Life is an interesting challenge. So much of what we honour and desire is for freedom. We want understanding, knowledge, improvement, and freedom. We want utopia, but how far are we really willing to go in order to get it? That is an important question. But that is what we, as a whole, really seem to want.
Individuals, on the other hand, are different. They want power, and money, and they want to be right. Of course, these goals in many ways oppose the goals described in the previous paragraph. Power and money for individuals, while not incompatible with understanding, knowledge, improvement, and freedom, does not work towards it above all else. People wanting to be right, on the other hand, tends to be directly in opposition to those ideals.
Power and money are the main results of patents, for example. In theory, patents were designed to protect innovators by giving them a chance to monetize their inventions before everyone started using the technique, but in the modern landscape, many claim that it actually prevents others from building on past success. In other words, it stifles improvement, and represses knowledge and understanding. I'm not going to argue either side of this today, although I will likely cover it in a future blog post.
Life should be based on principles of openness, however. There are benefits to closed systems, primarily economical, but as a whole, that isn't what we want. This is particularly so in the world of science. Research, comparison, learning, and so on is always going to be improved the most by co-operation. That is the key tenet of an open society. Co-operation. Working together so that we can build on our earlier mistakes, and our earlier successes.
That is a big problem with the world today. All scientific endeavours require co-operation, but there is no system in place to ensure co-operation happens, or even to make it possible. Instead, people want to use it as a means to make even more money, and so scientists are forced to work in their own little bubbles, slowed down in their effort to make our lives better. Life would be better in an Open society.
Wednesday 7 November 2012
Monday 5 November 2012
I use Linux
As the title says, I am a Linux user.
This is an interesting statement, because I use Windows a lot. I use Windows more than I use Linux. I have purchased several licences to install and use Windows over the years, and I have Linux and Windows installed in a dual-boot setup on my computer. I am very familiar with Windows, and I have been using Windows since Windows 3.1. I used MS-DOS before that. So I have been using Microsoft products for a long time. It is not out of a lack of familiarity. Nor is it that I don't have them available to me. It is not a matter of being too cheap for it.
I simply choose to use Linux. I have used Linux on and off since about 2004, and used it consistently since about 2009, usually side by side with Windows.
I will certainly admit that Windows has improved over the years. Windows ME was a disaster, and so was Vista. However, XP and Windows 7 each had significant strengths. However, Linux has greater strengths. There are those who would say that Windows is better, simply because it makes more money than Linux, and has more widespread support, but that is really a nonsense argument, and is more a result of monopolistic practices.
Linux is naturally a better product. This is because Linux developers are free to choose their own direction. They are not required to develop in a particular way. It can be designed however you want, giving to the rise of free choice, choice for both users and developers. Also, because the only requirement is functionality, there are no corporate policies delaying things. There is flexibility to move quickly, and implement the tools that users want.
That is why, for example, the KDE interface is superior in functionality to Aero, the Windows desktop environment of Windows 7. An example of this is Aero Snap versus KDE hotspots. Both are effectively the same concept, you move a window, it tiles in particular ways. With KDE, it's fully customizable, so you can turn on and off hotspots, whereas Aero is just the way Microsoft designed. Hotspots also give you an extra five hotspots, giving you five extra choices. By default, 7 of the 8 hotspots are enabled, giving you maximize, tile top left, left half of the screen, tile bottom left, tile bottom right, right half of the screen, or tile top right. Aero has 3 of these, either left half, right half, or maximized.
This is the functional difference. In Linux and the related environment, developers are free to follow functionality to its conclusion, while in Windows, the decisions are made at the top, with no alternative available. In Linux, whatever you want, it's probably available. So I use Linux.
This is an interesting statement, because I use Windows a lot. I use Windows more than I use Linux. I have purchased several licences to install and use Windows over the years, and I have Linux and Windows installed in a dual-boot setup on my computer. I am very familiar with Windows, and I have been using Windows since Windows 3.1. I used MS-DOS before that. So I have been using Microsoft products for a long time. It is not out of a lack of familiarity. Nor is it that I don't have them available to me. It is not a matter of being too cheap for it.
I simply choose to use Linux. I have used Linux on and off since about 2004, and used it consistently since about 2009, usually side by side with Windows.
I will certainly admit that Windows has improved over the years. Windows ME was a disaster, and so was Vista. However, XP and Windows 7 each had significant strengths. However, Linux has greater strengths. There are those who would say that Windows is better, simply because it makes more money than Linux, and has more widespread support, but that is really a nonsense argument, and is more a result of monopolistic practices.
Linux is naturally a better product. This is because Linux developers are free to choose their own direction. They are not required to develop in a particular way. It can be designed however you want, giving to the rise of free choice, choice for both users and developers. Also, because the only requirement is functionality, there are no corporate policies delaying things. There is flexibility to move quickly, and implement the tools that users want.
That is why, for example, the KDE interface is superior in functionality to Aero, the Windows desktop environment of Windows 7. An example of this is Aero Snap versus KDE hotspots. Both are effectively the same concept, you move a window, it tiles in particular ways. With KDE, it's fully customizable, so you can turn on and off hotspots, whereas Aero is just the way Microsoft designed. Hotspots also give you an extra five hotspots, giving you five extra choices. By default, 7 of the 8 hotspots are enabled, giving you maximize, tile top left, left half of the screen, tile bottom left, tile bottom right, right half of the screen, or tile top right. Aero has 3 of these, either left half, right half, or maximized.
This is the functional difference. In Linux and the related environment, developers are free to follow functionality to its conclusion, while in Windows, the decisions are made at the top, with no alternative available. In Linux, whatever you want, it's probably available. So I use Linux.
Monday 29 October 2012
The Power of Apple
You know, it's funny how things change so much at times. There was a time when the power of Apple was in providing an alternative. They have never been first to market, but so what, they have something different to offer! Or at least, they did, and they made a good deal of fuss about how different it was. Then something happened.
First, it was the mobile music player market. It was a minor market, hardly anyone was there, just a few mp3 players and CD players, which had their places, but they weren't tremendously popular. Then Apple jumped in to provide an alternative, and everything went crazy. Suddenly they became the dominant player, because it hadn't been developed. The iPod was revolutionary, not because it was the first, but because it penetrated.
Next was the smartphone market. It was a nominal market, split primarily between Blackberry and Palm Pilot at the time, with some interest from Nokia and Windows Mobile. But it was still a tiny, developing market until Apple came along with the iPhone. They didn't dominate it the way they dominated the mobile music player market, but they were the ones who really put the market on the map. Now they have competition from Android, while Blackberry struggles to stay in the marketplace.
Finally, there is the tablet market. Until Apple's iPad and the various Android tablets, there were a couple of tablets on the market, but the market never stuck until Apple released the iPad. Now they have dominated the market, although Android is competing with them, the iPad is the dominant player. So in all of their new ventures in the past decade, they have not been in the position of alternative.
Why is it that they never succeeded in laptops and desktops as they did in mobile, portable devices? Why have they not managed to dominate the market? They have the power to do it, when it comes to those devices, whether they are the biggest player or not. They aren't just a minor alternative, yet they let their laptops slide.
The reason, in the end, is simple. They failed to appeal to businesses at the beginning, and so businesses ignored them. Developers found a different place to take their apps, and we are still struggling to recover from that. Apps are stuck in Windows, and only just starting to expand beyond that. As the software world expands, the dominance of Windows on traditional computers will subside, and alternatives will begin to be considered.
First, it was the mobile music player market. It was a minor market, hardly anyone was there, just a few mp3 players and CD players, which had their places, but they weren't tremendously popular. Then Apple jumped in to provide an alternative, and everything went crazy. Suddenly they became the dominant player, because it hadn't been developed. The iPod was revolutionary, not because it was the first, but because it penetrated.
Next was the smartphone market. It was a nominal market, split primarily between Blackberry and Palm Pilot at the time, with some interest from Nokia and Windows Mobile. But it was still a tiny, developing market until Apple came along with the iPhone. They didn't dominate it the way they dominated the mobile music player market, but they were the ones who really put the market on the map. Now they have competition from Android, while Blackberry struggles to stay in the marketplace.
Finally, there is the tablet market. Until Apple's iPad and the various Android tablets, there were a couple of tablets on the market, but the market never stuck until Apple released the iPad. Now they have dominated the market, although Android is competing with them, the iPad is the dominant player. So in all of their new ventures in the past decade, they have not been in the position of alternative.
Why is it that they never succeeded in laptops and desktops as they did in mobile, portable devices? Why have they not managed to dominate the market? They have the power to do it, when it comes to those devices, whether they are the biggest player or not. They aren't just a minor alternative, yet they let their laptops slide.
The reason, in the end, is simple. They failed to appeal to businesses at the beginning, and so businesses ignored them. Developers found a different place to take their apps, and we are still struggling to recover from that. Apps are stuck in Windows, and only just starting to expand beyond that. As the software world expands, the dominance of Windows on traditional computers will subside, and alternatives will begin to be considered.
A Need For Openness
Life is an interesting challenge. So much of what we honour and desire is for freedom. We want understanding, knowledge, improvement, and freedom. We want utopia, but how far are we really willing to go in order to get it? That is an important question. But that is what we, as a whole, really seem to want.
Individuals, on the other hand, are different. They want power, and money, and they want to be right. Of course, these goals in many ways oppose the goals described in the previous paragraph. Power and money for individuals, while not incompatible with understanding, knowledge, improvement, and freedom, does not work towards it above all else. People wanting to be right, on the other hand, tends to be directly in opposition to those ideals.
Power and money are the main results of patents, for example. In theory, patents were designed to protect innovators by giving them a chance to monetize their inventions before everyone started using the technique, but in the modern landscape, many claim that it actually prevents others from building on past success. In other words, it stifles improvement, and represses knowledge and understanding. I'm not going to argue either side of this today, although I will likely cover it in a future blog post.
Life should be based on principles of openness, however. There are benefits to closed systems, primarily economical, but as a whole, that isn't what we want. This is particularly so in the world of science. Research, comparison, learning, and so on is always going to be improved the most by co-operation. That is the key tenet of an open society. Co-operation. Working together so that we can build on our earlier mistakes, and our earlier successes.
That is a big problem with the world today. All scientific endeavours require co-operation, but there is no system in place to ensure co-operation happens, or even to make it possible. Instead, people want to use it as a means to make even more money, and so scientists are forced to work in their own little bubbles, slowed down in their effort to make our lives better. Life would be better in an Open society.
Individuals, on the other hand, are different. They want power, and money, and they want to be right. Of course, these goals in many ways oppose the goals described in the previous paragraph. Power and money for individuals, while not incompatible with understanding, knowledge, improvement, and freedom, does not work towards it above all else. People wanting to be right, on the other hand, tends to be directly in opposition to those ideals.
Power and money are the main results of patents, for example. In theory, patents were designed to protect innovators by giving them a chance to monetize their inventions before everyone started using the technique, but in the modern landscape, many claim that it actually prevents others from building on past success. In other words, it stifles improvement, and represses knowledge and understanding. I'm not going to argue either side of this today, although I will likely cover it in a future blog post.
Life should be based on principles of openness, however. There are benefits to closed systems, primarily economical, but as a whole, that isn't what we want. This is particularly so in the world of science. Research, comparison, learning, and so on is always going to be improved the most by co-operation. That is the key tenet of an open society. Co-operation. Working together so that we can build on our earlier mistakes, and our earlier successes.
That is a big problem with the world today. All scientific endeavours require co-operation, but there is no system in place to ensure co-operation happens, or even to make it possible. Instead, people want to use it as a means to make even more money, and so scientists are forced to work in their own little bubbles, slowed down in their effort to make our lives better. Life would be better in an Open society.
Monday 15 October 2012
Windows Update and Uncommunication
Sorry to anyone who was hoping for a useful post, this is more of a rant than anything else.
The implementation of Windows Update is something that I have long considered to be a thorn in the side of anyone who tries to use Windows. Back in the days of Windows XP, for example, the most typical problem would be that it wouldn't tell you that there were updates available, unless you went to the Windows Update. Otherwise, it would just forcibly install them the next time you shut down your computer. There was no way to force a refresh or check or anything. It would just install them without approval, even if you had set it to notify you and let you choose.
Then there is the problem that continues to plague Windows users, that of automatic restart. Really, the fact that Windows allows automatic restart without authorization of the user is rather irritating, but necessary due to the fact that restarts are required so frequently. However, the implementation of Windows Update is that you can't tell it to wait until you manually restart the computer. That would be ideal, but instead, it forces the restart, unless you manually postpone it. The amount of work that has been lost because of this is incalculable. Of course, you can turn it off, if you are willing to hack the registry, or if you know where to find the Group Policy setting. (Group Policy settings are available only in Professional, Ultimate, or Enterprise versions of Windows 7.)
Also, Microsoft products that they think everyone should have and be using are constantly being pushed to users, unless they take active steps to prevent that from happening. Saying ignore update to install software only ignores the current update. Next time they update it, it will be offered for installation once again. There is no option to ignore software, short of hacking your registry. You can't simply deny the new version of Internet Explorer, for example.
Of course, by all accounts, in Windows 8 it looks like it is being made to work more like Linux than it currently is. It likely will still have the restart issues, but Windows has always required an inordinate number of restarts. However, rumour has it that it will be able to install and update all software that is available for your computer, or at least all of the software that was distributed using Windows Update, or Windows Store. On the other hand, there will be far more reason to distribute through means other than the Windows Store, as compared to Linux.
Windows Update, however, has proved to be buggy, pushy, inconsistent, and limited. Someday, I suppose, it might be effective and efficient. It is improving, after all. They did fix it so that you could go to an application and force a refresh since Windows Vista.
The implementation of Windows Update is something that I have long considered to be a thorn in the side of anyone who tries to use Windows. Back in the days of Windows XP, for example, the most typical problem would be that it wouldn't tell you that there were updates available, unless you went to the Windows Update. Otherwise, it would just forcibly install them the next time you shut down your computer. There was no way to force a refresh or check or anything. It would just install them without approval, even if you had set it to notify you and let you choose.
Then there is the problem that continues to plague Windows users, that of automatic restart. Really, the fact that Windows allows automatic restart without authorization of the user is rather irritating, but necessary due to the fact that restarts are required so frequently. However, the implementation of Windows Update is that you can't tell it to wait until you manually restart the computer. That would be ideal, but instead, it forces the restart, unless you manually postpone it. The amount of work that has been lost because of this is incalculable. Of course, you can turn it off, if you are willing to hack the registry, or if you know where to find the Group Policy setting. (Group Policy settings are available only in Professional, Ultimate, or Enterprise versions of Windows 7.)
Also, Microsoft products that they think everyone should have and be using are constantly being pushed to users, unless they take active steps to prevent that from happening. Saying ignore update to install software only ignores the current update. Next time they update it, it will be offered for installation once again. There is no option to ignore software, short of hacking your registry. You can't simply deny the new version of Internet Explorer, for example.
Of course, by all accounts, in Windows 8 it looks like it is being made to work more like Linux than it currently is. It likely will still have the restart issues, but Windows has always required an inordinate number of restarts. However, rumour has it that it will be able to install and update all software that is available for your computer, or at least all of the software that was distributed using Windows Update, or Windows Store. On the other hand, there will be far more reason to distribute through means other than the Windows Store, as compared to Linux.
Windows Update, however, has proved to be buggy, pushy, inconsistent, and limited. Someday, I suppose, it might be effective and efficient. It is improving, after all. They did fix it so that you could go to an application and force a refresh since Windows Vista.
Friday 21 September 2012
What's Better With Proprietary
FLOSS has its advantages. It has its supporters. It has attractive qualities. And then there are the things we love to hate.
As with any community, FLOSS is made up of hundreds and thousands of sub-communities. There is a community around each piece of FLOSS software. There are communities that revolve solely around themselves, producing content, although no FLOSS. There are communities which are part of the FLOSS community, but not truly FLOSS in and of themselves. And as with any other community, it can be difficult to gain membership to a community.
Once you have gained admission to the community, there are still disagreements. One of those disagreements in particular is the thing I don't like. Unfortunately, it can be hard to describe. Is it elitism? Is it exclusivism? It is a particular idea that somebody can define the community, and think that they are right. The community as a whole is undefinable.
Part of that is as a result of how the community has formed. There are many individuals who are drawn by the concepts of freedom, and an interest in technology. That is how I was drawn to the community. I am a computer programmer, and an IT consultant. I love freedom, and while I may differ in my views on how best to obtain freedom, and what to use it for, I know what freedom is.
Freedom is the ability to define oneself in the way that works best. It is to not be defined by others. It is to believe what you choose to believe, and act how you wish to act. There are limits, of course, because you must respect the freedoms of others, but to choose your own course, and allow others to do so as well is the goal of freedom. I do not have to agree with your decisions, nor with how you live your life, but because of the respect I have for freedom, I understand that all I can do is disagree. I cannot stop you from making your decisions, although if you are willing to listen, I might explain why I disagree.
Part of the problem, then, is the people who are drawn to the community. They are the so-called Liberal movement. Many people who call themselves Liberal are not truly open to freedom. Take Richard Stallman for example. He has a rather narrow definition of freedom when it pertains to software. If you are unwilling to use his methods, he will fight against you. Many Liberals are the same in their beliefs. They would consider themselves open-minded, and yet if you took a stance that contradicted theirs, they would try and force you to adopt their beliefs.
You cannot have freedom and agreement. To have freedom, you must be willing to permit a degree of chaos, and difference of opinions.
As with any community, FLOSS is made up of hundreds and thousands of sub-communities. There is a community around each piece of FLOSS software. There are communities that revolve solely around themselves, producing content, although no FLOSS. There are communities which are part of the FLOSS community, but not truly FLOSS in and of themselves. And as with any other community, it can be difficult to gain membership to a community.
Once you have gained admission to the community, there are still disagreements. One of those disagreements in particular is the thing I don't like. Unfortunately, it can be hard to describe. Is it elitism? Is it exclusivism? It is a particular idea that somebody can define the community, and think that they are right. The community as a whole is undefinable.
Part of that is as a result of how the community has formed. There are many individuals who are drawn by the concepts of freedom, and an interest in technology. That is how I was drawn to the community. I am a computer programmer, and an IT consultant. I love freedom, and while I may differ in my views on how best to obtain freedom, and what to use it for, I know what freedom is.
Freedom is the ability to define oneself in the way that works best. It is to not be defined by others. It is to believe what you choose to believe, and act how you wish to act. There are limits, of course, because you must respect the freedoms of others, but to choose your own course, and allow others to do so as well is the goal of freedom. I do not have to agree with your decisions, nor with how you live your life, but because of the respect I have for freedom, I understand that all I can do is disagree. I cannot stop you from making your decisions, although if you are willing to listen, I might explain why I disagree.
Part of the problem, then, is the people who are drawn to the community. They are the so-called Liberal movement. Many people who call themselves Liberal are not truly open to freedom. Take Richard Stallman for example. He has a rather narrow definition of freedom when it pertains to software. If you are unwilling to use his methods, he will fight against you. Many Liberals are the same in their beliefs. They would consider themselves open-minded, and yet if you took a stance that contradicted theirs, they would try and force you to adopt their beliefs.
You cannot have freedom and agreement. To have freedom, you must be willing to permit a degree of chaos, and difference of opinions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)