Single core atom, and pipelight is not very pretty or reliable.
If I change the hardware, it's gonna be an android tv box , or a tablet I have lying around.
Single core atom, and pipelight is not very pretty or reliable.
I run ubuntu in my home computer. Also in my work computer.
My kid uses ubuntu also .
My wife uses Windows 8
No dual boot, anywhere.
I am thinking of changing my media center into either android or windows though, damn netflix. But right now it's Ubuntu-xbmc
I've never understood the popularity of git. It may be useful for open source by supporting distributed development but it seems far less useful for a traditional corporate environment. SVN just makes far more sense to me in terms of command structure. If I wanted a DVCS I would probably go with Mercurial. Git is just awful.
I am working in a traditional corporate environment right now.
SVN sorks great, even when you use branchs. The problem is that merging is just not worth it.
Right now, we use SVN, and the equivalent of a pull request in github or similar, is a manual process, with several pain points, that works against the grain of development. We need to have separate code reviews for commits, and then count on developers merging code that is accepted.
We also have problems creating branches, destroying them.
I think SVN was OK for the enterprise when the enterprise didn't need all the pretty things modern development processes bring. Right now, they want to deploy every few days, automated testing, decentralized development, and SVN doesn't fit well.
About Git being awful, that might be true, even though I doon't see it. There might be a need for better tools, but the command line client is good, specially compared to the svn client. In any case, it's the dominant player in DVCS, it's the safest investment.
If you are trolling, sir, congratulations, it's a beautiful piece.
The thing is that you are worried about computing in the current world.
RMS is worried about the future of computing, and has helped shape it, winning several battles, even though he is losing the war.
Of course there are IP laws/contracts/whatever that don't let you link to GPLed code. That's why it's GPLed, so the work of free software developer does not help those who want to shrink our freedom.
You can use our work, if you share, if you don't share, go build it yourself. It _is_ us versus them, and RMS sees it very clearly.
Fifteen years ago, RMS rants about a dystopian future looked exaggerated. Right now, they look like old news.
You are right that the GPL is a PITA when you want to work with proprietary software, that's not a bug, it's a feature, which BSD software lacks. That's because the GPL is supposed to have a long term effect.
At my second interview for a job, I was told that, if hired, I would be on trial for 3 months. I replied that I welcomed the opportunity of getting to know the company before making a long term decision, they replied that _I_ was expected to commit long term from day one.
We ended up working together for three years, but I had to help them fix their hiring process and expectations a little bit.
Not only in that case.
Your ability or interest might change. Like what happened now with NSA backdoors getting more publicity, the Linux code is getting more reviewed for their backdoors, even after being in use for several years. If the source were not available, it would be a lot harder to check.
About "non-code submmitting users", I don't think they are the ones who should audit it. You can trust someone who does submit code, or you can suddenly gain interest in security and start checking it, or even pay soomeone to do it. The thing is that it's possible.
This is why it's a lot better to think in terms of Free Software and not open source. Technical advantages are hard to value if they are not used. Freedom is a lot easier to understand. You have the freedom to use the code as you like, share it and whatever. To illustrate the importance of freedom vs its exercise: lots of people don't want to, or don't have the money to travel outside their countries, but we don't like to have that possibility restricted.
1 - Citation needed. In the sense of open source being easier to debug than proprietary code, it's undeniable.
2 - Citation needed. That strawman is getting old.
3 - True. It does mean anyone _can_, not that anyone _will_ . That's very valuable by itself. You can trust the vendor for example, but have the possibility to stop trusting them. Don't you prefer to be able to find backdoors vs not being able?
4 - Citation needed. Same as 2 -
The great mistake of society is a desire to eliminate the poor.
You make sense. But it's a very subversive thing to say, for an American.
Your point is that if someone is to be rich, then someone else needs to be poor.
Plus, you don't really care about poverty, you just care about your standards of living.
But following your ideology, if one were to get rid of poverty, one would first need to get rid of the rich. You can't have everyone living above poverty levels, if you don't first get rid of the rich.
You discovered marxism. Congratulations. And good luck implementing that in the United States.
Erm no. The ability to use a few apps which interface with the Linux kernel and type in a shell that something resembles bash (not even close mind you, it's an even more cut down version of sh) does not make Android Linux. Nothing out of the box Linux works on Android. All the libraries except for the ones providing essential hooks into the kernel are missing. Those programs / libraries which do hook into the kernel are also different from their linux counterpart (go copy "mount" from you phone onto your ubuntu box and try boot up the system).
Really there's nothing Linux about Android other than the underlying kernel.
Linux _is_ a kernel. Everything else you are talking about is mostly the GNU part of GNU/Linux.
Android has the same amount of Linux than any flavor of GNU/Linux, so the GP is right, even though he uses the wrong terms.
Cool, as long as they don't harm me in the process.
RMS doesn't use that word, "open" a lot.
Doesn't use "greed" a lot.
Those are probably your preconceptions of what he says.
RMS usually talks about freedom, as in not giving away your freedom.
DRM requires you to give some other entity control over your devices, more than what you have. That means giving away freedom, and that's why he is against it. I agree with him, also.