Closed like the Ubuntu ecosystem?

So just use a Non-Ubuntu distro.

MS/Apple must have a couple of strange patents out there that are blocking certain features, because I just discovered that at the low OS level, I only use the OS for about 15 things, really all not that much. But the base distros can't even make a Right-Clicker like me happy.

I'm dead center of a user that Linux should be able to make happy, and they keep missing the boat.

I'm dead center of a user that Linux should be able to make happy, and they keep missing the boat.

And therein lies the problem. There is no single "Linux." And the "they" who are involved in it's development are both numerous and divergent in their goals. And not everybody playing the game is interested in playing fairly. Or even rationally. These are points de Icaza discusses in his blog post.  

From my perspective it's amazing that the bloody thing boots at all. Especially when you consider how the GNU/Linux open development model is probably one of the least efficient methods (except for a few rare Cinderella stories) of software development out there.

Remove financial incentives from the mix and you need to expect seeing developers insisting on their own agendas and priorities. "Free" in the F/OSS world is often explained as "Free as in speech." I think a better characterization is more along the lines of "You don't pay me - and you're not my boss. So don't tell me what to do!"

Ain't nobody in the world so "free" as the person who makes the time to do something and not need to get paid for doing it.

Reminds me of Fight-club's dialogue it was something like - "people spend their life working and ending up buying things they don't need".

"working jobs we hate so we can buy sh!t we don't need"

The point about linux or open source is not to replace the mainstream brands but to offer people the same experience without them having to cut leg and arm for it.

+1. Something most people (including some notables in the Linux community) miss: Linux is not about "winning" or "dominating." It's about providing the user a better alternative than just saying: "none of the above."

Quote from: 40hz on August 31, 2012, 03:23 PM

Quote from: mahesh2k on August 31, 2012, 03:11 PM

The point about linux or open source is not to replace the mainstream brands but to offer people the same experience without them having to cut leg and arm for it.

Something most people (including some notables in the Linux community) miss: Linux is not about "winning" or "dominating." It's about providing the user a better alternative than just saying: "none of the above."

Reminds me of Yoda - "No. There is another..."

Yeah. Too bad for Luke that svelte little hottie in the equation turned out to be his sister huh?  

Oh, I'm sorry, that used to be called Shareware except now you don't get to try it for free!

A little different from shareware in the classical sense if you stick to what apps represented to get Apple to the place that it is.  The whole thing has been a bit muddled, but the two come from different places and different thought processes.

Most shareware is meant to build something- where the concept of Apps is meant to be the latest cash in scheme.  "I'll make a .99 app and sell a million copies and retire"

If it's not GPL, MIT or Mozilla or Apache, it's going to be something fishy.

There are other good licenses as well. I think my favourite is the WTFPL.

Do What The Fuck You Want To Public License
Author Sam Hocevar

Copyleft No

I wonder why anybody would consider that important? 

Sure thing Linux fanboys don't.

I think mahesh2k nailed it. What desktop? It's 2012 and it is now the place at which I spend the least computing time. My [mobile] "devices" are all running Linux in some form, as is my latest i7 desktop build. Fortunately, my computing life became an internet life years ago. The desktop is incidental to my needs, especially with regard to work and travel. Get me to a browser and I can access and share everything I need/want on company servers and, more personally, on my google account/s.

Point is, someone explain why I would need Windows or OSX?

why I would need Windows or OSX?

Honestly, you don't need crappy windows. I used OSX and Linux and they don't show performance issues like windows. Not even windows 7 solved performance issue problem. More you use windows, less usable it becomes, after you add more data, reg entries and stuff. Those who are using Visual studio knows Why I am saying this, because microsoft's own programs make the system unusable.

On the other hand, OSX based on unix is perfectly fine. Doesn't break or gets crashed with official softwares and upgrades. Linux is always better option but commercial apps for windows are not yet in for linux. So you have either OSX or windows option in some cases. Rest of the hatred bigotry for any OS should be ignored.

Bullshit. That urban myth is not true anymore since... uhm..

Am I supposed to reply to flamebaits? I mean give me one good reason why I should respond to your bigotry towards linux or lurve for windows that comes out because you hate linux and lurve BSD?

Wish mouser had ignore option on forum.