PcLinuxOS - best Linux desktop ever

This is a discussion on PcLinuxOS - best Linux desktop ever within the General Discussions forums, part of the Community Boards category; Originally Posted by MK27 I'm perhaps in a minority of linux users in believing that it will be bad for ...

  1. #46
    ... kermit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    1,528
    Quote Originally Posted by MK27 View Post
    I'm perhaps in a minority of linux users in believing that it will be bad for it in the long run to "popularize" itself too much. I think it already has a robust and sustainable user base and that people will continue to be attracted to it in the future just like they were in the past. There is no need to try and pitch it or attract even more people. Like I said, there are no shareholders who will benefit, it's not a stock you can purchase, so achieving a greater market share is just a macho goal.
    I guess I am part of that minority too. To me, a Linux system is a tool that I use. Others who need what that system can offer will use it too. If you don't need it, forget about it, which seems to come back to lpaulgib was getting at. Of course good luck trying to pin down what "need" is.. I "need" my 411 script and phone-book file (ala The UNIX Programming Environment by Brian W. Kernighan and Rob Pike), and for that simple one line script alone, I refuse to do without some kind of Unix like system to use.

  2. #47
    Registered User lpaulgib's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    65
    MK, i just did 4 years Marine Corps infantry. You'd have to try hard to hurt my feelings.

    It is amazing at what people pour their money into. Education has been put on a backburner to entertainment and in general... stupid ......... It's rather depressing watching our society sink under stuff like Jersey Shores, Brett Michael reality shows, et cetera. But America is based on the consumer. And as I said earlier, most of you people, and hopefully me one day, will be working for the consumer.

    The idea of free software is great... if done right. Without money though, the resources available to develop these programs and OS's aren't found. How long until websites asking for donations turn to subscription support. From there, a small fee for the software is the next step.

  3. #48
    spurious conceit MK27's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    segmentation fault
    Posts
    8,300
    Quote Originally Posted by Mario F. View Post
    What a load of crap, MK.
    As usual, of course. I'm not waving a torrent freak flag or anything, I actually don't bother with that, but I do think the idea that there is "a good reason" why Joe Average who makes $15 an hour needs to send money to the estate of Frank Sinatra is a REAL LOAD OF CRAP. Pre-recorded entertainment should not be sold for money when 50% of the world's population lives on less than $2.50 a day. Period. If you want to get on stage and work, that's fine, but as for the rest of the BS, those people are not artists, they're PIGS. So I'd totally encourage people to steal anything and send the price on the sticker to OXFAM instead. That's morality.

    Of course, IMO Joe Average would be better off learning to play guitar for himself. Use those mind muscles, etc. vs. just living in the womb of consumer media forever and ever.
    C programming resources:
    GNU C Function and Macro Index -- glibc reference manual
    The C Book -- nice online learner guide
    Current ISO draft standard
    CCAN -- new CPAN like open source library repository
    3 (different) GNU debugger tutorials: #1 -- #2 -- #3
    cpwiki -- our wiki on sourceforge

  4. #49
    Registered User lpaulgib's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    65
    Quote Originally Posted by MK27 View Post
    As usual, of course. I'm not waving a torrent freak flag or anything, I actually don't bother with that, but I do think the idea that there is "a good reason" why Joe Average who makes $15 an hour needs to send money to the estate of Frank Sinatra is a REAL LOAD OF CRAP. Pre-recorded entertainment should not be sold for money when 50% of the world's population lives on less than $2.50 a day. Period. If you want to get on stage and work, that's fine, but as for the rest of the BS, those people are not artists, they're PIGS. So I'd totally encourage people to steal anything and send the price on the sticker to OXFAM instead. That's morality.

    Of course, IMO Joe Average would be better off learning to play guitar for himself. Use those mind muscles, etc. vs. just living in the womb of consumer media forever and ever.


    How else are they to pay for their cocaine habits, if not through price gouging music on cds?

  5. #50
    (?<!re)tired Mario F.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Portugal
    Posts
    7,532
    Quote Originally Posted by lpaulgib View Post
    All this Linux talk got me looking around...
    Don't fall for it. All this ideological nonsense serves only to feed the egos of those whose think a computer operating system should reflect a lifestyle. Like your clothes, the bars you go to or the people you vote on.

    In reality though Linux is the same crap as Windows or Mac or whatever. Just a whole layer of self-important technology built to get in the way of you and the actual applications you want to use. We like them, because we really have nothing better to like. You'll just get used to the smell if you work on a morgue, don't you?

    If it comes a time when you do need to learn Linux, trust me you will then learn to like it, just like all the others. Not so long ago I felt I was going to abandon Windows forever. I decided to get myself Ubuntu, bought a book (Linux Bible) and learned from there. Then, Windows 7 came out and it turned out to actually be something worth having. No longer fearing being stuck to Windows XP and the obvious lack of support from newer applications and technologies, Linux was no longer relevant to me. But I thought "What the heck! I invested so much into this, might as well stick to it". And so I use both today, making sure I give them both more or less the same quality time. Might even help my resume, who knows eh?

    If and when you get into one of those turning points, by all means. You'll also start frequenting Linux forums and whatnot, and laugh your arse off when you see them bashing their own applications, technologies and distros in flamewars that would put to shame anything we could possibly do on these forums.
    The programmer’s wife tells him: “Run to the store and pick up a loaf of bread. If they have eggs, get a dozen.”
    The programmer comes home with 12 loaves of bread.


    Originally Posted by brewbuck:
    Reimplementing a large system in another language to get a 25% performance boost is nonsense. It would be cheaper to just get a computer which is 25% faster.

  6. #51
    spurious conceit MK27's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    segmentation fault
    Posts
    8,300
    Quote Originally Posted by Mario F. View Post
    In reality though Linux is the same crap as Windows or Mac or whatever. Just a whole layer of self-important technology built to get in the way of you and the actual applications you want to use. We like them, because we really have nothing better to like. You'll just get used to the smell if you work on a morgue, don't you?
    This is a good point, but it is an infinite regress. We like being human beings (hopefully) because we have nothing better to like, fact.* Take a pill.

    Vis, the GNU philosophy being irrelevant (instead of ground breaking, history making, etc) and hence it is just like MS or Apple, this is profoundly ignorant and you know it. Does it make the OS better in and of itself? Of course not. Does it make a better choice, "lifestyle" wise? Probably. You may see lifestyle as being about superficialities, and it is very clear that commercial culture presents it as being so, and that there are many powerful political forces in play that would like people to believe that (hence, the only thing left to settle are your brand affiliations), but there are plenty of lifestyle choices you can make that are good for the world and represent a vision of the future that is not simple a banal repetition of the past, and then there are some that are the opposite. That is real.

    * From one perspective we are incredibly blessed. From another, pathetic and depressing.
    Last edited by MK27; 05-18-2010 at 09:04 PM.
    C programming resources:
    GNU C Function and Macro Index -- glibc reference manual
    The C Book -- nice online learner guide
    Current ISO draft standard
    CCAN -- new CPAN like open source library repository
    3 (different) GNU debugger tutorials: #1 -- #2 -- #3
    cpwiki -- our wiki on sourceforge

  7. #52
    (?<!re)tired Mario F.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Portugal
    Posts
    7,532
    Yeah, yeah, yeah. You talked enough on this thread. Just shutup now! :P

    You may see lifestyle as being about superficialities, and it is very clear that commercial culture presents it as being so, and that there are many powerful political forces in play that would like people to believe that
    Your alternative scares the willies of me. Besides it was the commercial culture that bought you that seat, that computer, the technology behind it and your ability to be using the internet to discuss ways to destroy it. And probably bought your parents the meals and the books that made you the healthy, intelligent, cultured and nice looking man you are today.

    I have no more love for the uglier face of commercialism than you do. But, contrary to you, I prefer that to the idea that someone is telling me when I should stop making money from my work because they want it for free. That would be the day!
    The programmer’s wife tells him: “Run to the store and pick up a loaf of bread. If they have eggs, get a dozen.”
    The programmer comes home with 12 loaves of bread.


    Originally Posted by brewbuck:
    Reimplementing a large system in another language to get a 25% performance boost is nonsense. It would be cheaper to just get a computer which is 25% faster.

  8. #53
    spurious conceit MK27's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    segmentation fault
    Posts
    8,300
    Quote Originally Posted by Mario F. View Post
    Besides it was the commercial culture that bought you that seat, that computer, the technology behind it
    I like to stand now when programming. I put the keyboard up, mount the lcd on a wall, and pretend I am a submarine pilot. Feel better too.

    the idea that someone is telling me when I should stop making money from my work because they want it for free. That would be the day!
    This is a complex issue and obviously I don't think people should starve. So if no one could be forced to pay for something, then all the talent would be "forced" to do something else and software would suck because no one could make a living with it.

    I don't believe that. People have literally thrown money at this industry for almost 20 years now, and they do not seem to be be losing interest, methinks. That's enthusiasm. Bill Gates is the 2nd richest human being alive, from software. . You'll have to google if you want to find out the grotesque things the 1st place winner has to do to maintain that position, barely.

    So if everything were open sourced and freely distributed, I am sure there would still be money to support the industry altho it might be distributed differently and there might be less hopes for some bunch o' goofs to become the next Facebook, oh well. Which technically is free...I dunno the extent to which they use proprietary stuff, but I'm sure they still have money to burn on providing code monkeys with a living.

    The first programmer I ever (disinterestedly) met was a guy who wrote software for use in my parent's factory, which is not a huge corporation or anything. It seems to me that was pretty normal in the 1980's -- today they use some packaged inventory tool the manager chose, that guy from way back, who knows what he is doing.

    Maybe he is working making the package? Because that's more efficient (maybe) and the package can make money because of intellectual property laws. Otherwise, there'd be no money so the software would be crap so -- just a minute, something does not make sense here.

    What's the difference? What is that guy doing? What if he actually got put out of work because of the large scale, proprietary software industry? I don't follow employment stats here, or the relationship between those (eg, total number of programmers employed) and actual dollars made from software sales, but I know it doesn't go straight into your pocket tough guy. Are you gonna suck up to the man until the day he lays you off because your tish got outsourced somewhere and heck, it's all gonna be sold under licence everywhere anyway? HA HA HA!

    The whole proprietary/open source conflict with regard to economic issues is a concoction. This is purely a business issue to do with logistics. It is not that society is not prepared to devote resources to the computer industry, very obviously. No doubt linux represents a thorn in the side of people, and this is another reason I don't think it should aim for shear numbers: if MS lost even 10% of market share, the business team would not stop short of death squads to stop it if simply throwing billions into lobbying the government to put a stop to open source perversity (or some small related loophole) would not work, which I'm sure that it easily could. The public is mostly ignorant and indifferent here.
    Last edited by MK27; 05-18-2010 at 09:57 PM.
    C programming resources:
    GNU C Function and Macro Index -- glibc reference manual
    The C Book -- nice online learner guide
    Current ISO draft standard
    CCAN -- new CPAN like open source library repository
    3 (different) GNU debugger tutorials: #1 -- #2 -- #3
    cpwiki -- our wiki on sourceforge

  9. #54
    Registered User whiteflags's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    7,751
    I do everything I can to keep this off my computer. I wonder if they fixed it yet, but it doesn't render everything it says it supports correctly. (Mux something in mkv to see.) Even if the results are... artistic, pretty much anything else does a proper job. I'm a stickler for that sort of perfectionism: As a personal example, MPC-HC can play DVDs, but it doesn't render as perfectly as WinDVD does. So, I don't use MPC-HC for that.

    Quote Originally Posted by MK27 View Post
    As an analogy, think what would happen if musicians had to actually perform instead of just collecting royalties, because all their recorded material was freely reproducible under law. Would fewer musicians become multi-millionaires for little or no reason? Yes. It would be very hard to make all that money if you actually had to work for it. Would the quality of music (not it's stock market value) in general be better? Almost certainly, because only people who really wanted to work as performing musicians would stick it out.
    Convince me that this is quality control because of copyright reform. As I understand it, performer's rights are already an exception to copyright so nothing would change about performing. You are allowed to suck and put on a concert.

    Quote Originally Posted by MK27 View Post
    No doubt linux represents a thorn in the side of people, and this is another reason I don't think it should aim for shear numbers: if MS lost even 10% of market share, the business team would not stop short of death squads to stop it if simply throwing billions into lobbying the government to put a stop to open source perversity (or some small related loophole) would not work, which I'm sure that it easily could. The public is mostly ignorant and indifferent here.
    But they haven't done that, and already have lost market share on some fronts: IE at one point was 90% of the world, and their response to decline has been completely tame. (Unless you don't discount the EU suing Microsoft over IE being a part of windows, and blame that suit on them.) Entire governments use OpenOffice, too. If Windows does lose market share in the way some people expect and Microsoft responds by suing on IP (an action I don't think they have the balls to do -- but it is less crazy), it will be hard for them to win just because of the defendants involved.

    If lobbying really did anything to stop open source I would ........ myself. How does that even work.
    Last edited by whiteflags; 05-19-2010 at 12:20 AM.

  10. #55
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Croatia
    Posts
    36
    Quote Originally Posted by fronty View Post
    Maybe you should clean up some of that bull........ from your post.

    Happy UNIX and *BSD user here.
    Oh yeah...I got OpenBSD on my Desktop, love it. But hey...that system is probably a nuclear physics for Windows users here..."BUT IT'S NOT CLICKABLE!!!"

    *Hope that Linux will achieve the same level of standardization like Unix systems did.

    Quote Originally Posted by MK27 View Post
    Seriously: learn to love the command line. You will thank yourself for it later. You're a programmer, that tish shouldn't scare you. Also it's a great way to understand the fundamental elements of the system. You're a programmer: you should do that.
    Good point!
    I am amazed how many opposition Linux has on this board. And this board is not about vegetables...
    Even today, when everyone can install it and use it with ease.


    Quote Originally Posted by lpaulgib View Post
    Linux does a horrible job of selling itself. """Oooh you can command line multiple downloads""" ""Oooh you can look at nothing but text on Bash and uninstall things more thoroughly""". That's not what America wants though.
    SYNAPTIC MANAGER! POINT AND CLICK! What command prompt are you talking about?
    With PCLOS, one will never have a need to start a CMD. It works out of the box.
    Last edited by dotunix; 05-19-2010 at 03:16 AM.

  11. #56
    Making mistakes
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    476
    Just a whole layer of self-important technology built to get in the way of you and the actual applications you want to use.
    This sounds very negative. I have deep respect from OS writers since I first tried to get past real mode on a x86 machine. I think they facilitate such things greatly.

    You'll have to google if you want to find out the grotesque things the 1st place winner has to do to maintain that position, barely.
    Yes, such as managing the telephone lines of a whole continent.

    The idea of free software is great... if done right. Without money though, the resources available to develop these programs and OS's aren't found. How long until websites asking for donations turn to subscription support. From there, a small fee for the software is the next step.
    Well, it seems that really a lot of free open-source software exists. GCC, Linux, VLC etc. some sponsored by companies, some on their own. If they are good, they'll survive. And those are good. More and more large companies start using open-source software. (except Microsoft, I guess xD)

  12. #57
    (?<!re)tired Mario F.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Portugal
    Posts
    7,532
    Quote Originally Posted by MK27 View Post
    I don't believe that. People have literally thrown money at this industry for almost 20 years now, and they do not seem to be be losing interest, methinks.
    To me, this is the only thing that matters. Is there a market? If so, then there is all legitimacy to explore it in a society I wish to remain true to free market. If Open Source can coexist in this economic model (as it has so far), then all the better. But forcing Open Source down my throat? No thank you.

    Closed Source is no disincentive to open source. If we have problems with copyright and patent laws (and boy, we do!) they should be addressed directly. But these have nothing to do with the distribution model. In the meantime Open Source cannot compete with Closed Source in our society. It can never generate the same amount of jobs, it cannot generate the same amount of economic growth.

    Open Source's own devils are in fact just barely hidden from plain view. Anyone with 2 eyes and a brain must at some point start questioning why is it that the only people making actual money from it are those who gather a large corporation and start charging for support? Why is that books on Open Source, written by Open Source advocates, are copyrighted and distribution denied?

    In fact the whole model is a parody where sharecropper developers cannot expect any financial gain from developing or participating in the development of open source projects. Some of these projects that then get in the hands of a few who start charging for support, while the sharecroppers keeps feeding in their development time... for free.

    Open Source is a fine development and distribution model. I'm definitely bought. But don't try to make it an economic model. It's ruinous to any country.
    The programmer’s wife tells him: “Run to the store and pick up a loaf of bread. If they have eggs, get a dozen.”
    The programmer comes home with 12 loaves of bread.


    Originally Posted by brewbuck:
    Reimplementing a large system in another language to get a 25% performance boost is nonsense. It would be cheaper to just get a computer which is 25% faster.

  13. #58
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Croatia
    Posts
    36
    Quote Originally Posted by Mario F. View Post
    To me, this is the only thing that matters. Is there a market? If so, then there is all legitimacy to explore it in a society I wish to remain true to free market. If Open Source can coexist in this economic model (as it has so far), then all the better. But forcing Open Source down my throat? No thank you.
    We are talking about the quality of software and you turned everything into philosophy.
    Yes, some free software like operating system have more sense in commercial world then propetary. Others specialized software like different CAD systems etc. should stay in commercial domain.
    And if there's been forced applied, it most certainly doesn't come from an OpenSoruce!
    Like I said, no one owns Internet...I also think that no one should own an operating system. It makes so much sense because it's so natural to have one platform on which apps depend on and that that system can be accessible to everyone for free so they can easily adapt it for their specific environment. No force applied!
    So once you buy a PC, operating system comes for free and all necessary apps you would expect to have. And if you can't see that...well, continue using the crap you are using.


    Quote Originally Posted by Mario F. View Post
    Closed Source is no disincentive to open source. If we have problems with copyright and patent laws (and boy, we do!) they should be addressed directly. But these have nothing to do with the distribution model. In the meantime Open Source cannot compete with Closed Source in our society. It can never generate the same amount of jobs, it cannot generate the same amount of economic growth.
    Of course it can. Google is the proof. I think that the business model on which MS is based on...is slowly dieing. OpenSource is growing, and more busnisses are being created around it...deal with it...it actually works! Even better then MS's model.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mario F. View Post
    Open Source's own devils are in fact just barely hidden from plain view. Anyone with 2 eyes and a brain must at some point start questioning why is it that the only people making actual money from it are those who gather a large corporation and start charging for support? Why is that books on Open Source, written by Open Source advocates, are copyrighted and distribution denied?
    Again...philosophy, not quality.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mario F. View Post
    In fact the whole model is a parody where sharecropper developers cannot expect any financial gain from developing or participating in the development of open source projects. Some of these projects that then get in the hands of a few who start charging for support, while the sharecroppers keeps feeding in their development time... for free.
    Most of "sharecropper developers" are one of the best developers in industry and do make a lot of money. Don't generalize things. The ones who don't, don't really care about the money as much as you do. They see it as a way to learn and contribute to real projects, promote them self(long term profit). Where can you see that in commercial world? Please, try to contribute to development of MS Explorer!? Wait...isn't that the reason why it is the worst crap on the planet?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mario F. View Post
    Open Source is a fine development and distribution model. I'm definitely bought. But don't try to make it an economic model. It's ruinous to any country.
    Your problem is that you look things to narrow and on short terms. It isn't just the question who can make money directly from OpenSource, but what does happen in longer terms. What environment are you creating for all other buisnisses which don' t make money directly from that specific software?
    Operating systems are like an air for computing...none should make money out of that, but everyone can join to clean it.
    How many busnisses have MS destroyed? And did the quality of their product grow, or prices been lowered? They don't drive innovation, OpenSource does.
    In fact...Microsoft caused nothing but troubles in commercial world and OpenSource world. Fact!

  14. #59
    (?<!re)tired Mario F.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Portugal
    Posts
    7,532
    Quote Originally Posted by dotunix View Post
    We are talking about the quality of software and you turned everything into philosophy.
    No. It's economy. Not philosophy. I'd appreciate, if you wish to take this discussion in an enlightening manner, to make an effort to not fall in hypocrisy.

    Yes, some free software like operating system have more sense in commercial world then propetary. Others specialized software like different CAD systems etc. should stay in commercial domain.
    This makes no sense. And I'm not talking about the obvious typo. I think I understand what you mean, regardless. An Operating System, is still for better or worse, a relevant product. And a commodity. You can at most argue it can be made Open Source, as it has. But so have many other type of products. OSes have no special quality that should require of them to be Open Source.

    So once you buy a PC, operating system comes for free and all necessary apps you would expect to have. And if you can't see that...well, continue using the crap you are using.
    At this point I'm inclined to just ignore the rest of your post. But believing you actually have something more important to say than just Microsoft bashing, I'll proceed.

    Of course it can. Google is the proof. I think that the business model on which MS is based on...is slowly dieing. OpenSource is growing, and more busnisses are being created around it...deal with it...it actually works! Even better then MS's model.
    Really, Google? Are you sure you want to give this example? Very well...

    Google business model does not derive from Open Source activities. Its financial results derive almost exclusively from their advertising programs. You cannot sustain an economy where everyone makes money from advertising. It's impossible. Google found its niche in the market. Before them, weakly explored by others. It's sustainable to the company. More power to them. But you cannot transverse it to the whole industry. The world economy is still dominated by commodities trading.

    Google long list of trademarks reflect exactly what the Open Source community has been (rightfully in my opinion on most cases) been arguing against for years and years. The use of patents to protect ones business and curb down technological advancement. Be careful when you try to use Google as an example of Open Source success. It's anything but. Its influence and size in the industry is supported by numerous trademarks that make it difficult or impossible for Open Source enterprising. Google is just another company getting in the way of Open Source development, much like Microsoft, Apple, Adobe, etc.

    Again...philosophy, not quality.
    No. But I register the fact you didn't answer the question. Disguising your discomfort with a generic nonsensical commentary will only fool the distracted. I'm however not distracted around hypocrisy.

    Most of "sharecropper developers" are one of the best developers in industry and do make a lot of money. Don't generalize things.
    Citation needed.

    The ones who don't, don't really care about the money as much as you do.
    Citation needed.

    Look... don't go there. I'm 40 years old. I have two daughters, I'm married and I need to pay my bills. I'm not fooling around living on daddy and mummy money or on welfare. I actually have to pay bills, feed and dress a family every single month of my life. No excuses. Do not insult me with this type of dribble.

    Please, try to contribute to development of MS Explorer!? Wait...isn't that the reason why it is the worst crap on the planet?
    No. There's worse. There's the crap that gets off some people's mouth.
    Last edited by Mario F.; 05-19-2010 at 10:30 AM.
    The programmer’s wife tells him: “Run to the store and pick up a loaf of bread. If they have eggs, get a dozen.”
    The programmer comes home with 12 loaves of bread.


    Originally Posted by brewbuck:
    Reimplementing a large system in another language to get a 25% performance boost is nonsense. It would be cheaper to just get a computer which is 25% faster.

  15. #60
    spurious conceit MK27's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    segmentation fault
    Posts
    8,300
    Quote Originally Posted by Mario F. View Post
    Look... don't go there. I'm 40 years old. I have two daughters, I'm married and I need to pay my bills. I'm not fooling around living on daddy and mummy money or on welfare. I actually have to pay bills, feed and dress a family.
    So does everyone. But you are not entitled to do so. I don't think someone deserves money just because "they do" something. I could start screaming and yelling that I am a guitarist and I must make a living at it to feed my family and that it is unfair if I cannot.

    Someone else with money must be willing to pay you. My earlier point was that the public is obviously willing to dump tons of cash into the computer industry, and even if there were a law enforcing open source (which I'm not saying there should be, but consider) that money would still be there. It is just about how it's distribution is organized. Currently, the recording industry and software market work by extorting money from the consumer. The problem with selling reproducible copies of an intangible item is that it permits corporations to make infinite amounts of money at essentially no cost. That's how Bill Gates got so very very rich. At this point, the power is not in your hands, it's now in the hands of investment banks. You seem to think that defending closed source proprietary practices -- under which you do not even own the software you write as a hired gun -- means protecting programmer jobs. It does not. It may mean protecting a certain class of jobs, but I doubt even that. What it does mean is protecting the value of corporations for their shareholders, and some money trickles down to you. That's a way of organizing an economy, but it is not the only possibility. People do not pay for software because of that model. They pay for software because they are willing to contribute money to the industry because they appreciate its products. You are just afraid of change.

    You are also completely at the whim of those investment structures, and I promise they do not care two turds about you or your family. You are completely vulnerable to any kind of global re-organization and outsourcing, as has recently been demonstrated to hordes of IBM engineers in the US. Imagine, all those years of defending proprietary corporate politics only to be told you are now unemployed because your work is not worth the money you are being paid...why? Because the profit margins will increase if somebody somewhere -- anywhere -- is willing to do it for less. Much less. All those IBM patents do not belong to it's employees, and they did not protect their jobs at all (in fact, if you think about it, they do the opposite -- they make you more easily expendable, because the value collects over your head).
    Last edited by MK27; 05-19-2010 at 10:48 AM.
    C programming resources:
    GNU C Function and Macro Index -- glibc reference manual
    The C Book -- nice online learner guide
    Current ISO draft standard
    CCAN -- new CPAN like open source library repository
    3 (different) GNU debugger tutorials: #1 -- #2 -- #3
    cpwiki -- our wiki on sourceforge

Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Popular pages Recent additions subscribe to a feed

Similar Threads

  1. Dabbling with Linux.
    By Hunter2 in forum Tech Board
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 04-21-2005, 05:17 PM
  2. installing linux for the first time
    By Micko in forum Tech Board
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 12-06-2004, 05:15 AM
  3. Problem with desktop on Red Hat linux
    By osal in forum Linux Programming
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11-10-2004, 01:07 PM
  4. Is Linux ready to enter the desktop market?
    By carrja99 in forum Tech Board
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 11-04-2002, 01:11 AM

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21