Forgot your password?

Comment: Makes sense (Score 3, Interesting) 356

by rapidreload (#38951467) Attached to: Canonical Pulls Kubuntu Personnel Funding

It does make business sense to drop financial support for Kubuntu when you think about it. Ubuntu has been around for 7 years and Canonical still has yet to make a profit, so the purse strings undoubtedly have to be tightened so that the focus of attention can be put towards things that are more likely to succeed. It's not like they took Kubuntu seriously anyway - it was generally one of the least polished KDE distros available (though it has been getting better).

Having said that I think Ubuntu is mostly doomed anyway - even with this new tablet/TV angle Shuttleworth wants to get into, the fact he hasn't managed to expand Ubuntu's marketshare via OEMs preinstalling it on machines (with some rare exceptions) kinda tells me he is either really optimistic or really stupid. Red Hat gave up on the desktop and, but then again Red Hat never had Unity and disappearing global menus. Yeah, I'm sure that's what's gonna fix things to make Linux more appealing for mainstream users. :)

Comment: So much hate (Score 0) 475

by rapidreload (#38951369) Attached to: Lenovo Ordered To Refund 'Microsoft Tax'

Offtopic, but Slashdot is one of the few high-profile sites on the net where Microsoft loathing and pure hate/rage is not only present, but accepting (when taking into account which posts are most highly moderated up). On the other hand if a MS basher appears on something more balanced like ArsTechnica, unless they have something creditable to add instead of 15 years of pent-up rage at a company the rest of the posters (and moderators) will keep them in line. It seems Slashdot is one of the few places where in 2012 there is still way too much hatred for Microsoft. It's not like they kicked your dog, and there are worse companies out there than MS these days.

Microsoft are not particularly nice, but I think the time has come to perhaps calm down and focus one's rage (with logical reasons) on the more dangerous technological companies which have a greater mindshare in the world (e.g. Apple). It's just getting silly that Slashdot are alone in the circlejerk and other sites have posters who can look at things reasonably and without so much emotion.

Comment: Re:OS's are... (Score 1) 290

by rapidreload (#38938745) Attached to: Why Linux Vendors Need To Sell More Than Linux

But reading your sig I guess you're probably smart and getting paid well enough to appear stupid...

No, my sig exists because I'm thoroughly dejected about trying to explain what problems I have with Linux (problems that I see a LOT of other people having) and getting shit from people like you, thinking I'm a "MS shill" because I'm unable to see the amazing glory that is Linux. It's like talking to a wall. The fact you also want to insult my intelligence ("lint for brain cells") is another reason for the sig - if I don't agree with you, I must be an idiot. An epidemic attitude I've found in the Linux community, and one that continues to push people away. Shit, no wonder people don't want to use Linux if the community is so hostile and toxic - what if I end up like something like you?

Linux isn't perfect. Accept the fact Windows might be quite good at a lot of things these days. If you are unable to at least open your mind to this possibility, well then at least stop the fucking insults.

Comment: Re:OS's are... (Score 1) 290

by rapidreload (#38887763) Attached to: Why Linux Vendors Need To Sell More Than Linux

Everyone's missing the point... it's all about MONEY.

Capitalization of repos = financial capitalization. Financial rewards that would benefit distro makes as well as developers.

Apple was the first to make an app store that made money. By selling things. They showed that a repository could be financially beneficial for them and other developers, hence even though there is free (as in beer) software in the App Store, a lot of it is really damn good and even the free games are often a level higher than what used to be found in your typical Linux repo.

Yes we've had repos in Linux for ages, but the commercial vendors never distributed anything on them because making money was never an option - no-one had capitalized on the repository system before to create the cash. Apple did.

Comment: Re:OS's are... (Score 1) 290

by rapidreload (#38887279) Attached to: Why Linux Vendors Need To Sell More Than Linux

I'll freely accept that Ubuntu might be souring my opinion of Linux somewhat (as in it's possibly a bad representative of the potential stability of Linux that is possible with a quality distro). However, I generally go for it because it's the de-facto standard desktop distro when it comes to the level of software available in the repos. Also, if someone develops software for Linux (consumer software that is) they'll probably have instructions tailored for Ubuntu or at least mention it as the first option. If packages exists for a piece of software, you'll surely find one available for Ubuntu, whereas you can't guarantee the same for some others.

I don't want to go back to 10.04 because one of the reasons for upgrading distros is to get the latest versions of software. Even if you trying doing things manually you'll hit limitations with old libraries you might not have newer packages for. It's a common issue with non-rolling distros and one of the headaches for having it on the desktop (and software in the FOSS ecosystem moves waaayyy too quickly, getting stuck with old versions which don't have a PPA tends to disappoint).

I've rolled out Windows 7 Enterprise for schools in the past. It was a mostly pleasant experience mainly due to my vast experience with Windows. I imagine someone with less experience in Windows and more in Linux would sympathize with you, but it's really not that bad at all. At least at home I can run premier proprietary software as well as open source stuff in Windows 7, whereas the option might not even exist in Linux.

Comment: Re:OS's are... (Score 1) 290

by rapidreload (#38885789) Attached to: Why Linux Vendors Need To Sell More Than Linux


Comment: Re:OS's are... (Score 1) 290

by rapidreload (#38884391) Attached to: Why Linux Vendors Need To Sell More Than Linux



Comment: Re:OS's are... (Score -1) 290

by rapidreload (#38884309) Attached to: Why Linux Vendors Need To Sell More Than Linux




Comment: Re:Information was never... (Score 1) 181

by rapidreload (#38854103) Attached to: Flaw In YouTube Takedown Process Exposed

Because you have no right to control it.

Actually, I do. The Government grants me that right. It's called Copyright. :)

Hypothetical - If I'm an independent game developer who relies on game purchases to finance myself to make future games, what do you expect me to do? I still would like to make games because I enjoy it, but if I am not allowed to make an income by selling the games because I have no right to control the distribution, then I have to get a day job and code in my free time. This might result in fewer games or games with less polish/depth due to a lack of time/energy. But if I can sell the games, I can finance myself and work on them as a full time business. I have see extremely few FOSS games that reach the quality of even paid indie games (they exist, just not many).

Basically, I just see your ideal as nice, but hopelessly idealistic. It will never work due to the inherent desire of humans to want credit and recognition for what they create, which in modern times often enough means money. And when you think about it, that's quite fair.

Anyway, I doubt we'll see eye to eye on this, but thank you for taking the time to explain your position. I do appreciate reading other people's viewpoints even if I personally see them as unworkable. From a personal standpoint I'm currently working to reduce my pirated content to zero as soon as is feasible. I already have a lot of paid/FOSS software and know of a lot of legal places to obtain music/shows/etc that are also given away for free, so I'm OK. You might consider me a fool for taking these steps when it's so easy to get pirated content of the highest quality (and you wouldn't be the only one), but I believe such measures have side benefits as well, plus it's the only way I remain morally at peace.


by rapidreload (#38852155) Attached to: Flaw In YouTube Takedown Process Exposed

Your position is unrealistic because you don't provide an alternative method for people to make money from information. You just say "well the old way of making money from information hasn't kept up with technology - let's just abolish all the protections that have existing up to this point". It's crackpot because you're pointing out the problems without a tangible alternative that people can work with.

You will never be able to convince someone who wants to sell their music, software or other content they have created, that they don't have a right to want to distribute the information THEY CREATED under their own rules of distribution. Just because it's easy to pirate doesn't make it morally sound to take what's not yours. The content creator has no right to expect they'll succeed in making money off what they created though - but just because people can take their stuff for free doesn't make it right.

That's why it will remain a crackpot idea unless you stop with this "I think says far more about you than it does me" bullshit and address that missing fact - WHY I should give up the information just because it's easy to do so.

Comment: Re:submitter maths fail (Score 1) 89

by rapidreload (#38849419) Attached to: How Allan Scherr Hacked Around the First Computer Password

He assured me that my Ph.D. would not be revoked

Uh, uh. But now the DHS knows what he did...

Allan Scherr: [holds up his doctorate] Ph.D immunity!

[DHS slowly rolls its head on its neck, takes aim, and fires - his bullet goes through Allan's wallet, and then his head]

DHS: It's just been revoked!

Comment: Re:Information was never... (Score 2) 181

by rapidreload (#38848865) Attached to: Flaw In YouTube Takedown Process Exposed

This is why I love coming to Slashdot. It's full of idealistic people you won't hear anyone else fantasize about a world that just won't exist, and yet they never stop to realize how unrealistic their position is. We're living in the information age - of course people want to control it; if information were free, who'd make money off of it? You can't communication a position like this without coming off as some crackpot or idiot who just wants pirated material. Just because copyright and patents are abused doesn't mean their original purpose isn't without merit.

I believe a balance needs to be set such that we can reward the producers of said content fairly, without ripping them off and without them ripping us off. It's the only ideal which would be fair and make reasonable sense to everyone.
