people can't get a real perspective on it's capabilities and use. Some of it has to do with the fractional nature of Linux. You develop for one distro but it may not work properly out of the box on another. Some of it has to do with the state of many of the projects and even the heavy handedness of some of the more common projects such as OpenGL, X, the desktop managers, etc. Some software is incomplete and has problems that drive the average user away.
And what kind of bitch fanboi are you? Windows or Mac? Breath less heavy when you say bitches, because you are using our oxygen that could benefit someone more deserving.
It's selectivity. They choose to blame Craigslist rather than blaming the communities where these things happen, and the people committing the crimes.
Some years ago a young man was killed for his iPod (Steve Jobs called the parents to apologize). You don't see anyone blaming Apple for that crime. One could say the same thing about an automobile. Over the course of a year in the US crime is facilitated by transportation (the primary mechanism is the automobile).
So, in essence, they chose to be selective in how they applied their conclusion. I'm sure they didn't preface or footnote it by citing studies about how automobiles contributed to a vastly greater number of crimes (rapes, murders, robberies).
One thought that crossed my mind as I was reading this thread. Our Supreme Court writes up their rulings along with their lines of thought, their analysis, the precedents, etc. They do so in great detail. They do so with in-depth analysis. Why not require all elected officials that are responsible for passing laws that vote yes or no, and those that abstain, including the President, to write up their decisions in as an in-depth way as the Supreme Court. And this information should be published in the same way that the Supreme Court decisions are published.
Seriously, this would make a huge difference in how we determine which ones are re-elected, because we'd understand their positions better. It'd be much harder for them to hide things and the lobbying efforts would become more obvious.
The key here is that if you don't want to use free software you don't have to. Move on. If you don't like the philosophy you don't have to. Move on. If you want to make money off your software programming skills then you can. Move on. But, please don't come here with your jaded point of view and expect anyone with a modicum of common sense to even consider your point of view as valid. You can ignore the Linux world and move on. I wonder what could honestly drive people to believe that no one that following the FOSS philosophy is making money.
For the longest time I would not consider another distro. Each distro has their own agenda. Each one is self centered. Few if any really understand the goal of bringing this powerful easy to use operating system to the masses. Canonical has that goal still, even if they have become more financially centered--less altruistic.
Some of Canonical's choices of recent are not synergistic to my goals. I am not interested in Unity (total piece of shit software--pardon my bluntness). It shouldn't have been proposed and absolutely it's seems a violation to consider it.
Right now the problem with desktop Linux centers on the desktop managers. KDE 4.6 has become better, but every single release of that product has them screwing something up on the desktop (i.e., if you have double click selected (for launching files and opening folders), you can't move icons around on the desktop--if single click is selected it works fine.) Some of these changes are extremely annoying. Anything having to do with icons on the desktop needs to work perfectly, but no, KDE just can't get it right. Gnome has it's share of usability problems. Overall though, the products work, if not for the bugginess of them.
Canonical seems to want to drop those desktop managers supplying their own. I can understand their promotion of competition on the desktop, but this Unity product doesn't cut it. Attempts by the community to get Canonical to listen are ignored. Several other changes are also happening in a heavy handed way.
Even so, these are little stumbles. With enough stumbles people will consider other options. That will take some time. Just keep in mind, Canonical is forging forward in a way that moves us along. Every journey begins with that first small step.
Slashdot Mirror
NASA has been a huge benefactor to Open Source for decades. They use Red Hat Linux and their engineers write drivers (at least they did early on).
No true free economy allows laws that protect certain markets and business models. Obama is up to his ears in jobs loss. As a consequence these MPAA/RIAA lobbyists go to him claiming that they are loosing billions and millions of jobs in an industry that "can't" be off-shored--nothing like American movies and music.
What's wrong is that he thinks that these efforts will result in recovery of lost jobs and income. In reality, when the economy recovers, if it ever does, these industries (with their protected and outdated business models) will be in control beyond what was intended, and it will have set a precedent for other industries to try the same thing, thus leaving America, and the world, with massive abusive businesses controlling ever more of Congress.
All this silliness. They react like they would being touched by a branch of a tree. It's an inanimate object. Though it may have utility in purpose most would view it as a thing, an object, nothing more.
One has to rightly point out that Yahoo uses Bing's search engine and Yahoo gets paid by Microsoft.
Microsoft's market-share comes mostly from those that don't change their search engine because they don't know how or why. Microsoft also gets share with drive-by installs of that bing bar. Both Microsoft and Yahoo participate in a practice that makes it difficult to change your search provider through something called Search Protection (which is a program that's installed). Their purpose isn't to keep the malicious toolbars and search engines from being used, but to keep you from switching to Google. Most people seeing that warning are unsure and don't act on the change because of the warning.
Why did they reduce the price of the original iPhone? It was what, $599? They reduced it to $399 shortly after release. They reduce it to encourage people to purchase. It's a valid economic principle to reduce the cost to gain more sales. Many apps from Apples app store were $3.99, $2.99, etc but when the vendor went to .99 they saw their profits increase a thousand fold.
I don't think i would want that. It sticks out and has a great potential to break the data/power connector on the bottom. I was hoping for a solution that would be internal to the iPad.
Yeah, just looking at that made me cringe. I would not want that.
I don't know, but is it just me, am I the only one that wasn't impressed? Each of these features were a "given" before the release. I actually expected Apple to reduce the cost by 50%. Now that would have been motivation to purchase one. The software bundle isn't a factor for me as I would use it for a short time or never at all.
As far as the apps comparison goes, I think that was pure bunk. It's all relative. At one point Apple was 100,000+ apps ahead of a newly introduced Android. And were they really comparing 65,000 apps for a tablet PC when Android 3.x hasn't even been released yet? Where we stand now whether you have 200,000 or 100,000 apps really doesn't mean much. I can't sift through that many, I wouldn't need that many, and I certainly wouldn't use even a fraction, a tiny fraction of what's available. Those apps are too tiny to really have an impact on what I do day to day. Sure, social networking apps are cool, and a few good utilities, and a couple creative games and I'm at my peak. I want to listen to music, browse the web, save content, look at pictures, etc.
Did Apple say they were adding a standard USB port? Or a flash card port? If it did I might consider it just to use with my photography. It's nice to be able remove the card and go through the photos zapping the ones I don't want while I'm out there. It's tedious to do that on the camera's LCD.
It seems Microsoft's intent isn't to forge alliances it's to steal the baby with the bathwater. If they can use a carrot to lure away the best programmers they'll be able to undercut open source.
This is not an example of Microsoft playing nice or forging alliances, indeed it is just the opposite.
Two of the last companies I worked for tried this. I read it and asked if I had to sign. They said if I didn't want to sign then I shouldn't. I kept the job in both cases. On the last job I told them explicitly that anything I create on my own is mine. They agreed. They asked me to develop some stuff for in house use. I told them that if I did I retained full rights to it. They agreed.
Gnome's registry does exist, but gnome does not maintain the settings for Linux and the various program. It only maintains settings for itself, the desktop manager.
Clearly because it is a significant point of failure. It is also an overly complex system that could be better handled in other ways. The debate still rages over whether individual configuration files work better. Other operating systems besides windows clearly show that individual configuration files are not a detrimental way in managing configurations.
The /etc folder has nothing to do with a registry in any way.
This isn't entirely true. What's the OSX registry name? The Linux one? The Android one? The unix one?
Yeah, let's stay with one freaking file (though there may be 3 it only takes one) that when it becomes corrupt it takes everything down. A better system would be one that decentralizes this task and only affects one or a few programs (and not the OS). If you aren't aware of it, and it really makes your argument seem silly, is that every program writes tons of files to their folders. Some write them all over the place. To look at what there was (with .ini files) and what we have today (the registry) and you consider that programs can place hundreds if not thousands of files on your computer in various folders, one would have to admit that them putting their little .ini file into their folder isn't going to add much to the complexity. The registry is a poor solution that was never improved and it is a single point of failure on the whole system that causes more than its share of grief for users.
And, as far as how Linux accomplishes the same feat you appear to be clueless about the configuration files. I actually see no detriment to being able to show hidden files and to locate the ones that correspond to the program in question and to rename them in an effort to debug issues.
And, as far as incompatible formats go, why would my photo editor need to know the file format of my CD player program's configuration file? And since when do we not have total incompatibility, even in the Windows registry, amongst programs? Why would my photo editor need to know what's happening to the registry settings (or configuration file settings) of my CD player program? They don't know anything about each other nor do they need to know.
Is it really going to take you forever to realize that the bubbles are the icons that they allegedly replace? So, the bubbles are bigger and may be animated or live even, and user created. Using a bubble, where clicking on them brings up actions/tasks that you can do to the bubble, is not any different than right clicking and bringing up a context menu. Using a cellphone or other such type device to control (as a touchpad), or stream to, isn't radical at all. Many systems support that. I've done it with Linux, the Mac, and Windows. That doesn't make them radical.
If they plan on designing this around surface PCs, well, that's just impractical. People aren't going to replace their current system with something that replaces icons with bubbles and more cash outlay.
As far as I'm concerned the desktop needs to be cleared of icons, especially in Windows, as too many slow the computer down, and as the desktop crashes (which it does for everyone) the automatic reload is irritating and slows us down. Change of this sort can be accomplished without a trick which changes the icons into circles (bubbles) while requiring new hardware to accomplish.
Wikipedia is NOT the official weights and measure system for the internet. By it's very nature and the nature of people to be fanboish about what they own, know, and use, you can't trust statistics bantered about on the likes of Wikipedia, especially for something as difficult to measure as OS use.
The most definitive estimate, based on 20,000 sites over the past 15 years indicate that Linux has 4-5% of the market. When you look at Canonical and Fedora they claim 12 and 24 million respectively (as of last year). That doesn't account for a year's worth of installs, nor does it account for other distributions. For that matter it doesn't even account for those machines that are in use that are not exposed to the net.
If you go to Microsoft's site you are going to encounter users that use Windows. You will only see a small percentage that use Mac or Linux. If you go to Apple's site you will encounter mostly Mac users. The point is that unless you have a fair system, measured over a long period of time, you will never get a true count. And most certainly someone claiming a certain percentage in a publicly editable document is no true measure.
Some of it is the illusion that you loose control of your software when you port to Linux. Some of it has to do with Microsoft's total cost of ownership that makes it so expensive to create with their tools that you can really only invest so much money and that goes into the desktop with the largest target audience. Some of it has to do with the incessant FUD spread by the likes of those fanboi Windows and Mac users that people can't get a real perspective on it's capabilities and use. Some of it has to do with the fractional nature of Linux. You develop for one distro but it may not work properly out of the box on another. Some of it has to do with the state of many of the projects and even the heavy handedness of some of the more common projects such as OpenGL, X, the desktop managers, etc. Some software is incomplete and has problems that drive the average user away.
And what kind of bitch fanboi are you? Windows or Mac? Breath less heavy when you say bitches, because you are using our oxygen that could benefit someone more deserving.
It's selectivity. They choose to blame Craigslist rather than blaming the communities where these things happen, and the people committing the crimes.
Some years ago a young man was killed for his iPod (Steve Jobs called the parents to apologize). You don't see anyone blaming Apple for that crime. One could say the same thing about an automobile. Over the course of a year in the US crime is facilitated by transportation (the primary mechanism is the automobile).
So, in essence, they chose to be selective in how they applied their conclusion. I'm sure they didn't preface or footnote it by citing studies about how automobiles contributed to a vastly greater number of crimes (rapes, murders, robberies).
One thought that crossed my mind as I was reading this thread. Our Supreme Court writes up their rulings along with their lines of thought, their analysis, the precedents, etc. They do so in great detail. They do so with in-depth analysis. Why not require all elected officials that are responsible for passing laws that vote yes or no, and those that abstain, including the President, to write up their decisions in as an in-depth way as the Supreme Court. And this information should be published in the same way that the Supreme Court decisions are published.
Seriously, this would make a huge difference in how we determine which ones are re-elected, because we'd understand their positions better. It'd be much harder for them to hide things and the lobbying efforts would become more obvious.
He must be one of those soldiers recruited to psy op the visiting Senators.
Poor word use, Mate. Have another drink. haha.
He's not talking about the buttons being switched to the left side of the window title. He's talking about the heavy handedness of their actions.
The key here is that if you don't want to use free software you don't have to. Move on. If you don't like the philosophy you don't have to. Move on. If you want to make money off your software programming skills then you can. Move on. But, please don't come here with your jaded point of view and expect anyone with a modicum of common sense to even consider your point of view as valid. You can ignore the Linux world and move on. I wonder what could honestly drive people to believe that no one that following the FOSS philosophy is making money.
For the longest time I would not consider another distro. Each distro has their own agenda. Each one is self centered. Few if any really understand the goal of bringing this powerful easy to use operating system to the masses. Canonical has that goal still, even if they have become more financially centered--less altruistic.
Some of Canonical's choices of recent are not synergistic to my goals. I am not interested in Unity (total piece of shit software--pardon my bluntness). It shouldn't have been proposed and absolutely it's seems a violation to consider it.
Right now the problem with desktop Linux centers on the desktop managers. KDE 4.6 has become better, but every single release of that product has them screwing something up on the desktop (i.e., if you have double click selected (for launching files and opening folders), you can't move icons around on the desktop--if single click is selected it works fine.) Some of these changes are extremely annoying. Anything having to do with icons on the desktop needs to work perfectly, but no, KDE just can't get it right. Gnome has it's share of usability problems. Overall though, the products work, if not for the bugginess of them.
Canonical seems to want to drop those desktop managers supplying their own. I can understand their promotion of competition on the desktop, but this Unity product doesn't cut it. Attempts by the community to get Canonical to listen are ignored. Several other changes are also happening in a heavy handed way.
Even so, these are little stumbles. With enough stumbles people will consider other options. That will take some time. Just keep in mind, Canonical is forging forward in a way that moves us along. Every journey begins with that first small step.