Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Phones getting too big .. (Score 1) 167

by arth1 (#48232321) Attached to: Preferred smartphone screen size?

If I could get a bluetooth handset that worked great as a one-handed receiver, with no more than an on/off-hook button, and big enough to reach both my ear and my mouth, I would keep my smartphone in my pocket and use the handset.
Thing is, no such device exists. There are headsets and bluetooth earsets, but both require excessive fiddling, and the earsets don't even work if you have a bushy beard and a deep voice. I *miss* being able to just pick up the receiver and talk, without having to yell because people can't hear me.

And yes, I mostly use the smartphone as a PDA. Because, quite frankly, it sucks at being a phone. So much so that I'll get up and walk to the landline when I need to make a call. My cell phone phone usage has averaged around 2 minutes per month.

Comment: Also (Score 1) 255

by recoiledsnake (#48231961) Attached to: Italian Supreme Court Bans the 'Microsoft Tax'

To extend the analogy to OS X's free upgrade argument, imagine hotel A gives free lunch too, not just breakfast. So the arguments here seem to be saying, "since lunch is also free, it means breakfast is free, unlike at hotel O where you have to order food from M directly(which implies that breakfast there was not really free), hence CA does not deserve a refund while CO does".

Comment: Re:And so therefor it follows and I quote (Score 1) 255

by recoiledsnake (#48231933) Attached to: Italian Supreme Court Bans the 'Microsoft Tax'

All this talk is just mostly semantics and shifting things around. Let me tell you how.

Lets take a hotel that gives a complimentary free breakfast.

First, "free" there does not refer to free as in beer, nor free as in liberty.

Why not? Because the breakfast is not free to someone who hasn't paid for the hotel room(similar to how OS X is not free to install on VMs and PCs), and the cost for the beer comes directly out of the pool of the prices paid for the room by users.

So now, lets take two hotels, Hotel O and Hotel A.

Hotel O outsources their breakfast to a catering company M. A pays M for making breakfast. M hires chefs, buys food from the market etc.

Hotel A makes the breakfast in it's own kitchen, hiring chefs, buying ingredients etc on it's own.

Now , customers CO (staying at hotel O) and CA(staying at hotel A) do not like hotel breakfasts because they suck and they have free breakfast at the conference they're attending anyway. So they want a refund from their hotels.

So, your argument for Hotel O being forced to refund the breakfast cost and Hotel A not being forced legally is that "it's kinda difficult to calculate A's costs because you have to add this and that and subtract that and this, while it's easy to calculate O's costs. Hence O should refund the money to CO but CA is screwed?!

Can you explain why CA has less consumer rights just because A happens to make breakfast inhouse instead of outsourcing it like O?

What difference does it make to CA and how does this make any sense?


Comment: System 76 (Score 1) 255

by westlake (#48231875) Attached to: Italian Supreme Court Bans the 'Microsoft Tax'

Ok I'll bite. Show me where I can buy a Linux laptop, with a i7-4710, 1TB HDD, 8GB of RAM, and a GTX 850M.

No trouble:

Configure your Bonobo Extreme [Desktop Replacement]

Base price $1629
CPU Upgrades start at $50.

Free upgrade to NVIDIA 870M
Upgrade to 12 GB for $69.
1 TB HDDs starting at $39.
Full range of SSD primary and HDD/SSD secondary drives, optical and tertiary SSD drives.

Comment: Re:And so therefor it follows and I quote (Score 1) 255

by recoiledsnake (#48231797) Attached to: Italian Supreme Court Bans the 'Microsoft Tax'

What apple is doing is like giving away "free" beer to people who paid a lot of money to join a private beer drinking club. So its not "free" beer, its "no additional cost" beer.

That's actually a bad example, since a beer drinking club purchases beer from the market and it shows up on it's invoices, just like the OEMs.

Apple is like a beer drinking club that brews its own beer and has costs associated with doing that, from raw materials to labor costs. Not sure what the difference between those two clubs is regarding how they resell the beer to their customer.

So apple can say "well, the operating system part is complimentory with the purchase of hardware", and other PC makers cannot say this, because they don't own the software.

Apple spends money on developing OS X in-house, the OEMs outsource the development to Microsoft. They sure can say it's complimentary. A hotel that gives free breakfast can say their food is complimentary regardless of whether they hire an outside firm to make it or if they make it in their own kitchen.

Comment: Building should not be complex. (Score 1) 63

by jd (#48231125) Attached to: Building All the Major Open-Source Web Browsers

There's software for auto-detection of necessary libraries (cmake is probably the best, since it's more portable than autoconf).

If you've the source tree, then you should require one single platform-dependent package containing cmake, gnu make, curl or wget, grep, cut and associated libraries, along with a text file containing a list of dependencies, where to get them and where to put them.

Your build system then scans for everything needed. If you've got it, it uses it. If you don't, it fetches the source, builds it and installs it.

This is not rocket science. Gentoo has been doing something similar for a very long time, so has Perl, so has Cygwin and Cygwin-based packages like OSGEO4W.

Yes, it's slow. Yes, it means the browser maintainer has to have a text editor. Yes, it's going to be as painful and agonizing as installing X11R4 or GateD. I did both. On a 386SX-16. Uphill. Both ways. In the snow. If you can't write your code properly to begin with, get off my lawn!

Comment: Re:And so therefor it follows and I quote (Score 1) 255

by recoiledsnake (#48231099) Attached to: Italian Supreme Court Bans the 'Microsoft Tax'

Debian could argue that, since they make it freely available to all, but I doubt your argument would stand up in court. Apple knows exactly how much OS X developments costs, and since they're not a charity shareholders wouldn't agree if OS X dev costs exceed Mac profits. If they say it is zero, then they would have to demonstrate that they it for free from the developers which they didn't. They paid them salaries, bought office space and hardware just like the OEMs paid MS.

Comment: Re:50 euro fee for a 20 euro refund (Score 1) 255

by jd (#48231067) Attached to: Italian Supreme Court Bans the 'Microsoft Tax'

No problem. Since they require that, you get contractor rates. Plus per diem for the travel. The petrol and wear-and-tear on your car to Germany will be tax-deductable. The remainder of expenses can be billed to the vendor. You send them the estimate in advance, then when they refuse (which they will, because it'll be a hell of a lot more than the cost of a Windows license and probably not too far from the cost of the computer in its entirety if you choose the right places to stay), sue the bastards for breech of contract.

Would you win? Probably not, but the cost of the lawsuit would be a hell of a lot more than the cost of your expenses sheet. That would put them in an interesting position. If they win, they lose. Hey, corporations have been doing this for centuries, it's about time geeks had a go. It seems to be a very profitable racket.

All constants are variables.