I should also add that there are compelling arguments to justify standardization happening "naturally", which they have to a degree, there are several parties interested in using the same system for doing things and for making things modular, I just really...wish...they'd get their act together enough to really strongly standardize on a binary installation system for Linux that's good enough to deal with the problems of implementing such a system.
Clearly we meant different things by "lock-in" there, but yes, it takes time to learn something new, and in a sense it is a form of lock-in, I agree, and it's one I want others to be aware of because severe fragmentation in the operation and implementation of different systems that do the same thing is wasted effort and makes life hell for everyone, and you could argue that takes away your "freedom" even, to a degree. That's why standards are so important, they give you a common ground, and then let programs compete in the areas they really *should* be competing in. The standards and the systems should be kept fluid between one another though so that you can easily implement solution Z, and not be forced to also implement solution Y, X, C, R, and P along with it, creating a deeper "lock-in", as you said.
Of course, I was talking about a much stronger lock-in with important repercussions, not that the above standards debate isn't also important. I could list off dozens of ways companies use "mean" tactics to forcefully lock in consumers, but you probably have heard most of them already. At least most all OSS avoids most all of *those* things, and does make life a lot easier for the end-user.
In reality, it all comes down to one thing: a better product. Being able to use software that is not legally restricted by countries that implement, or TRY to implement those restrictions, is a perk, a bonus, a feature of the product.
You can't know the choices you didn't have though. As a consumer, you don't see the alternatives you could have had if company X didn't hold a monopoly, nor can you know how much money you could be saving had things been more competitive. My only point here is that MS did use "harsh" tactics to gain their monopoly, and had they not been able to, the competition would have not been EEE'ed or pushed off the face of the world and things would be much better today. Their monopoly isn't required, or wanted. They're supported by hot air, not because they have a better product (though they do have some products that are "decent", I guess, maybe). Once they lose their momentum enough that their exclusivity deals come to a halt because they have no bargaining power anymore to justify them, they will fall out of the sky, though who knows how quickly the fall will be nor how soon it'll happen, but the sooner the better.:)
At least if the information would have simply been shared freely, he wouldn't have gotten so upset about all the money that others made. What he should have done is release his software freely under the GPL, so that game companies used his software rather than pay for it and paying money to those others who used it whom he now hates.
See, if you wouldn't have been so anti-open source, you could have undermined their efforts to take money from consumers when the consumers could have been thanking you instead.
Too bad it's heavily still hampered by laws like patents and copyrights. At least it's only a matter of time before those things become unenforceable, but in the mean time everyone suffers from the encumbered progress of technology while the few collect all the money. Hope it changes soon.
Can have the choice of *getting* a computer without an OS, rather.:P Since they always have the choice of not getting one...and that's not a very acceptable choice for many.:)
Lay off the crack and come out from under there. Linux is gaining on the desktop according to several polls, and the reason Microsoft owns the market is due to anti-competitive business practices. As for Macs, well, they've always had a high cost, which from a market proliferation perspective means you're going to have a really hard time. Not to mention, Macs sometimes sucked pretty badly too. The Windows monopoly is only as permanent as the will of all the companies that promote it to get discounts from Microsoft.
The U.S. government mandates that all consumers can have the choice of not getting a computer with an OS, or get to have a choice in OSes? Say goodbye to Microsoft, much sooner rather than later.
Correct. Since proprietary software lives, is controlled, and then dies within a single entity, it spreads limited wealth to everyone, yet open source software gets reused over and over and can achieve the most wide-spread use, so the wealth that open source generates is much greater. Now whether the forces that be will let it achieve wide-spread use is another topic.;)
Hence why some actual competition is needed, to get rid of the lock-in. The more pressure the better in that regard. However, two questions that I haven't yet seen being asked (though I'm sure they have):
Where is this fine money going, is it being put to proper use, and is it going to help deal with further issues like this?
Where is the focus on more important things, like securing a level playing field by requiring that consumers have the option of rejecting an installed OS or having an option of installed OS upon the purchase of a new computer?
The ultimate goal isn't to stop Microsoft, it's to stop all companies who unfairly destroy competition for consumers by locking out that competition using various means, none-of-which being that they have a superior product.
You can't keep all animals away from sex no matter how hard you try and no matter their age, and IMO there is no evidence whatsoever to support the notion that such a thing would be harmful to the younger ones like you claim. I honestly don't think you need to worry about six-year-olds getting STDs from each other.
What really needs to happen is religion needs to be seen for what it really is, a bunch of sheep illogically following an overlord because of their promises. See, this issue is coming from Utah. While I agree that the U.S. as a whole is fairly anti-sex in comparison, as Richard Dawkins would say, lets not ignore the elephant in the room.
With the logical responses to this, I have to make my own emotional one and say that even if your statement were true and Microsoft really did "come up with it first", even if Steve himself actually got the idea before anyone else thought of it to load things into RAM to make things faster (hold the laughter til I'm done), it'd still be acceptable IMO to make fun of them, in principal.
To use some old cliches, if a soccer-sewing sweatshop company donates some money to orphans, would you be all praise? If a charitable company did the same, would you not praise them more than the sweatshop company? For the more here-and-now crowd, if President Bush somehow started selling Bush Pops that had a nice flavor, and Brand X came out and did the same, which would you buy?
OK so the first example perhaps has more moral objections to you, or perhaps maybe the second one does, but while you're right in that you should look past the political reasons to the thing itself and praise what it is if it deserves it, you can't belittle the other factors involved, including the moral ones, which many others may find much more important than you do.
I agree with you that Microsoft gets rubber-stamped a lot and the knee-jerk reaction is to poke fun and that some/many of these may not have merit, but things have gotten this bad for several reasons, many of which are no joking matter. To rehash the old/. sayings, Microsoft IS like a gold-digging, backstabbing, manipulative betch, so it's no wonder many treat them as STD-infested.
http://gimp-brainstorm.blogspot.com/> The main criticism has always been that Gimp has a horrible layout. Well, Google should help them with it's design, and layout preferences/options/plug-ins could be added to the Gimp so that users can have the layout be the way they prefer, while work is done to make the default layout be ideal for most users. I'm a little ashamed of Google for not trying..
...I mean seriously, letting a thing as petty as the layout of the buttons/windows/menus cause so much grief? This should have been solved by now with preference settings...*goes to Gimpshop site to find out why*:P
It's just too bad it's not simply an option in Gimp. Gimp has so many plug-ins that I just wish Gimpshop was simply a menu layout option if that's the main difference, and if there are a few behavior differences then make those options as well. Modular programming = good. Helps to prevent unnecessary forking, and gives users more options which gives them more freedom. The Gimpshop team should work alongside Gimp (which I'm sure many do any way) and simply work on making a different layout be a preference or plug-in.
Hopefully they'd try to use modular and pluggable programming so that the options to change the program to the way you prefer it would be there. You should really decide if there is a need for it though, and if there is a way to have that need be a part of the project, before completely forking. Working together is always best where possible.
Ultimately, users and developers (who are also users too of course) will decide which ways they like. If you want to waste time making needless forks (needed by no one practically, but wanted by you), so be it, it's your choice and no one can stop you. It'd be dumb of you, though, unless you're fulfilling some kind of deep need and there really is no other way.
With the uprising of modular and pluggable programming, forking happens less though. If you can simply install a plug-in/add-on or change an option instead of forking or completely rewriting an application that does basically the same thing, that's much more efficient.
Regardless, this doesn't really have any baring on users choosing a distro/set of packages and getting their work done in a productive manner, aside from it somewhat slowing down the existence of productive applications from being created. There is a lot of interest in making things nice for users, obviously, why do you think Ubuntu has become so popular? The Linux desktop is becoming much more "integrated" in a sense, but not built on each other so that when your file manager crashes it brings down the whole system or all your programs. Sure there are still many things that need improvement though. Aah it's nice to talk about the past from the comfy future, isn't software competition and OSS great?;)
Thanks for the info, now if Autodesk would make CAD for Linux as well, that would be kewl. But as for the parent's post, I do agree it's strange that Adobe is so slow on Linux development. Maybe they just suck, and need more competition.
Making software run through Wine smoothly is, quite simply, better than nothing. It will help Linux adoption grow. As Linux adoption grows, it will help there to be more native software that runs faster. It's one of the solutions to Linux's catch22, among many, all cumulatively helping to achieve....GLOBAL DOMINATION, MWUHAHAHA....even though no one in particular will be be the ruler because it'll be open source global domination.;)
Point taken, but developers, businesses (Google etc), and investors are understanding, using, or helping to write open source software. It doesn't matter what your moral beliefs are, that belittles the real problem with restrictive licensing, a problem which is recognized by many individuals all around the globe regardless of their morals. But, sure, use what you like. Some prefer to be tied down, others don't....:P
Um, how about troll? Since when is freedom in use of software religious? It's nowhere near "faith". It's the sad reality of the laws in many countries, but regardless of whether you agree with that part or not, license freedom is important in the U.S., where I live. Don't belittle an issue which is real.
Yes it's very true, I like using noob because I think it's silly and playful, but yeah, while it may be fun for you writing a script to launch a program in a certain way at a certain time, and while it's what I do for a living, it's NOT what I want to always do for fun lol, sorry! You can enjoy a car without knowing everything about the inside of it. Besides we HAVE to make things easy if we want any kind of Linux adoption, and I do, or more specifically I want the adoption of a truly free system, because restrictive things are annoying and no one likes them, hehe. What I really want to see is a Linux gaming console, and more ways of getting paid development for Linux games and programs, but now I'm just rambling so I'll end this now. ^^
Slashdot Mirror
You can buy a computer without Windows that is pre-built and save money, since you don't have to pay for it? Lucky. What country do you live in?
I should also add that there are compelling arguments to justify standardization happening "naturally", which they have to a degree, there are several parties interested in using the same system for doing things and for making things modular, I just really...wish...they'd get their act together enough to really strongly standardize on a binary installation system for Linux that's good enough to deal with the problems of implementing such a system.
Clearly we meant different things by "lock-in" there, but yes, it takes time to learn something new, and in a sense it is a form of lock-in, I agree, and it's one I want others to be aware of because severe fragmentation in the operation and implementation of different systems that do the same thing is wasted effort and makes life hell for everyone, and you could argue that takes away your "freedom" even, to a degree. That's why standards are so important, they give you a common ground, and then let programs compete in the areas they really *should* be competing in. The standards and the systems should be kept fluid between one another though so that you can easily implement solution Z, and not be forced to also implement solution Y, X, C, R, and P along with it, creating a deeper "lock-in", as you said.
Of course, I was talking about a much stronger lock-in with important repercussions, not that the above standards debate isn't also important. I could list off dozens of ways companies use "mean" tactics to forcefully lock in consumers, but you probably have heard most of them already. At least most all OSS avoids most all of *those* things, and does make life a lot easier for the end-user.
In reality, it all comes down to one thing: a better product. Being able to use software that is not legally restricted by countries that implement, or TRY to implement those restrictions, is a perk, a bonus, a feature of the product.
You can't know the choices you didn't have though. As a consumer, you don't see the alternatives you could have had if company X didn't hold a monopoly, nor can you know how much money you could be saving had things been more competitive. My only point here is that MS did use "harsh" tactics to gain their monopoly, and had they not been able to, the competition would have not been EEE'ed or pushed off the face of the world and things would be much better today. Their monopoly isn't required, or wanted. They're supported by hot air, not because they have a better product (though they do have some products that are "decent", I guess, maybe). Once they lose their momentum enough that their exclusivity deals come to a halt because they have no bargaining power anymore to justify them, they will fall out of the sky, though who knows how quickly the fall will be nor how soon it'll happen, but the sooner the better. :)
At least if the information would have simply been shared freely, he wouldn't have gotten so upset about all the money that others made. What he should have done is release his software freely under the GPL, so that game companies used his software rather than pay for it and paying money to those others who used it whom he now hates.
See, if you wouldn't have been so anti-open source, you could have undermined their efforts to take money from consumers when the consumers could have been thanking you instead.
Too bad it's heavily still hampered by laws like patents and copyrights. At least it's only a matter of time before those things become unenforceable, but in the mean time everyone suffers from the encumbered progress of technology while the few collect all the money. Hope it changes soon.
Can have the choice of *getting* a computer without an OS, rather. :P Since they always have the choice of not getting one...and that's not a very acceptable choice for many. :)
Lay off the crack and come out from under there. Linux is gaining on the desktop according to several polls, and the reason Microsoft owns the market is due to anti-competitive business practices. As for Macs, well, they've always had a high cost, which from a market proliferation perspective means you're going to have a really hard time. Not to mention, Macs sometimes sucked pretty badly too. The Windows monopoly is only as permanent as the will of all the companies that promote it to get discounts from Microsoft.
The U.S. government mandates that all consumers can have the choice of not getting a computer with an OS, or get to have a choice in OSes? Say goodbye to Microsoft, much sooner rather than later.
What about the remaining 1/4th of all the developers? Did they all recently get fired from Microsoft?
Correct. Since proprietary software lives, is controlled, and then dies within a single entity, it spreads limited wealth to everyone, yet open source software gets reused over and over and can achieve the most wide-spread use, so the wealth that open source generates is much greater. Now whether the forces that be will let it achieve wide-spread use is another topic. ;)
Hence why some actual competition is needed, to get rid of the lock-in. The more pressure the better in that regard. However, two questions that I haven't yet seen being asked (though I'm sure they have):
Where is this fine money going, is it being put to proper use, and is it going to help deal with further issues like this?
Where is the focus on more important things, like securing a level playing field by requiring that consumers have the option of rejecting an installed OS or having an option of installed OS upon the purchase of a new computer?
The ultimate goal isn't to stop Microsoft, it's to stop all companies who unfairly destroy competition for consumers by locking out that competition using various means, none-of-which being that they have a superior product.
You can't keep all animals away from sex no matter how hard you try and no matter their age, and IMO there is no evidence whatsoever to support the notion that such a thing would be harmful to the younger ones like you claim. I honestly don't think you need to worry about six-year-olds getting STDs from each other.
What really needs to happen is religion needs to be seen for what it really is, a bunch of sheep illogically following an overlord because of their promises. See, this issue is coming from Utah. While I agree that the U.S. as a whole is fairly anti-sex in comparison, as Richard Dawkins would say, lets not ignore the elephant in the room.
With the logical responses to this, I have to make my own emotional one and say that even if your statement were true and Microsoft really did "come up with it first", even if Steve himself actually got the idea before anyone else thought of it to load things into RAM to make things faster (hold the laughter til I'm done), it'd still be acceptable IMO to make fun of them, in principal.
/. sayings, Microsoft IS like a gold-digging, backstabbing, manipulative betch, so it's no wonder many treat them as STD-infested.
To use some old cliches, if a soccer-sewing sweatshop company donates some money to orphans, would you be all praise? If a charitable company did the same, would you not praise them more than the sweatshop company? For the more here-and-now crowd, if President Bush somehow started selling Bush Pops that had a nice flavor, and Brand X came out and did the same, which would you buy?
OK so the first example perhaps has more moral objections to you, or perhaps maybe the second one does, but while you're right in that you should look past the political reasons to the thing itself and praise what it is if it deserves it, you can't belittle the other factors involved, including the moral ones, which many others may find much more important than you do.
I agree with you that Microsoft gets rubber-stamped a lot and the knee-jerk reaction is to poke fun and that some/many of these may not have merit, but things have gotten this bad for several reasons, many of which are no joking matter. To rehash the old
http://gimp-brainstorm.blogspot.com/> The main criticism has always been that Gimp has a horrible layout. Well, Google should help them with it's design, and layout preferences/options/plug-ins could be added to the Gimp so that users can have the layout be the way they prefer, while work is done to make the default layout be ideal for most users. I'm a little ashamed of Google for not trying..
Then perhaps you could contribute here: http://gimp-brainstorm.blogspot.com/>
...I mean seriously, letting a thing as petty as the layout of the buttons/windows/menus cause so much grief? This should have been solved by now with preference settings...*goes to Gimpshop site to find out why* :P
It's just too bad it's not simply an option in Gimp. Gimp has so many plug-ins that I just wish Gimpshop was simply a menu layout option if that's the main difference, and if there are a few behavior differences then make those options as well. Modular programming = good. Helps to prevent unnecessary forking, and gives users more options which gives them more freedom. The Gimpshop team should work alongside Gimp (which I'm sure many do any way) and simply work on making a different layout be a preference or plug-in.
Hopefully they'd try to use modular and pluggable programming so that the options to change the program to the way you prefer it would be there. You should really decide if there is a need for it though, and if there is a way to have that need be a part of the project, before completely forking. Working together is always best where possible.
Ultimately, users and developers (who are also users too of course) will decide which ways they like. If you want to waste time making needless forks (needed by no one practically, but wanted by you), so be it, it's your choice and no one can stop you. It'd be dumb of you, though, unless you're fulfilling some kind of deep need and there really is no other way.
;)
With the uprising of modular and pluggable programming, forking happens less though. If you can simply install a plug-in/add-on or change an option instead of forking or completely rewriting an application that does basically the same thing, that's much more efficient.
Regardless, this doesn't really have any baring on users choosing a distro/set of packages and getting their work done in a productive manner, aside from it somewhat slowing down the existence of productive applications from being created. There is a lot of interest in making things nice for users, obviously, why do you think Ubuntu has become so popular? The Linux desktop is becoming much more "integrated" in a sense, but not built on each other so that when your file manager crashes it brings down the whole system or all your programs. Sure there are still many things that need improvement though. Aah it's nice to talk about the past from the comfy future, isn't software competition and OSS great?
Thanks for the info, now if Autodesk would make CAD for Linux as well, that would be kewl. But as for the parent's post, I do agree it's strange that Adobe is so slow on Linux development. Maybe they just suck, and need more competition.
Making software run through Wine smoothly is, quite simply, better than nothing. It will help Linux adoption grow. As Linux adoption grows, it will help there to be more native software that runs faster. It's one of the solutions to Linux's catch22, among many, all cumulatively helping to achieve....GLOBAL DOMINATION, MWUHAHAHA....even though no one in particular will be be the ruler because it'll be open source global domination. ;)
Point taken, but developers, businesses (Google etc), and investors are understanding, using, or helping to write open source software. It doesn't matter what your moral beliefs are, that belittles the real problem with restrictive licensing, a problem which is recognized by many individuals all around the globe regardless of their morals. But, sure, use what you like. Some prefer to be tied down, others don't.... :P
Um, how about troll? Since when is freedom in use of software religious? It's nowhere near "faith". It's the sad reality of the laws in many countries, but regardless of whether you agree with that part or not, license freedom is important in the U.S., where I live. Don't belittle an issue which is real.
Yes it's very true, I like using noob because I think it's silly and playful, but yeah, while it may be fun for you writing a script to launch a program in a certain way at a certain time, and while it's what I do for a living, it's NOT what I want to always do for fun lol, sorry! You can enjoy a car without knowing everything about the inside of it. Besides we HAVE to make things easy if we want any kind of Linux adoption, and I do, or more specifically I want the adoption of a truly free system, because restrictive things are annoying and no one likes them, hehe. What I really want to see is a Linux gaming console, and more ways of getting paid development for Linux games and programs, but now I'm just rambling so I'll end this now. ^^