What people? A handful of geeks who've heard of Linux?
Which is the argument for why this doesn't apply to Apple hardware (computers and phones) and to an arguably lesser extent Android (in that case there is a separation - the phone is made by Samsung, HTC etc, the OS by Google, so the argument that they're integrated is weaker).
My point is that the average consumer doesn't care. They want a Windows machine, and probably don't really care if it's HP, Acer or whoever - it's Windows they want.
So while there's a legal argument around bundling, it's not really a consumer protection issue. The number of buyers who would actually want to install an alternative OS (or be able to) is tiny.
Yeah, except it is possible to get OSX running on a PC, or in a VM. Apple just don't allow it. It's a shame, because I'd love a mini tower with at least three drive bays, built in CD burner and card reader and only one mid-range graphics card - a nice neat device with no need for a nest of cables and external devices. But I also want OSX. Turns out I can't have both because Apple's idea of a high end workstation is basically an iMac without a screen in terms of how well it fits my needs.
It's a shame, because the best of both worlds would be OSX with the flexibility of building your own hardware.
The question is where you draw the line. My smart TV clearly has an OS, but I'm not sure there's a clamour for the likes of Panasonic or Samsung to stop "bundling" the OS with the TV. The TV is capable of being a general purpose computer but most people wouldn't see it like that. People want to buy a TV that just works, they don't want to buy a TV and then figure out what OS to install on it to get it to work. Same with phones, for most people.
So why should computers be different? Bundling helps the average consumer more than it hurts - you buy a PC, you get Windows, you buy a Mac you get OSX, all ready to use straight out of the box.
Google Now has gone downhill recently. It used to alert me to traffic problems on my commute at around the time I normally leave the office. Recently it's started alerting me an hour before (when the traffic is always worse), and repeating the notification when I clear it. It's also got inconsistent on other things - sometimes it tells me stuff, sometimes it doesn't. The email integration also only works for plain gmail accounts - not google apps accounts.
So from me it's close, but not that close. And it insists on taking up a home screen.
My old 1971 Beetle didn't have a manual choke, instead relying on a bi-metal strip to control the fuel mix. Didn't work. Spent winters braking with my heel on the throttle to stop it cutting out until it had fully warmed up. I don't think I'd go back to that, but I'd never have an automatic. They're not that common in the UK, and I wouldn't want to pay the premium and get out of the habit of driving a manual.
At least SMF doesn't, if I recall, do more than slightly more sophisticated startup script management. Init scripts still work, and you can, if you want, handcraft the XML wrappers. In fact, underneath all the automation there's basically an old style script.
I suppose the logic is that the internet is now on a par with basics like power for being essential and ubiquitous, and you presumably don't get reimbursed a portion of your electricity bill for working from home.
I don't think that's good logic - I know people who only have 3G access because it's less hassle than setting up a fixed line and ADSL if you're young, renting and move often.
Where I work, working from home is seen as a benefit, so you take the trade off - it's still cheaper for me to work from home than spend the fuel on commuting.
And I could grow my own food, too...
Most people don't have the skills to change OSS code. I enjoy photography and, like many photographers, use Photoshop. For most of the photographers I know, just using Photoshop is enough of a technical challenge - suggesting they make code changes to the Gimp to make it do what they need would be like telling them to design and build a car from scratch rather than buy one from Ford.
I am a programmer, and I daresay if I really, really wanted to I could contribute, but to do so I'd be spending most of my free time on getting tools to work rather than using tools I've bought to do the things I actually want to do.
Up to a point, and see my reply to retchdog about circumstances. However, there are people living with chronic pain and disability who don't choose suicide. There has to be a trigger somewhere that makes some people suicidal in those circumstances and others not.
And yes, not everyone's pain is physical, but pain is pain - if we understood the workings of the mind better, we might be able to help those in any kind of pain.
Where it gets more complicated for me is that I do actually support assisted dying, with appropriate safeguards. So I suppose I see that it can be rational in some circumstances - for the terminally ill, for example, or those diagnosed with alzheimers. I'm equally aware that seems to contradict my view that suicide is a symptom of a potentially treatable mental illness.
It's a difficult and nuanced subject. Ideal for discussion on Slashdot, where open minded discussion is to be expected! No, I'm really not new here
That wasn't a dig at your response, btw, in case it wasn't obvious.
It's difficult because we understand so little about the mind that we can't really tell what falls within normal bounds and what is potentially damaging to the individual. particularly with regard to suicide. An analogy is blood pressure - we have what we call a normal range, and offer medication to individuals with abnormally high or low blood pressure. There is no well understood equivalent for behaviour. My belief, based on what I read, is that the trend in the USA has been to over medicate and smooth out behaviours that fall within normal boundaries, but as I say, that's based on media perception.
Circumstances can certainly be a trigger, in the same way that underlying physical conditions, or some cancers, can be triggered. Not everyone who smokes will get lung cancer, but it increases the risk. Bullying may be similar for mental health problems. Anecdotally, I lost most of my hearing in one ear and now have constant tinnitus on that side. At the hospital, I was offered counselling as apparently the tinnitus can drive some sufferers to suicide. I'm lucky - I experience it as an inconvenience and can live with it.
Entertainers get paid according to the market value of the entertainment they provide. Full stop. Personally I'm happier seeing them get it for making me laugh than to see someone make more than that kicking a football / hitting a golf ball / swinging a tennis racket (etc). Top footballers (soccer...) earn silly money, and I'm sure it's the same with American football, baseball, basketball etc...
If people stopped paying to watch them, stopped spending a fortune on the satellite and cable packages, the rewards would come down. That they don't is simply market forces. I don't begrudge them personally, but it makes me a bit sad that the world values their skills so highly.
My view is that suicide is a result of a mental illness. People go through all sorts of traumas, from bullying to severe medical conditions to grinding poverty and don't kill themselves. Those that do are ill, and I would consider suicide to be on a par with dying of a disease. Just my view - I believe it takes more than circumstances alone.
Or perhaps someone got involved in the project who'd had some experience with BMC software, and he said "guys, change the name, you don't want to get confused with that archaic steaming pile of bloatware"