Slashdot Mirror
ESR's Halloween XI -- Get the FUD
dave writes "In the newest Halloween Document (mirror), Eric Raymond analyzes Microsoft's 'Get The Facts' road show. The anti-Linux arguments they are using now -- and, even more, the arguments they're *not* using -- reveal how desperate Microsoft is getting. He explains why he thinks we need to focus more on government adoptions, and predicts serious ugliness during the next year."
Sorry there, but besides Fud, what has ESR brought to the Open Source community ?
...is in the spinoff projects. For example, this open source Java memory profiler is a spinoff of the DARPA-supported COUGAAR agent framework.
And since both projects are hosted on a server running GForge, I can help improve GForge during working hours. Good times!
The Army reading list
In a quest for truth in advertising, it will now be called "Get the Spin"
Be sure to order your free evaluation kit. Lets slashdot this baby! It costs them a few bucks for every one. Get one for your mom!
Life is the leading cause of death in America.
Eric Raymond speaking out against MS! Say it ain't so!
For those of us who work in corporate environments, Linux is FAR from free. I don't know of any major company that can go without some level of support, and that's not going to be free folks...
How many Linux machines have been zombied by Netsky, Sasser, MyDoom, or similar worms? Do your Windows TCO estimates include administrator time spent cleaning up after these infestations?
None, because they weren't created for Linux (as it doesn't have the market share that Windows machines do) *and* because *currently* Linux doesn't have the clueless userbase that Windows does (I won't go into the discussion of management telling IT what to do and IT saying "yes sir" and not deploying patches).
If Linux ever attains the userbase that Windows has the clueless users will outnumber those w/half a brain. That is when the worms and whatnot will spread like wildfire.
If the DoD switches in near totality to OpenOffice, hundreds of corporations will switch too for the sake of compatability with their primary source of bread and butter. Microsoft is terrified at the idea of losing not just approximately 1-1.5 million defense desktops (not counting the other, smaller, departments) but the corporations that sell to them. A mass move to Linux, or better yet in 2 years, HaikuOS would be a disaster for Microsoft.
Click here or a puppy gets stomped!
Is this really a worthy Halloween memo? It's not based on a leaked document that I can see.
Halloween XI: Get The FUD
22 Jun 2004
I've just seen a dispatch from the front lines of the FUD wars, Huw Lynes's report from one of Microsoft's Get The Facts roadshow in Great Britain. It's a fascinating read, especially when considered in context with Halloween VII and more recent leaks out of Microsoft. The outlines of the next stage in Microsoft's anti-open-source propaganda campaign are becoming clear. It's a good time to take stock of where we are, what our favorite evil empire is doing, and how best to respond.
Let's start by reminding ourselves of the stakes. For Microsoft (or at least its present business model) to survive, open source must die. It's a lot like the Cold War was; peaceful coexistence could be a stable solution for us, but it can never be for them, because they can't tolerate the corrosive effect on their customer relationships of comparisons with a more open system. (Anyone who thinks I'm being perfervid or overly melodramatic about this should review the direct long-term revenue and platform threat language from Halloween I. Other people may fool themselves about what this means, but Microsoft never has.).
Because coexistence is not a stable solution for them, it cannot be for us either. We have to assume that Microsoft's long-term aim is to crush our culture and drive us to extinction by whatever combination of technical, economic, legal, and political means they can muster. So, in evaluating the Get the Facts road show, we need to start by asking how it fits into Microsoft's larger strategic plans.
One level is obvious. It seems to me very likely that Microsoft's UK tour is designed as a trial run of themes that they'll take to the U.S. to the extent they look successful. The UK is not a trivial market, of course, but 50% of all IT spending is still in the U.S., so from a Microsoft strategic planner's point of view that's where the main battle is. We can afford to pin some of our hopes on growth in Europe and developing countries and elsewhere, but Microsoft can't -- the time horizon on it is too long for a company whose big challenge is to keep beating revenue expectations every quarter in a market where they have 92% share. If they don't beat those expectations every quarter, their stock tanks, the option pyramid collapses, and it's game over.
The Dog That Didn't Bark
So, how does this FUD campaign differ from all other FUD campaigns? Let's start by considering the things Microsoft is not doing in this road show.
They seem to have abandoned using the "open source is intellectual-property cancer" argument directly. This follows the advice their own survey group gave them two years ago that this tactic was backfiring badly. Instead they're pushing this line through bought proxies at SCO and elsewhere.
They've quit claiming that Microsoft's products are technically superior. Instead, they talk up transition costs.
Similarly, innovation, which was every other word out of a Microsoft exec's mouth a year ago, now seems to have quietly exited their voculabulary. It isn't in Huw's report, and it doesn't show up on the Get The Facts page.
Finally, we're not seeing the very recent Microsoft line that actually all software is proprietary because it's owned by somebody, so there's no difference between proprietary and open source.
Like the dog that didn't bark in the night-time, these omissions are significant, because Microsoft marketing is thorough and ruthlessly opportunistic. You can bet money that the reason they're not making these arguments is because they tried them on smaller focus groups, or individually with key customers, and they didn't fly.
The New Party Line
Now let's review what Microsoft is doing. Huw gives us five bullet points:
Claim that linux isn't free.
Pretend that Shared source is the same as Open Source
Make a big deal about the migration costs of moving to Linux
Use the Forrester report to claim that Linux is insecure
Belittle the quality of the toolset available on L
Main Entry: perfervid
Pronunciation: (")p&r-'f&r-v&d, 'p&r-
Function: adjective
Etymology: New Latin perfervidus, from Latin per- thoroughly + fervidus fervid
: marked by overwrought or exaggerated emotion : excessively fervent
Yes, that's exactly what I was going to say.
The "Get the Facts" series is one of the funniest things I've ever read, especially about linux. M$ is unable to digest the fact that more and more governments are going for F/OSS. With hardware becoming surprisingly cheaper(well, atleast for some governments), they are no longer willing to spend more money for software. Even some state governments are switching to linux. The time/money involved in training the staff to adopt to linux is better than sinking huge amounts into fighting viruses and frequent shutdowns.
It appears that ESR has decided that instead of highlighting the memos behind the FUD that was the hallmark of the previous halloween analysises, he wants to go after the published FUD instead.
Personally I think while his points may be valid he just ruined the value of the Halloween series.
The Halloween series worked because it was criticism of real leaked Microsoft memos.
This so-called "Halloween" memo is just counter-fud.
I just emailed ESR about the gross misreference to GNU/Linux as linux in his article.
The Emperor Has No Clothes.
Linux isn't free. Hello? If there is actually anyone still left on the planet who thinks the term free software was a good idea, I hope they're paying attention. Because what Microsoft is doing here is exploiting the old familiar gratis/libre ambiguity of the word free in yet another way. They're setting up for a claim that free software advocates are lying or deluded because Linux has a nonzero TCO. Therefore, goes the implication, you can't really trust them about that other freedom thing, can you?
Maybe we need a better / more effective / less easily confused way to talk about the "freedom" aspect. I'd be interested in constructive discussion of this. But there is a logical flaw in ESR's argument here. It's wrong to conclude that using the term "free software" is a bad idea just because MS tries to muddy the waters. MS may or may not succeed in making our current way of communicating the freedom aspect of Free Software less effective, but this is certainly not a reason to stop talking about "Free Foftware". Quite on the contrary, if after all their studying Microsoft is now trying to discredit the "freedom thing", isn't that an indication that emphasis on the freedom aspect is important, and should be increased rather than diminished!
Under construction: swpat politics overview article
Did I miss the memo? What is "FUD"?
I'm a bit surprised that ESR would point out the Apche vs. IIS differences when Microsoft could come back by pointing out you can always run Apache on Windows if you want to.
I'm sure MS would prefer you use IIS, but this seems an easily deflected statement. I'm positive that MS prefers you using Apache on Windows to you using Apache on Linux.
"A man talking sense to himself is no madder than a man talking nonsense not to himself."
Let's pretend Linux DOES have that kind of userbase. You play the clueless user, I'll play the malicious h4xx0r.
/
:P
I'm going to write up a painfullly malicious script that executes when you view an e-mail.
What, that's not possible? Okay...uh...
You're a pretty dumb user, and I'll name the file Brittney\ Spears\ Nekkid.jpg.sh.
So you double click the file, and it launches. You're a plain old user.
rm -rf
Oops. Didn't work. Why not? No permissions.
rm -rf ~
Now that might, but I want to think that launching a shell script from an e-mail attachment has some sort of protections on linux. Right?
right?
Okay, so my argument is full of holes. Sue me.
Karma: Chameleon (mostly due to the fact that you come and go).
(Yeah, OK, that's probably not quite mathematically correct. Here's a proposition -- if you explain that zeta function story from last week, feel free to then go ahead and flame over "asymptotically".)
What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
I like to acknowledge my resources.
The basic messages about selecting MS/Linux for a system are governed by the following:
- Don't change for the sake of it
- Take into account what your people know (e.g. Linux possibly better if you have lots of Unix people)
- Much of the cost saving of Linux over Unix comes from hardware - i.e. using Intel over mainframe/AIX/zSeries etc.
- OS/Platform is just a tool - choose the right one for the job
- MS/Linux TCO's are nearly always within 10% for most projects by the time all costs are accounted for (this was from an independent solutions provider)
- Don't just focus on TCO - look at ROI (return on investment)
- MS is pretty well zero-development (no code or scripting)
- The People and Processes are more important than the technical solution
- Check licensing model of any platform (will any Linux development become your IP, or will it be open)
- Linux still does not have a really good desktop and the office suites available are still lagging
- security issues such as virus updates and patch management are more of an administration issue than a platform one
- Easier porting J2EE->.Net than the other way round (i.e. MS ties you in worse!!!)
My web domain.
I firmly believe Microsoft have done us a favour.
"Windows vs Linux TCO..."
CIO, "Linux, what's Linux?"
Engineer, "Its that system I have been trying to tell you about that can save us time and money"
CIO, "Ok, tell me about it then"
10 Mins later...
"Ok do it, lets see how it goes."
End of Story. And even though the 'facts' are biased, lets hope most CIO's can consider both sides of the story:)
We're winning?
We're winning because MS isn't banging on about the same arguments year after year?
We're winning because MS is creating in the minds of the public a wide variety of flaws in the idea of open source?
We're winning because MS still has the same market share?
We're winning because we've driven out the smaller OS's without making a dent on MS?
We're winning because we still have ESR as our spokesperson?
I was at the Edinburgh event last week and spoke to many Microsofties and to their corporate customers. The customers were quite cynical about Microsoft's motives but many of them said, in effect, they wouldn't have attended such an event if it hadn't been organised by Microsoft. Microsoft are panicing, time is on our side. Ed
Whilst these are good examples, it would be very naive to ignore the fact that a lot of companies used the threat of moving to Linux solely to get a cheaper discount from Microsoft.
In other words, they never were intending to use something else, it was always going to be Microsoft, they just they wanted a better price.
To me, being used to leverage a better discount from your competitor, isn't much of a "win" for the adoption of Linux.
In addition, the real wins aren't when Governments move to Linux, but when big Fortune 100/FTSE 100 companies do and mandate that those that work with them must move to open formats. These organisations (sadly, sometimes) have far more power over others than Governments do. When that happens, companies that work with them will be forced to change or find that a competitor will happily step into their shoes.
Then people will find that their OS at work is not Microsoft and will start to use that at home because that is what they are more comfortable with ... and so on ... and so on ...
Avantslash - View Slashdot cleanly on your mobile phone.
Finally, something to rival Police Academy, driven by the same plot line and the same old gags. As the series goes on, the heavyweight actors (Bill G) drop out, to be replaced by unknowns...
Its full title is Halloween XI: It's not October and MS still hates Open Source. Big Woo."
Is this any surprise... I'm looking to buy a new laptop (with the goal of installing dual boot). I'm amazed to see with certain vendors that I have first to pay an additional 250 pounds to upgrade from XP Home to XP Professional, before there is even have the choice of a 80Mbyte drive or a 3.2Mhz CPU.
For a university department, the cost of six such licenses is the equivalent of one new new machine.
Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
> ...they weren't created for Linux (as it doesn't have the market share that Windows machines do) *and* because *currently* Linux doesn't have the clueless userbase that Windows does (I won't go into the discussion of management telling IT what to do and IT saying "yes sir" and not deploying patches).
No, you are wrong. The flawed security in Windows is a result of closed source. It has absolutely nothing to do with the knowledge level of the user base. Open Source means more eyes are fixed upon the project, following the bouncing ball, and that can only spell tight security for Open Source. Closed source has to compete with inner-office power struggles, funding diversions, corporate shenanigans, ad nauseum, and the user base remains clueless perhaps to how insecure their systems are, but that's not the point of it all. That's not why systems are being zombied. Spam, anyone?
Security is not compromised by the inept or idiotic, either, and any security system can be bypassed, so it must be about the will to do so, which *is* lacking in the Open Source community, for obvious reasons. Virus writers are actually intelligent people, with a wide variety of skills (read: m4dsk1llz), and they hate Microsoft, or they are bored, so they program destructively. There has to be something said about how corporations treat their programmers, in layoffs or forced overtime without pay, and this stress adds up to malicious rubuttals in the form of crushed company networks. Obviously not all viruses are written to get back at The Man, but many are. I may be an insensitive clod for pointing out how poorly us programmers are treated, but that truly is the reason malicious code is written -- because people simply don't like eachother, or they mistreat people who have a little knowledge and a lot of animosity piling up.
The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
Hey There,
...
...
If anyone out there has read this book
you know exactly what I'm talking about.
Things change.
Business models must adapt.
People must adapt.
Far too often we want today to be just like yesterday.
When we need to keep an eye toward creativity.
If these initiatives were a bad idea
they would collapse under their own weight.
Cheers,
-- The Dude
at the london show, i asked about why one of their (probably depressed and former) security directors never got any budget. he had stated, privately, that whenever he proposed security measures, he was asked "does it increase our profits?".
if the answer was "no, it will decrease our profits" then he was told to think again.
the people at the show were a bit unhappy.
When you're a self-styled historian of the Open Source Community it's really counter-productive to let your ego get in the way of effective communication. Obscure words aren't necessary!
When you've got a market share that most companies in other sectors would kill for, you've got most of the Fortune 500 convinced they can't live without your product, and you make more money than you know what to do with-- I mean, you're Microsoft, fer cripe's sake-- how the heck do you get desperate?
-JDF
MS can survive with Open Source. For all the bashing the slashdot crowd gives they aren't all that bad.
MS has made some nice stuff. They have some skilled people and good marketing. They just need to create value.
There have been some good things they have done.
MS Flight simulator, long history of an excellent product here.
Defined a standard window system, does anyone else remember back in the DOS days with a new GUI system for every app?
MS also did a good job with VB making it trivial to hack together a quick GUI app.
Until I realized, finally, belatedly, what had been happening to me. Until the Great God Pan reached out of my hindbrain and thundered "YOU!" And his gift is music and his chosen instruments the pipes and flutes. And his, too the power of joy; magic so strong that when it flowed out of me, even before I knew what I was doing, it amazed people into awe and incoherence and poetry.
That day I was reborn; from a skinny lame kid with a flute into a shaman and a vessel of the Goat-Foot God, the Piper at the Gates of Dawn, the Horned Lord. And the music was my first power, but not my last.
ESR is off the deep end.
It's basically the results of a good smear campaign.
But there is another kind of evil that we must fear most... and that is the indifference of good men.
Where is this free beer that everybody keeps talking about? I haven't seen it.
Maybe "free as in air"?
Or maybe "free as in ladies night at the local pub"?
Perhaps "free the way I wish beer is"?
Help this confused old man understand.
RMS addresses this issue in his speech given at Westminster University, entitled "The Danger of Software Patents". His opening line?
"You've probably heard of me in connection with free software, that's free as in freedom, it doesn't mean zero price..."
If RMS has to clarify this in a speech he's giving about something not directly related to the topic at hand, it's reasonable to assume that at least a few people were confused about the term. However, ESR and the Open Source crowd could easily develop similar problems if Microsoft targeted bringing their philosophy into disrepute by playing on the words "Open" and "source", for example, they might say "Open Source means that the source is open, that you can view it - you can do this just as easily with Microsoft's Shared Source license"...in the end, it's Microsoft who is spreading the Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt, and they will try and discredit their opposition in any way possible - no matter who that opposition is.
Brandon Glass's personal site.
Linux isn't free. Hello? If there is actually anyone still left on the planet who thinks the term free software was a good idea, I hope they're paying attention.
Can't go one whole article without attacking the ideals of Free Software, can you?
No one thinks the term "Free Software" is a good one, the issue has always been that there's nothing better. I can't use Open Source since the term doesn't mean the same thing.
The only other term I can use is Digital Commons, but Digitial Commons is a larger movement than Free Software.
Anyway, ESR, you can't go one whole article without going on the attack against Free Software, can you? You can't accept that many of the ideals of Open Source haven't panned out, and that with the recent legal attacks, the commitement and idealism of Free Software is what's driving so many to resist so strongly.
You're using such similar tactics to MS that it's startling. At first you ignored Free Software- refused to talk about it in many articles. Then you attacked it. Now you make subtle arguments aginst it in each thing you put out.
If you really wanted a unified movement- you'd stop with the blatant attacks.
What does the linux movement gain from attacking microsoft with such fervor? If microsoft has such a poor product then why is there a need to attack it? Why is so much time spent on the political offensive while the actual issues of Linux are deemed ignorable? It seems that the two "opponets" in this war provide products that are opposites. One works and is not secure, and the other doesn't work and is secure. Its time to stop bickering like children and get to work. Work on making a linux product that needs no introduction, nor political party. A linux product that is unified. Where drivers are available at a central location. A linux product that does not focus on itself, or "them", but rather on the users. Users are the only people that have to be convinced. Bad products go away by themselves, and good stable products advertise and defend themselves. This is not a war. It is customer service.
Jeoin
...what Erik's done besides write some of the documentation for NetHack? The only desperate entity I see is him, to make people think he's relevant.
BTW, Sun Micro has the best commercial Linux desktop package according to an article published by eWeek last week, beating out RedHat's. I thought Slashdot was obligated to link to any article on the web with the word "linux" in it, guess they missed that one.
I like the way Raymond asserts that arguing over the exact meaning of "free" in "free software" is meaningless, but then takes care to use the word "cracked" instead of "hacked" when referring to MS IIS websites. :)
Secession is the right of all sentient beings.
I hate when Ballmer posts on Slashdot...
<sig>no sig</sig>
Next time, in promulgating your esoteric cogitations, or articulating your superficial sentimentalities and amicable, philosophical or psychological observations, beware of platitudinous ponderosity. Let your conversational communications possess a clarified conciseness, a compacted comprehensibleness, coalescent consistency, and a concatenated cogency. Eschew all conglomerations of flatulent garrulity, jejune babblement, and asinine affectations.
Let your extemporaneous descantings and unpremeditated expatiations have intelligibility and veracious vivacity, without rodomontade or thrasonical bombast. Sedulously avoid all polysyllabic profundity, pompous prolixity, psittaceous vacuity ventriloquial verbosity, and vaniloquent vapidity. Shun double-entendres, prurient jocosity, and pestiferous profanity, obscurant or apparent!!
From Don't Use Big Words...
This space for rent. Call 1-800-STEAK4U
This "Get the Facts" tour sounds like a Jon Lovitz "liar" sketch on Saturday Night Live.
"Linux" is free. It's support that you pay money for.
He takes something MS said and provides HIS made up translation of the so called 'real meaning'.
MS official: We plan to fix Windows
ESR: Translation, We will kill Linus Torvalds and everyone in Open source world.
mod down, thanks
...to show who says what.
Stallman GNU/linux Free Software Bearded Chaotic Good
Linus linux Open Source(?) Unbearded True Neutral
Eric linux Open Source Hitler Mustache Chaotic Evil
Bruce P GNU/linux Free Software Beardless Lawful Good
Alan Cox GNU/lin(mostly) Free Software Mighty beard Chaotic Good
because they're all false anyway.
Hello? If there is actually anyone still left on the planet who thinks the term free software was a good idea, I hope they're paying attention. Because what Microsoft is doing here is exploiting the old familiar gratis/libre ambiguity of the word free in yet another way.
Raymond should be less glib and contrive a better argument against the term free software than mere coersion. I see no reason why Micro$oft's perverse attacks should affect my philosophy the freedom of ideas, or dictate which terms are acceptable in discussing it. In these dark days of ever expanding corporatism we need more discussion of freedom, not less.
an ill wind that blows no good
You're a pretty dumb user, and I'll name the file Brittney\ Spears\ Nekkid.jpg.sh.
So you double click the file, and it launches. You're a plain old user.
And just how did the file launch? It's not executable yet...
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Remember how Linux advocates, real early on, used to love to quote Ghandi? You know, first they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you've won? Well, it works both ways. Now we have both camps bitterly and intentionally fighting with each other. And what good does it do? If Linux--excuse me, I mean "open source in general" is so blindly superior to Windows in every single way, then that's it. It's over. The existing momentum will carry through and eventually the better solution wins. It's a quiet revolution. It isn't a niche loss, like laser discs or Betamax.
:)
Now what should be worrying people like Mr. Raymond is that Linux-based desktops (which is what we're really talking about, not simply "open source"), is that Linux *isn't* so blindingly superior as to carry the day. Truthfully, I think this is the case. I've used UNIX, I like Linux, but we're essentially having a big battle of the old and huge operating systems here, and none of them is a revolution. None of them is so much better than all the others is wonderful and positive ways. (Mostly they're all negative: don't get virii, don't have to deal with Microsoft.) In fact, the entire concept of the big operating system is a relic. Does anyone argue about the OS in a digital camera? Or a Palm? Or a cell phone? No. And those are more akin to what an "OS" of the future needs to be: thin, small, and unobtrusive. We need the Commodore 64 of the next decade, not the next VAX.
Thanks for listening
They... HAPPEN. And they happen without consent of the 'clueless' user. There are so many holes in I.E. - even a fully patched I.E. - and these scumbags take advantage of them.
EXAMPLE: The 'CoolWebSearch' bastards have found yet another exploit in the MS JVM. Simply go to an infected web page, wait a few seconds and *BOOM!* you've got a trojan! Neither Adaware nor Spybot could remove it (or knew anything about it). I finally found a CWS Trojan Remover utility that ID'd it and took it out after about an hour's worth of screwing around. Goddamnit, I want to charge these people with my time!!!
Anyway, I.E. can't be fixed by you or I. We simply have to wait until MS does it. I heard this weekend that they are reassembling the original I.E. team to update I.E. The team started out by asking what people would like to see in a new version of I.E.
Personally, I'd like to see them take something like the Gecko engine and wrap an I.E. shell around it - but that probably won't happen. So if they're just getting the team back together now - how long will it be until significant improvements occur? This is a great example of how closed source product can hurt your bottom line.
"...Well, there's egg and bacon; egg sausage and bacon; egg and spam; egg bacon and spam; egg bacon sausage and spam..."
Anyone else notice that the slashdot abstract was a barely reworded copy of the author's abstract? C'mon, guys, get your acts together. Either put it in quotes and leave it or write your own for real.
> you cannot just discount user stupidity like that and claim superiority because you think you can engineer a solution for it.
So you're suggesting that Microsoft has no liability for their poor security? If what you're saying is true, it would have to apply to Apple as well, as they have similar user bases, and Apple has a much better security record considering viruses than Microsoft ever will. Any system has to account for user stupidity and rise to the challenge. I'm sorry but it's no excuse for bad programming.
The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
I think all religion is nutzoid. I know people who claim to be in contact with this guy in the sky who created the world and has wishes and plans for everyone. In practice, it seems that those people are often capable of being perfectly rational about other things, so I just ignore their carefully contained madness.
Xenu loves you!
After Microsofts *successful* defence in the anti-trust suit it
appears as if they are on the attack again.
I recently had the chance to 'lunch' with a team of boiler room types on the topic of ' Interoperability, Integration, Extensibility'
subtitled 'Unix interoperability'
After enjoying a excellent meal at one of the better steak houses in town I began to notice that this 'meating' wasn't so much about working with Unix systems as it was about providing unix services from Windows servers; After being seeded with 'free' software (funny that, free tools just not free source) title:Windows Services for Unix 3.5 and looking closely I saw that they are now providing NFS, Syslog, NIS, DNS, Mail and a tool to 'port' your Unix 'legacy' (their words) apps to a modern OS.
What frightened me most was that my inclusion to this meeting was last minute and that my 'peers' didn't have a technical bone in em, they were all either Microsoft partners or middle to upper manglement types.
The last 'free' software I saw from Microsoft was IE, I wonder if this latest offering will have as profound an effect.
Unix, an obscure operating system developed by bored researchers in an attempt to get a better game playing experience.
Not until it adopts a BSD license. Then it would truly be free. The GPL isn't free, no matter how much Slashdot has drilled it into your head.
Aside from that, you can't ignore support costs, training, and maintenance and claim something is completely free. That's spinning it.
On the heels of their latest patent award, Microsoft announces plans for male performance enhancing software ...
Who is going to these roadshows? And why aren't there similar roadshows mounted by some of the bigger Linux players (IBM comes to mind)? I think they should get a copy of the road show itinerary and simply book the same space for the next day or week.
Imagine the marquee:
Tuesday - Microsoft Corp explains why Linux is bad.
Wednesday - IBM/Red Hat/Suse/et al explains why Linux rocks.
An autobiographical account of my `religious' beliefs and how they got that way. If you start this, please read it through. Stopping partway would probably leave you with some very silly misconceptions.
That's the first line from the link the parent provided. So I read the entire thing, and as usual, when you quote a small portion of text from a large article, it's easy to take it out of context.
Alright, ESR has some interesting beliefs. However, my impression after reading the WHOLE article is not that he's "off the deep end." He describes situations that I do not understand, but that does not mean they cannot exist. I am not particularly religious, but I do not deny that a God (or Gods) could exist. I simply find myself without particular experience that would lead me to believe otherwise, while ESR has had these experiences. As far as I'm concerned, good for him.
Eric is a smart guy, and while some may call him eccentric, strange, or off the deep end, I'm sure he's doing more for the open source movement than any of the people mentioned formerly who are criticizing him.
I've often thought that "software libre" is rather a mouthful, and not easy for Anglophones (not to mention clueless PHBs) to say or even understand.
But what about "freed software"? It doesn't have the connotations of "free as in beer", and the connotations of "free as in speech" are strong. Sort of like "liberated software".
Plus it's easy to slowly switch over--if half the people say "free software" and half say "software libre," it could be confusing. But if half say "free software" and half say "freed software" I think it'd still work.
Any reasons why this is a Totally Stupid Idea? Don't fail me now, Slashdot! Point out my idiocy. I can take it.
Dlugar
Computer Go: Writing Software to Play the Ancient Game of Go
ESR is only saying that the choice of term "Free Software" was too misleading to use. To cast this as an attack on the ideals of software freedom is ridiculous.
Xenu loves you!
Dude, he was being sarcastic.
I forgot the close sarcasm tag. ;) ;) ;)
+5:offtopic,but anti-American
No, that's what we Americans call "French Software"
Hmm. I always thought it meant "Fuck Up and Denial"..
<g>
feh. stuff.
People !
You must order the MS vs Linux evaluation kit from here! It must cost them 10$ atleast... if enough slashdotters order it enough number of times, M$ will be bankrupt! Gentlemen, Victory is close !!.
Or maybe not...but you'll get a cool folder to keep your important papers.
Meeting Maker is a commercial product that works quite well. I've often toyed with the idea of building an OS equivalent. That said, there've been quite a few web-based OS systems like this, but none of them seem to have become popular. For some reason, this particular question has not been a big itch for the OS community.
Collab.net, founded by OS gurus (from Apache IIRC), provides collaboration tools in use by "over 400,000 users", and I think has a free version.
It's easier to be a result of the past, but more fun to be a cause of the future! http://www.spacefinancegroup.com/
I am sure that there will be worms and viri for Linux. There are always going to be some exploits. The issue is also one of design.
The Microsoft system is by design an "Anti Security System" because the logic that Microsoft uses is that they "Own" your machine. As such they make it under foreign control intrinsically. Linux on the other hand is designed with the concept that the machine is the user's machine and thus it is generally under control of the user unless he exports control.
This is a profoundly better security scheme for Linux. All of the arguments about bad users opening things up will be true but even with their efforts, the process will tend to be much safer than with Microsoft in charge. This is structurally so.
Never Politically Correct ~ I prefer the facts If you don't like what I say, get a life, or comment yourself.
Sometimes I wonder how the anti-ESR zealots rationalize their actions. Are they jealous because he's so well known ("my program was much more difficult to write than fetchmail, why does nobody quote me"), angry because he has some controversial opinions on firearms, or what?
Apparently people like to cling to all the things they consider personality flaws like starving worms, using them at all opportunities to attack the persons other opinions and activities.
It kinda pisses me off to see valid Microsoft criticism from an Open Source evangelist being attacked just because some asshat takes ESR's hackers dictionary too seriously. Do you really think someone is just trapped in the shadow of ESR, mourning that if ESR was taken down just a notch, he could steal the limelight and rescue the true spirit of open source?
You guys should just pause for a while, and think whether petty arguing among ourselves is more important than the war of spin & fud between us and microsoft. Unless you are working for AdTI, of course - in that case I understand your motivations perfectly.
Grow up. Your mom still lives you more than she loves ESR, no need to feel all sad and droopy.
Save your wrists today - switch to Dvorak
All it takes is someone to exploit any of the kinds of exploits and flaws listed at Linux Security. What's that? You actually believed Linux was magically secure from everything just because it has things like permissions? Give me a fucking break. That website lists all the weekly security flaws Slashdot never, ever reports on which would be taken up by every random script and e-mail attachment out there.
There is a myriad of ways of getting into a Linux system like that, and you better believe people would find them out if Linux ever got more than 1% usage based on Google Zeitgeist (in comparison, OS X has 5%). Consider a wide user base to be one big beta test. In that sense, it's not surprising Windows holes have been found and subsequently patched. You might even make the argument that because Windows has been so much more aggressively tested, it might be less of a risk than if Linux suddenly had that market share overnight.
If Linux is this golden child of security, how is it GNU, GNOME, Debian, Gentoo, Savannah, and more were all hacked last year in the span of six months? Oh, I forgot, we've swept all that under the rug around here.
Hell, you think that kernel exploit that got patched a week ago wouldn't already be making the rounds right now? Normal users wouldn't be upgrading their "kernel" like Linux geeks do. Look at how many people already don't run Automatic Updates under XP.
Sorry, but you're full of shit.
The difference here is that as he says, Microsoft employs 22,000 programmers. If we assume these are full-time employees, then they're working 40 hours a week on whatever Microsoft wants. Do the 220,000 theorized open-source programmers have 40 hours a week to spend on co-ordinated open source projects?
If this wildly conjectured figure is true, it may be that the case that the number of "man-hours" availble in the two camps is comparable, if the open source coders can find an average of 4 hours a week to work on nonpaying projects. Counting heads doesn't make for a very useful comparison in this case, though, unless someone's going to hire the 220,000 to do open source work (and let me know if that's happening, because I'll show up for an application).
I don't think "we" should get too overconfident about the "capability gap." "We" certainly have fabulously talented coders, but Microsoft certainly does too, and never underestimate the power of a focused monolith. Could we get our army to proceed with even one-tenth of Microsoft's coordinated corporate project discipline? How much potentially productive time do open-source coders lose just bickering with each other in lengthy flamewars about what "free" means?
-- http://frobnosticate.com
I think ESR is being really disingenuous here and not really addressing the meat of MS's points at all. I wouldn't call it FUD, but he's certainly missing the argument and just responding snidely to them.
1. Claim that linux isn't free.
ESR seems to think all MS is talking about here is that it isn't free because it "has a nonzero TCO." Sure, that's part of it, but I think the argument goes deeper. The point is that the majority of corporate customers are not going to just download a freely available distribution of Linux, because most enterprise customers NEED support. Therefore, they are going to buy a supported distribution from a major Linux vendor, and that most certainly costs money. In that case it's most certainly not free (as in beer), and while it is still free (as in speech), those companies are not going to really exercise that freedom because they can't just modify their distribution and still expect support from the vendor.
2. Pretend that Shared source is the same as Open Source.
ESR's basically just belittles this statement, but again, there's some truth behind it. If you consider a company as above, namely, that they have bought a Linux vendor's distribution with support and they are not going to modify that distribution and lose their support. At that point, what IS the difference between 'Shared Source' and 'Open Source'? Either way, they're only looking at the source code and not modifying it. The only real difference I can see is that with Open Source (or really, Free Software) they could try to create a patch and get it into a future release in the hope that their vendor will pick it up and support it. This is really only marginally better than relying on your commercial software vendor for new features, because you're still dependent on some external entity (in this case, your vendor) and their decision making process to get that feature.
He explains why he thinks we need to focus more on government adoptions, and predicts serious ugliness during the next year."
Lone Ranger: "We are surrounded by hundreds of fiece indians. What should we do my faithful companion?"
Tanto: "What do you mean 'we' pale face?"
Writing code that doesn't suck always has to be our base-level and most important response
To put the Open Source movement in some kind of "battle" with Microsoft only serves to belittle what the F/OSS community does.
Let's put things a little into perspective:
1. A huge amount of OSS software runs on Windows also - Mozilla, GIMP, OpenOffice, etc. etc.
This means that whether you run Windows, Linux, BSD, whatever, you have a choice. You do not need to be tied into one of a few commercial software vendors for your applications. It also means that you have the opportunity to try out new applications at little risk and no cost - as a result, you get a comparitive benchmark and can make a decision for yourself whether a particular application you need is better served by a commercial or OSS application. End of story.
2. It's closed standards, not Microsoft, that's the problem.
Using a computer brings with it a responsibility - namely that you take charge of the data that you store on it. You decide how shareable that data is to be, you decide how portable it needs to be and you decide how deeply you lock it away from the eyes of others.
DRM and closed formats simply mean that you hand over that responsibility to a commercial organisation, nothing more. That means that they charge you for taking control of your data and, because they are interested in making a profit, will naturally try to charge you more as time goes on. When use of that DRM format becomes widespread, it becomes the norm and all of a sudden, everyone has had their responsibilities handed over to that organisation. This is the potential loss of personal freedom we must focus on not becoming reality.
Microsoft backs DRM heavily and it is that issue we should fight against because that's the only danger to Open Source - OSS and Microsoft can co-exist provided standards and formats remain open to all. If Microsoft cannot accept that, then that's their problem...
3. Users need to be educated to make a choice.
Spreading the word of Open Source & Linux is the only way forward because people then start to make choices for themselves as to what software best fulfills the job that they need to do, rather than simply just blindly consuming every piece of software Microsoft churns out. If the F/OSS community has no remit to "destroy Microsoft" then it can simply focus on creating good software and listening to the users of that software as to how to improve or change that it for the better.
For example, while I can work wonders with UNIX command line tools that can format text just about any way I want it, my teenage niece who does her homework in Word, Excel & Powerpoint is not suddenly going to get a knock on the door from her uncle armed with his Linux CD, just because he thinks "grep" and "sed" are better... Everyone has their own perceptions of what is usable.
The OSS community is doing what it should be doing right now - keep churning out the good software, not rising to Microsoft's little tantrums & letting the users know they have a choice.
Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
IIS 6, available only on Windows Server 2003, does have a much better security record than Apache for the past year (the entire time it's been out). There are some compatibility problems with older versions, and its small comfort to people with older versions who don't want to upgrade, but it may be that Microsoft has turned a corner.
It could also be that with the dominance of previous versions in Microsoft installations, hackers just haven't started targetting the new version yet. Time will tell.
Also, Eric Raymond was the bad guy in the classic 1980s cartoon show Jem and the Holograms.
(Seasons 1 + 2 now available on DVD! Thank you, Rhino!)
ESR has a point about the ambiguity of 'free', but 'open' doesn't cut it, either. Access to source is neccessary but not sufficient for freedom.
RMS is correct to focus on freedom. But we need better terminology. I'm sick and tired of hearing the 'free speech, not free beer' explanation. It leaves Joe Sixpack wondering "What's beer got to do with computers? What's he talking about?"
I've been using the phrase 'freely licensed software'. Business people and home users alike can immediately grasp that much of the software that they use has license terms that they don't care for. I can point out that there is a large body of software available to them under much friendlier licenses.
Sure, 'freely licensed software' is not the same as 'software libre'. But I've associated licensing and free, and that's the first step to explaining why redistribution rights and access to source are fundamental to any license that promotes freedom.
We need people to focus on licenses. Microsoft needs people to blindly accept their licenses without reading them. Microsoft can't hide their licenses, and their business model depends on a predatory vendor/customer relationship driven by licenses. We win any comparison of licenses. Anything that we can do to get people to read licenses works in our favor.
There's lots of compelling arguments in your case here, but I think you could use some edits.
1.) " Like the dog that didn't bark in the night-time, these omissions are significant, because Microsoft marketing is thorough and ruthlessly opportunistic." The first part of this statement is rather confounding. I assume that you mean that that fact that they have dropped these arguments should be indicative of the thoroughness of the marketers.
2.) "Do I even need to point out that most of the factual claims are blatant lies brought to you by the same people who got caught faking video evidence in their Federal antitrust trial?". Unless you can show that the actual forger is at work here, refrain from painting all MS employees with the brush of a criminal. This only serves to undermine your objectivity.
3.) "Hammer them without mercy -- but do it in a quiet, reasonable voice and keep control of the terms of argument. " Do it "ruthlessly" perhaps? This also serves to undermine you credibility as it shows you too are playing the word game. Ruthless is a "charged word" even though it used to mean "without emotion" it implies some bitter, hateful vengence now. You used it to describe MS Marketing before but you don't use it now, but just be consistent. The rest of the statement is good though, stick to the facts and definitions, and keep the argument in your favor.
4.) "...higher Windows TCO is forever" Please quantify "higher" with a number.
5.) "Shared source is a poison pill." Shared Source may be a misnomer but calling it a "posion" pill is just imflamitory.
6.) "Can you explain why Windows IIS websites are cracked or defaced more often than Apache ones, despite the fact that IIS runs less than a third the number of sites Apache does?" Please quantify "more often". Also, attempt to separate this into 2 questions, as the answer will undoubtably be "Hackers hate Windows, hackers attack Windows" which will only be to their advantage because it implies that they are top dog. The top dog is perpetually being challenged. Saying that they are attacked often is handing them the opportunity to say that they are top dog.
Otherwise, this is good article and it's got some great questions for MS PR about the Shared Source == Open Source nonsense.
The next remark is false. The previous remark is true.
I'm sorry, but that link has very little solid info, it's the standard "MS is evil!" page written by a kid in his mom's basement or something.
Wow, your opinion is bolstered by the fact you used the term "M$." No company is ever out to make money other than Microsoft! Sorry, "Micro$loth."
.NET, they've shown the kind of forward-thinking that OSS lacks--who is still busy reimplenting more UNIX stuff from the last two decades melded with a Windows 98 interface-a-like. Apple got it right when it comes to UNIX GUIs.
The time/money involved in training the staff to adopt to linux is better than sinking huge amounts into fighting viruses and frequent shutdowns.
It's called firewall or antivirus software. What "frequent shutdowns?"
Microsoft may not like some servers switching to Linux, but they're not exactly worried about it. Windows XP is doing extremely well, and their marketshare is intact (despite such "formidable" competitors like XFree86). With
Let's continue using this 1998-era "funny" bash of Microsoft. It means you're clever and intelligent!
"Damn M$. I hate Micro$loth products." Witness the mental fury of these high school/college dorm room Linux zealots. Meanwhile, outside the little niche of the Slashdot forum, the rest of the world doesn't know or care about something called "M$," "RIAA," or even "Linux."
I don't think so.
1) 99% of corporate linux users could care less if they can ever see the code, and fewer still care if they could release changes. In other words, hardly anyone outside the community cares about the freedom. And how many of these people aren't *already* using linux, BSD, or something similar?
2) If MS can make linux advocates defend what they say and spend time clarifying what should have been clear originally, that's time they spend NOT answering questions about Sasser. That's a victory for them. So yes, if MS successfully muddies the waters, it's a reason to use another term, though not for abandoning the topic.
3) ESR didn't suggest we not talk about the freedom aspect, just that we use a clearer term. He's right.
4) MS isn't trying to discredit the "freedom thing." Hell, their "Shared Source" crap admits that some people will find "freedom" useful. Rather, they're using the ambiguity to suggest that Linux advocates are deceptive, by intentionally presuming that when we say free(libre) we're actually saying free(gratis).
5) Freedom arguments should be largely abandoned toward typical corporate and government targets, and reserved for those who would actually want to change the code anyway - and I suspect these people would know the difference between "libre" and "gratis" forms of free already.
Ultimately, would we rather spend time on the defensive, re-educating people who were confused by a poorly-chosen term, or would we rather spend that time nailing MS on TCO from stuff like worms and the myriad security holes in IE and WMP that yield root access? Not to mention critical holes that go unpatched for months.
so what have you brought to CLosed source programming such as MS windows?
Did u bother to read ESR's project page listing his projects? NO?
Read before leaping..it might save a you a big first step into the boid
Don't Tread on OpenSource
I'm sick of hearing the extreme poles on this stuff. Can we get an unbiased third party to cover this?
Sorry wishful thinking here. Won't happen again.
Neither "Open Source" or "Free Software" contain a complete explanation of what they mean.
"Open Source" can be confused with viewable source. MS can compete against that.
"Free Software" can mean libre or gratis, MS can't compete with either of those meanings.
MS have marketing and business analysts thinking about things like this. They've chosen to say "open source" (and "Linux" for the OS). This should be enough to tell us that these terms are not what we should be using.
Winning depends on us being free to develop and distribute software for all useful purposes. The threats to us are in the form of taking away these freedoms (through DMCA, patents, and Paladium). It's never been about "open", it's about "free".
Expert in software patents or patent law? Contribute to the ESP wiki!
The fact is that even though Microsoft semantic lies might delay their death by a few months, the Linux sunami is still going to take over because of pure raw market forces - nothing is going to stop that.
If anything, this is a unherd of opportunity to remind the business leaders of the world that free markets are about freedom and not just markets. IMHO, the meaning of Linux is not to get revenge at Microsoft, not to get immediate market dominance, but to secure freedoms and liberties in the information space.
I think history has shown that markets don't drive freedoms, freedoms drive markets. If you want better markets, aim for better freedoms, not the other way arround.
I'll hook you up with an 80Mbyte drive *and* a 3.2MHz CPU for 250 quid.
I should be able to find an 80Mbyte drive in a 386 somewhere, but I'll have to underclock an XT for the 3.2MHz CPU.
500GB of disk, 5TB of transfer, $5.95/mo
I probably agree with most of what he says there, except for that
1) good code isn't propoganda
2) destroying Microsoft shouldn't be a goal
3) beggars can't be choosers - (I won't beg people to use Linux)
not to mention...
Using patents as anything other than a form of insurance or a form of fake currency is entirely unproductive and will only serve to reduce their value as a fake currency and as a modern-day form of insurance. Unless, of course, people would choose to use them for what they are meant to be used for...
The DMCA is going to be rewritten
Someone is going to take what this Halloween document says and twist it and try to prove that Linux is out to destroy proprietary software and your paycheck, which will generate more arguments back and forth.
Just because Red Hat might be right doesn't mean that they are the best choice in software for your organization.
Imagine a cool, calm, peaceful, beautiful, and very blue body of water - a fresh cool breeze blowing through your hair; the smell of flowers and other good-smelling things; the sounds of birds and leaves blowing in the breeze.
Microsoft is a company. What is a company but a collection of individuals. The problem is not Microsoft, the problem is individuals who work, used to work, know people who work, etc... at Microsoft. The same thing can be said for government. It's not Microsoft + the government out to destroy Linux, it's individuals + individuals being selfish, greedy and stupid.
The first thing that can be done is to show respect for Microsoft. Sure, Linux costs more, but IT'S BETTER. (which is true). Linux is more expensive because it's better. (it's actually less expensive). Now all the rich folks will want Linux because it's the "Cadillac" of operating systems. Microsoft gets Chevrolet status by their own request.
I recently though of an analogy after reading Stephen Hawking's book - it's about entropy, or the direction of time. Glasses fall off of tables and shatter, they don't pick themselves up from pieces on the floor and magically un-break themselves and fall "up" back on the table in one piece.
But God, or in this case, let's compare God to the public - to the individual who is observing what is going on, and making a decision, a judgement, as to which software solution is the best to buy.
Can God, or the observer, in this case, press "rewind", and have the glass re-assemble itself? If this is true, does it really matter who threw the first punch? For all anyone cares, they are just "fighting". It doesn't matter who started it.
Imagine a cool, calm, peaceful, beautiful, and very blue body of water - a fresh cool breeze blowing through your hair; the smell of flowers and other good-smelling things; the sounds of birds and leaves blowing in the breeze.
I wonder if Linux/FOSS evangelism is much easier in non-English-speaking countries? I mean, most of the FUD and confusion in the US, UK, et al, seems to stem from the difference between free-as-in-speech and free-as-in-beer.
Maybe that's why Brazil and France (for example) are migrating to Linux/FOSS. After all, the French and Portuguese languages have different words for the two meanings of "free". It's probably easier to make the case for "free" software.
Linux applications can have GUI wizards too. Most don't bother as they assume you have some proficiency in installing from a CLI interface, package, or whatever.
Some I can think of off the top of my head:
IceWMCP (IceWM Control Panel)
OpenOffice (nice GUI installer)
And if you wanted a GUI front-end for package managers, apt-get has a Synaptic,
and I'm sure there are many others for RPM etc.
Inspector Gregory:
"Is there any other point to which you would wish to draw my attention?"
Holmes: "To the curious incident of the dog in the night-time."
"The dog did nothing in the night-time."
"That was the curious incident," remarked Sherlock Holmes.
From "The Adventure of Silver Blaze" by Arthur Conan Doyle
Help fight continental drift.
This clarifies things a lot. Thank you.
Xenu loves you!
We can afford to pin some of our hopes on growth in Europe and developing countries and elsewhere, but Microsoft can't -- the time horizon on it is too long for a company whose big challenge is to keep beating revenue expectations every quarter in a market where they have 92% share (if they don't beat those expectations every quarter, their stock tanks, the option pyramid collapses, and it's game over).
Actually
- Microsoft has given up awarding stock options since it is or soon will be against GAAP (generally accepted accounting principles) and hence almost as if it were illegal.
- Microsoft's stock has already tanked going from a peak of around $60 (split adjusted) in 2000 fairly steadily downwards to approx $28 and change today.
- Developers are already leaving Redmond in appreciable numbers
Despite all this, Microsoft still appears to be doing ok - not about to go bust or anything.
Please cite an example of ESR attacking the ideals of free software.
AFAIK he has never said that these ideals are not true or good or proper - the strongest thing he's ever said against them is that they're not always the most effective marketing tool.
Xenu loves you!
Something that is interesting with the whole Microsoft FUD campaign is that my work choose a Win 2003 Server over Linux/FreeBSD. I work as a manager, but I also am a fulltime student. Since my major is IS they inquired about my opinion. I told them I thought a Linux or FreeBSD system would be the way to go. Well, the IT company that contract convinced them to go with a Win 2003 Server. What has amazed me is that the server has crashed nearly once every two weeks and is down for fours to days when it does crash. In my apartment I am running a FreeBSD 5.2.1 server with FTP, Mail handling, Samba, etc., and it has been stable. The server is doing essentially simular tasks as the retail enviroment. However, the FreeBSD machine has yet to crash. I guess my point is that even IF Linux is more expensive to adopt, how much more stable is it? You don't hear of reports stating that MS is more stable. In my opinion if it is 20% more, but provides 90% more stability then which one cost more. Afterall, in a retail enviroment if the computers being down cost the company $1,000 an hour (and typically they do), then MS is more expensive. What I want to see is a report detailing the average cost of a downed MS machine and then a downed Linux box and compare down times. Then tell me which one is cheaper. Because in my opinion, a stable system is worth 1000X the cost of an instable system.
The views expressed are mine own and do not express the views of my employer.
What happens when MS' security get's better and they manage to halt the proliferation of viruses and worms and trojans and the like? What will be the need for anyone (such as a big account like the USAF) to switch away from MS' prodcut line? There's a lot of discussion here about hammering on MS about security and whatnot, but nobody's asked the big question: what happens if they finally get things right?
- Number of worms/security issues in Windows
Reminds me of the age old saying that rich people dont die of (NameYourDisease). It is not because they are a better breed, just that they have the means and money to get the cure. Poor people just can't. Most of the virus' and worms exist in windows environment because 1)it is more popular, so offers the biggest bang for the buck to the writers, and 2)windows machines are more likely to be used by novices and hence not well protected. Once Linux reaches the tipping point and we have more people buying walmart sold linux boxes, we will have simillar problems. perhaps a tad more, since not all average Joe's will fix their kernels/applications whereas MS is getting there by automatically performing windowsupdate
- Open source vs Shared Source
Open source is not really open in terms of who can contribute and what. There still exist certain people or groups (like linus for the kernel) who double check to make sure there are no malware introduced. I for one would definitely stay away from somebody offering a latest version of (NameYourAppHere) build offering special features. Of course, you can look at the linux/GNU sources, but I would rather have 'experts' certify applications as good before I use them. With MS, they are this expert and usually people trust them (they may make mistakes, but not deliberate malware attempts)
- Cost
The only advantage of GNU is the initial price (usually zero). Support, IT, maintenence etc still costs real money. Perhaps a tad more for linux since programmers/administrators are a bit more expensive (you can dispute, but look at any job board for the offered salaries for admins in these platforms). As a business model, GNU/free would find it very difficult to survive. I contribute to some open source projects in my free time since I get to pay my bills with the money earned with my paid job working on closed source. Once I dont have a job, chao open source development, I'd rather spend my efforts finding a job that pays me money. Working on open source projects is just a hobby for me and perhaps many others. I'm willing to let it 'cost' me something (time/money) but this cost needs to be underwritten with an income (derived from real paying activities)
I think MS is a necessary evil just as we needed an adversary during the cold war. Without one, we may become complacent and innovation may not continue at this speed.
Mod me down or believe what you want to believe. I believe I am the necessary evil in this discussion
I hope this is a joke or a provocation...
But if not, i suggest you read some of his work;
You can begin with the reference The Cathedral and the Bazaar,
or if you're too lazy his short chapters in O'Reilly's 'Open Sources: Voices from the Open Source Revolution'.
Free from Microsoft!!!
Just let the dinosaur die a natural death!
The Jargon File comes to mind. I owe quite a bit of my knowledge of computer history to its print form, the New Hacker's Dictionary.
He also brought us the infamous Aunt Tillie Builds a Kernel lkml thread.
-jim
Does anything else matter?
Just as with Microsoft, the only true freedom of religion is freedom FROM religion!
Only then, can you quietly sit down and rationally make up your mind!
There would be no weird cults if everyone felt free to just walk away!
Counting all of the coders, the managers, the system analysts, the research scientists, the public relations people, the lawyers, the floor sweepers and the temps, about how many people would you say that you have working for you, Chairman Bill?
Bill: About half of them!!!
We are winning everytime we force Windows to make a concession to its customers because of us. We are winning when their criticisms of F/OSS loose credibility. We are winning every time they feel the pressure to improve their stability and security. We've won if Windows becomes a really great product with a decent license and lack of lock in. We are winning while we are having fun pursuing world domination. If that day ever comes, will MicroSoft have enough credibility left to benefit form their improvements?
all the many, many programmers not employed by MS, but working on all the myriad Windows tools and applications, open or closed, part of Windos or external.
Does that open source 220,000 include the GIMP coders? Does the 22,000 MS coders include the Photoshop and PaintShopPro people?
How about just "open software"?
It has a few connotations, all positive and all true of GPL and similarly licensed software.
Even Schwann bred but I am not so sure about ESR's chances...
http://threetechguys.info Come, discuss Technology. Got a technology question? Come ask!
Linux has a long way to go before it can pass the Non-tech-spouse test.
Ask yourself honestly, does Windows pass this test?
I agree with your whole post, except for this old chestnut. No operating system that's having a "tech-savvy person present" type problem passes this test. Zippo. None. Not Windows, not Linux, not OS X, not even a Commodore 64.
Ever have a Windows box fail to talk to a USB printer? Or one that keeps reseting it's video settings? Hand that one to your spouse. And be prepared to sleep on the couch.
Linux may be harder to set up, I'll grant that... but it's not harder to work with.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
This campaign is going to explain how the cost of quitting smoking (nicoderm, self help books, etc.) is higher than smoking. This is only valid in a period of three weeks, but it's valid nonetheless.
What microsoft fails to mention is that in three years when you upgrade the software on everyone's machine, the cost of upgrading is drastically less than if you kept them running windows.
The cost to switch people over is there in terms of wasted hours figuring out how to use linux and presumably KDE, however this is done once as they did from going to typewriters to windows.
I don't remember typewriter companies having their "get the fud" roadshow preaching how expensive it is to train people to use a word processor.
"I also expect a serious effort, backed by several billion dollars in bribe money (oops, excuse me, campaign contributions), to get open-source software outlawed on some kind of theory that it aids terrorists."
"But in the next year, I think we need to focus more on government adoptions, in order to protect our political and legislative flanks."
We need to beat them to the punch. Open Source is a matter of national security! It only takes one back door in a closed source OS or application to put our nations security at risk. All applications critical to national security should be running on OS' where the people are able to read the source and thus be positive no terrorist has planted a back door.
Write your congressman! Now, before anyone else has a chance to beat you to it. Here are some important things to remeber when you are trying to influence government:
- Email makes little impact. It is very easy to send a congressman email. As a result most congressmen are flooded with emails, and actually read very little of it. Send Snail Mail Instead!
- One petition is the equivalent of only one letter. A lot of people will sign your petition just to get rid of you. Your congressman knows this. Therefore you petittion only counts for the person who mailed it in, not for every signer.
- Form letters don't work. Congressmen do not open their own mail. A staffer opens it instead. If there are 300 copies of the same form letter, the congressman will only see one copy and be told that 300 copies came in. It just does not have the impact of 300 seperate letters with different wording making the same point.
- Vote! I cannot stress this enough. The list of registered voters is public record and whether you voted in the last election is part of that record. If you are not a voter, your congressman does not care what you think. You will not vote for his opponent in the next election anyway.
- Send Money. Yeah I know, It feels kind of dirty and you may not actually like your congressman. Still, Microsoft donates to both political parties and many individual politicians. We have to in some way counter this. Even a five dollar check will make an impression on the politician. It proves you are serious. An alternative to donations to the politician himself is a donation to his party. Just send a photocopy of the check to your congressman with your letter. Even better if he votes wrong, send him a photocopy of your donation to his opponent!
We have been lied to and misled. They have convinced us our vote does not count and we cannot make a difference. As a result we do not act. As long as we buy in to this and do not hold the goverment accountable, the government will not be accountable.Insert Generic Sig Here:
Do you really think there's a CIO out there who hasn't yet heard of Linux? That's like suggesting that there's a CFO somewhere who's never heard of SAP or Peoplesoft.
CIOs may not use Linux, they may not even have any interest in using Linux, but by now certainly every CIO has at least heard of it and can probably describe Linux better than half the people on Slashdot.
I'm generally "Interesting," "Insightful," and even "Funny" here. What the hell happens to me at parties?
Forgive me, but I don't think Microsoft Windows in it's current state could be called 'thin, small, and unobtrusive'.
.NET might look a bit odd in this light. You could more or less swap the OS under your application (I am aware that this is in practice rather difficult). It makes your appliction 'OS agnostic'. But pushing along this road is basicly their only chance of getting a safer Windows, due to less buffer overflows.
Though I get your point. You probably wanted to say that an Operating System should become a commodity feature. It should basicly be there, and that's it. Open Source operating systems could let that happen. Everybody may use the OS, and people who want to tinker with it to make it better, may tinker at will.
The trouble is, Microsoft won't let that happen, Windows is still too much of a cash cow for them. Microsofts current push for
Give to the emperor what belongs to the emperor
I am wondering when Microsoft will use the ol' tried and true embrace-extend-kill manuveur on Linux? It could take shape as follows:
.Net instead) change the brand name of it, sell new books, seminars, and certificates.
1. Add "Linux components" or some other confusingly similar branded name for some Linux-like functionality into future releases of Windows. Make these components half-functional, clunky, yet do one or two useful things really that most programmers would find attractive.
2. Hype this as wonderful new technology that is fully compatible with Linux. Sell books, training seminars, magazines, and certifications.
3. Release at least three versions of the new technology, change several API conventions just to knock early adoptees off balance (and make them wish they used a relatively more stable platform like
4. The death grip: After sufficient momentum has gathered behind it announce that this "old technology" will not be included in the next version of Windows and will be replaced by Something Better(tm) which is really just the next version of the preferred platform you wanted everyone to use in the first place.
5. The coffin nail: Because the technology was confusing branded as "Linux", CEOs who discover their archtitecture is based on a soon-to-be-obsolete API vow never to use "Linux" again and fire the CIO who bought into Microsoft's hype.
Of course Linux/OSS will march on unhindered but such a ploy would definately leave a bad taste in the mouth of many unmanagement.
I wouldn't worry about it. Slashdot moderation tends to work okay. Meta moderation also helps.
I watched it go from my origional post down, then back up again.
Even on slashdot the raving anti MS zealots are a minority. Many of the viewers/moderators seem to be reasonable people.
Make your point, speak your mind, meta moderate to help, and don't worry about being modded down.
IMHO
A government "for the people, by the people" should use software "for the people, by the people".
Do we really want our government to continue to buy the same software each year, while never understanding its innermost secret workings, and in the mean time paying annual service contracts?
Style points for using the word perfervid.
Evan Prodromou | evan@prodromou.name | http://evan.prodromou.name/
Someone is going to have to explain this TCO thing to me - pretend I am thick or something.
I've got 6 servers at work all running linux. I spend virtually no time adminning them (I run debian stable). My mail server has never missed a beat - adding users takes about 5 seconds (qmail-popadmin user@adomain.com {password} - this auto creates new domains also etc..) My PDC is Samba (one day I will migrate all our desktops to Linux) - it works flawlessly. My firewall, dns and VPN servers just do their thing (old desktop hardware)
These systems cost me nothing in software costs.
I also have (unfortunately) an Exchange 2003 server (due to RIM tying in to Notes and Exchange only) The O/S and Exchange software for this cost 2000 approx. Adding a user is a PITA and, when I hit another threshold, I have to buy more licences. Exchange has to be the most convoluted peice of software I have ever met. I spend more time doing admin on this machine than all of my others put together and still cannot do the simplest of things.
So, why or how does linux have a higher TCO ?
Am I missing paying an ease-of-use tax or something ? I just don't get it - someone enlighten me please.
Agree and disagree.
When people use you as leverage, that means they acknowledge that you are a threat to your competitor, so much so that they can use it to their advantage, and get cheaper products. They're gonna know you, they've researched you.. they know what you're capable of. perhaps you're not 100% what they want, but it's enough for leverage.
Next time they need to buy supplies, they're gonna try to do the same thing- they're going to remember that you can save them money. but when they look up, they see everyone else *IS* choosing you this time. When they research you, they'll see you not only cover what the competition was doing for you, but they offer you more. 125% of what you were looking for.
My point is, next time around, you'll have a better chance- better than if they were to never have seen you in the first place. You may have lost the first battle, but you'll win the war.
Looking for Book Reviews? Check out Literary Escapism.
And those, my friend, are called fighting the symptoms without curing the disease.
You're right. User-run executable attachments are part of some great disease of system design. It's all Microsoft's fault when people don't patch their systems, and two months later an exploit makes the rounds.
It's all their fault (repeat over and over).
ESR didn't write the New Hacker's dictionary, he simply took a pre-existing online version, added some crap to it, and let it fester. For example, there's an entry for fisking, which is term used primarily by conservative blogers, (Primarily it means a point by point deconstruction of a liberal argument, pointing out how each point disagrees with conservative ideology, and is therefore wrong) but entry for "apache", or "DDoS"
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
Most people use some flavor of Unix when they interact with a web server over the internet. Unix is everywhere. You just can't see the logo.
----
The Last Samurai
Microsoft states that is HARDWARE (not SW) what is to be free.
LG+
are going to type:
sh Brittney\ Spears\ Nekkid.jpg.sh
The original poster was going on about the same level of danger of executable attachmnets in Linux as Windows. But it's not as easy.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I grant that a user could be sent an ELF shared library. But how many mail clients are going to know (or going to want) to use the loader like that?
I repeat, even if a user got a shared ELF binary in the mail, how is it really going to be easily run by a fairly new user?
People seem to think that Windows has so many viruses just because it's popular. But that myth ignores the very real difficulties of doing the same kind of thing with email or executable attachments on other systems.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I just finished reading the article and followed the link on trusted computing. The question thats in my mind now is what kind of effect this will have on Microsoft.
Its interesting because almost every one of my friends doesnt see Linux as being free as any sort of advantage. They all say "Its not like I actually paid for Windows!" If anyone needs any sort of Microsoft product someone will ask and the next day someone will show up with a burned copy of it. So who cares if you can download Debian for free? I also realize that my group of friends are somewhat more technical than most normal people. But I've noticed this kind of software pirating from even very non-technical people.
If trustworthy computing succeeds, and Microsoft software will only install on TC-enabled PC's, what kind of effect do you all think this will have on Microsoft? Do you think they'll actually lower their prices if more people are paying for Windows? And do you think it might help more technical home users to start using free software?
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
We have to assume that Microsoft's long-term aim is to crush our culture and drive us to extinction by whatever combination of technical, economic, legal, and political means they can muster.
What better way to defend the culture than to explain it? What better way to crush it than to make your enemy feel too foolish to think things through or explain them to others?
What ERS is worried about is looking, "irrelevant or nutty". Fine, you only need to talk about it when confronted with lies about it and you need to be aware of your audience. They brought it up, dissmissing it is easy because the M$ position is impossible to defend. Ducking it is bad news. Self censorship is perceived as ignorance, weakness or deception.
You can stop a M$ fanboy dead in his tracks when they bother to bring up this rotten little strawman. Not even RMS would argue that your services should be without cost and every IT manager knows that services cost money. What is true is that free software will always cost less and be more flexible than non-free. Microsoft's demands to give them money and sign a contract for restricted use software is a real loser by comparison. When the fanboy starts talking about Microsoft's rights to do all of that, you have revealed the greedy slave for what they are. You can then talk about everyone's right to ignore bad deals from liars.
It takes care and practice to explain free software to corporate drone types, but you can do it concretely and concisely. With free software, the company owns it's software and it's computers 100% but pays less to do so than they would if Microsoft owned them.
Later, if you are chummy with someone, you can get into the details. Talking about how and why free software works is not a waste of time, it's culture building. It does not take long to explain how free software does not have owners and all the benefits that brings everyone involved with software. The more people understand this, the less they will fall for the Open / Shared source lie or free beer.
Culture building is all about explaining things and building up the mindset. You can't do that by ignoring the fundamental drive of free software, to be free of other people's restrictions and demands. Everyone can get it and it's not incompatible with good American ideals that any corporate type can understand.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
I have to disagree with you on two counts. First, free software only has to be "good enough" if it's cheaper then what it's replacing. Second, Linux desktops kick ass. You don't have to be negative at all to say that Linux desktops work better, longer and easier.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
I'm reminded of a SciFi Channel ad: "Even numbered Trek movies don't suck". Enough already - the "Halloween Surprise" was good info. This is just getting tired.
Is it only me, or has Raymond played the "I wrote fetchmail" card for a whole lot more than it was ever worth? The last time he tried any hackery, the Linux kernel developers sent him and his Config Markup Language 2 packing. And for good reason: developed in a vacuum, presented as a fait accompli, and defended bitterly against all criticism, it was everything he argued against in "The Cathedral and the Bazaar"
B.C. is the religious comic strip about cave people. Wizard of Id features a short king and a knight named Rodney.
They are quite capable of doing what 'looks'
reasonable and may be politically expediant
on one hand and doing whatever works and gets
the job done on the other. Army too, not so
sure about the AF but you can bet your ass
thay are'nt gonna let the Navy or Army beat
'em at a 'fun' game if they can help it.
The fait of OSS in the services has all but
been accomplished. A couple of billion dollar
screwball contracts one way or the other isn't
gonna change squat. The idea of 'Plan to throw
one away' was invented by the services, not
by ESR.
"Yeah... a higher TCO... that's the ticket.
And it's not that secure either."
This phrase (and its companion, "free as in speech") is rapidly becoming too common for its current cumbersome form. Anyone up for working on replacements?
I'm thinking "freer" vs. "freech" from now on.
Everything that was once directly lived has receded into a representation. -debord
Hmmm... I think that phrase is too long to be useful as a replacement for "free software"/"open source", but I think it would be powerful as part of a kind of certification mark that expresses a reasonable effort towards adherence to a specific set of (yet to be precisely defined) "Digital Age Ethics" principles.
Anyone interested in discussing this further is invited to contact me via email at: nb (at) freedom (dot) biz.
Under construction: swpat politics overview article
You can deploy thousands of workstations and give the users great freedom to customize their environment, while keeping stability, security, and fast, controlled rollouts of new software. I've seen it done with Suns, and there's no reason it can't be done with Linux. If your vision of Unix is DEC terminals connected to a VAX, things have changed a bit since then.
But you know what? You can actually have diskless PCs acting as X terminals and still deliver most of the freedom users expect from a modern PC. The physical architecture and the administrative policies are not necessarily linked.
After all Pan was a belligerent lame goat who played music, got drunk, and screwed at every opportunity. ESR aspires to be the same.
There is a more fundamental problem in the essay's logic. Brooks explains it in "The Mythical Man Month". You could turn the whole world loose on writing replacements for Microsoft software, but there is a point at which the communication overhead bogs everything down and you would have been better off sticking to fewer people. The collaboration required to create a great, consistent user experience for something like an operating system or office suite is tremendous, and open source needs to do a better job at this if it ever hopes to achieve the aims of its evangelists in taking over the business and government computer world.
Sorry Overly Critical Guy, oops, I mean Bonch, but in your quickfire trolling to get anyone who bashes MS, you missed the sarcasm and came out looking more idiotic than you already do. Pretty impressive.
But your fighting the good fight, right?
Think nothing is impossible? Try slamming a revolving door.
Somebody could choose to pick up an Open Source product ... just like some companies have picked up Closed Source products - except in those cases it's called "buying the rights to continue production." How many companies had ownership of TurboPascal? And what about the folks still supporting QuarkExpress?
Companies producing 'commercial software' may not let anybody & everybody have their source code, but it is disingenuous to argue that getting it is impossible. They just do it differently and in a manner all the bean-counters are familiar with.
Hmmm. Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
Yes, you are. You obviously have not tried egroupware. Exchange cannot touch it. It has a bunch of modules that Exchange dreams of having.
It's fast, free in every sense of the word, full-featured. It has built in ACLs for every module allowing a great deal of granularity in what you or your admin chooses to share. It has modules that allow you to group as in a threaded email conversation address book entries, calendar entries, notes, all of which you can delegate and share or not share.
It has a built-in FTP client, IMAP and POP3 email clients, integrates into LDAP environments, forum, project management, knowledge base, polls, and more and it WORKS. Of course, you the admin decide which modules you want to enable for which users.
For those that have not tried it yet, you owe to yourself to do so now before you claim that there isn't a good groupware solution in Linux.
Pragmatism as an ideology is not particularly pragmatic in the long term. Keep it in mind when you dismiss Free Software
Good writing puts the figurative bottom line on the literal bottom line, as ESR does:
"We need to make the cost of suppressing us higher than the sixty billion dollars Microsoft can afford to pay."
ESR:"That day I was reborn; from a skinny lame kid with a flute into a shaman and a vessel of the Goat-Foot God, the Piper at the Gates of Dawn, the Horned Lord. And the music was my first power, but not my last."
Requiem:"ESR is off the deep end."
Me:"He's being POETIC."
That has to be the best D&D reference I've seen all week!
This sig space intentionally left blank.
take a windows box (if you don't have w2k, xp will do)
add a routable ip
wait for 5 minutes or until done
-------------------
This has been served half a trillion times and is a proven winner.
sounded like the last RFP I wrote....
Your point 1: You've never read any Sherlock Holmes so your ignorance is forgiven. It refers to a case where Holmes realized the evidence was not an inconvenient fact but a missing fact. But you're playing word games too: if you like marketers, you call them thorough, if you don't, call them opportunistic. It doesn't change anything.
Your point 2: So what. They called us criminals first. Nyahh.
Your point 3: "Hey why don't I think of a word I don't like and then accuse ESR of not using it in a context that suits me?" Go back to Debating 101, kid.
Your point 4: What, so you can endlessly debate it? Seems to me you're asking for the impossible. Noone is going to agree with anyone's figures. This is also part of Debating 101.
Your point 5, which is so wrong I'm quoting it:
inflammatory for a start. It isn't inflammatory, its the truth. You agree to using MS's Shared Source providing you give MS royalty-free rights to use EVERYTHING you produce with it, and your source. Great deal, huh? NO. It's a poison pill.Finally, your point 6: IIS is a crock. It's so bad that MS has said publicly there are bugs it will NOT fix. These happen to be bugs any script kiddy can drive a truck through. We live now in a world where if x = bug; attack(); if you haven't noticed. IIS is a PR nightmare for MS but they can't be seen to publicly discontinue support. Your argument is so besides the point it's almost trollery.
Otherwise, your heart's in the right place, you've just got sharpen your skillz.
Modders: I know it looked like it was a reasonable argument but it only deserved a 3.
insecurity asks the wrong question irritation gives the wrong answer
I suppose he is talking to those who believe Free Software being a good idea. Quoting the sentence in a way you did could seem he didn't think FOSS was good, but instead of reading the sentence as itself without including the rest of the article as an argument and really considering the whole thing you'd then know this certain sentence is just a little bit exaggerated one. In a wider sense it doesn't mean he thinks ill of free software or anything like that. I will emphasize: You've quoted the sentence out of context.
- Voice of Ambience -
That post is insightful if you asked me..
:)
And I do plenty stretching excercises every day, being a Christian that is.
- Voice of Ambience -
As it seems to capture more of the "libre" than "open" or "free" do, and there's no chance for confusion. Similarly, I wish the "Free Software Foundation" (FSF) would change its name to "the Foundation for Software Freedom" (FSF)...
The fact of the matter is, that Software gets easier and easier to create, over time. The only solution to this 'dilemna' is to do everything you can to make it more and more difficult to write software.
... innovation which in fact turns out to be nothing more than a new 'straw man API', catering to pop-culture 'jones next door' economics.
Programmers/Developers have a hard time with this, but its true. Whereas 10 years ago, a professional was expected to be able to conjur up GUI's and Servers and Apps and Tools and Utils, and was paid for it, now any punk-ass kid with a C compiler can write the same software, for fun, in his spare time.
The more software you write, the easier it gets to write software.
Microsoft are not confronting this issue. It used to be that software was a professionals game. But this has been proven, time and again, to not be true; if you can read, if you can work out the basic mechanics of using a dictionary, and if you have patience and willpower enough to keep yourself in front of the computer long enough to get something actually running, then You Too Can Be A Programmer (tm).
Chasing endless API's and "new" dev kits and "frontier frameworks" and implementing new protocols: This all gets easier the more you do it.
Open Source has proven this, time and time again. The Millionaire Kiddy who writes a $10,000 perl script to run his New Enterprise is standing on the shoulders of many, many giants^H^H^H^H^H^HHackers who have come before him. Software gets easier.
No corporation in the history of computing sciences has done more to combat this fact than Microsoft. The moment their developer pool starts using their API's and SDK's to develop products that compete with Microsofts' internal developer programs, Microsoft 'updates' the API's and SDK's and "Technology Platforms" to give everyone something new to learn, 'revolutionizing' the industry with 'innovation'
API's don't need to evolve. A properly planned abstraction layer solves *all* issues. The constant release/re-release/update/re-update of fundamental, core developer tools is a treadmill being used by Microsoft to keep the industry 'busy', when in fact so much more could be being done if things just settled into a solid, standard state.
Open Source proves this. Once an API is ready and released, and usable, it sticks. Witness libc. Witness POSIX. Witness Qt. Witness countless other fundamental, core API's and Platform SDK's which are available in the F/OSS world, upon which massive amounts of applications programs have been written.
Software gets easier and easier to write, the more you do it. Microsoft know this. All attempts they make to bring 'new, innovative technology' to the field are really nothing more than attempts to keep their developer pools pre-occupied with learning 'new stuff', maintaining some sort of 'professional standard' for what is and isn't a developer.
But I'm telling you, software sciences that were once hard, don't stay that way for long. While there are many things (DSP programming, for example) which are 'hard', they do not stay that way. Once you've written an app once, you can write it again, better, without having to change your platform, or your SDK, or your API.
The Open Source movement seems to intrinsically recognize this fact. This is why so much work was done to get the 'platform' (GNU, kernels, libs, tools) all in stable, working order - because software gets easier to write, the more you do it.
I stopped using Microsoft when I recognized that their MSDN "tools" were really being used to DISTRACT me from actually doing neat, innovative stuff. MFC wasn't there for my convenience, it was there for Microsofts. ActiveX wasn't there to make my life easier, it was there to draw yet more lines in the developer sand, and create 'elites' and 'cliques' in the developer sphere, upon which to divide developers into 'cans' and 'c
; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
Popular is valid. Unpopular is loony.
Great logical thinking you have got there (Mohhamed, Jesus, Buddha were all loonies then).
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
The fact that this post got modded down just proves your point even more. My hat is off to you.
Can we stop giving a soapbox to a man who claims to channel Pan?
Hypothetically, if I ever claimed, while waxing poetic, that Clio (muse of history) had reached out of my hindbrain, thundered "YOU!", and helped me write really gripping and compelling historical essays, presumably you'd want everyone to cease paying attention to everything I say. (So much for metaphor.)
OK, but why should we pay attention to you, when obviously you're trying to convince the world you're possessed by Thalia the muse of comedy?
Rick Moen
rick@linuxmafia.com
You really are a tool.
Truly you have a dizzying intellect.
Too similar to freedom fries, might come across a little crazy...
.sig: Open Source, Open Mind
Oops, looks like somebody forgot to check that "Post Anonymously" thingy.
And what is exactly wrong in channelling me?
Sincerely,
Pan Tarhei Hosé, PhD.
"Homo sum et cogito ergo odi profanum vulgus et libido."