PA growing pains should not have been forced upon users of the most popular Linux distro. They should have only switched to it when it was actually ready, and it still doesn't seem to be. "Linux" still suffers from horrible sound lag and crackling issues. To get rid of that stereotype, most distros need to move to what works or get it fixed before a final release.
Most of the rest of the world doesn't have some ideological battle against the man to fight, they just want their phone to work.
Let me reply again with less sarcasm and more clarity. =P
No, the world always wants more freedom. Freedom should not be belittled, hence my previous comment. That's what the "fight against the man" represents, is a desire to not be controlled, and in this way consumers have many reasons to rebel. Yes, you're right in that some may be happy being lulled into the "my device is an appliance, with the software locked to the hardware, and with the software locked down and restricted to what they want me to run instead of what I want to run", but when consumers see the freedom they could have and the programs they could be running if their device was more open, they will want that freedom too.
Not only does it effect the users directly, but the users should also be aware of the issues that effect developers as well. If the device of your choosing happens to lock developers out, that will end up hurting *you* too by limiting your choice in the future as well, and you will never know the programs which could have been by sticking to your restricted device.
Yes, curse things that allow me to run what I want! Those all suck! What consumers would want to run what they want??? Oh yes, that's right, the ones who don't know anything but what they see before them, until their friends show them what they could have been running instead if it weren't for them using a locked down device with no freedom.
If I would have been drinking something upon reading the headline, it wouldn't have made it into my tummy.
That makes as much sense as copyrighting the copyright logo. Trying to restrict the copying of data within an ecosystem of copying data. Way to go Microsoft, brilliant as always.
Agreed with the other posters, that's not going to be helping much. What needs to happen is public protest. Nothing can stop public protest if it's the entire country vs. you no matter how many guns each side has. While clinging to "guns" as being some kind of nice comforting threshold, the military/govt has much bigger guns and will always be superior. Again, it's mass protest and Democracy that need to overhaul the government, not some guns. Not to mention the former is the preferred method.
Also, persuade Obama that it's not worth it. Why is he even thinking about this ACTA garbage?
Um, the government is controlled by corporations, as is Obama. He's nothing more than a PR stunt to calm the masses while corps and the government fuck over citizens. Sorry to burst the whole Obama is for citizen's rights and comes from a "grass-roots movement" bubble. Nothing will truly permanently change until a deep overhaul of the government is carried out, and the Representative/Democracy mix that is the U.S. government is converted into a straight-up Democracy, or simply has so many mostly unchangeable laws (Constitution) that life is pretty much guaranteed not to suck and the government is guaranteed to restrain itself. Until then, mass protests is going to be the only way to "suppress" the United Corporations of America from making more laws to make them richer and more powerful. =P
They're just pawns under the employment of the corps with the most money. Should be pretty common knowledge by now. The government was taken over long ago and the laws they pass are for the benefit of monopolistic corporations and not the citizens who are supposed to be being represented. Yes, when you crap out 1,000,000,000,000 page bills that no one will ever read except the corps that crafted them, and many fewer would understand any way even if they did read them, of course there's an abuse of power going on there where Democracy is absent. Of course, emailing a representative isn't going to do anything, that's how they want you to take out your anger because it's a firewall. They're controlling it from the top, so there's no way to stop them other than massive protest. Then, to completely fix the problem, remove EVERYONE involved with the government right now, and reboot Democracy completely. Hey, that's a pretty good slogan. =P Though I guess it'd be more of a format than a reboot...
And yes, I said world, because certain laws protecting monopolies effects the world by holding back true competition and the advancement of technology for the betterment of everyone, even if these laws are only U.S.-based.
I still think that creating a hackintosh and selling it should be legal."
Of course it should be. The bigger picture is that software should be transferable. Who profits when you have software locked to hardware? Everyone but the consumer, that's who.
Software makers profit because they get to re-sell you their software over and over again when you buy new hardware. Microsoft has been doing this for a long time, and you will have to pull some major teeth - wisdom teeth - if you want to try to get a "normal" computer without Windows on it. Of course the whole "naked PC" push was when a lot of it went down and they tried justifying to the consumers why they were screwing them with pineapples.
Hardware manufacturers benefit because if their hardware doesn't break over time, the software will appear dated and consumers seeing it all as a "package deal" will help convince they need to fork over money for new hardware if they want the new software. The huge "discount" you get when you buy Windows with new computers is extreme. If these back room deals didn't occur between Microsoft and OEMs, and they instead had to purchase Windows at the price everyone else did, the world of computing would be a much different place.
In short, if the government either a) stepped in to prevent companies from forcing these tactics down consumer's throats and gave them actual choice, or b) if the government simply denounced or didn't recognize the legality of their behavior so that Hackintoshes were officially legalized, and Microsoft couldn't legally enforce bundling practices, i.e. the government actually gave a crap about anti-competitive tactics in general or got rid of the laws which protect these monopolies (fuck you DMCA), the world would be a much better place.
I think you're being a bit overly harsh especially not having used it to see how tweak-able the effects are, but if you think so no doubt some others may as well. I'm not trying to invalidate your criticism, but since the features are there now, tweaking the default settings to make them look a bit nicer I'm sure will be something that gets attention in the future. Maybe you should offer your suggestions on that in more detail to them. ^^
OpenShot and Shotwell to replace Pitivi and F-Spot/Mono (Tomboy can easily be replaced with Gnote or something) FTW?:P They griped about how Gimp took up 5 MBs if I remember right, but Mono takes up 10 AFAIK.
I'd have to agree on your points. If a Republic is supposed to help by making smarter and more informed individuals be in control, it has a few individuals are much easier to corrupt. While I'm afraid of the dumb/ignorant/misinformed many, I'd rather have them be in control instead of the corrupted few. Plus, that would put more emphasis on education and communication to inform the masses, and with the Internet's reach that is a lot easier now. The Internet has removed many from their ignorant shelters.
I think a full-blown Democracy would be much *better* than the current system in the U.S., as it would serve to remove a lot of power from private interests. As far as protecting against totally insane laws from being passed, you can help do that by doing what is already done now: making more extreme laws require a larger percentage vote in order to be passed. You thus can start off with a good base, i.e. a constitution, and go from there, while requiring changes to it to require very high percentage votes.
I'm not dismissing closed source, I simply said what I thought was true, but you're right and I agree. Programs which are niche perhaps are more capable of having closed source programs lead. I don't know though, I think it mostly comes down to companies needing to get used to working together. If you need a program to do something, you should find others who need it as well, and then pay for its development collaboratively, or if the way this happens is with someone making it first and then getting support from companies to make it better, whichever. Maybe niche open source software would actually do better than more mainstream software simply because there is less competition from other open source software. Ecosystems are pretty complex and hard to predict, that is my conclusion. ^^
Sometimes it's fun to remember the horrible commercial programs that many used in the earlier days of computing before a lot of great open source programs came along and dominated most all of them. There may always be areas in which commercial outdoes open source, and open source outdoes commercial, though I tend to think that among the really complex programs open source will tend to dominate more as it may usually be just too much work to develop an entire closed source program that is complex when you can just throw in a little bit of code to an existing open source program to make it do what you want..
"Needless to say, Apple offers nothing. As usual."
Their strategy for quite a long time has been hardware style and to some degree quality of course, but that's not such a good business angle during a recession, and certainly not when faced with the netbook competition. Closed OS, fairly closed hardware still, over-priced...something has to break eventually. I'm just wondering what will give first.
It will be, and Chrome OS will have an advantage of being incredibly slim even over full-blown Linux desktops like Ubuntu. I would think Ubuntu would actually do better at first, if it weren't for Google's brand name recognition as well as Ubuntu machines needing a tad bit more power. Even if it's a small amount, being the cheapest is going to score you loads of buyers.
"Basically, they all said it was shit. They didn't like how they couldn't play their existing games or use their existing apps, for instance."
"One of the teachers already has a MacBook from her school, and says it works perfectly fine at the Starbucks when she gets her morning coffee. Plus she can use all of her other apps."
Chrome OS doesn't have any apps for it, while OSX is loaded with apps that *everyone* wants, needs, and uses. Gotcha. Geezus, biased much? While I agree that it sucks being confined to a browser as a lot of apps I use are not, a lot of computer users now days use very web-centric programs. IM, email, and games being some of the more commonly used apps. Our opinions don't really matter, the only question is will web app use continue to rise? I think it will. The web as a "platform" runs on all the major OSes, and thus it continues to be a big lure for developers. As web apps become able to do more, which they are especially with OpenGL coming to the web, it will continue to increase. I think Google has it right and are wise to that, but I will continue using Chromium and Firefox on my full-featured Linux desktop.
Bill Gates also went with what "worked". Proprietary software "works" sometimes as does open source, and a combination of the two. The debate is on what works "better", keeping in mind the question "better for whom?". I think BSD-style openness is better for everyone's freedom in theory, and proprietary software is better for corporations in theory, but when you enter reality with those theories you find that certain sides may get more development work than others, and it may and does shift. Proprietary software used to be the shiznet, and now the landscape is largely about open source, both to corporations and individuals.
So, I guess my point is that ultimately what "works" is a complex subject, and something that will continue to evolve over time.
Open source is all about putting consumers in control. It's unfortunate to see many consumers getting used to companies screwing them over in every way they can come up with. It seems that very few companies fight for consumers anymore, but instead strictly have their own interests in mind and in screwing over consumers, sometimes maliciously, like Microsoft does.
Capitalism would be a lot nicer if there was still some kind of morality and decency involved, but instead it seems the majority of the assholes have become the CEOs.
Slashdot Mirror
PA growing pains should not have been forced upon users of the most popular Linux distro. They should have only switched to it when it was actually ready, and it still doesn't seem to be. "Linux" still suffers from horrible sound lag and crackling issues. To get rid of that stereotype, most distros need to move to what works or get it fixed before a final release.
Most of the rest of the world doesn't have some ideological battle against the man to fight, they just want their phone to work.
Let me reply again with less sarcasm and more clarity. =P
No, the world always wants more freedom. Freedom should not be belittled, hence my previous comment. That's what the "fight against the man" represents, is a desire to not be controlled, and in this way consumers have many reasons to rebel. Yes, you're right in that some may be happy being lulled into the "my device is an appliance, with the software locked to the hardware, and with the software locked down and restricted to what they want me to run instead of what I want to run", but when consumers see the freedom they could have and the programs they could be running if their device was more open, they will want that freedom too.
Not only does it effect the users directly, but the users should also be aware of the issues that effect developers as well. If the device of your choosing happens to lock developers out, that will end up hurting *you* too by limiting your choice in the future as well, and you will never know the programs which could have been by sticking to your restricted device.
Yes, curse things that allow me to run what I want! Those all suck! What consumers would want to run what they want??? Oh yes, that's right, the ones who don't know anything but what they see before them, until their friends show them what they could have been running instead if it weren't for them using a locked down device with no freedom.
Aah Capitalism, not giving consumers what they want since (pick one of various historical reference dates).
If I would have been drinking something upon reading the headline, it wouldn't have made it into my tummy.
That makes as much sense as copyrighting the copyright logo. Trying to restrict the copying of data within an ecosystem of copying data. Way to go Microsoft, brilliant as always.
I don't care what you say, if you're in bed under your blanket and can't see any boogie monsters, that is the safe zone, by monster law.
OK, commence with the sexual innuendo jokes.
Agreed with the other posters, that's not going to be helping much. What needs to happen is public protest. Nothing can stop public protest if it's the entire country vs. you no matter how many guns each side has. While clinging to "guns" as being some kind of nice comforting threshold, the military/govt has much bigger guns and will always be superior. Again, it's mass protest and Democracy that need to overhaul the government, not some guns. Not to mention the former is the preferred method.
Once you've had Mac [apple.com], you can't go back!
I've had both a BigMac and used OS X, and you're right, I didn't go back to where I had those experiences.
Also, persuade Obama that it's not worth it. Why is he even thinking about this ACTA garbage?
Um, the government is controlled by corporations, as is Obama. He's nothing more than a PR stunt to calm the masses while corps and the government fuck over citizens. Sorry to burst the whole Obama is for citizen's rights and comes from a "grass-roots movement" bubble. Nothing will truly permanently change until a deep overhaul of the government is carried out, and the Representative/Democracy mix that is the U.S. government is converted into a straight-up Democracy, or simply has so many mostly unchangeable laws (Constitution) that life is pretty much guaranteed not to suck and the government is guaranteed to restrain itself. Until then, mass protests is going to be the only way to "suppress" the United Corporations of America from making more laws to make them richer and more powerful. =P
They're just pawns under the employment of the corps with the most money. Should be pretty common knowledge by now. The government was taken over long ago and the laws they pass are for the benefit of monopolistic corporations and not the citizens who are supposed to be being represented. Yes, when you crap out 1,000,000,000,000 page bills that no one will ever read except the corps that crafted them, and many fewer would understand any way even if they did read them, of course there's an abuse of power going on there where Democracy is absent. Of course, emailing a representative isn't going to do anything, that's how they want you to take out your anger because it's a firewall. They're controlling it from the top, so there's no way to stop them other than massive protest. Then, to completely fix the problem, remove EVERYONE involved with the government right now, and reboot Democracy completely. Hey, that's a pretty good slogan. =P Though I guess it'd be more of a format than a reboot...
...when I say FUCK YOU SOFTWARE PATENTS.
Well, OK, some readers may not have used all caps, but that's because they aren't as awesome.
And yes, I said world, because certain laws protecting monopolies effects the world by holding back true competition and the advancement of technology for the betterment of everyone, even if these laws are only U.S.-based.
I still think that creating a hackintosh and selling it should be legal."
Of course it should be. The bigger picture is that software should be transferable. Who profits when you have software locked to hardware? Everyone but the consumer, that's who.
Software makers profit because they get to re-sell you their software over and over again when you buy new hardware. Microsoft has been doing this for a long time, and you will have to pull some major teeth - wisdom teeth - if you want to try to get a "normal" computer without Windows on it. Of course the whole "naked PC" push was when a lot of it went down and they tried justifying to the consumers why they were screwing them with pineapples.
Hardware manufacturers benefit because if their hardware doesn't break over time, the software will appear dated and consumers seeing it all as a "package deal" will help convince they need to fork over money for new hardware if they want the new software. The huge "discount" you get when you buy Windows with new computers is extreme. If these back room deals didn't occur between Microsoft and OEMs, and they instead had to purchase Windows at the price everyone else did, the world of computing would be a much different place.
In short, if the government either a) stepped in to prevent companies from forcing these tactics down consumer's throats and gave them actual choice, or b) if the government simply denounced or didn't recognize the legality of their behavior so that Hackintoshes were officially legalized, and Microsoft couldn't legally enforce bundling practices, i.e. the government actually gave a crap about anti-competitive tactics in general or got rid of the laws which protect these monopolies (fuck you DMCA), the world would be a much better place.
I think you're being a bit overly harsh especially not having used it to see how tweak-able the effects are, but if you think so no doubt some others may as well. I'm not trying to invalidate your criticism, but since the features are there now, tweaking the default settings to make them look a bit nicer I'm sure will be something that gets attention in the future. Maybe you should offer your suggestions on that in more detail to them. ^^
OpenShot and Shotwell to replace Pitivi and F-Spot/Mono (Tomboy can easily be replaced with Gnote or something) FTW? :P They griped about how Gimp took up 5 MBs if I remember right, but Mono takes up 10 AFAIK.
do IT employees do anything they aren't supposed to, like playing Halo when they're supposed to be working for instance. Geez, how insulting.
I'd have to agree on your points. If a Republic is supposed to help by making smarter and more informed individuals be in control, it has a few individuals are much easier to corrupt. While I'm afraid of the dumb/ignorant/misinformed many, I'd rather have them be in control instead of the corrupted few. Plus, that would put more emphasis on education and communication to inform the masses, and with the Internet's reach that is a lot easier now. The Internet has removed many from their ignorant shelters.
I think a full-blown Democracy would be much *better* than the current system in the U.S., as it would serve to remove a lot of power from private interests. As far as protecting against totally insane laws from being passed, you can help do that by doing what is already done now: making more extreme laws require a larger percentage vote in order to be passed. You thus can start off with a good base, i.e. a constitution, and go from there, while requiring changes to it to require very high percentage votes.
I'm not dismissing closed source, I simply said what I thought was true, but you're right and I agree. Programs which are niche perhaps are more capable of having closed source programs lead. I don't know though, I think it mostly comes down to companies needing to get used to working together. If you need a program to do something, you should find others who need it as well, and then pay for its development collaboratively, or if the way this happens is with someone making it first and then getting support from companies to make it better, whichever. Maybe niche open source software would actually do better than more mainstream software simply because there is less competition from other open source software. Ecosystems are pretty complex and hard to predict, that is my conclusion. ^^
Sometimes it's fun to remember the horrible commercial programs that many used in the earlier days of computing before a lot of great open source programs came along and dominated most all of them. There may always be areas in which commercial outdoes open source, and open source outdoes commercial, though I tend to think that among the really complex programs open source will tend to dominate more as it may usually be just too much work to develop an entire closed source program that is complex when you can just throw in a little bit of code to an existing open source program to make it do what you want..
"Needless to say, Apple offers nothing. As usual."
Their strategy for quite a long time has been hardware style and to some degree quality of course, but that's not such a good business angle during a recession, and certainly not when faced with the netbook competition. Closed OS, fairly closed hardware still, over-priced...something has to break eventually. I'm just wondering what will give first.
It will be, and Chrome OS will have an advantage of being incredibly slim even over full-blown Linux desktops like Ubuntu. I would think Ubuntu would actually do better at first, if it weren't for Google's brand name recognition as well as Ubuntu machines needing a tad bit more power. Even if it's a small amount, being the cheapest is going to score you loads of buyers.
"Basically, they all said it was shit. They didn't like how they couldn't play their existing games or use their existing apps, for instance."
"One of the teachers already has a MacBook from her school, and says it works perfectly fine at the Starbucks when she gets her morning coffee. Plus she can use all of her other apps."
Chrome OS doesn't have any apps for it, while OSX is loaded with apps that *everyone* wants, needs, and uses. Gotcha. Geezus, biased much? While I agree that it sucks being confined to a browser as a lot of apps I use are not, a lot of computer users now days use very web-centric programs. IM, email, and games being some of the more commonly used apps. Our opinions don't really matter, the only question is will web app use continue to rise? I think it will. The web as a "platform" runs on all the major OSes, and thus it continues to be a big lure for developers. As web apps become able to do more, which they are especially with OpenGL coming to the web, it will continue to increase. I think Google has it right and are wise to that, but I will continue using Chromium and Firefox on my full-featured Linux desktop.
Bill Gates also went with what "worked". Proprietary software "works" sometimes as does open source, and a combination of the two. The debate is on what works "better", keeping in mind the question "better for whom?". I think BSD-style openness is better for everyone's freedom in theory, and proprietary software is better for corporations in theory, but when you enter reality with those theories you find that certain sides may get more development work than others, and it may and does shift. Proprietary software used to be the shiznet, and now the landscape is largely about open source, both to corporations and individuals.
So, I guess my point is that ultimately what "works" is a complex subject, and something that will continue to evolve over time.
Open source is all about putting consumers in control. It's unfortunate to see many consumers getting used to companies screwing them over in every way they can come up with. It seems that very few companies fight for consumers anymore, but instead strictly have their own interests in mind and in screwing over consumers, sometimes maliciously, like Microsoft does.
Capitalism would be a lot nicer if there was still some kind of morality and decency involved, but instead it seems the majority of the assholes have become the CEOs.
There's a REASON behind wanting open source software? BRILLIANT!
(Not poking fun at you, but at those who you were addressing: anyone who thinks open source is some religion and nothing more.)