What media player do you use?

iTunes. Free, simple to use, supports all the file formats I use and is aesthetically pleasing.

There are plenty of programs that will trace routes through software, and even more that will do a disassembly. If you don't trust a program, disassemble it and trace through it.

Or you could use free software, most of which has its source code looked at by many contributors and bug fixers around the world instead of a select team of developers that you need to place your faith in. Furthermore, if you find malicious features in a disassembled piece of software there is no way you can let people know without admitting to breaking copyright law.

Quote from: SupahLovah on February 04, 2010, 12:30:05 PM

There are plenty of programs that will trace routes through software, and even more that will do a disassembly. If you don't trust a program, disassemble it and trace through it.

Or you could use free software, most of which has its source code looked at by many contributors and bug fixers around the world instead of a select team of developers that you need to place your faith in. Furthermore, if you find malicious features in a disassembled piece of software there is no way you can let people know without admitting to breaking copyright law.

I tend to know if something malicious is happening on my computer, and what software is causing it. Anyone with half-decent security should.

I tend to know if something malicious is happening on my computer, and what software is causing it. Anyone with half-decent security should.

How?

Quote from: SupahLovah on February 04, 2010, 09:20:37 PM

I tend to know if something malicious is happening on my computer, and what software is causing it. Anyone with half-decent security should.

How?

Listen very closely....

In conclusion software that isn't open source gets the job done just as well. You argue open source on the basis of principle, not of any real advantage.

I read some stuff today on it. Some of the calls they make are ridiculous, like replacing all school computers on Windows with Linux. Absolutely laughable and simply couldn't work on such a scale anyway. In a CONTROLLED school or business situation, the confines of proprietary software prove an advantage.

In conclusion software that isn't open source gets the job done just as well. You argue open source on the basis of principle, not of any real advantage.

I have never argued for the open source movement.

I read some stuff today on it. Some of the calls they make are ridiculous, like replacing all school computers on Windows with Linux. Absolutely laughable and simply couldn't work on such a scale anyway. In a CONTROLLED school or business situation, the confines of proprietary software prove an advantage.

Replacing the computers themselves really isn't necessary, and I don't think anybody is suggesting that it be done.

Quote from: frostee on February 05, 2010, 03:48:02 AM

In conclusion software that isn't open source gets the job done just as well. You argue open source on the basis of principle, not of any real advantage.

I have never argued for the open source movement.

Quote from: frostee on February 05, 2010, 03:48:02 AM

I read some stuff today on it. Some of the calls they make are ridiculous, like replacing all school computers on Windows with Linux. Absolutely laughable and simply couldn't work on such a scale anyway. In a CONTROLLED school or business situation, the confines of proprietary software prove an advantage.

Replacing the computers themselves really isn't necessary, and I don't think anybody is suggesting that it be done.

You did however protest against foobar not being open source, when we have stated that it performs its intended purpose. If it were open source (which it couldn't because of the language it is written in) for 99 percent of people absolutely nothing would change.

Also, again you point out things that never needed to be pointed out for the sake of being a dick with no real counter argument. Quite obviously I meant replacing Windows with Linux. Are you that retarted that you couldn't understand a simple sentence?
On your link there is a whole section about how Microsoft apparently 'damages' children's education. Which is ridiculous, as nearly all students will use computers throughout there life, but only a small percentage would ever understand and take advantage of open source. The rest just don't care. They can do anything they should ever want or need to through proprietary software

You did however protest against foobar not being open source, when we have stated that it performs its intended purpose. If it were open source (which it couldn't because of the language it is written in) for 99 percent of people absolutely nothing would change.

I didn't complain about foobar2000 not being open source. Read my post again.

Also, again you point out things that never needed to be pointed out for the sake of being a dick with no real counter argument. Quite obviously I meant replacing Windows with Linux. Are you that retarted that you couldn't understand a simple sentence?

Replacing an operating system with a kernel sounds like a very silly idea to me.

On your link there is a whole section about how Microsoft apparently 'damages' children's education. Which is ridiculous, as nearly all students will use computers throughout there life, but only a small percentage would ever understand and take advantage of open source. The rest just don't care. They can do anything they should ever want or need to through proprietary software

Except have freedom while using a computer.

Quote from: frostee on February 05, 2010, 05:04:21 PM

You did however protest against foobar not being open source, when we have stated that it performs its intended purpose. If it were open source (which it couldn't because of the language it is written in) for 99 percent of people absolutely nothing would change.

I didn't complain about foobar2000 not being open source. Read my post again.

I used to use foobar2000 on Windows, but it's not free software (it fails to grant the user freedoms 1 and 3)

Free software then. You spoke as if this was a problem however. Also this was continued pedantry at wording.

Quote from: frostee on February 05, 2010, 05:04:21 PM

Also, again you point out things that never needed to be pointed out for the sake of being a dick with no real counter argument. Quite obviously I meant replacing Windows with Linux. Are you that retarted that you couldn't understand a simple sentence?

Replacing an operating system with a kernel sounds like a very silly idea to me.

Continued stupid pedantry

Quote from: frostee on February 05, 2010, 05:04:21 PM

On your link there is a whole section about how Microsoft apparently 'damages' children's education. Which is ridiculous, as nearly all students will use computers throughout there life, but only a small percentage would ever understand and take advantage of open source. The rest just don't care. They can do anything they should ever want or need to through proprietary software

Except have freedom while using a computer.

What freedom? As stated 99% of us can do everything that we want to. It is just stupid open source advocates that actually understand source code that feel they need to know everything that is happening, completely disregarding the fact that the program or OS performs its intended purpose.

Free software then. You spoke as if this was a problem however. Also this was continued pedantry at wording.

It is a problem, because free software is the only software which respects the user's freedom. Also, it's not pedantry; free software and open source are two completely different, unrelated concepts. Confusing them is like confusing a ship with an aeroplane; the two might get you to the same place, but they work in very different ways.

Continued stupid pedantry

If you're not going to say what you mean, don't accuse other people of being pedantic.

What freedom? As stated 99% of us can do everything that we want to. It is just stupid open source advocates that actually understand source code that feel they need to know everything that is happening, completely disregarding the fact that the program or OS performs its intended purpose.

Here we go back into open source. Open source has nothing to do with freedom, making your post a non-sequitur.

Can you give some direct examples of freedom rather than talking figuratively about it?

I obviously meant a Linux distro when I say Linux. Do we have to do all the work for you? Sounds to me like you understand what I mean, but point it out anyway.

Can you give some direct examples of freedom rather than talking figuratively about it?

Free software is a matter of the users' freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software. More precisely, it means that the program's users have the four essential freedoms:

• The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
• The freedom to study how the program works, and change it to make it do what you wish (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
• The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).
• The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others (freedom 3). By doing this you can give the whole community a chance to benefit from your changes. Access to the source code is a precondition for this.

I obviously meant a Linux distro when I say Linux. Do we have to do all the work for you? Sounds to me like you understand what I mean, but point it out anyway.

The operating system you are referring to is called GNU/Linux, and yes, it would be enormously beneficial if we could teach children to use software that respects their freedom rather than that which takes it away.

Quote from: frostee on February 05, 2010, 05:38:06 PM

Can you give some direct examples of freedom rather than talking figuratively about it?

Quote from: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html

Free software is a matter of the users' freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software. More precisely, it means that the program's users have the four essential freedoms:

• The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
• The freedom to study how the program works, and change it to make it do what you wish (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
• The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).
• The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others (freedom 3). By doing this you can give the whole community a chance to benefit from your changes. Access to the source code is a precondition for this.

Quote from: frostee on February 05, 2010, 05:38:06 PM

I obviously meant a Linux distro when I say Linux. Do we have to do all the work for you? Sounds to me like you understand what I mean, but point it out anyway.

The operating system you are referring to is called GNU/Linux, and yes, it would be enormously beneficial if we could teach children to use software that respects their freedom rather than that which takes it away.

Can you try and think of this from the perspective of the average computer user? Like someone who doesn't understand source code or programming languages. What benefit do they get? Nothing.

Can you try and think of this from the perspective of the average computer user? Like someone who doesn't understand source code or programming languages. What benefit do they get? Nothing.

Incorrect. Freedoms 0 and 2 do not require understanding source code to exercise, and freedoms 1 and 3 combined assist the entire community if even one person in it knows how to program. Imagine being able to hire your choice of local software specialist to fix your software for you, rather than sending a report off to Microsoft and praying that in a couple of months they'll get around to patching it.

Your average user has more faith in a professional organisation, than a bunch of guys they found on a computer forum rather understandibly. People need professional support.

Foobar fulfills all those freedoms, pretty much. You can write and release components for fb2k, to make it do ANYTHING YOU WANT.

I use iTunes because it sucks and I'm a tool.

iTunes. Because it doesn't really suck. I can't find any faults with it, it makes me feel good when I buy music legally and I download a few podcasts - something I don't think anything else supports.

Quick question; I'm buying a new computer, so what would be the best way to transfer all of my library onto the newer computer?

You have it all on your internal HD?

Put both HDs in your new computer and set the old one up as a slave, then transfer the files. Or leave them there, and keep it in as a slave drive.

I used a crossover ethernet cable. It worked quite well.

Your average user has more faith in a professional organisation, than a bunch of guys they found on a computer forum rather understandibly. People need professional support.

Free software can't have professional support?

Foobar fulfills all those freedoms, pretty much.

Parts of the program do; its core does not.

You have it all on your internal HD?

Put both HDs in your new computer and set the old one up as a slave, then transfer the files. Or leave them there, and keep it in as a slave drive.

Lol "slave" drive.  I haven't heard that term in a long time.  With SATA cables there's no such thing.

I'm not using SATA drives. I still have my IDE/PATA drives for a couple more months.

Quote from: frostee on February 05, 2010, 07:29:47 PM

Your average user has more faith in a professional organisation, than a bunch of guys they found on a computer forum rather understandibly. People need professional support.

Free software can't have professional support?

Well, as an example there is professional support for Ubuntu, however this costs money. Microsoft offer it for free, though you do pay for it in the first place.
Somehow I don't see the department of education going on an Ubuntu forum to ask for help with the school's network.

I use XBMC. On my Xbox. The visualizations are pretty on my TV, and there are 8xxx of them.

Well, as an example there is professional support for Ubuntu, however this costs money.

I think you'd find the same is true for most any professional support.

Microsoft offer it for free, though you do pay for it in the first place.

This sentence makes no sense at all.

Somehow I don't see the department of education going on an Ubuntu forum to ask for help with the school's network.

This statement is neither founded, nor relevant.

Quote from: frostee on February 06, 2010, 03:14:09 PM

Well, as an example there is professional support for Ubuntu, however this costs money.

I think you'd find the same is true for most any professional support.

Quote from: frostee on February 06, 2010, 03:14:09 PM

Microsoft offer it for free, though you do pay for it in the first place.

This sentence makes no sense at all.

Quote from: frostee on February 06, 2010, 03:14:09 PM

Somehow I don't see the department of education going on an Ubuntu forum to ask for help with the school's network.

This statement is neither founded, nor relevant.

Well you pay the upfront cost for Windows, which includes professional support if needed

Well you pay the upfront cost for Windows, which includes professional support if needed

And if you don't need the support then you've paid an extortionate price for an OS so Bill Gates can get another extension built onto his home. Wouldn't you rather pay for the support as you need it? Furthermore, wouldn't you rather have a choice of who you can buy support from, rather than being locked into Microsoft because nobody else can see or modify the source code?