Posts by Gerry 76 publicly visible posts • joined 13 Aug 2006
I don't know anything about the intellimouse but I do know about an online article dated 2005
http://dotnet.org.za/matt/pages/39097.aspx
So if this really is the only blocker, and you really have used a distro since Slackware 2.0, you might find that looking there gives you what you need (or, I imagine, use any distro released since 2006).
Whatever. Carry on using OSX. Do what you like. What's the problem?
I've been KDE since 1.0 (now that was an article of faith) I enjoy using the desktop and applications. Roll on KOffice too (hah hah).
I find the wobbly desktop cool to watch but it actually makes me seasick after about 30 seconds. So I've turned it off. The cube for six desktops is fairly nifty though.
Of course, everything KDE developers do is beneath the contempt of the glamorous Apple, that why Safari isn't based on KHTML, err.. wait a moment
...user interface varies arbitrarily from app to app. If you want to open the "file" menu, some apps want "press alt, release, then press F". Others want "press alt, hold it down, and press F...
I have been using GNU/Linux for 10 years as my desktop system and have never opened an application in either manner - perhaps you might let us know which applications you are using?
...Linux may be more robust and secure under the hood, but Windows unquestionably has the more polished UI...
Two disconnected statements pretending to be an argument. Actually the UI point was valid but as long ago as SUSE 8.3 (openSUSE will be 11.0 soon) Relevantiv did a usability study against XP showing little difference - and KDE 4.1 is chasing Mac. I don't doubt that Gnome is fairly impressive given popularity of Ubuntu.
...developers seem to be fixated on adding bells and whistles...
Such as a better UI?
...resulting in bloat...
I read, but I am not a developer, that KDE4 has a smaller overhead than KDE3
...If the Linux community really wants to differentiate Linux from Windows, it wouldn't hurt to actively attack bloat...
see above
...trying to direct the Linux development community in one direction is much like trying to herd cats, but can't a good border collie manage the latter...
The myth of anarchy in Free/Open development has been de-bunked several times over. Picking on the kernel, I think there is a Finnish border collie.
I'm with Warren on this one.
Solomon Grundy is not entirely wrong with his view, just a shame it is expressed so extremely.
Money buys smooth. Smooth seduces first world consumers that, as a result of being able to throw money at problems, seem to have lost the ability to discriminate between sizes of issue.
Free Software, for better or for worse, is a fight against the enclosure of the commons, this time, the information commons.
The warnings are all there: Microsoft and Zune and..., Apple and iTunes..., DRM and all of them, and luckily none of this stuff is life threatening, but over time all this will encroach on things that really matter.
Free Software does not attempt to create a rent seeking monopoly and so has no money for "marketing". However, and integral to the underpinning philosophy, everyone gets "voice" and that includes those that are less articulate or with poor influencing skills, and perhaps end up shouting in frustration.
It's easy, especially if you are living off the eco-system created by rent seeking monopolies, to dismiss these these people. However they are trying to be free and to give others freedom.
Those living off the rent seeking eco-systems are at best parasites, reliant on the host, doesn't make them evil, doesn't make them rubbish, but does make them absolutely dependent on the good will of the host.
Good luck to them, it's a shame that Negroponte is going the same way, I'll stick with Freedom and cope with who is inside the tent, thanks.
But everyone is welcome to join in and make the tent a more attractive place.
Penguin, because you haven't got an RMS.
>First of all I see most of the comments are just about bashing MS
That may be true...
>just for the sake of bashing.
...but this is an unsupported assertion, immediately redolent as the accusation you make of others.
> Well think carefully
Thank you, I'm trying
- why was the ODF first created and rushed through?
ODF is an open fully implementable standard - why do you think two years from start to version 1.0 is a rush?
>To drive a wedge against MS Office.
Yet another unsupported assertion. Perhaps while I am thinking carefully, you might choose to lightly ponder what a file format has got to do with an application.
> So the motive for ODF itself is founded on ulterior considerations, and never
> out of any great altruism to promote openness.
And while you are pondering, explain to me why a file format that anyone can use, even MS Office, is such a problem?
>playing dirty tricks like going crying to courts
This mystifies me - are you saying there is not such thing as the rule of law? Whether or not anyone was crying, either law was broken or it wasn't Or are you suggesting that Courts are "against" Microsoft too?
Et cetera
I don't think I understand your reasoning.
Surely the problem is the lack of modularity in the system, with unintended interactions giving rise to unforeseen consequences?
I'm sure things get fixed eventually, but...
Whatever the "this and that" of *nix - graphics card drivers don't get anywhere near the kernel as they interact with the communication layer. Things can be developed separately and put together successfully.
@netean
Not sure what OS you are using, but openSUSE, when they get around to it (so, presumably, all the other ones too), will provide "delta" RPMs as they have done for years, specifically to avoid the huge download.
@ashe
I agree that en_US is annoying, but even if you cannot supply code changes, in this case someone, somewhere, would appreciate a list of string substitutes, so you could step up...
(personally, I'm hoping that Kontact will replace "favorites" with "favourites" as I do find the former disproportionately annoying)
In case anyone thinks the BBC isn't state funded, here's what the BBC says:
"Because of our special position as a publicly funded institution, we have particular obligations to our audiences, customers and competitors."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/foi/docs/commercial_activities/commercial_policy_and_fair_trading/Fair_Trading_Commitment.htm
First it was "XP" because most people use it
Then it was "DRM" because content providers insist on it
Turns out that when the BBC wants to support a minority platform (in mobile phones, before people complain about Apple users v Linux users) it turns out that none of this is necessary.
Whether or not Linux competes with Apple, Glyn Moody makes a few interesting points about Linux and Microsoft...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/mar/06/opensource.olpc
The question remains: Does the BBC realise what it is doing?
And how good has that DRM got to be?
The smallest amount of research reveals at least two open source DRM solutions.
openipmp http://sourceforge.net/projects/openipmp
DreaM https://dream.dev.java.net/
I hasten to add that I've got no idea if they are any good (let's hope we get more than security by obscurity riposting to that) but does it matter? Lets see what Ashley Highfield, (y'know one of the main men in the iPlayer team...), says:
“...he replied that he downloaded programmes through BBC iPlayer, stripped the DRM (hence his anonymity!), re-encoded the file, burned it to DVD from his PC, then took it to his DVD player connected to his TV in the lounge...”
helpfully posted on the BBC website, in case anyone didn't know where to look:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2008/01/ip_to_tv_how.html
So, there we are , Ashely Highfield lets us know that he knows that we know that Microsoft DRM is about as much use as a chocolate teapot in meeting its stated objective.
I find myself speculating whether this just post-modern irony, or cynicism from someone who has track record on talking up Microsoft and dismissing alternatives.
I know that I can use a Dirac (BBC developed and GPL v3 compatible) codec enabled media player on my computer (apart from the absence of content....)
http://packman.links2linux.org/package/dirac - apparently still under active development
I'm sorry that I need to identify myself as a Linux user, because that isn't the point.
Neither is it about the 80% of users that currently use Windows, it's about the BBC making the issue of choice more difficult by using solutions that it knows not to meet their stated objective, and promoting one technology at the expense of others.
If the BBC has delivered using Dirac, it would have been cheaper, and not have mattered that 80% of the population seem to prefer the streaming version over the BBC's favourite option. I do not know if Dirac could have been used to develop a streaming version too, but given the unencumbered nature of Dirac, it is perfectly imaginable.
This would have solved the concerns of the 64-bit Vista user, who posted here, too.
Probably unlike most people here, I also read quite carefully the Court of First Instance decision, 17 September, 2007 on interoperability and tying, para 1152 (to save you the trouble):
"...Although, generally, standardisation may effectively present advantages, it cannot be allowed to be imposed unilaterally by an undertaking in a dominant position by means of tying"
..why anyone complains about Free Software?
Possibly, just possibly, some things it does are not as slick.
Possibly, just possibly, it's a bit more difficult to install, upgrade, whatever.
I know this post is a catalyst for all the "just wait until Linux gets popular" responses, but seriously, when we've finished complaining about not being able to play the latest games on it, lives are getting ruined by all this other stuff.
The previous comments may be right, they may be wrong.
The company is resorting to legal challenge, if it's rubbish, it will get thrown out.
Unless I'm missing a wider point about the Korean legal system?
No doubt there was nothing to prevent double-stacker (or whatever it was called) being installed alongside the Microsoft equivalent...
Perhaps no-one remembers that Firefox was born out of Netscape - and everyone was free to install Netscape alongside IE, weren't they?
@Ex Pat:
It's not your money. While it's still legal Google can do what they like. Moreover, as Google runs on Linux arguably their just helping the cause a bit, they're giving a bit back.
@Steve:
Much as I would like everyone to send me stuff meeting ISO 26300 (.odt - .ods - .odp - .odg) unfortunately it's not happening yet. And sometimes you can't just send them back.
@Sceptical Bastard
a) see above
b) if we want to welcome less technical people to the wonderful world of <your favourite distro> using <your favourite GUI> then they're less likely to have a clue as to what you are talking about and may find Google desktop helpful. And that would be a Good Thing.
...that fraud has resulted from the availability of this information from Land Registry
Unfortunately such a statement while necessary is not sufficient.
The entire response from the LR is typical of the communications style adopted by government bodies and is designed to avoid subsequent accusations of misinforming rather than to provide reassurance.
Tibb,
one might understand your comment only if you were a "new reader". Those that have been closely following the case will know at least two things:
it's never been established that there is any UNIX code in Linux
Novell have not only been content to release whatever it is they do own under GPLv2 they are talking up releasing under GPLv3
What we _are_ going to have to endure is a load of BS about whether there is any infringing - but we're not telling you what - patented stuff in Linux (oh, and by the way Novell is part of OIN, together with IBM and Google) in parallel with attempts to "enclose the commons" with DRM and embedding proprietary formats.
HTH
Talk is cheap, including this.
However, if Mac or Linux is waiting to be taken down, when some black hat or other gets around to it, why haven't we seen any "lab" sponsored proof-of-concept?
We see lots of statistics about how Linux (yeah, the one I use) has more vulnerabilities and they take decades longer to fix than that other operating system - but has anyone seen (rather than heard about) a machine compromised by anyone other than the owner of the root password? Even early Linspire?
I'm sure this is tiresome for all the people that think this is about Linux zealotry, but it's much simpler than that. It's about preserving legal rights.
I believe the plantiff only asks for his costs and rectification of the defect, or possible something nominal as part of the procees of ensuring GPL is enforcable such.
GPL is a licence - it has been said that the licence isn't enforceable - by the usual suspects, of course. Also the GPL had not been tested in a Court of law. But as it is a licence you have to enforce the terms or risk getting them modified as an unintended consequence result of not enforcing them. And now there are a few test cases out there confirming the validity of V2.
V3 was introduced because a clever dicky saw a way of using patents to annex or contain the GPL.
Regardless of whether Company X is a good guy or a bad guy, if they get away with something then Company Y is getting signals about how it can behave.
BTW, try violating a proprietary licence in public. I expect all that happens that you get sued to within a penny of every thing you own plus punitive damages plus a prison term.
Paul,
The real problem here is the fight for the desktop. We wouiild be dancing around our handbags if we said otherwise. The question is whether a significant player in one market, entertainment, is unfairly influencing another market, operating systems (etc).
If it's about the law then we can't choose laws according to the ones we like. The media player/operating system thing is an area of concern in competition law. Government policy is that the consumer benefits from competition. As has been noted regarding browsers, things only began to improve when there were viable alternatives that the consumer could choose (took a lot of effort but it happened).
Whether or not there is a dominant operating system is different from asking whether the consumer would have a better and cheaper operating system if the dominant player were faced with real alternatives.
One of the ways (regardless of motive) of preventing the dominant operating sytem from facing real alternatives, is the creation of unnecesssary barriers to adoption of alternatives.
The OSC argument is that the BBC has created a barrier that it should not have done. It has the technology and the know-how to do differently. And let's not forget that the BBC is a nice customer to have, so it could told content providers which DRM system it was going to use. (Might even have been one that worked...)
And if the BBC cannot provide a solution that fits the requirements of competition law, and, as has been pointed out already, all the content is available elsewhere without regard to DRM, then it should not be permitted to create barriers to adoption elsewhere, and no harm is done to the customer of content.
The question might best be put as whethee the existence or not of iPlayer has a more significant effect on the consumers of content as the barrier to adoption has on the consumers of operating systems.
From over here, it's similar to arguments about operating systems, media players and parallel markets: using dominance in one market to leverage advantage in another (if anti-competitive = illegal). Apple does not occupy a dominant position in the OS market (but IIRC got a rollicking from Norwegian competition authorities about iTunes)
Apart from generally enjoying the de-bunking by the Economist, there's a little bit of history repeating itself in the concluding paragragh.
Years ago (70?), Isaac Asimov was invited to define (in effect) the e-book. He then went on to carefully describe the req'd features. From a different direction he came to the same conclusion as Rassbass.
"if it ends up as simply another Microsoft-oriented file format, being openly documented, licensable at no cost and completely accessible, means it will allow far easier integration"
"If you have an application or service that you think should be integrated with or accessible through an “office like” application, or has the ability to manipulate an office style document, should you build around Open XML and reach 90 per cent- plus of the market, or ODF and reach a minority—a no-brainer really."
"if Microsoft gets the standardisation done, and therefore avoids any government issues with the file format, it’s hard to see the open source community denting the Redmond monopoly position through a debate over file formats"
Real world? You make the opposite case without even trying, what "if not"?
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
