Re:The GPL: Intellectual Theft
on
GPLv2 Vs. GPLv3
·
· Score: 1
Furthermore, after reviewing this GPL our lawyers advised us that any
products compiled with GPL'ed tools - such as gcc - would also have to
its source code released. This was simply unacceptable.
If I would believe your ranting here was more than mere trolling, I'd answer: Fire your layer, he is a moron.
Re:Gah GPLv3 is total bullshit
on
GPLv2 Vs. GPLv3
·
· Score: 1
What will happen with TiVo is that because they cannot build a business model out of Linux, they will move to another operating system
And this is a bad thing? Actually I don't care at all what OS is running on an embedded device when it is closed to me anyways.
Re:This is what I HATE most about FOSS
on
GPLv2 Vs. GPLv3
·
· Score: 1
Stallman is an idiot.
Alone for this statement you don't deserve your 'insightful'.
Freedom means being able to do what you want with a particular piece of code.
This is the usual troll interpretation. An intelligent person knows that freedom can only be seen in a context. The BSD license might give a developer/company greater freedom, but allows to take freedom from the end user. The GPL limits more the freedom of the developers/companies, but makes sure that the end user's freedom is not further limited.
I am a software developer and sometimes there are programs/libraries, which I cannot use because of the GPL. So what? The majority of software I use, I use as normal end user. So even if I personally don't look into the code and make adjustments, I am glad that this possibility, this freedom exists. I much more often get freedom from the GPL than that the GPL takes freedom from me.
Nothing against BSD or public domain, but for me to use these license forms, I demand payment. Personally I won't accept it that someone might take my hobby code, incorporates it in his product and someday I might indirectly pay for my own code. Therefore if I don't want or cannot make money with my code I would always choose the GPL.
Do you really want to go back to living under the shadow of the bomb?
And you really think this shadow does not exist anymore?
People were really afraid that the baloon could go up sometime and the world would end.
Currently I am much more afraid of the most worst scenarios of 1984 / Gattaca and similar still-mostly-fictions. And there are still enough bombs available to blow up the world. IMHO it became even more likely that they are being used now than back then.
ok, so you felt better back then. Would you have felt the same way if you were living in East Germany?
Don't know. But I will know in a few years since politically the BRD currently is turning into a bad copy of the DDR.
I realize that you think that I am trolling, but I really am not.
Never said you are trolling. Your argument is absolutely valid from an Eastern Germany point of view. But this is not really an argument against the fact that I felt safer during the cold war.
By now, you should have spent a little bit of time over there. In addition, I would guess that you talked to many of the ex-citizens. so, do you think that you would have felt better living in East Germany? If so, why?
Never said that I would have felt better in East Germany. This is simply not the point.
Thanks for the history lessen. Everything you wrote is true, but totally irrelevant today. I live in the present and not in the past. And in the present America has more than once proven that it cannot be trusted. I don't trust Russia, either. Therefore I want two strong opposed forces, which paralyze each other like in the cold war.
I am not sure of this. I grew up in West-Berlin. And I felt much safer during the "cold war". I there was a way for me to donate money for more Russian missiles, I would do it. America just needs a strong opponent to keep it in check.
'Free' in this context depends much on the view point. From the point of view of a mere user, the GPL is more free. From the point of view of a developer, the BSD license is more free. I am a professional software developer, but the amount of software I use professionally dwarfs the amount of software I use occasionally as a mere user by several orders of magnitude.Therefore I prefer the GPL.
To generally say license "foo" is more or less free than license "bar" is nonsense and very often a sign that a least one part of a discussion is not objective.
God rested on the 7th day to set a pattern for humans. He knew that we worked best with a day of rest per week, and by establishing a Sabbath (day of rest) He showed us what we should do.
Work? What work? In paradise? You mean he knew about the apple before it happened? All was only an act to impose some guilt on mankind? God is such an asshole.
Last time I checked, GB was still deemed to be a democracy. If the majority of Britons would not agree with those measures or at least care, they would do something against them. Big Brother is not forced on them by some aliens from outer space or foreign invaders.
Ok, so, in other words, you've become the people I hate. Hapless User : "Ummm, I'm having problems... My computer's not working right, I think I have spyware or something..." Smug, Obnoxious You : "Buy a Mac!"
So do I get you right that I have to keep in touch with Windows problems, read security bulletins, stay up-to-date with modern malware scanners, just because I could do it easily? And why exactly I should do this? Personally I don't use Windows anymore.
Absolutely, but all examples and all problems you mentioned here are in no way specific for Linux. They are not even specific for free or open source software in general. Somehow I have the feeling you give a right answer, but to a wrong question.
I don't get what you're saying here. If you're saying it's egotistical to regard myself as an "adept" and the "average user" as something less sophisticated than myself - well, yeah.
No I meant that you want a system, which is convenient for you, even it it makes it unusable for the majority of noobs. I would want the same if this was an either/or question.
Or are you saying that to code with one's own sensibilities in mind is egotistical?
This comes a bit closer of what I meant. Of course I did not mean programs your or me write for ourselves, but it could be seen as a bit egoistical to demand that others write programs for us advanced (or adept) users and ignoring the rest.
....
UI's are tailored to the expectations we have of the people using them. It is very, very difficult to effectively serve different audiences with the same UI.
Never said it was easy, but I don't see it quite so pessimistic you do.
....
What do you think people are doing with Linux?
Again I think all your arguments a 100% valid for all programs or all operating systems. They are in no way specific for Linux.
....
while making the GUI gradually approach equivalence to Windows.
I really cannot agree to you pessimistic view. I am with Linux since some 0.9.x kernel and still I don't think something has taken away from me. I still can configure my X modelines manually or bake my individual kernel. It's just that I don't have to anymore. You have Ubuntu for the average user, but the tech-savvy can use Gentoo and still both a mostly compatible. You don't like Gnome? Use KDE. You don't like KDE? Use Windowmaker. I have seen that Linux becomes more and more end-user friendly, but I have yet to see that this has any negative effect for me as tech-geek.
Without leadership of some kind there's no consensus on how things should work
I am not 100% sure if this is not a contradiction to your previous statements. A consensus how things should work is IMHO only for noobs necessary. For your adept user I see it more as a hindrance. An adept user should be able to experiment with a wide field of concepts and ideas. I do write software for myself. Some of my GUIs are 100% adapted to my personal needs and might be a bit peculiar to anyone else. I like my software the way it is and I give a **** how others might think it should work.
Interesting. When Vista has problems with drivers, it is because of slow and incompetent hardware manufacturers. When Linux has problems with drivers, it is Linux, which is not ready for general use.
Everybody else is just happy with something that works, and don't want to mess with it.
And this is the reason why I absolutely stopped helping others with their Windows problems. If it is good enough for them, I don't have to invest time to fix their problems. Spyware? Trojans? Not my business. As long as the computer does not totally comes to a halt, few people care, so why should I?
I understand what you mean, but I cannot agree. Especially:
Do you base your text editor on the assumption of a lot of mouse use and so follow today's typical GUI guidelines, or do you tailor it to a higher degree of keyboard usage, and maybe come up with something Emacs-ish?
or
You could have two text editors, naturally - but one of the requirements for being friendly to the "average user" - or to anybody at all, for that matter, is a certain degree of consistency. Wildly disparate user interfaces don't serve anybody - so the software world is (necessarily?) divided into camps
You don't talk about Linux, you talk about programs. There are always programs, which an average user cannot understand. Heck, I am a programmer myself and there are loads of programs, which I don't understand. But this has nothing to do with Linux.
When I say "I want Linux to be a system for me", I mean that I'm not interested in writing code to run on Linux that is specifically targeted to the "average user".
Right, if I had to choose, whether it is code for me or someone else, I would be egoistical, too. But this choice is not necessary.
You can make your GUI app's search field expect regexps and adept users won't be bothered. "Average users" generally hate ideas like that, despite the power that kind of thing can give you.
Yeah, in a way you are right. In this example it is easy to create a search field, which allows simple searches and regexp searches. But I have the feeling the average dumb user would still hate that this feature is available even if he don't have to use it. Probably jealousy that more intelligent people can do things better and faster than they can. Nevertheless, this has nothing to do with Linux.
The problem with trying to satisfy everybody is that there's a finite capacity for quality software development in the free software world, as in anywhere.
And here I really have to disagree. The capacity for software development (free or otherwise) is limited, but large enough to allow for some redundancy. I think it is a good thing to take the needs of the noobs into account. Only a large user base is an incentive for companies to develop for Linux, too.
Starting another project on par with one of those two would be a massive undertaking. As a result, it's tough for anyone other than those two projects to establish clear leadership on what a Linux operating environment should be like.
Right, but so what? Why is it necessary to have a clear leadership? I don't care how many programs for a certain purpose exist. I take the one, which benefits me most and ignore the others. I really doubt that we now had something better when there were no KDE or Gnome project, but all developers would have worked on one common desktop environment.
My goal and the goal of catering to the "average user" are not mutually exclusive - but it takes more energy to pursue both goals than to pursue one.
I really think there are generally enough developers to serve both, the average and the advanced users. If you are talking for yourself and your projects, you are right, of course. For a single project it is a higher effort to work for different user groups. But if you don't want to invest the effort, then don't do it. Write your code for the user group you like and ignore the other one. I do the same. If the neglected group wants me to something for them, too, they have to pay for it.
Another example: For dialogs, OK is at the left and Cancel is at the right. But on some window managers (or whatever they're called), OK is at the right and Cancel is at the left, and there's no way to change that. Cutting and pasting in a shell window is so different from using a DOS prompt. And where the heck is Control panel?
In short, I want something that looks and feels IDENTICAL to Windows.
This alone gives base enough to insinuate the 'Linux is crap' statement. Nice try with your wikipedia link, but definitely not applicable here.
I want Linux a system for both. Easy for an absolute newbie and open for an absolute expert. And exactly this is what Linux provides. I can install Ubuntu for all my non-computer-savvy friends and can use the same distribution for my developments. Ubuntu hides a certain level of the system by default, but it does not lock you totally out.
There are millions of users out there who just get on and use their PCs without any real difficulty.
I think this sentence alone is flamebait. Millions of users don't even know that they have difficulties, because they don't know what is state of the art. If you think that background virus scanners are totally normal, you won't have any real problems with them. If you don't have any financial expenses for unknowingly distributing spam, you don't have any real problems with this. And if your operating system comes preinstalled, any other system is much harder to get running. Even if it only includes inserting a DVD and clicking three times 'enter'. And not to forget, many people who have no problems with Windoze have a very knowledgeable 'friend' as their personal administrator-'slave'. At least I know a few people who suddenly had some real difficulties with Windoze, when I 'forgot' how to install and maintain it and only offered support for Linux. Strange, all of a sudden Linux became much more interesting and perfectly fit for usage for them.
waaaaaay too much truth in your post... a very sad side of the truth
Don't think so. America might be the source of some of the dumbest people in the world, but this is still/. here. Anybody who reads or even writes here almost for sure does not belong in the dumb group. Regardless of his heritage.:-)
Slashdot Mirror
I am a software developer and sometimes there are programs/libraries, which I cannot use because of the GPL. So what? The majority of software I use, I use as normal end user. So even if I personally don't look into the code and make adjustments, I am glad that this possibility, this freedom exists. I much more often get freedom from the GPL than that the GPL takes freedom from me.
Nothing against BSD or public domain, but for me to use these license forms, I demand payment. Personally I won't accept it that someone might take my hobby code, incorporates it in his product and someday I might indirectly pay for my own code. Therefore if I don't want or cannot make money with my code I would always choose the GPL.
Thanks for the history lessen. Everything you wrote is true, but totally irrelevant today. I live in the present and not in the past. And in the present America has more than once proven that it cannot be trusted. I don't trust Russia, either. Therefore I want two strong opposed forces, which paralyze each other like in the cold war.
I am not sure of this. I grew up in West-Berlin. And I felt much safer during the "cold war". I there was a way for me to donate money for more Russian missiles, I would do it. America just needs a strong opponent to keep it in check.
'Free' in this context depends much on the view point. From the point of view of a mere user, the GPL is more free. From the point of view of a developer, the BSD license is more free. I am a professional software developer, but the amount of software I use professionally dwarfs the amount of software I use occasionally as a mere user by several orders of magnitude.Therefore I prefer the GPL.
To generally say license "foo" is more or less free than license "bar" is nonsense and very often a sign that a least one part of a discussion is not objective.
Last time I checked, GB was still deemed to be a democracy. If the majority of Britons would not agree with those measures or at least care, they would do something against them. Big Brother is not forced on them by some aliens from outer space or foreign invaders.
Interesting. When Vista has problems with drivers, it is because of slow and incompetent hardware manufacturers. When Linux has problems with drivers, it is Linux, which is not ready for general use.
Short summary: Linux is crap because it is not Windows. Eight words, and you type and type and type just to say the same.
Yeah, but sometimes it works. Therefore no insanity.