Has Slashdot been completely retarded with moderation today or what? How could anyone think that any company that makes hardware would want to pay money for the software to make the thing work? Of course HP and every other company out there doesn't want to be stuck paying Microsoft their licensing costs, and that's ultimately all they are pointing out in their very emotional way, but since when is someone wrong just because they are emotional? I don't see any logic from you supporting Windows on HP's devices when Linux has the software to do most anything they'd want.
It'd be nice to see a breaking point where companies started to finally say "ummmmmm yeeeeeeeeah great MS, uh huh...hmm...yeah...*hiding Tux behind their backs*...OK EVERYBODY SUPPORT LINUX WOOHOO!" Of course, in reality there probably won't be one and instead MS will just sell less and less licenses.
You have evidence HP is moving further towards Windows when they've been coming out with Linux netbooks along with Acer and of course Asus? Touch displays in Linux require software stacks that don't exist? That's an old video, but I like the music. ^^
Why did you get ranked insightful though, don't get it, oh wells.
Perhaps because that stepping stone is required in order for users to actually use the device, and licensing that out is what has made Microsoft 10 bazillion dollars? I don't think having to pay a multi-billionaire even more money is a laughing matter for companies like HP, I'm sure they could think of better uses for their money than to waste it on Windows licenses.
Oh, forgot to add, how can distro companies expect to make money then? Same way they did way back when: commercial paid support to answer the immediate need of any company that requires it, though of course this can easily be done by any development team and should in no way be tied to a specific Linux software bundle because it should have nothing to do with it (companies being tied to specific Linux software bundles really are unnecessary), AND last but most importantly and mainly, should be behind specific Linux software projects, either closed source or open source, in which they can help promote, like MySQL or any and all of the rest of them do. IMO these software projects should be the main focus of these companies, for instance Canonical and various projects on Launchpad which they specifically support.
So, like I said, some Linux distro companies may need to redefine themselves, because profiting off the fragmentation of Linux isn't something that the Linux community will let happen.
It seems like several companies are still trying the tactic of software exclusivity, the same tactic the console companies are waging on one another. (In that arena, it's pretty unfortunate, too, as a lot of it just comes down to how much money you're willing to pay for exclusives, and Microsoft has the deepest pockets, or so their accountants claim.) This is something that cannot and should not occur in Linux as it hurts everyone. Part of software freedom is software accessibility, so when a new driver is created for example, it needs to be modular and easily pluggable into any Linux or Linux-like kernel, quickly and without hassle (the point of modules). Some companies are going to have to face the fact that they cannot get away with attracting everyone to their platform just because they have a certain software title, or just because they have large repositories.
Linux should be Linux, period. You should be able to use the entire Internet as your Linux repository. If package managers want to keep these so-called "third-party" packages separate from the ones they officially support for support contract reasons, so be it, but do not take away my freedom to install any piece of Linux software I want easily on any Linux distro. Cross-distro Linux packaging is more than possible and should become a reality soon.
So, without these "exclusive" distro-specific software packages, what remains to define a "distro"? Well, of course it's what it was from the start, a simple bundle of software for the convenience of being able to find all the basics, or simply the software you want, in one place. Linux distros should never be anything more than software bundles.
Help with Linux defragmentation. Support more standard APIs for desktop and general Linux interoperability to give everyone more choice and thus more freedom.
Come to think of it, someone might say it's bad programming on the part of whoever designed the window, but if so I think that's something that should be the default for all windows so that there's always a safety net. You can't always expect programmers to be perfect and foresee everything.
In the description in the link for it, it actually informs the user about needing to move some windows around due to all the buttons not being visible, something that has been a common problem while running desktops that weren't really made for low resolutions like Gnome. That's really something that should be fixed and I'm surprised it hasn't been by now. Some way for X to detect that there is no way for a window to fit on the screen and add some scrolly bars to it to make everything accessible. Perhaps it's purely the fault of the window manager or library though and not X, or maybe it's both?
Yes, because sharing source code so that you can get extra help from the rest of the world so you can all work together on software is horrible and wasteful and will produce crappy software and is way too expensive for any company to do.
Oh wait, there are several companies doing that already, never mind.
I buy graphics cards for their hardware, and I expect the software to utilize the hardware as best it can, and if anyone can help with that and with fixing bugs etc then all the better.
On the specific point of arguing "IP" politics though, do you honestly think the world has better graphics hardware right now because of the closed nature of graphics drivers? Because guess what, it's usually competition which spurs the development of better technology, competition which drives innovation in the world, so to tell me with a straight face that without the secrecy and closed nature of Nvidia's and ATI's graphics drivers, graphics technology would be further behind than if it were more open and there was more competition for making better hardware instead of screwing around with driver secrecy, that'd be a feat. I believe that most all patents and secrecy now days is nothing but harmful. In a world that's so inter-connected, there are very few examples I can find for justifying monopolies on ideas. They most always serve only to make the rich richer and poor poorer. (See Microsoft's patent FUD, for example, and try to tell me that did any good for the rest of the world.)
...to not rely on some stupid vendor to be the one to provide you with access to what is supposed to be free software. If access to software isn't easily possible and available, it's not very "free". All software should be easily installable from the original maintainers, and distros should not have to or need to maintain any of that software.
All of Sourceforge and the entire Internet should be my Linux software repository. Support cross-distro packaging standards wherever they might arise that will help address the Linux packaging mess.
You should never be locked in to using only software provided by a distributor, software shouldn't be provided by them except to provide the convenience of the base installation bundle. Free Software has to mean freedom of accessibility, too. If no one can use some free software program due to it's proprietary nature and neglect of standards, that software isn't truly free. All of Sourceforge should be my Linux repository, and tools and standard APIs to easily search or add that software to my computer should be a concern on every developer's mind. It needs to be done easily so that Linux can actually reach the masses by allowing software to be more easily shared. Fragmentation and becoming proprietary and locked down hurts Linux and thus hurts everyone.
Help untangle the Linux software installation catastrophe by supporting proposed solutions like the Burgdorf Packaging API and cross-distro packaging formats like Klik and Zero Install. Once every Linux user has the ability to easily access the software which exists out there, instead of waiting on the whims of their distro's private software repository maintainers who have better things they could be doing, software will be much more "free".
What makes you think a single feature can change a competitor's market share from increasing to decreasing? And when that feature is available in the competing software as an extension? Guess we'll see.:)
You're arguing about copyright law, one law among millions. Laws are there to, in theory, balance the power between individuals so that one can't deprive the other of things they don't want. That's why murder is related, but of course I wasn't saying that copyright violations = murder. At some point, someone felt that being able to do ANYthing with information that someone else created (or if you want to get philosophical simply reorganized from existing information) was bad, and copyright law came about. Of course this mostly or purely stemmed from wanting to make more money by trying to stifle piracy no doubt.
Are you saying that you don't agree with or like any copyright law, or are you simply attacking Stallman? If so I'd agree (on both points actually) with attacking Stallman for that, in theory, but I think that in reality it's different because I do believe the GPL has brought more freedom via the creation of more software from the lack of that freedom to close code that was once open. I think businesses would normally be much greedier and I don't think nearly as much open source code work would have gotten done, but that's very debatable.;) I wonder how much contribution companies like IBM and Google would give towards open source if everything used the BSD license, perhaps more perhaps less. Who knows, perhaps in a world without copyright laws, everyone would have accepted that information is always to be shared and everything would be much more open, or perhaps it would have created a world of greater secrecy and greed in which all source was buried and hidden from public view much more. Perhaps it really comes down to the hearts of those wanting to help others and if they are able and want to do so, and the amount of free software in the world is merely a side effect of it. Interesting to think about.
At least there's a way to share software freely, even with annoying copyright laws getting in the way. Now, if only the same could be said about patents, where openly sharing those requires either lots of money or lots of time, and in that system you're guilty until proven innocent because of the very non-brilliant work of those in charge of patent approval.
Such an old debate...but an interesting one. You could have a whole college course devoted to freedom.
Is freedom free? What constitutes freedom? Do you have to have laws to enforce freedom, or does freedom mean not enforcing any laws? Don't you first have to answer those questions, and define what freedom is, before you have the requirements to be able to argue about if a certain copyright law constitutes freedom?
You can argue that copyright law takes away freedom. After all, you can argue that laws are restrictive. In that case, I'd say the BSD license "wins", because it undoes what copyright law does and claims that the law basically does not apply there, and anything whatsoever is possible with the code. Pretty obvious.
However, you can also argue that laws grant freedoms, however backwards that may sound, by defining where one's freedom ends and another's begins. Like it or not, that is reality. You can't do anything you want, not if it treads on the freedoms of other life. This is the GPL. It uses the law to enforce the desire for developers to see their work, their life, not be "tread" on by others in ways they don't like, namely of course not wanting to see the code they helped create be closed up, which they might see as selfish and whatnot. However, some developers are cool with that and don't have a problem sharing even with those who would completely use any and all aspects of their work in whatever way they see fit without giving anything back whatsoever. Whether it's closed software that's going to be used in missiles, or to run a proprietary toaster, they don't want to see that line crossed, they want to be given back to.
The latter utilizes the intention of copyright law by enforcing what the creator wants. Copyright law can be used today to enforce anything no matter how trivial. If I don't want you using a picture I made on your website because I don't like your face, I can enforce that, though the GPL itself is of course much less restrictive. The former emphasizes that there are no restrictions whatsoever.
You can debate about the political effect each license has had on the economy and which one can be or will be more successful until you're blue, but please, get the basics out of the way. GPL side: Of course the GPL is restrictive. Duh. It uses laws which restrict what anyone can do with it. Does that restriction ultimately yield more software that is only GPL restricted instead of completely closed software? That's a matter of debate and I could argue several points in favor of that. Berkly side: Yes, there are no restrictions, but ultimately having access to software will grant more "freedom" to users and developers in a sense, so instead of only focusing on the words of your license, look at the real economic impact and tell me which one seems to be more widespread now, Linux or BSD, and why that might be.
Maybe ultimately what it all comes down to is there are a lot of "selfish" developers out there who want copyright laws enforced on their code, and perhaps the GPL strikes a balance between completely anal control and complete lack of it that many developers like. (Yes, you can claim that not wanting their code to be used closed source is selfish, just like you can argue that allowing it to be is as well by not considering the impact of that closed software that you helped create on the freedoms of others.)
I'm too lazy to look it up, but I thought a Microsoft rep specifically stated Linux as being their *biggest* threat? Besides, it's no secret Mac and Windows have worked side by side on a lot of things, you take this piece of pie, I'll take that one. As long as MS gets the biggest slice I don't think they mind too much. MS has been "playing nice" with Apple to a greater or lesser degree for years, so, no shockers here.
I'm all for competition with Adobe on Flash, even if it means another closed solution, because ultimately it will mean better software. Microsoft Silverlight though? Of course I'm skeptical due to that being used to push users toward the Windows OS through features requiring things like WMP and such. But there'll still be many wanting to see more open implementations of both of these, as open as they can get at least, but ultimately they are always going to be impeded due to the closed nature of the source companies and trying to play catchup. Can't always hate the player, sometimes you have to hate the game and realize you may be standing in the wrong ballpark.
What open completely separate solutions exist? So far Google is using Flash for everything when they've been one to push open source solutions now and then, but perhaps there isn't anything good yet? What about Jabber, could a Jingle-compliant Jabber web client serve to replace Flash for streaming Internet video? I know Jabber isn't trying to fill that role but perhaps it could with a few additions.
Spreading the concept that voting for a third party is the same as not voting is self-fulfilling. If citizens stopped caring about party lines and started caring about the actual laws that candidates wanted passed, that would cease to be true.
Funny, though that's a terrible quote since of course doing stuff now means it gets done now which means it benefits you now. Procrastination is usually really just another way of saying you just don't care.:P
Now if Linux could just get a hold of some more games, like the porting of a bunch of the games available through Steam for example (something that was hinted at), Linux users would have more of a reason to care about buying faster hardware. Right now I'm still running a Radeon 9800 along with an AMD Athlon 64, and really love it how it's way more than enough for Linux which is one reason Linux is awesome, but without some more high end games hitting it, and ones that I'm actually interested in playing (which is a tall order for me), I won't have a reason to upgrade.
That was my question that I never saw answered there, what was so important about extensions being "moved to core". If they still worked, but aren't completely "official" as part of the "official" specs and packages, so what? As long as the API is stable, the only issue I can think of would be possible issues with those extensions not being installed on the user's computer? DirectX gets around this partially by providing the most recent versions of DX along with the programs any way, so until the extensions get "officially adopted" or whatnot, just make sure you provide a way for users to easily install them? What else is there? Did I miss anything?
I think the larger complaint may have been the lack of new promised features which of course will hopefully land soon in later releases. If OGL's feature implementation isn't fast enough though then maybe someone should write their own extensions or libraries or whatnot to compensate?
To respond to the OP also, if you're only on Linux you don't really care about Windows tests, you just care about NV vs. ATI tests and such, and perhaps Wine benchmarks. But, yeah, since some users dual-boot that would be helpful for them and it'd always be interested in seeing how Linux drivers fare to Windows and Mac even (when there IS hardware that it can share with the rest of the world that is), but apparently Phoronix isn't too interested in providing these Windows benchmarks. It is a Linux site, go figure.:)
Hopefully the Linux ecosystem will get fixed and Linux users will actually have access to Linux software without the blessing of their distro. I want to easily install any Linux package on any Linux distro, and I want to be able to get automatic updates of that software directly from the maintainers of that software.
If that one major thing gets solved, which hopefully it will be soon, Linux users will actually be able to easily have access to ANY and ALL Linux software, distro maintainers can do something more useful and not redundant, like, say, helping to develop the software itself instead, and the whole Internet becomes Linux's repository. Linux should be about being open, and part of that openness means being able to install whatever software you want when you want how you want in whatever package format you want, easily. The day I can click on any RPM or DEB or eBuild or anything and install it will be a very good day.
If those are the programs you want installed on your computers by default, by all means use this distro, and I'm not completely knocking distros here because they do provide this easy pre-installed software bundle feature, but I think they should be put on the backburner.
Computer users just want to use the programs they like. Focus should be on new and great Linux software and on improving it, not on some group who packaged certain software together. You like the "dock" program they are using? Cool, show it off. You like that Linux is coming pre-installed on a computer? Great. But, having an entire article about a particular bundle of Linux software? Just seems like something that should be much more unimportant to me.
Linux users need to turn away from caring about software distro packages and turn to caring about Linux *software* itself. Sure, Canonical does some development work, but it's those software projects and all the upstream software projects that they bundle up that should get the attention, not the bundle itself. The bundle is just a software delivery medium, one that is not and should not be needed but only provided for convenience.
Well, on Wikipedia the OpenGL section states that Longs Peak Reloaded and Mt. Evans are improvements to OpenGL 3.0 that were planned to occur sometime after it's release.
OpenGL is open source software. It cannot be destroyed, only improved, so if developers want to help out with adding certain improvements they are more than welcome to. Apparently OpenGL 3.0 needs more work and support so that it can eventually deliver many great improvements including the ones that were hoped for.
More communication, like TFA, is needed so that new technologies will spread faster, and of course more OSS adoption will also help with this. Also, OSS can always use a healthy injection of outside-the-box thinkers.;)
Slashdot Mirror
Has Slashdot been completely retarded with moderation today or what? How could anyone think that any company that makes hardware would want to pay money for the software to make the thing work? Of course HP and every other company out there doesn't want to be stuck paying Microsoft their licensing costs, and that's ultimately all they are pointing out in their very emotional way, but since when is someone wrong just because they are emotional? I don't see any logic from you supporting Windows on HP's devices when Linux has the software to do most anything they'd want.
It'd be nice to see a breaking point where companies started to finally say "ummmmmm yeeeeeeeeah great MS, uh huh...hmm...yeah...*hiding Tux behind their backs*...OK EVERYBODY SUPPORT LINUX WOOHOO!" Of course, in reality there probably won't be one and instead MS will just sell less and less licenses.
You have evidence HP is moving further towards Windows when they've been coming out with Linux netbooks along with Acer and of course Asus? Touch displays in Linux require software stacks that don't exist? That's an old video, but I like the music. ^^
Why did you get ranked insightful though, don't get it, oh wells.
Perhaps because that stepping stone is required in order for users to actually use the device, and licensing that out is what has made Microsoft 10 bazillion dollars? I don't think having to pay a multi-billionaire even more money is a laughing matter for companies like HP, I'm sure they could think of better uses for their money than to waste it on Windows licenses.
Users want to do what they want with their own hardware? ZOMG
We're talking about a tablet here, a device that normally lets you do what you want and install what you want, not some locked down DVR.
Oh, forgot to add, how can distro companies expect to make money then? Same way they did way back when: commercial paid support to answer the immediate need of any company that requires it, though of course this can easily be done by any development team and should in no way be tied to a specific Linux software bundle because it should have nothing to do with it (companies being tied to specific Linux software bundles really are unnecessary), AND last but most importantly and mainly, should be behind specific Linux software projects, either closed source or open source, in which they can help promote, like MySQL or any and all of the rest of them do. IMO these software projects should be the main focus of these companies, for instance Canonical and various projects on Launchpad which they specifically support.
So, like I said, some Linux distro companies may need to redefine themselves, because profiting off the fragmentation of Linux isn't something that the Linux community will let happen.
It seems like several companies are still trying the tactic of software exclusivity, the same tactic the console companies are waging on one another. (In that arena, it's pretty unfortunate, too, as a lot of it just comes down to how much money you're willing to pay for exclusives, and Microsoft has the deepest pockets, or so their accountants claim.) This is something that cannot and should not occur in Linux as it hurts everyone. Part of software freedom is software accessibility, so when a new driver is created for example, it needs to be modular and easily pluggable into any Linux or Linux-like kernel, quickly and without hassle (the point of modules). Some companies are going to have to face the fact that they cannot get away with attracting everyone to their platform just because they have a certain software title, or just because they have large repositories.
Linux should be Linux, period. You should be able to use the entire Internet as your Linux repository. If package managers want to keep these so-called "third-party" packages separate from the ones they officially support for support contract reasons, so be it, but do not take away my freedom to install any piece of Linux software I want easily on any Linux distro. Cross-distro Linux packaging is more than possible and should become a reality soon.
So, without these "exclusive" distro-specific software packages, what remains to define a "distro"? Well, of course it's what it was from the start, a simple bundle of software for the convenience of being able to find all the basics, or simply the software you want, in one place. Linux distros should never be anything more than software bundles.
Help with Linux defragmentation. Support more standard APIs for desktop and general Linux interoperability to give everyone more choice and thus more freedom.
Come to think of it, someone might say it's bad programming on the part of whoever designed the window, but if so I think that's something that should be the default for all windows so that there's always a safety net. You can't always expect programmers to be perfect and foresee everything.
In the description in the link for it, it actually informs the user about needing to move some windows around due to all the buttons not being visible, something that has been a common problem while running desktops that weren't really made for low resolutions like Gnome. That's really something that should be fixed and I'm surprised it hasn't been by now. Some way for X to detect that there is no way for a window to fit on the screen and add some scrolly bars to it to make everything accessible. Perhaps it's purely the fault of the window manager or library though and not X, or maybe it's both?
Yes, because sharing source code so that you can get extra help from the rest of the world so you can all work together on software is horrible and wasteful and will produce crappy software and is way too expensive for any company to do.
Oh wait, there are several companies doing that already, never mind.
I buy graphics cards for their hardware, and I expect the software to utilize the hardware as best it can, and if anyone can help with that and with fixing bugs etc then all the better.
On the specific point of arguing "IP" politics though, do you honestly think the world has better graphics hardware right now because of the closed nature of graphics drivers? Because guess what, it's usually competition which spurs the development of better technology, competition which drives innovation in the world, so to tell me with a straight face that without the secrecy and closed nature of Nvidia's and ATI's graphics drivers, graphics technology would be further behind than if it were more open and there was more competition for making better hardware instead of screwing around with driver secrecy, that'd be a feat. I believe that most all patents and secrecy now days is nothing but harmful. In a world that's so inter-connected, there are very few examples I can find for justifying monopolies on ideas. They most always serve only to make the rich richer and poor poorer. (See Microsoft's patent FUD, for example, and try to tell me that did any good for the rest of the world.)
...to not rely on some stupid vendor to be the one to provide you with access to what is supposed to be free software. If access to software isn't easily possible and available, it's not very "free". All software should be easily installable from the original maintainers, and distros should not have to or need to maintain any of that software.
All of Sourceforge and the entire Internet should be my Linux software repository. Support cross-distro packaging standards wherever they might arise that will help address the Linux packaging mess.
You should never be locked in to using only software provided by a distributor, software shouldn't be provided by them except to provide the convenience of the base installation bundle. Free Software has to mean freedom of accessibility, too. If no one can use some free software program due to it's proprietary nature and neglect of standards, that software isn't truly free. All of Sourceforge should be my Linux repository, and tools and standard APIs to easily search or add that software to my computer should be a concern on every developer's mind. It needs to be done easily so that Linux can actually reach the masses by allowing software to be more easily shared. Fragmentation and becoming proprietary and locked down hurts Linux and thus hurts everyone.
Help untangle the Linux software installation catastrophe by supporting proposed solutions like the Burgdorf Packaging API and cross-distro packaging formats like Klik and Zero Install. Once every Linux user has the ability to easily access the software which exists out there, instead of waiting on the whims of their distro's private software repository maintainers who have better things they could be doing, software will be much more "free".
What makes you think a single feature can change a competitor's market share from increasing to decreasing? And when that feature is available in the competing software as an extension? Guess we'll see. :)
You're arguing about copyright law, one law among millions. Laws are there to, in theory, balance the power between individuals so that one can't deprive the other of things they don't want. That's why murder is related, but of course I wasn't saying that copyright violations = murder. At some point, someone felt that being able to do ANYthing with information that someone else created (or if you want to get philosophical simply reorganized from existing information) was bad, and copyright law came about. Of course this mostly or purely stemmed from wanting to make more money by trying to stifle piracy no doubt.
;) I wonder how much contribution companies like IBM and Google would give towards open source if everything used the BSD license, perhaps more perhaps less. Who knows, perhaps in a world without copyright laws, everyone would have accepted that information is always to be shared and everything would be much more open, or perhaps it would have created a world of greater secrecy and greed in which all source was buried and hidden from public view much more. Perhaps it really comes down to the hearts of those wanting to help others and if they are able and want to do so, and the amount of free software in the world is merely a side effect of it. Interesting to think about.
Are you saying that you don't agree with or like any copyright law, or are you simply attacking Stallman? If so I'd agree (on both points actually) with attacking Stallman for that, in theory, but I think that in reality it's different because I do believe the GPL has brought more freedom via the creation of more software from the lack of that freedom to close code that was once open. I think businesses would normally be much greedier and I don't think nearly as much open source code work would have gotten done, but that's very debatable.
At least there's a way to share software freely, even with annoying copyright laws getting in the way. Now, if only the same could be said about patents, where openly sharing those requires either lots of money or lots of time, and in that system you're guilty until proven innocent because of the very non-brilliant work of those in charge of patent approval.
Such an old debate...but an interesting one. You could have a whole college course devoted to freedom.
Is freedom free? What constitutes freedom? Do you have to have laws to enforce freedom, or does freedom mean not enforcing any laws? Don't you first have to answer those questions, and define what freedom is, before you have the requirements to be able to argue about if a certain copyright law constitutes freedom?
You can argue that copyright law takes away freedom. After all, you can argue that laws are restrictive. In that case, I'd say the BSD license "wins", because it undoes what copyright law does and claims that the law basically does not apply there, and anything whatsoever is possible with the code. Pretty obvious.
However, you can also argue that laws grant freedoms, however backwards that may sound, by defining where one's freedom ends and another's begins. Like it or not, that is reality. You can't do anything you want, not if it treads on the freedoms of other life. This is the GPL. It uses the law to enforce the desire for developers to see their work, their life, not be "tread" on by others in ways they don't like, namely of course not wanting to see the code they helped create be closed up, which they might see as selfish and whatnot. However, some developers are cool with that and don't have a problem sharing even with those who would completely use any and all aspects of their work in whatever way they see fit without giving anything back whatsoever. Whether it's closed software that's going to be used in missiles, or to run a proprietary toaster, they don't want to see that line crossed, they want to be given back to.
The latter utilizes the intention of copyright law by enforcing what the creator wants. Copyright law can be used today to enforce anything no matter how trivial. If I don't want you using a picture I made on your website because I don't like your face, I can enforce that, though the GPL itself is of course much less restrictive. The former emphasizes that there are no restrictions whatsoever.
You can debate about the political effect each license has had on the economy and which one can be or will be more successful until you're blue, but please, get the basics out of the way. GPL side: Of course the GPL is restrictive. Duh. It uses laws which restrict what anyone can do with it. Does that restriction ultimately yield more software that is only GPL restricted instead of completely closed software? That's a matter of debate and I could argue several points in favor of that. Berkly side: Yes, there are no restrictions, but ultimately having access to software will grant more "freedom" to users and developers in a sense, so instead of only focusing on the words of your license, look at the real economic impact and tell me which one seems to be more widespread now, Linux or BSD, and why that might be.
Maybe ultimately what it all comes down to is there are a lot of "selfish" developers out there who want copyright laws enforced on their code, and perhaps the GPL strikes a balance between completely anal control and complete lack of it that many developers like. (Yes, you can claim that not wanting their code to be used closed source is selfish, just like you can argue that allowing it to be is as well by not considering the impact of that closed software that you helped create on the freedoms of others.)
I'm too lazy to look it up, but I thought a Microsoft rep specifically stated Linux as being their *biggest* threat? Besides, it's no secret Mac and Windows have worked side by side on a lot of things, you take this piece of pie, I'll take that one. As long as MS gets the biggest slice I don't think they mind too much. MS has been "playing nice" with Apple to a greater or lesser degree for years, so, no shockers here.
I'm all for competition with Adobe on Flash, even if it means another closed solution, because ultimately it will mean better software. Microsoft Silverlight though? Of course I'm skeptical due to that being used to push users toward the Windows OS through features requiring things like WMP and such. But there'll still be many wanting to see more open implementations of both of these, as open as they can get at least, but ultimately they are always going to be impeded due to the closed nature of the source companies and trying to play catchup. Can't always hate the player, sometimes you have to hate the game and realize you may be standing in the wrong ballpark.
What open completely separate solutions exist? So far Google is using Flash for everything when they've been one to push open source solutions now and then, but perhaps there isn't anything good yet? What about Jabber, could a Jingle-compliant Jabber web client serve to replace Flash for streaming Internet video? I know Jabber isn't trying to fill that role but perhaps it could with a few additions.
Spreading the concept that voting for a third party is the same as not voting is self-fulfilling. If citizens stopped caring about party lines and started caring about the actual laws that candidates wanted passed, that would cease to be true.
Funny, though that's a terrible quote since of course doing stuff now means it gets done now which means it benefits you now. Procrastination is usually really just another way of saying you just don't care. :P
I'm pretty sure they understood....they were just sharing a saying with everyone.
Now if Linux could just get a hold of some more games, like the porting of a bunch of the games available through Steam for example (something that was hinted at), Linux users would have more of a reason to care about buying faster hardware. Right now I'm still running a Radeon 9800 along with an AMD Athlon 64, and really love it how it's way more than enough for Linux which is one reason Linux is awesome, but without some more high end games hitting it, and ones that I'm actually interested in playing (which is a tall order for me), I won't have a reason to upgrade.
That was my question that I never saw answered there, what was so important about extensions being "moved to core". If they still worked, but aren't completely "official" as part of the "official" specs and packages, so what? As long as the API is stable, the only issue I can think of would be possible issues with those extensions not being installed on the user's computer? DirectX gets around this partially by providing the most recent versions of DX along with the programs any way, so until the extensions get "officially adopted" or whatnot, just make sure you provide a way for users to easily install them? What else is there? Did I miss anything?
:)
I think the larger complaint may have been the lack of new promised features which of course will hopefully land soon in later releases. If OGL's feature implementation isn't fast enough though then maybe someone should write their own extensions or libraries or whatnot to compensate?
To respond to the OP also, if you're only on Linux you don't really care about Windows tests, you just care about NV vs. ATI tests and such, and perhaps Wine benchmarks. But, yeah, since some users dual-boot that would be helpful for them and it'd always be interested in seeing how Linux drivers fare to Windows and Mac even (when there IS hardware that it can share with the rest of the world that is), but apparently Phoronix isn't too interested in providing these Windows benchmarks. It is a Linux site, go figure.
Hopefully the Linux ecosystem will get fixed and Linux users will actually have access to Linux software without the blessing of their distro. I want to easily install any Linux package on any Linux distro, and I want to be able to get automatic updates of that software directly from the maintainers of that software.
If that one major thing gets solved, which hopefully it will be soon, Linux users will actually be able to easily have access to ANY and ALL Linux software, distro maintainers can do something more useful and not redundant, like, say, helping to develop the software itself instead, and the whole Internet becomes Linux's repository. Linux should be about being open, and part of that openness means being able to install whatever software you want when you want how you want in whatever package format you want, easily. The day I can click on any RPM or DEB or eBuild or anything and install it will be a very good day.
If those are the programs you want installed on your computers by default, by all means use this distro, and I'm not completely knocking distros here because they do provide this easy pre-installed software bundle feature, but I think they should be put on the backburner.
Computer users just want to use the programs they like. Focus should be on new and great Linux software and on improving it, not on some group who packaged certain software together. You like the "dock" program they are using? Cool, show it off. You like that Linux is coming pre-installed on a computer? Great. But, having an entire article about a particular bundle of Linux software? Just seems like something that should be much more unimportant to me.
Linux users need to turn away from caring about software distro packages and turn to caring about Linux *software* itself. Sure, Canonical does some development work, but it's those software projects and all the upstream software projects that they bundle up that should get the attention, not the bundle itself. The bundle is just a software delivery medium, one that is not and should not be needed but only provided for convenience.
Well, on Wikipedia the OpenGL section states that Longs Peak Reloaded and Mt. Evans are improvements to OpenGL 3.0 that were planned to occur sometime after it's release.
OpenGL is open source software. It cannot be destroyed, only improved, so if developers want to help out with adding certain improvements they are more than welcome to. Apparently OpenGL 3.0 needs more work and support so that it can eventually deliver many great improvements including the ones that were hoped for.
More communication, like TFA, is needed so that new technologies will spread faster, and of course more OSS adoption will also help with this. Also, OSS can always use a healthy injection of outside-the-box thinkers. ;)