In my opinion Bill Gates is doing this for a couple of reasons that are NOT altruistic. He's after more profit, just going about getting it in another way. It is similar to the way George Bush has been pushing things. For Microsoft it might work, but it is for nothing more than just making money.
He's intent on building up the third world country's economies so that the people can buy his product. If he makes headway into these economies then his product becomes the defacto standard and tho he may not be part of running Microsoft he's still the major beneficiary of their success. So, to have all the 3rd world countries owe to him through the use of his software he's able to exert more control which embeds his product. As well, it allows him to manipulate their politics more. In the EU he looses because they were entrenched in their own laws about business for generations and he can do little to change them. But in developing countries he can help them create laws and business practices that benefit him and his ability to make money, such as making laws about being a monopoly non-existent.
The important thing for him is to not be ruled a monopoly, to get his product installed and to make him the entrenched defacto standard. He'd much rather see this than to have the inexpensive or free software take hold in those countries. It is important to him to not be a second choice to free solid products such as Linux and Open Office.
Thank goodness for evolution. Dying breeds should be allowed to die. This particular dying breed was killing Linux. It could have been a significiantly more successful product had we been able to weed out this dying breed 2-4 years earlier.
This lawyer has a bogus argument. In fact, he's an extremist. He'd have children reporting on their parents.
Remember 1/2 of all cases represented by lawyers are lost. That means that at least 50% of their arguments are wrong or improperly handled. I'm not saying that all lawyers loose 50% of their cases. I'm saying that there are two sides and one side always looses.
Now, consider this guy is attempting to turn brother against brother, mother against daughter, etc., in an attempt to get us to protect their profits. He's attempting to say that peer pressure should be used to influence those around you to keep them from doing something questionably illegal.
He's an idiot. He'd have lost his case in court.
No way will copy protection ever work. These guys are in a dying industry. If music ceases to be made and if these guys go bankrupt and out of business I couldn't care less. Even if all music stopped being made (and I'm a music lover) it wouldn't bother me one bit.
As far as buying CDs goes. I used to buy a few CDs every pay period about 10 years ago. I stopped when I found out that the RIAA was suing people. I also found out that only a tiny percentage of money was being given to the artists and that the music industry as funding elaborate parties for themselves, etc. These guys were like the kids given the keys to the house while the parents are away and they used that time to throw a wild party that ripped up the house and then the parents had to pay to fix it all up. The kids say "chock it up to being parents".
These guys are incredible liers. They lie to the Judge, they lie to the opposing party, they lie to the jury, they lie to the spectators and they lie to their clients (that's the worst offense).
I will not support any company that is a member of any organization that improperly influences government to protect their industry. Fucking compete you assholes. Stop trying to get protection. There are lots of new companies that are competing and making good money. So you are no longer a billionaire made off the backs of the artists. Who cares. Get a new job and earn an honest living and let the artists now reap the rewards of their talents.
I don't purchase music any more due to the RIAA suing people, period! If they disappear and we can get past this idea that everyone is a thief, then maybe, just maybe, I'd buy music again.
Seriously, are these guys trying to rip off the open source community and their accomplishments? If they are worried about the license they should just not use the open source code. Why would anyone think they had the right open source code and then dump on open source because they felt they could have legal difficulties with closed source software? Come on, there's no excuse. You don't want to have the possible problems then keep your hands out of the cookie jar.
I used seti@home when it first came out. Ran it for a couple years. Then I had reinstalls and other issues and other priorities, so I stopped. When I decided to give them some more time I found that their new client, BOINC, was cryptic and difficult to get established so that I got credit for my prior packets. They also changed the way they calculated things. I liked it better when I completed a packet and got credit for that packet.
After having upgraded to so so many more modern computers (I must have 20 here at the shop that could help), I found that their new client bogged down my system and that often it was backed up to the point that I had packets completed but I couldn't send the results nor could I get new packets. If I was going to do it I wanted to be able to complete a packet and move on to the next with little interference from backed up servers.
So, all in all, they are very inefficient, they have servers that are bogging down, and their new client is un-optimized and causes drag on my computer, even though they say it won't.
Again, you are totally wrong here. If you knew anything about computers you would know that Apple hardware is the same as PC hardware. In fact, the parts are made of the same thing as the PCs are. They use intel processors, standaard industry RAM, standard industry hard drives, standard industry video cards. Probably the only thing that Apple does uniquely are designing the cases and setting the specifications for their motherboards, particularly for those all in one boses (the imac).
I've been in the industry for a long time and I have had to repair macs. From the original imacs those things were highly proprietary in their motherboard design but in all things they were far from superior. You paid apple to replace expensive proprietary parts. But most of the components of the system were produced by someone else.
What you fail to understand is this: since they are all made by other manufacturers and are assembled by someone else the only thing apple may do is design some aspects of them, most particulary the cases and then their engineers design boards around that (or quasi both at the sametime, but the other stuff is all off the shelf).
To top that off, if you go out and pay for the quality stuff, instead of buying all the cheapest thing you get as much quality or more than you get with apple products. Your comparison of a cheap dell to an expensive mac (and all are expensive--whether they are well designed or nor) is inaccurate. You should compare the quality PC stuff to the quality Mac stuff. Then say what's best.
Stop misleading people with your ability to put ideas to words. Just because you write well doesn't mean your points are accurate or complete or even correct.
Your points are filled with arrogance and almost totally off topic with what he stated in his article. Your comments are of one defined as an open source antagonist. As well, just an FYI, all OSes are over 20 years old, every one. Period. So, again, you have your premises wrong. There's no hindrance as ALL OSes are based on theories that were fleshed out going on 30-50 years ago. Most OS concepts existed before MS DOS and Windows and just about all OSes are based on those ideas.
He never questions the fruitfulness of it. In fact, he states he believes it is very beneficial. He simply is asking why Open Source isn't creating innovative products like LISP, which is what Stallman got his start in. What he does is copy the ideas of other authors in science and journalism and he simply just polishes them for his presentation. He deserves no credit.
He never questioned Open Source in the manner you state.
As Shakespeare indicated there are only so many types of plots that can be written about so goes software. There are only so many software plots that can be written. Once you create the concept of a wordprocessor there's very little that can be done in that regard except take ideas from others and polish them. Picture viewing is the same. Sound editing is the same. CAD is is the same.
In fact, he so wrong in his post that he's totally arrogant toward the realism of the world. Simple observation of anything shows you that all things are built upon those things that came before it. Everything, from your manners, to what's in your pockets. They are the same as everyone else give or take some small variation or some polish--or the lack thereof.
You just don't get it. This isn't about Open Source, it's about all things, including closed source. Closed source is far more detrimental to innovation and even the economy than open source is. Open Source will end up creating better, stronger, more innovative products than closed source ever will. It's too bad this guy has to take his own failure to be anything more than a polish word boy in his career and he aches for celebrity, so he attacks Stallman.
What can we say? You are totally wrong and you yourself are embellishing and polishing what you think he was saying, all along you are just doing what everyone else does--copy every fucking thing, polishing it, and calling it your own.
One important question that hasn't been asked of him is this: If open source is not innovative, then is closed source? If so, then demonstrate where it has been innovative.
If you read the article you'll note he's simply just using pre-existing science to explain what he believes is an issue but he's just copying what they researched and published. He's not doing anything other than what he claims the OSS community is doing. He's lame. It's sad. He, in his own field, does exactly what he's claiming is bad about OSS. We shouldn't even be giving him any credit.
As far as polishing copies he's completely off base. He is spewing forth feldercarb. He hasn't said anything. For instance, he doesn't seem to understand that even in the closed source world all that is happening is copying and copying of copies.
One important question that hasn't been asked of him is this: if open source is not innovative then is open source? if so, then demonstrate where it has been innovative.
The answer is that neither is innovative. They both copy. Every product is a polished product of something else. If one could say it was in cell phones, tiny laptops (Eee PC), etc.
Come on. This guy just drolled on. He copied everyone else. He just rehashed and polished is view. Frankly it was pathetic. He was trying to add celebrity to his name.
He's just saying that products like LISP were produced that were highly innovative. No new product has come from Open Source such as that.
He's really dis'ing Stallman. He's attempting to smack the face of the open source movement to get them to innovate instead of copy. But he's really saying nothing because nothing he says doesn't apply fully to closed source. If open source accomplishes what closed source does and open source is free then open source wins, regardless of the fact that NEITHER is innovative. And, I have been in this industry for a long time (over 20 years). I can tell you that closed source is NOT in any way innovating, period.
Nothing you said is valid because it is an assumption on your part. That being to cease gpl for something else. It is a bullshit statement. Irrelevant. Prove your point don't just toss out yout hypothesis.
There's no value in what you said and your opinion doesn't hold water.
The issues with not being able to delete a menu entry is due most of the time to users attempting to certain things as root inside their home directory. Hence, when certain files are created they end up with root permissions (meaning you need root to modify them). I suspect this is what happened in your/your friend's case. At some point the root account was used to create a hidden folder or file in your ~ folder and that caused you to now need root permissions to alter them. You should avoid root at all times until you are proficient and capable at Linux, and even then avoid root. Your background changing issue could be the result of the same problem.
Honestly, Ubuntu is much easier for any new computer user to use. Someone that has used Windows and then tried to switch to another OS will expect that OS to operate like Windows. The first thing to keep in mind is that Linux isn't Windows and you should not view it as Windows. View it as something else. Maybe you'll conclude it is more or maybe you'll conclude less, but they are not the same animal, so please treat them differently.
One thing that most people forget about Windows is that it has taken the route of privacy violation. From the 47 programs that monitor what you do and report back to Microsoft to the WGA/WGN that operates as if it were Walmart knocking on your door some Sunday morning wanting to rifle through your belongings in order to determine if what you have that is from Walmart was actually legitimately paid for. You wouldn't let Walmart enter your home and search your belongings, hence you should not allow Microsoft to do the same thing. So Microsoft is doing it with a hidden camera. You wouldn't let Walmart monitor you with a hidden camera. So, if you want to ensure your privacy and the security of your computer Linux and open source is there to help you. It's not just the open community and the good support. It is about the privacy, security, and peace of mind in knowing that someone, some entity, isn't violating your rights.
Linux is growing wildly. Almost magically. People are trying it and liking it. But you get more. That peace of mind is unbeatable.
To say it all, clearly the guy is trying to sell Vista for Microsoft. He really has no valid complaint, but since PC mag makes money from Microsoft for Vista advertising his review of the product (which has gotten very good reviews all around) he's dumping on it.
I'd say he has no leg to stand on. I wouldn't doubt that he simply made up a list of what was wrong from what he read, glanced at the box, and then published his list.
He is selling Vista for Microsoft, he's not writing reviews. His words are baseless, they have little value, other reviews show he's off the mark. He forgets that we all know that a $199 computer wasn't meant for high end use. This product performs. It is sweet. The software is more than magic. He's just griping because it is a huge seller, very popular, and it has linux instead of Vista.
I don't want to see criminal's faces up in lights on large billboards. I don't care to see criminal faces anywhere. I don't visit the most wanted in the post office. Our streets are already far too cluttered with crap from business. Now we have to see the FBI putting this crap up on our streets?
Let's be real here. The FBI needs to do it's job and catch criminals and let us be. We pay our taxes to have our government mostly out of our lives. They get the money from taxes to do their job. There's no reason I should have to find them more integrated into my life. Soon they'll be presenting this in required spaces on my monitor (spaces where i must set aside screen real-estate for them).
This is bogus and a waste of our tax payer money.
Find another way FBI while staying out of our lives.
Yeah, I said stolen. Those contracts they offer are nothing more than legalized thievery. Most artists don't have legal ownership of the music they perform. Each artist gets generally $.07 from each song from any album. The artists are essentially forced to enter a one sided contract in favor of the music mogals. These guys have parties that i'm sure many of you would be aghast at the bill. The music mogals had made billions of dollars off the backs of the artists.
Don't get me wrong. These artists are not getting much money. They are essentially being ripped off of all their creative work. This has happened for decades. Once the moguls found out how to steal from the creative artists they used their power to do just that, ripped them off.
I don't care about the music mogals. I don't care about the people that are loosing their jobs. I don't care that they can't pay their bills. I don't care that the moguls are no longer making billions. I could care less. They can go and shove it up their asses. They need to go back to the artists and give them their fair share. They need to grant each artists retroactively all their fair share of the royalties that they would have earned. It's just sad that these dimwits were allowed to get so powerful.
How can anyone feel bad about downloading music when it is so obvious that the music moguls stole the music from the artists. Screw them all, we all should.
Frankly, I do not think you are being real. No insult intended, but let's be real here. Microsoft is no golden child intent on helping the industry do anything any longer (unless it gets a cut of the pie). Microsoft is a pit, dark and deep. Its intent is to keep others from gaining dominance, anywhere. Microsoft is simply a competitor in a field where they are rather unsuccessful. Microsoft has found a company they can't compete with and now they are trying to get other governing bodies to step in and take their side to help them against a better competitor.
Google is not a monopoly and has never been one. You become a monopoly when you are ruled one by the court. Microsoft was ruled a monopoly. Apple nor Google are monopolies. Not only that, monopolies are not illegal. It simply means that they must comply with additional laws meant to govern their behavior. Unfortunately for Microsoft, they were convicted of criminal use of their monopoly. They had their day in court.
We will see the EU essentially just chastise Microsoft for their obviously blatant attempt to get a government to intercede in a market they are not able to compete in successfully. There's really no justification for this and there's no reason anyone should be giving Microsoft any credit. What they are doing is for their own benefit, not the benefit of others. They are doing it to make money for them, not for others. Microsoft, given the chance to be in the same position as Google is with advertising, would be doing the same thing--pushing for even greater market share.
What does Microsoft think we are? Do they think we are willing to listen to every complaint they have? It's like a criminal robbing a store and then complaining that they just can't make any money any other way. Microsoft has been robbing us blind for years and locking us their software with various technologies thus denying us choice. Only through the efforts of the Open Source community have we been able to even remotely consider something else. For the average Joe there's no choice still, because they don't know its there. Do advertisers have a choice? Can they hit the customer with their ads? Of course they can. They can chose to use Microsoft. They can choose to use Yahoo.
You're going to tell me that they are complaining to the EU because Google gives them a better choice to reach a larger crowd than Microsoft can provide to them?
That's just silly and it is in a way another abuse of its dominance in computing to influence by obfuscation. They obfuscate the issue, making it seem more complex than it is, and then push some of the uneducated -- because the computing industry workings are complex due to software being complex, software patents and copyrights.
Without obfuscation it clearly becomes an issue where Microsoft is being a child here who is saying that "we're loosing, so please change the rules to favor us".
When we can prove that Google is doing something illegal then we can petition the courts and the EU (and/or others) to correct the wrong. But right now they are not doing anything that has been proven to be wrong, so it is simply one company complaining that they can't compete. Period.
Could the school be lying to keep you from calling and complaining? What seems more likely? The story seems reasonable and the teacher seemed clueless enough. I've had teachers like that. I'd say the school is lying to keep the calls and letters from overwhelming them.
Screw you. It's my board. I'll make the rules about how we play. Screw the rules committee. If you won't adopt my rules you can't play with my board. Waaaaaaaaaa!!!!!!!
Apple taught Microsoft to do this long long ago. Apple knew that if it got people using the Mac at an early age they'd use it later. Microsoft knows that if they get XP on OLPC then those children will use it. With Linux going onto that platform those children will learn that Linux is a great platform for anyone of any age.
What we need to do is to do everything in our power to ensure that Microsoft doesn't succeed with these tactics. We don't need a world dominated by a convicted predatory monopolist.
Anyone stealing Windows Vista for one are just plain stupid. If they want a real OS they have a choice. Linux will provide them with an abundance of features that all levels of people can use (not just the zealot). But frankly to get caught stealing it when there's essentially a fast, easy DVD that they can download that will give them virtually undetectable Vista Ultimate install is just plain incompetence.
I don't condone stealing. I'd rather these people not purchase Windows at all since the better OS is Linux.
Zimbra is INCREDIBLY COMPLEX TO INSTALL. It was sold to Yahoo who essentially is going to abandon all open source and take it out of that market. Do NOT trust Yahoo on this one.
Zimbra's programmers were daft. They would only make installs for certain releases of the OS and then they would get rude to those who were seeking support. They essentially created a product and abandoned those in the open source arena, and they don't care about you.
Their install requirements, their installer script, and their attitude is obnoxious at best.
You can go to ASUS site and see that they have very little support for their products for open source. I have a relatively new model of a motherboard with wireless built in but I can't use it because ASUS decided I was not worth writing open source drivers for it.
So, then they create a project and base it on Linux, violate the GPL, and then claim they are well intentioned and support Open Source. This just isn't true and has not been. Their efforts to support Open Source has always been spotty and they've never really been committed.
This lawyer is way off base. I worked for a company considered small that had $100 million in revenue when I worked there. When I traveled from office to office across the US to set up servers I could see so many of these offices using illegal software. It had nothing to do with the small guy IT guy. It had everything to do with the big guys knowing that it was happening and not doing anything about it and not funding legit purchases of it. In other words, they knew about it and did nothing to stop it, even if it was facilitated by the IT. But I don't blame the little IT guy. What most likely happened was that office workers, the engineers, the accountants, etc all bought into bringing in their software from home and installed it and the IT guy was just a witness to the whole thing. The IT guy probably reported it to his boss and expected his boss to report it to their bosses, etc.
This guy is an ass because he's trying to put blame on the one person in the company that tried to do something and was most likely fired because he made the attempt. So, in response to the firing he turned them in. Hopefully, what the IT guy also did was report them to the local news so that people in the community know where the real thieves are.
Big businesses when caught just comply and purchase licenses. This small lawyer probably doesn't represent the big company and that's why he represents the little companies.
Slashdot Mirror
In my opinion Bill Gates is doing this for a couple of reasons that are NOT altruistic. He's after more profit, just going about getting it in another way. It is similar to the way George Bush has been pushing things. For Microsoft it might work, but it is for nothing more than just making money.
He's intent on building up the third world country's economies so that the people can buy his product. If he makes headway into these economies then his product becomes the defacto standard and tho he may not be part of running Microsoft he's still the major beneficiary of their success. So, to have all the 3rd world countries owe to him through the use of his software he's able to exert more control which embeds his product. As well, it allows him to manipulate their politics more. In the EU he looses because they were entrenched in their own laws about business for generations and he can do little to change them. But in developing countries he can help them create laws and business practices that benefit him and his ability to make money, such as making laws about being a monopoly non-existent.
The important thing for him is to not be ruled a monopoly, to get his product installed and to make him the entrenched defacto standard. He'd much rather see this than to have the inexpensive or free software take hold in those countries. It is important to him to not be a second choice to free solid products such as Linux and Open Office.
Thank goodness for evolution. Dying breeds should be allowed to die. This particular dying breed was killing Linux. It could have been a significiantly more successful product had we been able to weed out this dying breed 2-4 years earlier.
This lawyer has a bogus argument. In fact, he's an extremist. He'd have children reporting on their parents.
Remember 1/2 of all cases represented by lawyers are lost. That means that at least 50% of their arguments are wrong or improperly handled. I'm not saying that all lawyers loose 50% of their cases. I'm saying that there are two sides and one side always looses.
Now, consider this guy is attempting to turn brother against brother, mother against daughter, etc., in an attempt to get us to protect their profits. He's attempting to say that peer pressure should be used to influence those around you to keep them from doing something questionably illegal.
He's an idiot. He'd have lost his case in court.
No way will copy protection ever work. These guys are in a dying industry. If music ceases to be made and if these guys go bankrupt and out of business I couldn't care less. Even if all music stopped being made (and I'm a music lover) it wouldn't bother me one bit.
As far as buying CDs goes. I used to buy a few CDs every pay period about 10 years ago. I stopped when I found out that the RIAA was suing people. I also found out that only a tiny percentage of money was being given to the artists and that the music industry as funding elaborate parties for themselves, etc. These guys were like the kids given the keys to the house while the parents are away and they used that time to throw a wild party that ripped up the house and then the parents had to pay to fix it all up. The kids say "chock it up to being parents".
These guys are incredible liers. They lie to the Judge, they lie to the opposing party, they lie to the jury, they lie to the spectators and they lie to their clients (that's the worst offense).
I will not support any company that is a member of any organization that improperly influences government to protect their industry. Fucking compete you assholes. Stop trying to get protection. There are lots of new companies that are competing and making good money. So you are no longer a billionaire made off the backs of the artists. Who cares. Get a new job and earn an honest living and let the artists now reap the rewards of their talents.
P2P networks are not illegal. Some acts performed on them may be illegal. A car isn't illegal even if it is use in a bank robbery.
I don't purchase music any more due to the RIAA suing people, period! If they disappear and we can get past this idea that everyone is a thief, then maybe, just maybe, I'd buy music again.
It isn't likely that McAfee is going to try to protect my computer from physical access.
Seriously, are these guys trying to rip off the open source community and their accomplishments? If they are worried about the license they should just not use the open source code. Why would anyone think they had the right open source code and then dump on open source because they felt they could have legal difficulties with closed source software? Come on, there's no excuse. You don't want to have the possible problems then keep your hands out of the cookie jar.
I used seti@home when it first came out. Ran it for a couple years. Then I had reinstalls and other issues and other priorities, so I stopped. When I decided to give them some more time I found that their new client, BOINC, was cryptic and difficult to get established so that I got credit for my prior packets. They also changed the way they calculated things. I liked it better when I completed a packet and got credit for that packet.
After having upgraded to so so many more modern computers (I must have 20 here at the shop that could help), I found that their new client bogged down my system and that often it was backed up to the point that I had packets completed but I couldn't send the results nor could I get new packets. If I was going to do it I wanted to be able to complete a packet and move on to the next with little interference from backed up servers.
So, all in all, they are very inefficient, they have servers that are bogging down, and their new client is un-optimized and causes drag on my computer, even though they say it won't.
Again, you are totally wrong here. If you knew anything about computers you would know that Apple hardware is the same as PC hardware. In fact, the parts are made of the same thing as the PCs are. They use intel processors, standaard industry RAM, standard industry hard drives, standard industry video cards. Probably the only thing that Apple does uniquely are designing the cases and setting the specifications for their motherboards, particularly for those all in one boses (the imac).
I've been in the industry for a long time and I have had to repair macs. From the original imacs those things were highly proprietary in their motherboard design but in all things they were far from superior. You paid apple to replace expensive proprietary parts. But most of the components of the system were produced by someone else.
What you fail to understand is this: since they are all made by other manufacturers and are assembled by someone else the only thing apple may do is design some aspects of them, most particulary the cases and then their engineers design boards around that (or quasi both at the sametime, but the other stuff is all off the shelf).
To top that off, if you go out and pay for the quality stuff, instead of buying all the cheapest thing you get as much quality or more than you get with apple products. Your comparison of a cheap dell to an expensive mac (and all are expensive--whether they are well designed or nor) is inaccurate. You should compare the quality PC stuff to the quality Mac stuff. Then say what's best.
Stop misleading people with your ability to put ideas to words. Just because you write well doesn't mean your points are accurate or complete or even correct.
Your points are filled with arrogance and almost totally off topic with what he stated in his article. Your comments are of one defined as an open source antagonist. As well, just an FYI, all OSes are over 20 years old, every one. Period. So, again, you have your premises wrong. There's no hindrance as ALL OSes are based on theories that were fleshed out going on 30-50 years ago. Most OS concepts existed before MS DOS and Windows and just about all OSes are based on those ideas.
He never questions the fruitfulness of it. In fact, he states he believes it is very beneficial. He simply is asking why Open Source isn't creating innovative products like LISP, which is what Stallman got his start in. What he does is copy the ideas of other authors in science and journalism and he simply just polishes them for his presentation. He deserves no credit.
He never questioned Open Source in the manner you state.
As Shakespeare indicated there are only so many types of plots that can be written about so goes software. There are only so many software plots that can be written. Once you create the concept of a wordprocessor there's very little that can be done in that regard except take ideas from others and polish them. Picture viewing is the same. Sound editing is the same. CAD is is the same.
In fact, he so wrong in his post that he's totally arrogant toward the realism of the world. Simple observation of anything shows you that all things are built upon those things that came before it. Everything, from your manners, to what's in your pockets. They are the same as everyone else give or take some small variation or some polish--or the lack thereof.
You just don't get it. This isn't about Open Source, it's about all things, including closed source. Closed source is far more detrimental to innovation and even the economy than open source is. Open Source will end up creating better, stronger, more innovative products than closed source ever will. It's too bad this guy has to take his own failure to be anything more than a polish word boy in his career and he aches for celebrity, so he attacks Stallman.
What can we say? You are totally wrong and you yourself are embellishing and polishing what you think he was saying, all along you are just doing what everyone else does--copy every fucking thing, polishing it, and calling it your own.
To correct an error:
One important question that hasn't been asked of him is this: If open source is not innovative, then is closed source? If so, then demonstrate where it has been innovative.
If you read the article you'll note he's simply just using pre-existing science to explain what he believes is an issue but he's just copying what they researched and published. He's not doing anything other than what he claims the OSS community is doing. He's lame. It's sad. He, in his own field, does exactly what he's claiming is bad about OSS. We shouldn't even be giving him any credit.
As far as polishing copies he's completely off base. He is spewing forth feldercarb. He hasn't said anything. For instance, he doesn't seem to understand that even in the closed source world all that is happening is copying and copying of copies.
One important question that hasn't been asked of him is this: if open source is not innovative then is open source? if so, then demonstrate where it has been innovative.
The answer is that neither is innovative. They both copy. Every product is a polished product of something else. If one could say it was in cell phones, tiny laptops (Eee PC), etc.
Come on. This guy just drolled on. He copied everyone else. He just rehashed and polished is view. Frankly it was pathetic. He was trying to add celebrity to his name.
He's just saying that products like LISP were produced that were highly innovative. No new product has come from Open Source such as that.
He's really dis'ing Stallman. He's attempting to smack the face of the open source movement to get them to innovate instead of copy. But he's really saying nothing because nothing he says doesn't apply fully to closed source. If open source accomplishes what closed source does and open source is free then open source wins, regardless of the fact that NEITHER is innovative. And, I have been in this industry for a long time (over 20 years). I can tell you that closed source is NOT in any way innovating, period.
Sounds like a Microsoft employee.
Nothing you said is valid because it is an assumption on your part. That being to cease gpl for something else. It is a bullshit statement. Irrelevant. Prove your point don't just toss out yout hypothesis.
There's no value in what you said and your opinion doesn't hold water.
The issues with not being able to delete a menu entry is due most of the time to users attempting to certain things as root inside their home directory. Hence, when certain files are created they end up with root permissions (meaning you need root to modify them). I suspect this is what happened in your/your friend's case. At some point the root account was used to create a hidden folder or file in your ~ folder and that caused you to now need root permissions to alter them. You should avoid root at all times until you are proficient and capable at Linux, and even then avoid root. Your background changing issue could be the result of the same problem.
Honestly, Ubuntu is much easier for any new computer user to use. Someone that has used Windows and then tried to switch to another OS will expect that OS to operate like Windows. The first thing to keep in mind is that Linux isn't Windows and you should not view it as Windows. View it as something else. Maybe you'll conclude it is more or maybe you'll conclude less, but they are not the same animal, so please treat them differently.
One thing that most people forget about Windows is that it has taken the route of privacy violation. From the 47 programs that monitor what you do and report back to Microsoft to the WGA/WGN that operates as if it were Walmart knocking on your door some Sunday morning wanting to rifle through your belongings in order to determine if what you have that is from Walmart was actually legitimately paid for. You wouldn't let Walmart enter your home and search your belongings, hence you should not allow Microsoft to do the same thing. So Microsoft is doing it with a hidden camera. You wouldn't let Walmart monitor you with a hidden camera. So, if you want to ensure your privacy and the security of your computer Linux and open source is there to help you. It's not just the open community and the good support. It is about the privacy, security, and peace of mind in knowing that someone, some entity, isn't violating your rights.
Linux is growing wildly. Almost magically. People are trying it and liking it. But you get more. That peace of mind is unbeatable.
To say it all, clearly the guy is trying to sell Vista for Microsoft. He really has no valid complaint, but since PC mag makes money from Microsoft for Vista advertising his review of the product (which has gotten very good reviews all around) he's dumping on it.
I'd say he has no leg to stand on. I wouldn't doubt that he simply made up a list of what was wrong from what he read, glanced at the box, and then published his list.
He is selling Vista for Microsoft, he's not writing reviews. His words are baseless, they have little value, other reviews show he's off the mark. He forgets that we all know that a $199 computer wasn't meant for high end use. This product performs. It is sweet. The software is more than magic. He's just griping because it is a huge seller, very popular, and it has linux instead of Vista.
I don't want to see criminal's faces up in lights on large billboards. I don't care to see criminal faces anywhere. I don't visit the most wanted in the post office. Our streets are already far too cluttered with crap from business. Now we have to see the FBI putting this crap up on our streets?
Let's be real here. The FBI needs to do it's job and catch criminals and let us be. We pay our taxes to have our government mostly out of our lives. They get the money from taxes to do their job. There's no reason I should have to find them more integrated into my life. Soon they'll be presenting this in required spaces on my monitor (spaces where i must set aside screen real-estate for them).
This is bogus and a waste of our tax payer money.
Find another way FBI while staying out of our lives.
Yeah, I said stolen. Those contracts they offer are nothing more than legalized thievery. Most artists don't have legal ownership of the music they perform. Each artist gets generally $.07 from each song from any album. The artists are essentially forced to enter a one sided contract in favor of the music mogals. These guys have parties that i'm sure many of you would be aghast at the bill. The music mogals had made billions of dollars off the backs of the artists.
Don't get me wrong. These artists are not getting much money. They are essentially being ripped off of all their creative work. This has happened for decades. Once the moguls found out how to steal from the creative artists they used their power to do just that, ripped them off.
I don't care about the music mogals. I don't care about the people that are loosing their jobs. I don't care that they can't pay their bills. I don't care that the moguls are no longer making billions. I could care less. They can go and shove it up their asses. They need to go back to the artists and give them their fair share. They need to grant each artists retroactively all their fair share of the royalties that they would have earned. It's just sad that these dimwits were allowed to get so powerful.
How can anyone feel bad about downloading music when it is so obvious that the music moguls stole the music from the artists. Screw them all, we all should.
Frankly, I do not think you are being real. No insult intended, but let's be real here. Microsoft is no golden child intent on helping the industry do anything any longer (unless it gets a cut of the pie). Microsoft is a pit, dark and deep. Its intent is to keep others from gaining dominance, anywhere. Microsoft is simply a competitor in a field where they are rather unsuccessful. Microsoft has found a company they can't compete with and now they are trying to get other governing bodies to step in and take their side to help them against a better competitor.
Google is not a monopoly and has never been one. You become a monopoly when you are ruled one by the court. Microsoft was ruled a monopoly. Apple nor Google are monopolies. Not only that, monopolies are not illegal. It simply means that they must comply with additional laws meant to govern their behavior. Unfortunately for Microsoft, they were convicted of criminal use of their monopoly. They had their day in court.
We will see the EU essentially just chastise Microsoft for their obviously blatant attempt to get a government to intercede in a market they are not able to compete in successfully. There's really no justification for this and there's no reason anyone should be giving Microsoft any credit. What they are doing is for their own benefit, not the benefit of others. They are doing it to make money for them, not for others. Microsoft, given the chance to be in the same position as Google is with advertising, would be doing the same thing--pushing for even greater market share.
What does Microsoft think we are? Do they think we are willing to listen to every complaint they have? It's like a criminal robbing a store and then complaining that they just can't make any money any other way. Microsoft has been robbing us blind for years and locking us their software with various technologies thus denying us choice. Only through the efforts of the Open Source community have we been able to even remotely consider something else. For the average Joe there's no choice still, because they don't know its there. Do advertisers have a choice? Can they hit the customer with their ads? Of course they can. They can chose to use Microsoft. They can choose to use Yahoo.
You're going to tell me that they are complaining to the EU because Google gives them a better choice to reach a larger crowd than Microsoft can provide to them?
That's just silly and it is in a way another abuse of its dominance in computing to influence by obfuscation. They obfuscate the issue, making it seem more complex than it is, and then push some of the uneducated -- because the computing industry workings are complex due to software being complex, software patents and copyrights.
Without obfuscation it clearly becomes an issue where Microsoft is being a child here who is saying that "we're loosing, so please change the rules to favor us".
When we can prove that Google is doing something illegal then we can petition the courts and the EU (and/or others) to correct the wrong. But right now they are not doing anything that has been proven to be wrong, so it is simply one company complaining that they can't compete. Period.
Could the school be lying to keep you from calling and complaining? What seems more likely? The story seems reasonable and the teacher seemed clueless enough. I've had teachers like that. I'd say the school is lying to keep the calls and letters from overwhelming them.
Screw you. It's my board. I'll make the rules about how we play. Screw the rules committee. If you won't adopt my rules you can't play with my board. Waaaaaaaaaa!!!!!!!
Apple taught Microsoft to do this long long ago. Apple knew that if it got people using the Mac at an early age they'd use it later. Microsoft knows that if they get XP on OLPC then those children will use it. With Linux going onto that platform those children will learn that Linux is a great platform for anyone of any age.
What we need to do is to do everything in our power to ensure that Microsoft doesn't succeed with these tactics. We don't need a world dominated by a convicted predatory monopolist.
Anyone stealing Windows Vista for one are just plain stupid. If they want a real OS they have a choice. Linux will provide them with an abundance of features that all levels of people can use (not just the zealot). But frankly to get caught stealing it when there's essentially a fast, easy DVD that they can download that will give them virtually undetectable Vista Ultimate install is just plain incompetence.
I don't condone stealing. I'd rather these people not purchase Windows at all since the better OS is Linux.
Zimbra is INCREDIBLY COMPLEX TO INSTALL. It was sold to Yahoo who essentially is going to abandon all open source and take it out of that market. Do NOT trust Yahoo on this one.
Zimbra's programmers were daft. They would only make installs for certain releases of the OS and then they would get rude to those who were seeking support. They essentially created a product and abandoned those in the open source arena, and they don't care about you.
Their install requirements, their installer script, and their attitude is obnoxious at best.
You can go to ASUS site and see that they have very little support for their products for open source. I have a relatively new model of a motherboard with wireless built in but I can't use it because ASUS decided I was not worth writing open source drivers for it.
So, then they create a project and base it on Linux, violate the GPL, and then claim they are well intentioned and support Open Source. This just isn't true and has not been. Their efforts to support Open Source has always been spotty and they've never really been committed.
This lawyer is way off base. I worked for a company considered small that had $100 million in revenue when I worked there. When I traveled from office to office across the US to set up servers I could see so many of these offices using illegal software. It had nothing to do with the small guy IT guy. It had everything to do with the big guys knowing that it was happening and not doing anything about it and not funding legit purchases of it. In other words, they knew about it and did nothing to stop it, even if it was facilitated by the IT. But I don't blame the little IT guy. What most likely happened was that office workers, the engineers, the accountants, etc all bought into bringing in their software from home and installed it and the IT guy was just a witness to the whole thing. The IT guy probably reported it to his boss and expected his boss to report it to their bosses, etc.
This guy is an ass because he's trying to put blame on the one person in the company that tried to do something and was most likely fired because he made the attempt. So, in response to the firing he turned them in. Hopefully, what the IT guy also did was report them to the local news so that people in the community know where the real thieves are.
Big businesses when caught just comply and purchase licenses. This small lawyer probably doesn't represent the big company and that's why he represents the little companies.