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.

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.

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.

Ah that's great. Blame the user, not the operating system. That's a common defensive measure I see a lot of fanboys take with those who are having issues with their precious little OS. It's easier than admitting bugs exists I suppose.

Eh, that's meant to say within a distro, not without.

I'm referring to "reactionary" in the sense that no-one in the Linux community, neither users nor commercial vendors, thought about capitalizing on the power of repositories until Apple (and to some extent Valve) started making money out of the premise. It was maybe a year ago that Ubuntu finally had paid software appearing in the USC. Until then the idea of paid, closed-source software being sold without a distro was heresy, and to some it still is. But it's a crucial step towards providing the stuff that a lot of people want.

Agreed. I prefer synaptic and particularly apt-get (once I know the exact name of the package I want) as well, but I imagine the USC has its benefits for providing a nice frontend that non-geeks or just people who don't want the information-overload of something like synpatic.

It even has user ratings and lists of "what's hot", "what's new", "top rated" etc.

The only distro I know which actually has an app store that has these features you mention is in Ubuntu. The rest have package managers for their repositories, but nothing like the Ubuntu Software Center. And even then, the USC was only created well after Steam and the Apple App Store were created. Once again we have a situation where the Linux community acted in a reactionary way to what the commercial vendors were doing, instead of having these styled app stores well beforehand.

So you pointed out a problem in Windows, big deal, everyone can do that. I can also point out a long list of deficiencies I've had in Linux (Ubuntu particularly) to make you weep, though I've done it in the past and can't be arsed doing so again. Needless to say, all operating systems suck, and Linux unfortunately is not significantly better than Windows anymore for the regular non-geek user.

Heck, I installed Ubuntu 11.10 (clean install) on my machine a while back. The audio wasn't working despite working in Ubuntu 11.04, though this is not unusual since regressions are commonplace in Linux software for some reason. Anyway, I opened a terminal, and trying to run alsamixer typed alsa and hit tab for tab completion, or at least to show the available commands so I could confirm it was installed. The whole desktop became unresponsive except for the mouse for about 30 seconds. Nothing could be clicked on at all.

The glorious stability of Linux showed itself right then and there, and I went back to Windows 7. It still disappoints me to this day that the fucking thing (Linux, or Ubuntu at least) hasn't matched the fanboy's descriptions, and that I wasted so much time and effort to move away from something that I've learnt to tame to something that simply isn't amazing anymore.

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.

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.

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!

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.

Two questions: (1) Are you within the US? (2) Did you have any Google-related cookies present on your system? (including Google subdomains like YouTube, etc.)

(1) Australia (thank God)
(2) Nope. I cleared all cookies/cache before doing this.

And since new Google account users are reportedly now forced to join Google+

Not quite. There are ways to create a Google account without Google+ being tacked on.

For example, if you go to http://mail.google.com/mail/signup and create a Gmail account, it will automatically make a Google account as part of the process (of course). However using the above link does NOT automatically create a Google+ account. I know this because I did so yesterday, as I specifically wanted to make a new Google account without G+.

Of course, you need to know this either through research or someone telling you beforehand. All other ways of creating a Google account seem to force G+ unfortunately. Google sucks sometimes.