I'm conflicted about getting Linux to live on the mainstream desktop. Let's for the sake of simplicity assume that Ubuntu is the platform willing to become mainstream.

Here are some of the key issues I see with the current Ubuntu distro:

Unification: Linux at the moment fills a void for people who find value in it that they don't already get from either OS X or Windows. It's very technical and bars noone from tinkering with whatever he likes. Sadly, Joe Citizen breaks more than he fixes by tinkering, and usually wants to use his device to do some predefined task. Say they want to adapt Ubuntu to get more market penetration, wouldn't that risk moving it so close towards Windows and OS X that the original benefits disappear? (e.g. losing the techie crows by dumbing it down). But at least for Unity they have taken a page out of the Apple playbook. No more sudo unless you root your computer or you get to at least click "I know what I'm doing, leave me alone!".

Attention to detail: Application quality control, either it's 100% finished and polished or it shouldn't appear in the 'main ppa'. If people want to experiment, let them hook into experimental ppa's but assure that Joe Citizen has access to applications that have been tested over and over, and provide him with what he needs.

No overcompensation: While GIMP is a wonderful tool and has a huge toolbox at its disposal, it offers too much to be efficient. So much even that it's not unlikely someone will not understand how to do something and look for something simpler with less options, but a clearer 'clicking-here-does-that' approach.

Agression: Linux isn't being marketed aggressively, at least not in the commercial sense of wooing people to leave their current OS for it. As I see it, it's something techies pick up by reading up on technology, and finally decide to give it a try. But there's no driving force to push for said aggressive market penetration and as it stands, there are still quite a lot of drawbacks that put Linux at a disadvantage vs OS X and Windows. But "more features" is not the answer to everything and doesn't ensure success. Ballmer was laughing at the iPhone when it yet had to be released, and said the WinMobile devices did everything the iPhone did and more. I don't think Ballmer's laughing now, though.

Litigation: While the perception of Linux on the desktop is seen as small and insignificant, litigation isn't likely to occur in the domain the user-oriented Linux distro's. But seeing what Android already had to endure and what kind of shitstorm only recently appeared on the horizon with the forming of Rockstar patent troll (Apple and Microsoft even joining forces!), I'd be very wary of any Linux project ever getting a substantial market share. It'd become the target of frivolous patent suits in no time, and while it may be hard to find something to attack it with, lawyers can get very creative (Exhibit A: the US patent system). Also, many corporations might pull their patents (Mono from Microsoft) once their own products are threatened.

As both Apple and Microsoft already have their own desktop OS, I could potentially see Android bringing in a breath of fresh air. If Google really wants to, they have the power to address the above points. While I don't see where they were going with Chrom OS, I could see Android OS becoming something viable, as the worlds of mobile and desktop seem to be headed on a collision course (seeing recent Windows 8 and IOS developments).

Too bad Slashdot had the will to blackout but not the permission. So much overlap with critical areas of SOPA/PIPA and all they're doing is acting Fair and Balanced. If even Fark of all sites can white-out, it's a sad day to see Slashdot isn't allowed to.

To me, that just nudged Slashdot into the "trustworthy if other sites confirm the story"-category. Parent-company bias is the last thing someone needs on a tech news reporting site. I was under the impression that Slashdot was fairly independent of this meddling behavior. To my dismay I notice that this is not the case.

While I'm trying to see a useful reason in Slashdot's stance, it just looks like they cannot truthfully represent their own best interests. And that's a red flag for me.

I've always been a big fan, and I'll probably still return, but I can't help but feel disappointed.

Big IP would be able to tell you when, where and how to consume their content on the internet. Watching something more than once? Start finding your wallet. Expect to sign in with your ID, birthname and GPS coordinates before you are allowed to have a single peek at the DRM-encumbered movie you want to see. Sharing content and fair use would probably be seen as criminal acts. What is now considered a gray area could then quickly become the subject of 'investigative' black-outs or other scare-tactics which fit their vague descriptions and their willful ignorance of how the internet functions, which could cause these very natural and social interactions to quickly disappear or fall prey to the usual overzealousness of the respective legal departments of Big IP.

This isn't a storm in a glass of water like so many internet debates, this one might truly sting if it gets signed into law.

Don't let that happen.

While the comparison might be somewhat apples-oranges, I do think Chrome deserves credit for upgrading the majority of its clients to the latest version, independent of OS version and without hassling its users about it. In contrast to this, Internet Explorer has artificial ceilings installed, older versions of Windows cannot upgrade past a certain version and I believe Apple has similar policies towards the use of Safari. Chrome imposes no such 'sanctions' on its users, which I think is a great way to adapt the way we use the Internet to its ever faster evolution.

Although I don't understand the resurfacing argument that IE6 is mainly kept alive by corporations. Would that not contradict some sort of evolutionary process? Those unwilling to change should be left behind, just because advances in web technology could provide advantages to internal applications of competitors, so if they decide not to upgrade, the competition should decide it for them. But this seems not to be the case. So my bet is that the majority of IE6 users probably come from bootlegged vanilla XP installations with (surprise-surprise) automatic upgrades turned off in regions like China.

And then there once was Firefox, in its heyday the only alternative to The Microsoft Way. Now, it tries to maintain a release schedule that is only rivaled in speed by some out-of-whack neutrinos. Somehow its upper management got deluded into thinking they needed to mimic their new-found rival to stay relevant. While that sentiment has some truth to it, the way it was executed hurt their core user base more than they could siphon off users from either IE or Chrome. Because people who like Chrome, will use Chrome. And not something that desperately chases Chrome, but fails to address other critical issues in the process.

"I Binged your sister last night!" "Your girlfriend Bings nearly everything she sees."

...they could rename Firefox to Manganese.

It's a topic that's far too advanced for the regular Joe, even geeks have a hard time grasping the whole concept because the whole thing is a misguided attempt at making greater profits from software (by greed, not by invention). Instead of encouraging invention, it's encouraging to keep technology hostage for ransom. Want to use something? Pony up or expect lawsuits until infinity. I'm not against patents, they're fine for those few great (and sometimes simple) ideas that need that protection, but not all this frivolous, trivial and downright rotten junk posted by trolls trying to play the system. Sadly the system is so out of date, so short on time, lacking insight and resources that it cannot pass a senseful judgement. And they could have changed it if they wanted to, but I'm afraid much bigger powers are at play here and that the inherent dumbness of the system plays right into the hands of those who make money off of it. This isn't a topic Fox News et al. would touch with a 10ft pole, it'll be hard to get it to go mainstream. I don't think anybody can understand why a system so broken and exploitable still stands and what disastrous consequences await if things aren't changed soon. It does nothing but enrich lawyers and patent trolls. It kills indie development and it scares developers away from trying to be creative, inventive and original. Some dirtbag will take a trivial wording of an old patent and claim that you're violating it, and there you are. Either you pay licensing fees and go under, or you get sued your pants off and go under. No protection whatsoever, you're out in the open, with an army of lawyers ahead of you. Sadly, small developers don't stick together or at least don't get their voices heard as one. Most everyone sees is bitching and moaning on Slashdot but they'll subsequently bend over and have some more. And they can't do jack about that, there's a big lobby for the 'protection' of IP. Patents means making bucketloads of money in licensing, so nobody who owns software patents is going to give them up. Those on the receiving end will just lobby more. It won't stop as long as the fatcats are making money from it, it'll stop when it's far too late, when IT development is completely in the hands of a handful of corporations and technological advances have come to a near-standstill. Nobody will want to share any information because they're too afraid of being sued out of existence. And that's the exact inverse of why patents exist in the first place. The USPTO is being run by a bunch of incompetent morons, and the IP industry loves that, what's not to love about an idea that can be milked twice, or why go into detail when an overly broad patent can still apply on something completely new 10 years from now? The only hope you have is that Kootol gets their patent, and that some more will follow, so that it'll starts to hurt some big US based companies where it hurts most: in their wallet. They'll sing quite a different tune when they're the ones getting leeched. Best case: the system gets reformed, worst case: they amend it so that outsiders have to jump some extra hoops, making it even more blatant protectionism. I'm no American, but even in Europe they've tried to insert this into the system. They have not yet succeeded, but I don't think they'll stop trying.

Poor developers, putting effort, time and money in creating something original and functional, only to get sued by some bigcorp lawyer shmuck which informs you that they own the rights on the product you just made. They'll kindly ask you to cease and desist before they unleash lawyer hell on you and sue you right into the poorhouse.

If you want to make it in IT these days, you should become a lawyer, not a software developer.

I couldn't agree more with Google. Whiny newspapers want to have their cake and eat it, too? How about no? I'd be damn careful not to mention anything even related to something that could cost me a million bucks. Let them eat crow! For the record, I'm Flemish.

the Imaginaton!

Disclaimer: IANAL

How about switching products from one shelve to the other? Adding flyers describing Sony's practices to product boxes? Inserting DVD/CD's with a prerecorded message/video into any device/box that will take it? Playing the aforementioned DVD/CD on the store televisions? Broadcast over FM/AM so their radios play your message? Buying Sony stuff, only to return it some hours later, entangling their support service? Calling their helpdesk for help with installing Linux? Parody the "You don't steal a car,..., you don't copy music" with a "You can jailbreak an iPhone, ..., so why should you not be able to jailbreak a PS3" ? Apply for the position of jailer/executioner?

The battle may be over, but the war is far from won. Increases in popularity of open source projects will probably also cause an increase in litigation about open source projects. A central hub of anything law-related (w.r.t. Open Source) would be something very valuable in my opinion, both for developers and consumers. Not just for updates on current events, but also as a reference source. Android may have sufficient financial backing to survive an onslaught of lawsuits, but many others might not be so lucky. I'm thinking software patent debacles, Sony's crusade against homebrewers, draconian DRM, frivolous DCMA etc...

I saw it as a magnifying glass that hovered over cases, which could propel relatively unknown lawsuits from the dusty desk of a clerk to the eyes of the mainstream media, causing a discussion in the worst case, and a reaction/correction in the best case scenario.

For the short time I knew it, I was quite fond of it, and it had earned a good reputation. Sad to see it go.

Yeah, I assumed they were planning on executing a "real life" Denial Of Service attack: overcrowding a store to the point that it can no longer service requests... Then again, showing up somewhere in real life has a nasty side-effect of not being anonymous anymore, which could possibly discourage some armchair rebels.

On top of that, the main point in a DOS attack is that many resources focus on a single target for a short amount of time for maximum mayhem and chaos. In this case they seem to target every Sony store, dispersing their strength into infinitesimal small portions, probably causing little to no overload and thus not disrupting anything. Such an outcome would indeed paint a less flattering picture of the collective.

Hitting Sony where it hurts will be difficult, if not impossible. Following HBGary's PR disaster, a lot of firms have teched/lawyered up, and they are, well, expecting them, so to say. Perhaps instead of attacking the behemoth that is Sony, they stand a better chance protecting the hackers/homebrewers from HBGary lookalikes when push comes to shove, provide them with a platform, give them a face...

Woops. Saw I posted this as an AC.

Nokia was blindsided by Android. Instead of adopting it and riding its wave of success, they thought they stood a chance with their own line of products. For too long they ignored that Android was far more popular than what they had to offer. I think they didn't dare to go the Android way as it would compete directly with one of their own products (Symbian/MeeGo), making them look foolish and not competent at producing their own products. So I guess they hoped to stay relevant on their "century-old, great phone, yadda yadda" image. The day they realized this wasn't the case, it was already far too late, and panic set in.

And panic rarely leads to well thought out decisions. They needed a lifebuoy if they wanted to stay relevant. Microsoft seized the moment (as they needed someone to sell their bloat) and this allowed them to sneak an eel in (Elop). To no-one's surprise, he's hollowing out the phone giant to the point where the once big Nokia will be nothing more than a "one size, fits all, doesn't update" phone manufacturer. Everything else Nokia had will eventually disappear or implode by the weight of the dust that will gather on it. Nokia will rely on Microsoft like a junkie relies on his dealer: when the next fix doesn't come, the gutter awaits. Windows or die.

I hope Qt can be saved/extruded from this mess. It would be a damn shame to see MS scuttle it in favor of cramping .NET down some more throats.

How about "Paying by the letter"? You start with a page fulll of ****'s or some freebie letters (like the ö or the ê). Then you can decide on which letters you think you need. E.g.: Half a dollar for a vowel, a dollar for the 'e', and 10ç for each additional letter you think you need. A space is a payable character as well. The ideal gift for the the Uncle Scrooges among us!