Torvalds Criticizes Open-Source Wannabes

Wonko42 writes "In his address at Internet World '99, Linus Torvalds threw some harsh words at Microsoft and Sun, criticizing Microsoft's thoughts of opening portions of Windows source and making his feelings known about Sun's restrictive new community license. He also spoke some about the future of commercial software, and dodged lots of Transmeta questions. "

Comments

Re:finland and technology

[g.liche]

Linus's comment that the long winters make for higher tech "because there's nothing else to do" makes one wonder when Alaska will take it's rightful place as the world leader in technological innovation. ;-) Seriously though, as a Minnesotan, I can relate to the long winters being prime programming time...

Third world country

[starling]

The bit I picked up on was when he called Silicon Valley a third world country when it comes to technology. He's right, and it's really strange considering the availability and low cost of technology in the US.

One of my pet peeves is that people over here *still* use cheques to pay all their bills instead of direct funds transfer. I'd almost forgotten how to write a cheque before I moved here, but hardly anyone does direct debit so I'm forever writing the things out and stuffing them in envelopes (not post-paid of course). Sometimes I think the cheapest commodity in the US is a customer's time :(

Re:Third world country

[g.liche]

I wouldn't characterize the use of checks as a fault of Silicon Valley, but rather of the banks and companies involved. You as a consumer have the right to make your opinion heard- if your bank doesn't offer direct debit, complain! Similarly, if a company that you do business with does not handle direct debit, complain! Maybe then they'll wake up and join the 21st century.

Re:Third world country

[Anonymous Coward]

Letting them debit what they want is the stupid way to do it. My credit union has a list of payees I've declared, and I can request a payment in any amount be sent to any of them once or regularly over HTTP/SSL. Free.

And deliberately not paying all of a bill is cheating. Budgeting is knowing how much your regular bills are, and borrowing (preferably from your own savings, or some creditor if need be) for the unexpected.

Re:Third world country

[Jamie Zawinski]

One of my pet peeves is that people over here *still* use cheques to pay all their bills instead of direct funds transfer. I'd almost forgotten how to write a cheque before I moved here, but hardly anyone does direct debit so I'm forever writing the things out and stuffing them in envelopes (not post-paid of course).

Get a different bank! Both Wells Fargo and Bank of America let you pay any bills online, and those are the two most common banks in the Bay Area. I'm sure many others do as well.

The way it works behind the scenes is that they'll do an electronic transfer for those payees who can accept it, and they'll print and mail a check for you for those who can't (the first check I had them write was for $1 to myself, just so I could see what the paper copy looked like...)

Re:Third world country

[Sand_Man]

Hold the phone here folks. Banks aren't the ones promoting and encouraging the use of checks. We much prefer wire transfers and ACH transactions. Checks are a pain. They require huge capital investments in check readers and processing equipment, and many man-hours to handle all that stuff. It really sucks. Not that we haven't figured out how to do all that and make a profit, but we could make the same money at a lower cost to consumers if payments were electronic. Checks are still so common because consumers want them.

Re:Third world country

[Bob-K]

Yeah, I think the problem is that relatively few payees in the US accept online transfers. I have it down to two checks a month, though; car and rent. The hardest part is finding the correct checkbook after it has sifted down into the pile for 29 days.

I'd have to guess that Finland, like many other European countries, enjoys some benefits of being relatively small and homogeneous. Once something like online payment reaches critical mass, it's easier for it to permeate the entire society. There are some cool technologies that are far more widely deployed in Europe, but that doesn't exactly make the US a technology backwater.

On the other hand, I'm not offended by Linus' wisecrack, either.

Re:Third world country

[starling]

>Checks are still so common because consumers want them.

That's what I see too. People I've griped about this to say that they don't trust the banks/payees to debit the right amounts. Perhaps unsurprising, given that the only company with which I've managed to set up a direct debit doesn't send out an invoice, but relies on me checking my bank statement as the only confirmation that things worked. I figure that checking the statement is easier than writing a cheque, but others obviously disagree.

To wrench this back on topic: speaking as a visitor to the USA I think that this is the sort of thing that Linus means when he says that technologically, silicon valley is a third worlds country. All the tech is there, but it isn't being used effectively to make day-to-day life easier.

Remonds me of the cliche where the Brits invent something but can't seem to market it. Americans can bring the technology to market but often don't use it to its best advantage.

Re:Third world country

[starling]

>Get a different bank!

The bank isn't the problem; my bank does handle electronic transfer, but like you say it only works "for those payees who can accept it". In my experience they are few and far between.

Electric - no
Rent - nope
Insurance (all varieties) - nuh
Telcos - no
ISP - HAHAHAHA... of course not :-|

Maybe I'm just unlucky, and it's not really a big deal - I just find the contrast between hi-tech and low-down bureaucracy in the USA a bit odd, considering that so much else about the place is so advanced.

The free local calls make up for it all though :)

Re:Third world country

[C.Lee]

There's a reason people don't use direct funds transfers. It's a rip-off. In case you idiots haven't noticed, most banks charge extra for direct debit or whatever you want to call this nonsense. And besides, it can really really screw up your planning of a buget for a month. Say for instance your phone bill for the month is say $45.00 but something came up (say you needed work done on your car) Now with a checking account you can pay $25.00 on the phone bill and divert the other $20.00 towards paying for the car repairs. With the direct funds transfer crap, the phone company would take the $45.00 straight out of your checking acount. Now you see why people don't use it?

Re:Third world country

[chandoni]

So, why does my bank charge $10 for a wire transfer and $5/mo for bill payment? I can do ACH transactions for free if I initiate them from the company I'm paying, but for bill payment I prefer the "push" approach so I can check the amount of the bill. Instead of paying these fees, I waste the bank's time and money with my unlimited free checks.

Sorry this is off topic, but I'm very interested in the perspective of somebody clueful within the banking industry.

JMC

Re:Third world country

[FlyHigh]

As much as paying the bills directly including the ACH is convenient, it becomes a nightmare when the bank screws up by remitting more money or wronlgy debiting your account or worse debiting your account twice for the same payment. It would require lot more time and energy and phone calls to sort out these stupid mistakes. I'm sure such mistakes won't be few and far between. Also if you dispute the telephone bill for example and it has been paid already by the bank then you have to deal with both the tel company and your bank

The real reason why no one would care..

[Kitsune Sushi]

..which I'm sort of surprised you didn't just come out and say: How many of us would prefer going back, slashing, then completely reworking all of the code for Windows so that it is actually a viable, stable operating system that does something useful besides, well, look pretty? GNU/Linux (and a multitude of other good OSes, like *BSD) are already stable, and with a nice selection of desktop environments and window managers, I think can make a lot of them pretty, too. ;)

Re:The real reason why no one would care..

[orabidoo]

the Linux kernel is way more intrincate and carefully put together than any swiss watch. try reading "the cathedral and the bazaar" one of these days.

Re:The real reason why no one would care..

[IntlHarvester]

At some point you have to tell people to fix their broken code because the bugs, compatibility hacks and obsolete features their software depends on have been deprecated and will disappear in the next major release.

Except that time and time-again the PC userbase has chosen backwards-compatibility over a better product. See OS/2. See Windows NT. Both products had pretty good backwards-compatibilty, but not good enough for people to flock to them in great numbers on the desktop. Microsoft has to sell upgrades, and therefore backwards compatiblity is job #1. (Prediction: Watch Win2000 beta get watered down over the next few months to try to get ye olde software working.)

The root problem is the broken applications. There are just too damn many 'business critical' applications in use for which there is no longer vendor support or perhaps no longer a vendor. (And no source code, either, so forget about fixing the problem.)

Re:The real reason why no one would care..

[UnknownSoldier]

> How many of us would prefer going back, slashing, then completely reworking all of the code for Windows so that it is actually a viable, stable operating system that does something useful besides, well, look pretty?

Actually I probably WOULD hack on the Windows codebase(s) because then I could finally fix that damn NT 4 memory leak which SP5 STILL doesn't fix!
(And maybe hacking DirectX 6 into NT4 would be nice too for all those stupid games that require Winblows95/98 and DX5 ;-)

It's kind of interesting that we have already have a few Open Source Projects of MS's Operating Systems and APIs:
http://www.reactos.com
http://www.freedos.org
http://www.winehq.com/

Cheers

Re:The real reason why no one would care..

[Anonymous Coward]

The people who overuse "hack" as a verb probably would be bewildered to have to work on a project where there is:

1. Management
2. Usability Design
3. A Decade of Apps they can't break.
4. Deadlines

You can hack your way into a jungle. You can hack together a workbench out of odd two-by-fours. You can hack together a driver for a piece of three year old hardware.

You can't hack together a swiss watch. You can't hack together a hard drive. You can't hack together the firmware for a hard drive.

My cat can hack out a hairball, though.

Re:The real reason why no one would care..

[Xenu]

One of the things that is a problem with Microsoft is their support for decades of software cruft in the name of backwards compatibility.

At some point you have to tell people to fix their broken code because the bugs, compatibility hacks and obsolete features their software depends on have been deprecated and will disappear in the next major release. Otherwise you will never be able to cleanup the OS code.

Re:The real reason why no one would care..

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually I probably WOULD hack on the Windows codebase(s) because then I could finally fix that damn NT 4 memory leak which SP5 STILL doesn't fix! (And maybe hacking DirectX 6 into NT4 would be nice too for all those stupid games that require Winblows95/98 and DX5 ;-)

If you actually had the Windows source code (under an unrestrictive license), you could port the Windows API to Linux (or any open source OS) - this would definitely help with the WINE project. It would also mean that *no* game would require Windows to run.

Re:The real reason why no one would care..

[jafac]

Actually, I don't think anybody would waste their time. Reading Windows' source code sounds more like watching an episode of 3 Stooges or something like that.

"The number of suckers born each minute doubles every 18 months."

Ever hear of pride?

[Anonymous Coward]

That would also justify the above.

Re:Ever hear of pride?

[igjeff]

Then I will berate them endlessly as a shareholder, as well as a customer (we've got a few sparcs around here). Pride goeth before the fall and all that...twould be a shame for the maker of all that nice hardware to fail.

Jeff

An un tempered discussion of the "Open Source"

[cybrthng]

My own reply last night, was a tempered one, i didn't even finish nor make sense of what i wanted to say, i must have had 40 email responses telling me i was idiot.. so now a nights worth of rest later, and a good cup of mocha, i can really say whats on my mind.

I believe suns license is VERY acceptable, and even MORE acceptable to the enduser and developer then the GPL license.

The sun license restricts you from distributing your own piece of solaris, but it does not prohibit you from selling a service to provide these modifications as a business much like redhat doesn't really sell its own version of linux, but customizations that it feels distinguishes.. its just under sun, you would sell a commercial package and provide a service, instead of provide free software and provide a service.

The sun license opens up solaris to the End User, thats who we are. The only people who should be scared of there license are people selling Operating systems to compete with Solaris. As the license strictly prohibits selling modified sources/versions of the OS. Again, if your smart, and can modifiy solaris, you can use that "open Source" business model to sell your services.. Your just taking the credibility and legal ramifications of your services in your own hands, which is what sun is protecting itself.

Open source is "Open Source" you got it, its truely WSYWIG.. you can't get any more Open Source. Free software on the other hand is a totally different issue. And doesn't follow Sun's business model that its investors are following. Sun has just as much of a bind to its investors as does redhat to there's.. there business models are different.

Once you include the unmodified GPL license in your program, your code is effectively licensed to the Free Software Foundation and GPL. You are not personally legally the licensee of the software since it doesn't reference you as the licensee. So if i stole all your code, and sold a program in binary format, YOU couldn't hold me up on anything in court, the FSF or GNU foundations would have to provide legal interest and support since it is licensed to there foundation and guidelines.

There is absolutly *NOTHING* wrong with suns license, it does what everyone needs it to do, and works with there business model

There is *SOMETHING* wrong with people who constantly praise a license, and don't even stop to think about who owns that license, and why they would put someone else license under there software.

sure you may be giving your code to the community, but again, if your protecting your code, the GPL doesn't help you one bit unless you can rely on them in court.

so since you got the code, and sun has complete protection from liability and missuse of what they gave you, tell me.. whats wrong with that?

Re:An un tempered discussion of the "Open Source"

[Anonymous Coward]

Open Source is just a marketing term for Free Software. Read the definition. In particular, if you can't modify and redistribute, maybe you can see the source but you sure don't have it.

Everyone has the same rights to use, modify, and distribute my GPL'd code. The fact RMS and the FSF wrote the GPL doesn't give them any special rights to my code, and it certainly doesn't give them the right to enforce my copyright - otherwise they wouldn't need to ask for copyright assignments for contributions to their projects!

I'm certainly not going to maintain Solaris if all I get out of it is being able to pay for a higher-quality Solaris. If I can't reuse their code, they can't reuse mine.

Re:His remark about finland is so true!

[jpatokal]

I have had the pleasure of talking to many youngsters, (11-13) in third world europe countries who code in assembly languages and run unix os. I should transfer to a finland for school, I will get a better education and for cheaper money, when I am done with my BS, just come back to the states, spend a year get a Master, and I am ready to roll.

Now that was truly incoherent. FYI, the term "third world" originates from the Cold War, when you had the "first world" (US & allies) versus the "second world" (USSR & allies), with everybody else lumped into the "third world". As most of these 3rd world countries were poor, over time the term came to mean a poor, undeveloped country (which is what Linus meant). Not a single country in Europe is truly "third world" by either definition, although Albania might come close. And I also don't buy the argument that Europe has worse computer equipment than the US, here in Finland public Internet access is certainly more widespread and funding for school computers is usually quite generous.

And while I'm at it, a quirk of the Finnish higher education system for engineers is that there is no B.Sc.: the first step on the academic ladder is "diploma engineer" (DI), which takes 5-6 years to complete and is considered roughly equivalent to M.Sc. The next stage is a "licentiate of technology" (TkL), which has no US equivalent, and finally just "doctor of technology", which is the same as in the States.

But your education would certainly cheaper -- it's free for Finnish citizens.

Cheers,
-j.

Stick to coding ..

[warmi]

"Silicon Valley is supposed to be the center of the universe when it comes to technology," he said. "It's a third-world country."

How pathetic is that ??
How come he ended up in SV instead of his native Finland.
People should realize that his knowledge of economy and related issues is basically null.
I really think he should stick to coding ...

Re:Stick to coding ..

[warmi]

It still doesn't change the fact the as soon as he got famous he moved to the place where "things happen". There is got to be a reason for that.

Re:Stick to coding ..

[warmi]

and one more thing ...
I was born in Europe, moved to US 8 years ago and, no , I don't watch TV ( I watch lot of video movies instead.) Your generalization is widely off the mark this time ...

Re:Stick to coding ..

[Anonymous Coward]

And your knowledge of Finland? How about the economy of Finland or related issues? I really think you should stick to watching TV. Have you ever been to Finland? I think you'd be mighty surprised. I was in Silicon Valley last year and I was surprised too - negatively. It really wasn't that special. Espoo in Finland is much closer than SV to what people *THINK* SV is like. Linus was right on. Compared to Finland, SV *IS* a third world country.

That's the point.

[Kierkan]

Protect every developer involved with the project. If the company wants a license other than GPL, they should pay all the "employees" that contributed.

Re:What would be done with Windoze source

[Eccles]

Probably number one on the list [of things to add to Windows] would be symbolic links

Note that Windows has symbolic links in a way, as you can create an alias to another directory. While this works in the File Open/Save dialogs for navigation, it has the unfortunate side-effect of replacing the file name with the link name which makes it a lot less useful than it could be.

Re:MS Open Source nonsense

[warmi]

In some areas NT is way ahead of any UNIX ...

GET THE (#&$@) NAME RIGHT!!!

[Deitheres]

Good God people, the name is LINUS not LINUX. One more time... L-I-N-U-S NOT L-I-N-U-X. Linux would be the very popular OS, whereas Linus would be the dude who created it.

--
Child: Mommy, where do .sig files go when they die?
Mother: HELL! Straight to hell!
I've never been the same since.

Re:GET THE (#&$@) NAME RIGHT!!!

[Deitheres]

I kind of had to. After about the 70th time it overloaded my brain =)

Charlie

--
Child: Mommy, where do .sig files go when they die?
Mother: HELL! Straight to hell!
I've never been the same since.

Re:GET THE (#&$@) NAME RIGHT!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm kinda glad someone said that :)

Finkployd

Re:What the hell?

[Bruce Perens]

Darren,

I think the point you are missing is that sun is asking for Community participation as there is with Linux, but they are not giving the community the same quid-pro-quo that they get with real Open Source software. So, people of that community have a right to say:

1. I am not going to work on this because I don't think the license offers us a good deal, and I don't think you should work on it either.

2. Hey, you out there who don't understand about Open Source but have been hearing about it! We want you to know this isn't the real thing!

The only reall difference between SCSL and GPL in this instance is that with the GPL you can go your own way and distribute it anyway [if Linus doesn't like your change].

I can't stress how important a difference that is. The right to change software without someone's approval can be abbreviated to "the right to change it", period. For Sun, it's a control thing - they can't stand the thought that Microsoft might participate in Open Source and make its own changes. This even though everyone else would have access to MS's changes in that case and could clone the good ones.

There's also the matter of circumvention. If I don't like what Red Hat is doing with some GPL software, I can circumvent them and distribute my own version, which I continually develop and for which Red Hat gets no money. When you work on SCSL software, you're essentially working for Sun - paycheck or none.

Sun sells hardware. They can afford for their software to be Open Source if they just keep making good hardware. They are going to control-freak themselves right out of the market if they keep on this course.

Thanks

Bruce

Re:It's all about politics..

[warmi]

You are completely out of line here dude ...
Linux is just a guy who knows how to write C code ... "STUPID GUY" was much much more than that.

Re:MS probably won't release it

[mistabobdobalina]

good point, wouldnt it be funny if they os'd pieces and someone found gpl code in there and they had to open the whole thing!

Re:MS Open Source nonsense

[warmi]

One sure way to get your Karma way down is to mention anything positive about NT. It works every time.

Re:talk is indeed cheap

[Rombuu]

Wouldn't your analogy be better suited to a plumbing supplier saying "Hey, all 1/2 PVC Plumbing Widgets 50% off"...

If you are a plumbing supply companys and that's your core competency, what are the odds you can write decent software anyway? If you are so good at writing software, why are you in the plumbing business in the first place? Now if you were writting some sort of "e-z plumbing ordering app" that was tied to your company's ordering system, I can see giving that to your customers, but if you open source it (or make it free) your competition can grab it, modify it, and use it, in which case, why did you do that in the first place?

Re:Seriously now..

[Bruce Perens]

That reply was funny and appropriate and should have been moderated higher.

Bruce

Re:This is a welcome change in Linus!

[Etyenne]

...or Solaris is un oeuvre (masterpiece). :)

You mean un chef-d'oeuvre. "Oeuvre" is the piece part of "masterpiece". "Chef" mean master, leader.

Anyway, this is getting off-topic. Sorry all, I could'nt resist.

Sure, but...

[Booker]

... I think he is right to criticize them for saying one thing, but doing another, in an effort to get some free publicity and/or damage a competitor.

I too am a firm believer that the author of a piece of work has the right to distribute it under any license they choose.

However, announcing to the world that you're going to open up your source - when the world is just finally learning what that means - but actually "opening" it in a very closed and restricted way - is disingenuous, and deserves criticism.

Re:Seriously now..

[caldroun]

Yet More Myths about Linux.

Linux Riot

[dattaway]

Wow. You just type that all in?

This is a riot in a more digestible format that may describe the fustration towards big evil software companies.

Re:What the hell?

[named]

He's not criticizing them for choosing their own license, he's criticizing them for choosing a not-so-open license and calling it open source.

slight difference, but important.

It's privately held

[aheitner]

"...his [Torvalds'] company..." is just an expression.

This is all speculation, of course: I'm sure they gave Linus a nice chunk of stock, but he doesn't own all of it or even a controlling interest. It doesn't seem to me he'd want one.

Paul Allen was a founder, right? He's prolly got a nice big chunk.

Re:It's privately held

[Anonymous Coward]

Linus' job is probably to talk nice to everybody and get them all to work together well.

That's his main redeeming value to the Linux kernel.

Re:It's privately held

[Anonymous Coward]

Linus' job is probably to talk nice to everybody and get them all to work together well.



That's his main redeeming value to the Linux kernel.

Re:It's privately held

[twit]

I don't think that he was a founder (IIRC, the guy who designed the UltraSPARC for Sun is), but he's certainly a funder :).

(Rather like the story of John Harvard and Harvard University, I guess, except they didn't name the shop after him.)

--

Sun's License Is Just Not Open Source

[Effugas]

People seem to be getting into this "good enough" attitude regarding whether Sun's Community Source License is open or not.

It Just Isn't, and here's why.

StarOffice, recently licensed under Sun's Community Source terms(so I've heard), possesses an excellent charting component. While the GD Library is good for many tasks, the charting component of StarOffice is clearly superior, and would be inordinately useful for the myriad Linux/Unix based web servers out there.

Unfortunately, Sun's license restricts any productive work from being done that could web-enable StarOffice on the server side. Apache could never be bundled with mod_starchart, and fellow coders can't put out their own, less memory hungry versions of the component.

The only thing Sun lets you do with StarOffice is fix problems for them, and if Sun doesn't want the problems fixed, the most you can do is release a bulky and semi-difficult to apply patch to repair it.

I believe they even end up owning your patch as well.

Now, StarOffice appears to be a very well put together app, and I don't want to slight it for its licensing terms. But the bottom line is: StarOffice is not Open Source. It's nothing like Open Source. Using the words "Community Source" is a cynical and slimy attempt to undermine the core advantages of the open model. While Sun is allowed to derive benefit from the community, the community is placed in a state of perpetual legal risk(and thus, extortable circumstance) should they do anything at all with the code beyond mailing in fixes.

Sun's License means no web charting component for you. It's that simple.

Yours Truly,

Dan Kaminsky
DoxPara Research
http://www.doxpara.com

Re:Sun's License Is Just Not Open Source

[IntlHarvester]

While Sun is allowed to derive benefit from the community, the community is placed in a state of perpetual legal risk

Did it occur to you that perhaps the "community" referred to in the Community Source Licence is not the same community that comprises the Linux/GNU user base? Just because they mention "community" and "source", there is no reason to make the egotistical leap that they are talking about the "Open Source Community".

There is a very large, and very valid community that can benefit from Sun's SCSL. Namely people who depend on Sun products and don't give a shit about redistribution or forking or winning the hearts and minds of Linux users. If that's not you, why should you care? Source for Solaris can mean bugfixes today and not when Sun gets around to it, allows more code optimization, makes it easier to write device drivers, and so on.

(Note - Same argument goes for those who flame Apple's source licence.)

Furthermore, you appear to be demanding that Sun should start giving away commercial software simply because it would be useful to you and others. Why pick on Sun's SCSL chart module? Why not demand the dozens of other commercial closed source chart programs (like MS Excel)? Are you trying to flame Sun until they GPL all of their software just because the SCSL makes them seem amenable?

Re:Sun's License Is Just Not Open Source

[IntlHarvester]

If this is the case then sun should stop deceiving people into thinking that this is open source. Whenever Sun talks to the press ...

You are going to have to provide a reference to prove that - I couldn't find one.

Sun's standard PR bit on SCSL says:

The CSL model is the result of Sun's continued commitment to the open development of key technologies, and is based on Sun's community source principles, which include immediate open access, increased innovation, faster commercialization, and access for students.

ZDNet (referenced by /. a few days ago) makes the comparision with Linux, but they're ZDNet, not Sun. They quote someone from Sun:

At the end of the day, the issue is how you allow innovation, but also have a reasonable process by which the community sticks together on the core as it evolves," said Anil Gadre, general manager of Sun's Solaris division.

Neither statement looks like an appeal for the support from Open Source (TM) advocates or developers. AFAIK, they didn't enlist Eric Raymond or make any appeals to Linux developers.

And, they will probably get some free labor, although it will be from commercial developers and hardware manufacturers, not the OSS crowd. Which makes sense, because by-in-large Sun doesn't make any money from the OSS crowd, so why should they care?

Re:Sun's License Is Just Not Open Source

[Malcontent]

If this is the case then sun should stop deceiving people into thinking that this is open source. Whenever Sun talks to the press they talk as if their licence is open source. Nobody is saying give me software for free what we are saying is. 1) stop lying to the press and the public. 2) Don't expect much from us.
I still think some people will end up working for sun for free but I don't think it will be many people at all

Re:Sun's License Is Just Not Open Source

[igjeff]

As I posted in an earlier thread, when they made the announcement of the purchase of Star Division (I watched some of it on their web site), they *explicitly* referred to the SCSL as "Open Source" with references to Linux and other popular (true) Open Source projects.

Jeff

Re:Sun's License Is Just Not Open Source

[warmi]

Oh, and you would love to have "charting component" available for free so you can make money using it without having to spend any. How convinient !

Everything costs money, how the hell do you think Linux/FreeBSD etc .. developers make living ? They work for companies producing various "charting components". GPL means death for software developers , no more highly paid jobs, software has no market value whatsoever etc.
How stupid one has to be not to realize this simple fact.

Retarded online banking ?

[hu]

Silicon Valley is supposed to be the center of the
universe when it comes to technology," he said. "It's a third-world country." Torvalds cited online banking, saying it's still a slow, and often paper-based, process.


On the other hand, he quipped, Finnish companies are working on advanced technology because "winters are long and dark. There's nothing else to do."

I dont know about online banking in Silicon Valley, but some of my friends were mighty amused when about 2 years ago they read the news that a major bank in Japan was first to launch continuous availability for its cash dispensers (meaning they are open 8-19 monday to friday :)


Here we were all used to the luxury of all major banks having 24/7 availability in that sector for several years already. The same for online banking.


And we are not even Finland but a 5 times smaller country (Estonia) next to it, that had been annected by Soviet Union from 1940-1990. (We do speak a language that is quite similar to Finnish though, and like them have near 100% literacy attributed most likely to not dubbing foreign movies but instead presenting the translations in written form in the lower part of picture ;)


I suspect that the announcemant by the Japanese bank was a little innacurate, but even the ability to make such a statement seemed to indicate some to some degree the state electronic banking.


It would be interesting to hear peoples comments on the state of online banking in both Americas, Europe and Asia.

Re:Retarded online banking ?

[twit]

The japanese case is probably because Japan has fallen behind North America and Europe when it comes to networking and the like. It's more a cultural thing than anything else; Japan does very well when it comes to other aspects of computing.

The world has quite a bit of variance when it comes to access to computing facilities - really, when it comes to telecom facilities at all. I recall seeing a map which showed that most of the world has only limited access to the internet - most of africa, for example, is UUCP-only. No doubt that's changed in the intervening years, but the problem remains that almost nobody is going to make money off wide availability of internet services to that part of the world, so you're unlikely to see it happen.

--

That's not the problem.

[FascDot Killed My Pr]

First, not everyone is criticizing Sun because they aren't open. They are criticizing Sun because they IMPLYING they are open ("Community License", indeed) when they really aren't.

Second, why can't I criticize Sun's choice of license? They are a business providing a product. If I don't like the product I am free to explain why. Example: You buy a car from GM and it turns out they covered the interior body with cheap plastic that cracked a few years after the purchase date. Would you say "he who makes the car picks the interior body design"? Or would you complain about poor manufacturing?
---

Re:to clarify:

[C.Lee]

>BSD licenses are trying to create a sort of Software Title Deed. Much >like there is no license forcing me to reveal the workings of an

Wrong. BSD licenses are the software industry effort at creating an sweatshop enviroment. Take a real good look at the attitudes and statements of the die-hard anti-GPL element and explain how they are any diffrent from the people running the sweatshops. They pretty much aren't.

Re:To Hack or not to Hack

[IntlHarvester]

(A) I don't play games, so I can't and didn't say what's better.
(B) Microsoft can't force game companies to do anything. Do you really think John Carmack cares what MS's policy is? Windows games are attractive because the burden of writing device drivers is off the game developers' backs.
(C) You can't spell idiot. Nice try.

Re:What the hell?

[Anonymous Coward]

There is no "official" Linux kernel. Linus' fork is most popular for both respect for his tech cred and sentimental reasons. If I consistently did a better job, mine would become the fork everyone looks to.

If you want me to maintain your code, my price is letting me improve others' code (including my own) by incorporating yours. If Sun's license forbids that, then you're right - I really don't care whether they publish their source or not, because all it'll do is distract a few people from doing more useful (reusable) work. But if they ever slip up and call it "Open" again, they will get flamed for misleading people.

Re:to clarify:

[Anonymous Coward]

it doesn't change the fact that what that company built on is still out there, and available for free!

But the company wants to add to the amount of proprietary garbage out there we have to deal with. Since I don't want that to happen, I refuse to let my labor be stolen to give them aid and comfort.

to clarify:

[sh_mmer]

i wrote:

by comparison, the GPL restricts companies from developing software based on GPL stuff and selling it--even if consumers would readily pay for it. please learn that it is not always that what is good for companies is bad for people!

--end quote--

okay, this is a mis-statement--fine. what i mean is that a company cannot build on a GPL thing and then claim that they own the final product. why not? it doesn't change the fact that what that company built on is *still* out there, and available for free!

Re:to clarify:

[Rares Marian]

BSD licenses are trying to create a sort of Software Title Deed. Much like there is no license forcing me to reveal the workings of an improved muffler I created by fooling with parts from the car I OWN, I shouldn't have to reveal the source to my changes to code.

Problem: Hardware is material and visible. Software is invisible. The only thing that might inhibit one person from tweaking their car is a lack of training.

There's a heck of a lot more obstacles to software. Think about how newbies blame the computer (or rarther the case, or the keyboard or the monitor even) when we would know it was the OS that was broken.

Until that gap is crossed, the BSD isn't going to achieve anywhere near the Bell curve in results.

Besides what final product? No company would ever say this is the last version of our software you'll ever need...

Seriously though, it is not the company who should own the final product but the person WHO PAID FOR it.

About Finland

[haggar]

Well, I live in Finland since almost one year, and I have entered a bank only when I opened my account. I have NEVER filled out a check, or any other sort of paper. I pay, of course, all my bills online. BTW. MANY other things can be done online, and actually, WITH YOUR MOBILE PHONE!
Well, on the other hand, I bet my colleagues in The Valley make much more money than me, so they can take the inconvenience of not having these services :o)

Re:About Finland

[Anonymous Coward]

Pay via mobile phone? Yow, is that secure? I wouldn't even consider dialing my ATM PIN into my cell phone, much less account numbers.

Re:About Finland

[mcol1]

Using a mobile phone is secure because transfers in the Finnish system are authenticated with one time passwords.

Re:sun's community licence and GPL

[Anonymous Coward]

People are also free to sell GPL software, as long as they also provide a free version.

That statement doesn't really make sense. The GPL doesn't allow a proprietary (non-free) version - all the copyright holders could collectively agree to provide the same code under another license, but nobody else has that right. You can charge as much as you like for binaries but you must distribute their source at cost.

Re:Why Open Source?

[Anonymous Coward]

If your business currently depends on selling licenses to use the software rather than selling the labor you put into writing it, obviously you need to take what profits you can before that business model becomes obsolete.

MS Open Source nonsense

[gjt]

What's MS going to open source? The dir command?

Re:MS Open Source nonsense

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, NT is way ahead of any UNIX in the number of crashes per year.

Re:MS Open Source nonsense

[arcum]

My guess would be the whole of DOS(it is part of Windows, after all...), since Microsoft recently showed their awareness of the FreeDos project... from FreeDos's home page,Oct 5th: Brent Metzler wrote: Cool, what a coincidince. FreeDOS has its own forum on MSN Jim Hall adds: Now that's recognition from the big boys! In Microsoft's own words: "DOS is still a viable choice for millions of computers worldwide and FreeDOS offers an alternative to commercial DOS operating systems."

Re:Lack of Imagination

[Anonymous Coward]

Officers of a corporation have a duty to earn profits for the stockholders - they can be sued if they don't act towards that goal. A proprietorship that doesn't often make a profit (three years out of five in the US, I think) is a hobby. No shame in that, but calling it a "company" is misleading.

Re:Multi Media

[ecampbel]

Hidden API's are not going to make their Windows Media player any better. It is all about the compression and streaming technology they use. Microsoft's current Media Player is good because they purchased all the best players in the streaming world, and utilized their technology to produce a superior product. While you can argue that this isn't fair, it is a different problem than them having superiour access to Window's source code. Hell, the product is even available on the Macintosh, and they DO NOT have access to Apple's source code.

talk is indeed cheap

[barooo]

Talk is indeed cheap, but since open source or free software don't fit anywhere in traditional business models (not only are they not a piece in the box with the other jigsaw puzzle pieces, they're in another aisle completely. Maybe even a different store), it's a rational response from corporations. Rational -> Right is not necessarily true.

Maybe in a few years, if genuine openness proves (as many here think it will) to be a profitable, genuine business model, then corporations will start to come around. If not, expect them to follow the money. What else can they do?

Re:talk is indeed cheap

[Anonymous Coward]

Charging for copies would be crazy. Get the plumbing suppliers to pool their money and hire you to write and publish the app.

Re:talk is indeed cheap

[barooo]

The crucial point you make is that what is really not so clear to businesses is that open source can be a viable product of a business.

I'd say it's obvious that viable business models for free software exist (the support model (ala redhat) being the most obvious and oft-discussed). But, these models are radically different for models used in the software industry, and must look somewhat alien to a microsoft or a sun (witness the "community source license"), when they think of the software itself as being their core asset.

Until it becomes obvious, through prior example, that a company can thrive as a company that produces software, and be compliant with all the principles of Open Source software, few big companies with a vested interest in the proprietary/ownership model are going to do anything other than posture and try to 'jump on the bandwagon.'

I see the trend as moving towards software as a service/commodity rather than as a product. That's probably not exactly a blinding revelation. But with examples like redhat, IBM, mozilla and such, it should become more apparant to the corporate mindset that this idea can work.

Re:talk is indeed cheap

[Rombuu]

Take, for example, a company that sells plumbing supplies wholesale, and provides Free software to its customers to manage specialized plumbing equipment inventory. If you were a plumbing supplies retailer, the availability of this software and its acceptance by said company adds to the value of the proposition of purchasing and managing your supplies from this corporation.

If you are adding value for someone else, and not charging for it, then you are an idiot. Yes, I know free means you can charge for it, yada yada yada, this leads to the correlary: If there is free software out there and you pay for it, you are also an idiot.

Re:talk is indeed cheap

[core-e]

If you are adding value for someone else, and not charging for it, then you are an idiot.

Does the term loss leader not ring any bells here? The McDonalds of the world use it all the time... "come in and have a Big Mac for $1" it's the drinks and fries they make the profit on. So if your core profit base is derived from selling plumbing supplies, then why not lead with a "free" software product?

Re:talk is indeed cheap

[sterwill]

This isn't true. Open Source software (in a GPL-sense, even) fits perfectly well with many, many existing business models. Open Source software as a product of business does not fit with existing proprietary software business.

Free software (Open Source products) may or may not generate revenue directly (consulting is just one established business model in which Free software can pay the bills), but that doesn't mean that it can't make existing services or products more attractive. Take, for example, a company that sells plumbing supplies wholesale, and provides Free software to its customers to manage specialized plumbing equipment inventory. If you were a plumbing supplies retailer, the availability of this software and its acceptance by said company adds to the value of the proposition of purchasing and managing your supplies from this corporation. The fact that this software is Free allows this company's customers to tailor and customize it for point-of-sale workstations, integration with payroll or other inventory systems, etc.

Red Hat is an example of a company that exists in that orthogonal world, as you mentioned. But to say Free software does not fit anywhere in "traditional business models" is ignoring centuries' traditions of marketing, customer relations, and a services-driven economy.

--

Re:What the hell?

[IntlHarvester]

The Linux source might be GPL but at the end of the day if Linus or his advisors don't like the changes you suggest it won't get into the official kernel.

True, but many Linux vendors don't ship an 'official' kernel and instead fork it with add-ons that Linus hasn't gotten around to including yet. (e.g. ISDN and NFS fixes)

One thing I have noticed reading linux-kernel is that the development process is only 'open' to those coming with working code. That is, bug reports and feature requests are usually ignored unless there is a patch attached to the message. (Fine, because linux-kernel is about engineering, not marketing.) Commercial vendors, on the other hand, have mechinisms in place for bug reports and 'enhancement requests'. However, such reports typically disappear into a black hole from a user perspective - there is very little feedback until a fixlist emerges for the new version.

Sun is embarking on an opportunity take the advantages of both open source and commercial development practices. However, if Solaris patches disappear into the same black hole as enhancement requests, it's not going to work.

I would hope that (1) Sun starts an open list, similar to linux-kernel, to discuss Solaris development issues and review patches, and (2) there is an open central repository where users can download submitted patches. (Similar to the way Linux users get access to 'unapproved' stuff like ISDN or NFS.) Even if someone can't redistribute "MacMillian Solaris", if users have to wait for Sun's blessing to get access to patches, it's not going to work.

What's to dodge?

[Anonymous Coward]

He actually mentioned in a presentation I attended last year that Transmeta would be manufacturing processors last year. No surprises.

Re:What's to dodge?

[Anonymous Coward]

s/last year\.//

Re:Why Open Source?

[ptor]

If Redhat were selling a closed product, then I doubt I'd have much interest in buying it. I doubt others would be as interested either. It wouldn't be as valuable to me.

... On Anonymous Posts

[Anonymous Coward]

You say:

If you won't log in, I won't read your comments. Anonymity is for cowards.

Anonymity is hardly an issue of being a coward. Anonymity fosters unbiased reactions from the slashdot community. If a woman posts a comment, the reaction is often different than if the same comment is posted by a male. If a gay person posts a comment, the reaction is often different than one posted by a heterosexual. If a christian posts a comment, the reaction is often different than one posted by an atheist. Anonymity is a sign of freedom. In a free society, we care not what your race, religion, sexual preference, or name is. We only care if you express yourself freely. And that is the purpose of slashdot.

Re:... On Anonymous Posts

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, identity is for bigots. If you don't judge messages by their ideas, why are you wasting your time on reading?

Right On Linus!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Right on Brother Linus!!

Re:yeah

[penguinboy]

I hate it when companies release stuff under pseudo-open licenses ( like SCSL). Idiots think the compaines are heroic, but it's a joke.

The Original Tux Daddy

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean: Go tux daddy! Go!

Sun's License Is Just Not Open Source

[Effugas]

People seem to be getting into this "good enough" attitude regarding whether Sun's Community Source License is open or not.

It Just Isn't, and here's why.

StarOffice, recently licensed under Sun's Community Source terms(so I've heard), possesses an excellent charting component. While the GD Library is good for many tasks, the charting component of StarOffice is clearly superior, and would be inordinately useful for the myriad Linux/Unix based web servers out there.

Unfortunately, Sun's license restricts any productive work from being done that could web-enable StarOffice on the server side. Apache could never be bundled with mod_starchart, and fellow coders can't put out their own, less memory hungry versions of the component.

The only thing Sun lets you do with StarOffice is fix problems for them, and if Sun doesn't want the problems fixed, the most you can do is release a bulky and semi-difficult to apply patch to repair it.

I believe they even end up owning your patch as well.

Now, StarOffice appears to be a very well put together app, and I don't want to slight it for its licensing terms. But the bottom line is: StarOffice is not Open Source. It's nothing like Open Source. Using the words "Community Source" is inappropriate at best; their license unfortunately undermines the core advantages of the open model. While Sun is allowed to derive benefit from the community, the community is placed in a state of perpetual legal risk(and thus, extortable circumstance) should they do anything at all with the code beyond mailing in fixes.

Sun's License means no web charting component for you. It's that simple.

Yours Truly,

Dan Kaminsky
DoxPara Research
http://www.doxpara.com

sun's community licence and GPL

[sh_mmer]

guys, the slashdot community is not so huge that they can dictate what it means for something to be 'open source'. some of you may think that it is not enough for a company to merely publish their code. for you, they must give up all of their rights to the intellectual property which they paid for the development of. this is truly disingenuous.

by comparison, the GPL restricts companies from developing software based on GPL stuff and selling it--even if consumers would readily pay for it. please learn that it is not always that what is good for companies is bad for people!

Re:sun's community licence and GPL

[Anonymous Coward]

uhh no , if that were true you wouldn't see products like RedHat, Suse or any other distribution. You are free to charge for GPL'd software, you merely have to abide by the terms of the GPL. Try reading the license. If Sun or some other company wants to publish their source , more power to them. If they want to gain the advantages of open source and join the community of open source as defined by GNU/Linux advocates thats even better. -Cheers

Re:sun's community licence and GPL

[Anonymous Coward]

You miss the point. If opening the code is for nothing more than trying to con people into creating free bug fixes, then it isn't open at all. Sun can choose whatever license they want, just don't pretend it is something it isn't. Further, your claim that the GPL "restricts companies from developing software based on GPL stuff and selling it" demonstrates that you really don't get the GPL. The GPL prevents companies from taking GPL'ed code, making modifications and then selling it back =without the source=. If what you claim was true, then Red Hat wouldn't be selling $80 boxes of Linux.

Re:sun's community licence and GPL

[Anonymous Coward]

Companies don't have to give up their IP rights, but some companies (ie. Sun) are claming IP rights to other people's code. They can use any license that they want, but they shouldn't be surprised when nobody is contributing code. If I write code for an open source program, I don't want someone else saying thay they own it and taking away *my* rights. The point of open source software is to allow everyone to contribute, without any one person/company being in control.

People are also free to sell GPL software, as long as they also provide a free version. Customers can pay for it if they want (Haven't you ever seen a boxed set of Linux in a store?).

MS probably won't release it

[battery841]

I don't see MS releasing the Windows source code for two reasons. Although, they go hand in hand.
1) They have those precious secret API's which they use. I don't know if they'd want that out.
2) It wouldn't surprize me if MS ripped code from other companies (Apple, etc.). If they opened up the OS, then they would be saying 'WE COPIED CODE!!!'

Re:What the hell?

[Exanter]

Sure, maybe. But for him to legitmately do that, there has to be a clearly defined and industry accepted meaning of open source. Otherwise, that term will go the way of "hacker", and pretty soon won't mean anything.

And that still doesn't take care of the peons who are criticizing sun not for calling it "open source" (have they done that?), but for the license not being open enough...

Open source is not an end in itself

[Anonymous Coward]

Not all software needs to be open source, and a lot of it would get zero attention from anyone in the "open source community" even if it were. If a piece of software is a part of the operating system then it must be open source software or there can't be a level playing field for commercial companies. If you think open source software is something that has some thread of ethical or moral content, then consider yourself a "fringe" element of the open source movement. The main thrust of this movement is driven by the commercial requirement that no one company be able to control the means to the success of any other company. We are all aware of the danger to everyone from one company controlling all of the marbles. Even if the company is as great and benevolent as they would have you believe. Before you get all wet about some company releasing open source software, figure out whether or not the software they are offering is important for the correct operation of other parts of the system. If not, then who cares? If so, then don't be fooled by some bull.... open source license which is just a trick to squeeze themselves into your wallet.

Re:Open source is not an end in itself

[Anonymous Coward]

The main thrust of this movement is driven by the commercial requirement that no one company be able to control the means to the success of any other company.

What utopian little flower-land did you grow up in?

I mean, really. That isn't a commercial requirement. It never has been a commercial requirement.

It may be the "main thrust" of whatever movement you're ranting about. Whatever.

Well..

[Kitsune Sushi]

"That MS guy" doesn't work there. He helped fund the founding of the company IIRC. Not exactly the same thing. Linus Torvalds, however, is indeed an employee.

If you're really interested in finding out all you can about Transmeta, I'd imagine doing a search on Google or Slashdot for "Transmeta" would give you a good amount of information. Personally, I'd choose the latter. You can read all the "relavent" articles and see all the wild-eyed speculation, as well.

Re:To Hack or not to Hack

[Anonymous Coward]

If you ever see hack with a negative connotation, it's probably being misused.

Re:Linus forgot Apple

[joannak]

IMHO they shoud first give away reasonable data
of they G4 machines for operating system porters.
After that, perhaps I would consider 'em OS

Re:His remark about finland is so true!

[Razorblade]

Finland isn't a third-world country. Finland is first-world country, and has been for a long time. If you call Finland a third-world country, you might as well say that Sweden and Canada are third-world countries. It would be very hard to say that Finland is a second-world country.

Microsoft can...

[rcooper]

As far as I'm concerned Microsoft can keep their bloated, unreliable source code. If they somehow think the open source community will embrace their code I think they are sadly mistaken IMO. At anyrate, who really wants to work with MS buggy code when we have Linux. I can see MS open sourcing some crappy code just to take away developers from Linux or Free BSD etc. Yeah right, when pigs have wings and fly.

Re:Microsoft can...

[Anonymous Coward]

...but if I had the source to Excel 97, I could beef up that great flight simulator...

Re:Japanese ATMS -- not quite that bad

[twit]

You can get bankbook updaters in Canada, too. :) They're not uncommon, at least in major centers (I live and work in Toronto).

--

Re:To Hack or not to Hack

[UnknownSoldier]

> but even to this day people choose backwards compatiblity and games over a superior OS.

Partially true. Developers have wanted MS to release the FULL hardware accelleration of DirectX on NT for YEARS, but MS refuses to. It is only recently that they will on NT 5, aka Windows 2000. Don't even get me started on the HUGE OpenGL vs Direct3D debate from just a few years back.

Could it be because they are milking the customer base with Win95 OSR 2 (ala Windows 96), Win98, and Win98 SE (ala Windows 99) and laughing all the way to the bank? Hmm, we seem to reached the same conclusion!

Hopefully Windows 2000 will put an end to this peice of crud called Windows 9x once and for all.
At least DirectX7 is NOT intentionally backwards compatible with DX3 D3D. Die Executive Buffers, Die ! ;-)

Cheers

Re:Why Open Source?

[FunkyChild]

I agree somewhat. Although Open Source can be a great business model for certain companies in appropriate situations, it is not perfect for everyone. While a lot of people quote the age old examples of Redhat selling docs and support, or hardware companies selling hardware with Open Source drivers/software etc, that is not the extent of all software development.

Not all software development is intended for big commercial use (in which case the companies buying the product would *need* the security of support etc.) Not all software is so complex that it *needs* support or docs. With smaller software projects, it is much easier to copy a piece of software, than if it had a huge code base, leaving the person producing the software and trying to sell it in a shaky position.

Open Source is not for everyone, although great for some, so stop criticising people for doing what THEY want to do with THEIR code which is a by-product of THEIR invested capital into R&D etc.

If I'm wrong, please feel free to correct me with facts.

Supply and Demand vs. Inertia and Stupidity

[twit]

I doubt that Silicon Valley is on a totally different banking system than the rest of America (where people who don't know better are legion). If SV is, feel free to disregard my comment.

The main problem for direct billing systems - well, the main problems - are twofold.

First, we have the problem of liability. Banks, especially banks, have to know who's going to pay if something goes wrong. They like to divide up and preferably cap liability before such a system goes into operation. Bear in mind that many large organizations, such as banks, self-insure (that is, rather than pay a certain amount of money to an insurer, they are big enough to merely set money aside and act as their own insurer), and that increases the stakes.

Second, we have the problem of incompetence. Most software projects are failures to some extent - nearly a third get trashed because they don't satisfy spec, or the direction of the corp changes, or they're just plain not used. This doesn't mean that online banking services isn't a possibility, but you don't want to fail while doing this kind of thing. In other words, it's likely that online banking will remain in beta for half of forever.

To the second point you can add the observation that the cheque-clearing and banking laws in the US drastically and desperately need rationalization - there are few provisions for banks with no physical presence to operate in an arbitrary state. But YMMV.

--

What would be done with Windoze source

[spitzak]

Seriously, if Windoze was really open, like they gave out all the source necessary so that you could compile something that would run any Windoze applications, I would expect that very quickly this source would be modified to add missing Unix functionality.

Probably number one on the list would be symbolic links, and a scheme so that the filename "/A/" means the same as "A:/".

fork() (merged with their threads)

Removal of the case-insensitive filenames, or at least a hack so that files with different cases can exist at the same time and the closest match to a typed is used.

Fix libc so that writing text files does not insert CR characters (reading them can still strip them for back-compatability).

There are probably dozens of others. All little things that MicroSoft has put in there purposely to make it difficult to port software back and forth. The result would not be Unix, but it would make the system play nice with Unix and still run Windoze programs.

Qt is not under a half free license anymore

[Anonymous Coward]

The QPL is considered free by RMS, ESR, etc... and meets the OSD guidelines.

I don't think that's what Linus meant.

[CRConrad]

"FascDot Killed My Pr" writes:

"I HATE direct bill pay systems. There's no way in hell I'm letting Vast Conglomerate A ask Vast Bank B for some of my money."

Where does it say Linus was talking about "direct bill pay systems"?

I think it was something else entirely he meant: Easy bill paying in ATM-like machines. Once you've pushed in your ATM card and validated it with your PIN code, follow the easy on-screen prompts and type in the recieving account number, amount, optional reference number for the receiver's bookkeeping, and desired payment day. Of course the account number is translated into the account holder's name on the next screen, and there's a quick-select "immediately" option for the date, stuff like that. And even better: All that is encoded in a printed bar code on most bills, so you just hold it in front of the machine's bar code reader, check that what the machine thinks it read is what it says on the bill, and press OK.

Sure, I suppose stuff like that exists in America too -- now. But in Finland, they've had stuff like that since well before I moved here. Something like a DECADE, I think, perhaps more. The things are on every damn street corner, like ATMs.

Now isn't *that* being "ahead of Silicon Valley" on the technology curve?


Christian R. Conrad
MY opinions, not my employer's - Hedengren, Finland.

Linus forgot Apple

[Prop]

I think Linus forgot to mention Apple's half-hearted attempt at Open Source.

Sure, they open sourced part of their attempt at a me-too modern OS, but it's only to try to leverage some free work from the community. It's obvious that there's no real commitment to the Open Source principles.

If Apple wants to get taken seriously, they should release something unique and ground-breaking, like QuickTime 4 and QuickTimeVR.

It's obvious

[Anonymous Coward]

KDE and Troll tech help linux so Linus supports it, Sun is releasing Solaris under their community license so he trashes it. It has nothing to do with ideals, it's purely a business move. The issue with TT is null now anyways since it's free software. That will never happen with Solaris.

this was before the qpl

[vipw]

the time frame was a fair time before qt2.0

Why no direct billpay in SV

[FascDot Killed My Pr]

Disclaimer: I don't live or work in Silicon Valley, but I AM a programmer at a bank.

Here's the reason SV doesn't have the advanced banking tech: because programmers know better.

I HATE direct bill pay systems. There's no way in hell I'm letting Vast Conglomerate A ask Vast Bank B for some of my money. Trying to fix a problem would combine the worst aspects of dealing with a teller and calling tech support. There would be no way of fixing it short of closing the account--and even then I probably would never see that one payment again.

I ALWAYS opt for the "bill me" or "check only" option. If there is no such option, I do without the service. If I can't do without the service (cf. my recent cable modem purchase) I keep bugging the company by asking when I can stop the auto-debiting.
---

Re:Why no direct billpay in SV

[Jamie Zawinski]

Here's the reason SV doesn't have the advanced banking tech: because programmers know better.

Well, but it does, because all these banks are national. There's nothing special about SV.

But anyway, I think it's safe to say that no large company's business decisions are ever influenced by reasons like ``because the programmers know better.'' You must work at a very unusual place if that's how they operate there.

I HATE direct bill pay systems. There's no way in hell I'm letting Vast Conglomerate A ask Vast Bank B for some of my money.

Who says you have to let them ask? Instead of letting the recipient pull, you instruct your bank to periodically push. That way you only have one vast conglomerate capable of screwing you over (and it's one who already had the capability to screw you over anyway, since they already have all of your money.)

Re:Why no direct billpay in SV

[FascDot Killed My Pr]

I'm not saying Bank of America looked at SV and said "Man, you can't pull the wool over the eyes of them smart programmer dudes, let's don't even try to scam them with automatic billpay". I'm saying that programmers in SV, being smart and mroe to the point-knowledgeable, have largely opted to not USE the automatic billpay, meaning banks (and vendors, don't forget vendors) don't offer it anymore (if they ever did).

As for push versus pull: True, it cuts down on the NUMBER of companies doing the screwing, but it still increases the chances that a screwing will occur. If every transaction against my account MUST pass through my hands to get posted, I have a lot more control and information.

Let's put it this way: I don't weld the hood down on my software, my car or my bank accounts.
---

Re:Why no direct billpay in SV

[Anonymous Coward]

You're fooling yourself. Using paper checks doesn't get you away from EFT and, worse, it increases your reliance on the USPS. Banks use the same check clearing house to transfer funds that electronic bill paying services use. Did you really think that your payee's bank hand-carried and verified delivery of your check to your bank? Using EFT minimizes the intervention of human stupidity in your funds transfer.

Re:Why no direct billpay in SV

[Gregg M]

If every transaction against my account MUST pass through my hands to get posted, I have a lot more control and information.

What make you think that transactions must go thru you? What if I had your check number, and a printer? Don't even talk about signatures. You really don't have any control.

Long Live OSS!!

[Anonymous Coward]

We will all be truely thankful when Open Source has eliminated all other forms of software. This would indeed be a Great Step Forward for choice.

A sense of history....

[FascDot Killed My Pr]

If you think open source software is something that has some thread of ethical or moral content, then consider yourself a "fringe" element of the open source movement. The main thrust of this movement is driven by the commercial requirement that no one company be able to control the means to the success of any other company.

How soon we forget! The Open Source movement (note capital letters) is the fringe movement to the Free Software Foundation that was started 15 years ago. The main thrust of which is decidedly not about protecting companies from one another.

Before you get all wet about some company releasing open source software, figure out whether or not the software they are offering is important for the correct operation of other parts of the system. If not, then who cares?

I care. Even if there is some software the the "other parts of the system" aren't affected by, I will be affected by non-correct operation. Therefore I want every piece of software I use to be open source.
---

Re:leave linux alone

[Anonymous Coward]

He probably doesn't know stuff about Transmeta.

Does anybody seriously think Linus is high-ranking in that company? Hell, he's a good hacker, but Transmeta could probably get the best benefit for having him on the payroll from keeping him out in a plexiglass case in the lobby.

Re:torvalds retiring?

[CommanderTaco]

You know what I meant... (too used to typing in linux at that lilo prompt)... the first line of the story claimed linus is retiring, something I haven't heard before.

If he helped fund it

[aheitner]

He probably owns a nice piece of it. Making it very much "his" company.

Re:MS OS

[Anonymous Coward]

Now don't be picking on Netscape.

They're doing bad enough as it is...

Heh

[mattc]

Don't you mean Doctor Torvalds? :-)

Re:What the hell?

[Wentley]

True, but many Linux vendors don't ship an 'official' kernel and instead fork it with add-ons that Linus hasn't gotten around to including yet.

I can testify to my direct experience with this.

I used to try to run Red Hat (back in the 5.1 era) and always jokingly said I "ran RedHat for about the first fifteen minutes after an install" because I'd rip out their modular scheme and plug in a monolithic kernel tuned to the hardware I had.

One of the things I discovered quickly was that the RedHat Kernel Source had default settings radically different from a stock kernel that you can download from places like kernel.org. For the brief period of time I ran SuSE it was even worse. There seemed to be modifications to the config script (when you ran 'make menuconfig' that just plain refused to let you make certain changes.

My experience is that the "distributors" crowbar the kernel source in ways I don't approve of.

okay, Bruce...

[sh_mmer]

you know what--i never saw sun even saying that they were 'open sourcing' their code, or that they were going to make it 'open source TM' compliant. only that they were publishing their code under their own licence. if 'community source' sounds too close to 'open source', too bad.

hey, i'm all for linux, and open source. but i do find it sad that such a popular licence, the GPL, isn't actually freely redistributable. i know that some other (let's leave them unnamed) licences are. it just means that there will be less high-quality commercial software out there for me to use on my linux box.

cheers

-sh_mmer

Re:What if MS opened Windows source??

[Ded Bob]

If MS opens Windows, I will have to assume Hell froze over. :)

That's rediculous

[Bruce Perens]

Nope, I don't believe this. Linus is not that kind of person - he's an honest, ethical guy who cares most about Linux being the best-written operating system. He's not a business person, and he doesn't work for a Linux company.

And I'm not writing off the chance of Solaris, Java, etc., going fully Open Source. It's not really in Sun's own best interest to hold back, they'll eventually realize that.

Bruce

Re:It's all about politics..

[Anonymous Coward]

Linux is just a guy who knows how to write C code ...

Linux is not a guy, it is an operating system.

GPL does not mean non-commercial!!

[gblues]

I see a lot of posts from people seeing GPL equated with free (as in free beer). They seem to have the idea that because the license requires you to distribute source, that it also requires you to give up intellectual property or that you cannot charge money for the program.

This simply is not the case. First, let's look at intellectual property.

Let's say you develop a whiz-bang Unreal-killing 3d engine, and decide to GPL it. Now you might be thinking, how do you prevent people from looking at the source and writing their own engine? Well, you don't. Of course, if they want to put in the time/effort to write their own engine from scratch, more power to them. By the time they finish their engine, yours will be obsolete anyway. If they actually decide to use your GPLed engine, you have two possible sources of income:

Sell them a closed license

Consultant fees for support of the engine

Now, for the myth that you cannot charge money for GPL software.

Well, Redhat seems to be doing okay charging $85 for a Redhat distro on CD. You can even take their distro, customize the default options/packages, rename it to BlueFez, and sell it yourself (or give it away!).

Sure, maybe nobody would shell out $50 for Enlightenment. But, they might shell out $50 for Enligtenment, printed manuals, 24/7 technical support, and an automated update utility. It's all in the value you provide along with the GPL'ed software that will determine wether people will buy it or not. In other words, it is market forces, not anything inherent in the GPL, that will limit what you can charge for GPL software.

Just remember: It's Free as in ideas, not as in free beer.

Nathan

Re:This is a welcome change in Linus!

[Foaf]

I've always agreed with Linus' "you write it you license it" idea. To me KDE is an app that runs on top of an OS like mySQL, Oracle, BRU or CDE.

I've never considered it a Linux component at all, especially since it will run quite nicely on BSD, Solaris or even HP-UX (according to the FAQ).

I guess this could lead to a rehash of "where does an OS begin/end" argument. Great fun to discuss but pretty irrelevant in the end.
-------------------------------------------- -----------

This is a welcome change in Linus!

[Bruce Perens]

Remember the Linus of the bad old days when Qt had a non-OSD-compliant license? The Linus who said "whoever writes the code gets to make the license" and seemed to be mostly unconcerned regarding whether or not some Linux component would be Free Software or not?

Well, I like today's Linus a lot more than the old one.

Am I alone in percieving a change? Would anyone like to speculate on what brought it about?

Thanks

Bruce

Re:This is a welcome change in Linus!

[Bruce Perens]

But the old Qt license was "free but not free enough" too, so I am seeing a different reaction to a similar situation. I agree that Sun is attempting to blur the boundary between Open Source and non-Open-Source.

Honest proprietary software that doesn't represent itself as something it isn't and doesn't use strategies that block the creation of an Open Source equivalent is nicer than non-Open-Source software representing itself as Open Source.

Actually, I'm trying to get to have an argument with Bill Joy. There's someone who knows him and is trying to arrange that. Scott McNeally can come after Bill Joy.

Thanks

Bruce

Re:This is a welcome change in Linus!

[nas]

Well, they can use whatever license they like. However, the choice of license determines how useful the code will be. In the case of Sun's license, I don't see to many people spending effort to improve Solaris. Their effort is much better spend contributing to Linux or *BSD.

Getting the benefits of open source (free) software does not come by just letting people look at your source code. It is about giving up some control over your code. Big companies like Sun and Microsoft will have a hard time with this idea.

I am happy to see Linus pointing out how free these new licenses really are. The general public could be mislead into believing that if Sun releases the code to Solaris then there is no difference between Linux and Solaris, freedom wise.

Re:This is a welcome change in Linus!

[Etyenne]

...mean that Solaris is libre. (ouvre?)

You mean ouvert, open.

Re:This is a welcome change in Linus!

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, I'm trying to get to have an argument with Bill Joy.

They're usually called "debates", to avoid the negative connotations with the word "argument".

Re:This is a welcome change in Linus!

[chromatic]

I'm not so sure it's a change.

I tend to think of this Linus as the one who says "Whoever writes the code gets to make the license" followed by "but shouldn't lie about the license terms in order to capitalize on the hard work lots of people have already done to make the World A Better Place." The second part just wasn't necessary before.

At least, that's my understanding of what he said. I don't speak for Linus Torvalds or my employers or many other people.

As a side note, maybe you ought to call up Scott MacNealy and remind him that being able to look at some source code doesn't necessarily mean that Solaris is libre. (ouvre?)

--
QDMerge 0.4 just released!

Re:This is a welcome change in Linus!

[Fnkmaster]

I'm glad somebody else noted this too. My speculation would be that Linux has gained so much popular recognition, that Linus has come to the realization this recognition is not just there due to the technical merits of the Linux kernel, but due to the general merits of Open Source (Free) software. Moreover, I think the attempts of some companies to pass off as Open Source entirely non-OSD software are a fairly new phenomenon, which comes directly from the popularity and PR value of Free/Open Source software and Linux. Linus still may not feel to different than he did before, but may simply take offense at people claiming to be something they are not, and jumping on the bandwagon in such a way as to make the bandwagon tip over. On the other hand, who knows, maybe working at Transmeta has done something to the man's brain. :)

Re:This is a welcome change in Linus!

[chromatic]

Bruce, you're spot-on right. The only explanation I can offer is that Sun is a Bigger Deal than Troll Tech. If a big proprietary vendor with a nice Unix (admittedly a loss leader for nicer hardware) can open things up a little bit, that's a validation of what we believe in (that the bazaar is better than the cathedral in certain circumstances), that is a major achievement. To find out that it isn't really the case, but rather a marketing-type of move... well, that smarts more than having to use lesstif or GTK.

That, and a lot of us are kinda disappointed with Java and standards.

--
QDMerge 0.4 just released!

Re:This is a welcome change in Linus!

[cdlu]

...or Solaris is un oeuvre (masterpiece). :)

Why Open Source?

[m3000]

I'm just asking for flames by posting this, but I'm curious, why would a company want to go open source? I mean, a company is ONLY in existence to make money, and if it happens to be a software company (let's say Microsoft for some interesting "discussion" hehehe) that's means their cheif product is software. How do you intended to make more money, by giving out something for free? Yes, you can make money with support, but why not make money with support AND software? Or say I make "Really nify program 2000". I could
A: Give it out for free and have other people improve it
or
B: Sell it for X dollars and go buy some new computer hardware.
I personally would take the computer hardware anyday. Sure, my software could get better, but I'll remain poor. I know that some of you will say that I should code because I like to code, but I like to eat too. Am I selfish, probally, but I think most of the world is too. Another example, Red Hat. Yes, they are succesfull, but think about if they weren't open source, and made you buy their "Red Hatix". Then they could get even more money then they did by just selling "Red Hatix" to people who were new to "Red Hatix". I guess I just don't understand why someone would OS their software, when they could sell it. I think it's this thinking that keeps most companies from going Open Source, they don't see (like me) what's in it for them, financially.

PS. Please don't call me a c*ck sucking *sswhore because I don't see the point of Open Source, it only pushes me (and other who are still undecided) farther and farther away from it. Fight my "stupidy" with facts, not FUD.

Re:Why Open Source?

[Fnkmaster]

On the surface of it, you're basically correct. There isn't a whole lot of motivation to go Open Source as long as your product continues to sell very well. But when the competition starts heating up and you're losing market share to the Open Source competition, that's when it begins to make sense. Or equivalently, as Open Source becomes the dominant paradigm (I've been waiting to say that all day) in various sectors of the software industry, companies will be forced to go Open Source in order to get any users. For example, why did Sun just decide to SCSL Solaris? Not out of charity, or because they would rather not sell their software. They are simply having their hand forced (albeit slowly) by the consumers' increasing expectations of having source code for their OS. Or for example, why did (I forget the name of the software company) release CUPS (Common Unix Printing System) under the GPL instead of just trying to sell the thing? Well, because they are trying to compete with a bunch of existing Free software products. In order to get any interest from their target market, they had to follow that course. Some markets are still clear of viable Open Source / GPL competition, such as the office software suite market, where Corel, Microsoft, and StarOffice are the only real products out there. When more viable Open Source alternatives are out there, there will be increased pressure on some of these players to Open Source their software (in a more meaningful way than SCSL).

Re:Why Open Source?

[mistabobdobalina]

perens gets high scores for any comment

this still doesn't address the direct question at hand - how exactly does opening the source to my software product make me more money? i think the difference is this: if you're starting out fresh, open-source is a nice way to outsource some of the development to other minds. but if you (like, say microsoft) have an existing product and have millions of r&d/acquisition capital invested in it, open-sourcing it is NOT more profitable!
companies aren't generally worried about making "better" software, they're worried about making more money. if making better software (sun) is a requirement, they'll do it. if they have a monopoly (microsoft) they are generally less inclined to do it...

Re:Why Open Source?

[platypus]

I think one can argue more agressive here.
One very important point of opensource is:

If you sell a closed source product, you are in danger to be wiped off the market sooner or later - more probably later, but for sure - by an open source project

This may sound a bit too optimistic (or pessimistic, choose your preference), but I think its true because:

(1) Most users have a finite set of demands for a software product.
(2) Closed software product A, version 1.0, is brought to the market and meets 50 percent of the demands in (1).
(3) A reaches version 2.0, reaching 80 percent of (1)
(4) Open Source Project B 1.0 is started, meeting 30 percent of (1).
(5) A advances, version 3.0 meeting 95 percent of (1)
(6) B 2.0 meets 50 % and so on , A 3.0 97 percent

So the gap between closed A and open B gets smaller and smaller.
And the consequences:
a) After some time, people change from A to B cause of the points Bruce mentions above (faster, less buggy, more trustable) and - that's important - because of a much better user feedback, open source has not the tendency to get bloated (can you say "Office Agent"), alienating users who are used to efficiently "get their work done".
b) A more heavyweight factor are the new users of sotware of type A or B. After some time, the small advantage (if any) A will have is not sufficient to get the newcomers to buy A. This factor is extremly important looking at the percentage of world population not using computers today.

Looking at the newest version of some standart software (cd creator, word, gui networking tools like wsping or ftp-clients, partly partion magic, winzip etc.) I get the strong impression that the point of "saturating" user needs is very near or reached here. It's very clear these software companies are in desperate search of new features, but sadly, they seem not to find any.
They are not a moving target for an open source project any more and there are at least some freeware tools offering nearly the same functionality.
On a side note, I think this companies have to be thankfull for the existence of software pirates. Without them, there would be a lot more open source (or at least freeware) replacments evolving.

Re:Why Open Source?

[Budgester]

How about the fact that you can still sell the customer the product (manuals, support, training etc) but you have to make the source available, so a customer makes some changes to the software so that does what he wants it to do.

Now if your selling support for a product and a customer makes these changes you may not be able to support these changes, so you ask the customer to send the changes he/she made to you, you look at them and if they apply to the general plan of the software you can if you want include them in the next release.

So my point is this company may be having there software being used by many people but not everyone knows how to code and debug stuff, and there will always be a need for some support, not only that but the people who do know how to code etc, if they think they are parts of your software that could be improved may well improve your code for there own benefit, hence your company get a free tester and additional programmer thrown in for free.

Sorry for the Core Dump

Re:Why Open Source?

[Bruce Perens]

There has certainly been a lot written about the "why". Try Eric Raymond's stuff at opensource.org. Once you finish that, try my essay on the Open Source Definition.

The short answer is that it is a better (faster, less buggy, more trustable) way to develop software. People can make money off of services, hardware, etc., rather than directly from sales of proprietary software, so they do that.

Bruce

Re:Why Open Source?

[Strict/9]

Keep in mind that a company can open source SOME of their products without open sourcing the others. That said, there are two main reasons for MS to open source some of their products.

First, most Software is innovative at first, but at a certain point, it becomes a commodity. For example, Windows comes with a note pad, a calculator, a painting program, and various other little accessories. All of these applications used to be innovative, and could be sold for money. Now, they are just expected features. As long as they are expected features, why should MS continue to spend any money on them? They could open source them, and then incorporate the latest and greatest in the next version of their OS. I would guess that the first things MS would open source are things like Paint that are considered commodity items. This might also apply to individual operating system features. This is almost no risk for the company, because most of the code would be highly windows-specific anyway

Second, there may be technology which requires a large, diverse development effort but for which there is no profit model (other than helping to sell windows itself). DirectX comes to mind. By going open source, MS could focus their developers on the nitty-gritty interaction with Win2k kernel parts and allow the developers at large to work on drivers, higher-level API features, etc.

Just my $0.02. - Strict/9

Re:Why Open Source?

[twit]

Well, you can look at it from two perspectives: from that of a hardware vendor and that of a software vendor.

The hardware vendor should definitely go open source. Most likely they have patents on their hardware; while the source may give someone an edge in reverse engineering their hardware, it's not really that much of an edge, nor will it be a *competitive* edge. That is to say, no one is going to compete with Company X if all they do is copy what Company X does, merely two years later. Technology moves too fast for that.

For software companies, it's a different paradigm. Consider that most big companies, such as IBM, make a substantial chunk of their software dollar by providing systems integrations and customization on said software. Companies like IBM have more work than they can bother to do - that's why they develop "business partner" networks. There's substantial money to be made by going open source with your product and making money by supporting it. Is it sufficient to give away the software in its entirety? It is for some, probably not for others.

Likewise, very few companies are going to take your custom job, with open source, and distribute the source to it, even if they have the right to. Their competitive edge is tied into having your software - not to mention that it's worth quite a bit of money.

Consider the case of WordPerfect, which became the dominant word processing application by foregoing the copy protection which other such software was using. WP tacitly encouraged software piracy in order to build their install base; open source just extends that principle. The greater market penetration you have, the greater chance of an organization (because we all know, corporations are where the big money are) standardizing on you and putting money in your pocket for support.

It is possible that they could go to someone else for support or customization. Which is a fair risk. But I doubt that that would be the first choice; very few other companies are likely to know the application as well as you do.

Would Red Hat would make money if it wasn't open source? I don't think so; they'd have to deal with the expense of developing and maintaining a fairly huge body of software in-house. Operating systems development is not for the weak: it takes money, it takes bodies, and it takes time. Going open source, while it doesn't make for a guarantee that bodies and time will come your way gratis, at least gives you a decent chance.

--

Re:Why Open Source?

[vleo]

How many times have we read here "a company is ONLY in existence to make money" myth?

Well, this statement makes about as much sense as saying "I live in order to eat", as opposed to "I eat in order to live".

Most ethical companies exist in order to provide a service or sell a product that they like. Because if you don't like what you're doing you're gonna produce crap. And no amount of money thrown at you can change that. Just look at Microsoft for an example.

Making money is just the condition for company to exist, a lot of choices exist as to how actually make money. Some of them ethical, some of them not.

Ok, so "everyone" is a little broad sweeping..

[Kitsune Sushi]

..but I seriously doubt "open sourcing" Windows would go a very long way toward making it a more viable OS than the alternatives. Too messy. I'm sure there would be some interest, however, due to a variety of reasons. :)

Re:torvalds retiring?

[qwerjkl]

Uh... retiring does not mean he is giving up the work. Retiring in THIS context is an ADJECTIVE to mean he shies away from the spotlight.

Re:What the hell?

[Zagato-sama]

Because Open Source is good! Or...something! Yeah! It's the hot new hip word around the software world. No, don't take into account that 99% of the users don't even bother looking at the code, much less understand it. It's simply a matter of using that spiffy two words "Open" and "Source" ..."look ma! my source is open!" "That's nice dear" I'm wishing all these companies would grow some balls and say "screw you" to Linux and move on to working on porting stuff to operating systems where the userbase doesn't whine and complain all the time. Hint hint BeOS. We don't care if your code is open or closed, free or commercial. We just want it to work for us ;)

Linus cares about linux

[vipw]

Linus is more of a politically minded person, and cares more about linux than he does opensource, when trolltech release qt under the half free licence linus didn't see that as something that harmed linux, but rather helped it, he, probably correctly, assumed that pushing the point would simply piss of the developers which would have worse effects than having a sorta free qt. today's situation is much different, sun's licence really does nothing to help linux(other than the ocasional bugfix to SO), and linus obviously sees that. Until sun is an ally instead of just the enemy of our enemy, we have no reason to support sun, and who knows, maybe bitching about it will make them change their licence.

ps. i personally dislike thinking of MS as our enemy, but i think that is how the majority of the community sees it.

RE: What the hell

[gstamp]

Sun have never claimed that their license was open source! People keep getting this confused. The term they use is community source.

I've got to wonder how many of you champions of open source actually practice what you keep ranting on about.

If Linus got paid 5c for everytime someone ..

[TummyX]

his name "Linux" he'd be richer than Bill Gates.

Control of software

[Foaf]

For Sun, it's a control thing - they can't stand the thought that Microsoft might participate in Open Source and make its own changes. This even though everyone else would have access to MS's changes in that case and could clone the good ones.

Bruce is right, it is about control. Sun have control over Solaris and they want to keep it. I don't necessarily think that fear of MS making changes is the reason for keeping control (although I'm sure it has crossed the minds of at least a few Sun execs).

There are all kinds of boring marketing reasons to want to "have your cake and eat it too" as Sun are trying. Imagine Scott McNealy telling shareholders that Solaris is doing really well, but that Sun aren't the number one sellers: rather a company that publishes books on Sun software has repackaged Solaris with a different GUI and installer and sold it with "Solaris for Numbskulls".

I agree that Sun are stretching the term Open Source with their license - but that's really a marketing argument rather than a technical one.
-------------------------------------------- -----------

Re:What the hell?

[gre.g]

The only reall difference between SCSL and GPL in this instance is that with the GPL you can go your own way and distribute it anyway [if Linus doesn't like your change].

That is precisely what Free Software is all about. Remember, "free speech, not free beer".

This confusiong is what RMS warned us about a few months ago when he said the people arguing for "Open Source" were putting pragmatism ahead of the important things and that eventually people would forget which freedoms they were fighting for.

To put it another way, what good is having the hood of your car not welded shut if you have to sign a contract binding you to not ever have a third party mechanic look under there anyways.

Re:Without even reading the article...

[Anonymous Coward]

Now that was funny :)

Question for Bruce

[Dacta]

Firstly, Redhat do sell their software for $80 or whatever it is. Sure, it is less than NT, but I bet they make some money off it.

If MS open sourced NT, and sold it with source & a few support calls, most companies would buy it - sure, MS wouldn't make so much, but the support is needed for corporate peace of mind.

The problem I see is then Microsoft would be forced to move into the service industry more, and compeate with the big outsourcing companies (EDS etc.)

I guess then all the service companies would start competeing on the level of service, which might be good.

OTOH, (and this is just the same as for Linux)what if companies started to keep their bug fixes to themselves?

"Look.. we have a bug fix for the root access by entering the root password bug. Redhat doesn't have that, so you should sign this support deal for the next five years, and you will get exclusive access to out patches"

I realize that once they patch a few machines anyone can distibute it, because it would be GPLed, but in a corporate envrionment, where the user doesn't access to the source....

Do you think this is a potential problem?

Stupid comment

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course you had to butt in and make a complete fool of yourself.

• There's noting half-hearted about Apple's Open Source efforts.
• They did release "unique" code, like QT Streaming Server, OpenPlay, Netinfo, HFS+ etc.
• Mac OS X is not a "me-too" modern OS.
• Nobody is interested in leveraging free work from the Linux community. So don't worry, you can all continue writing crappy ICQ clients and Notepad clones.

Have fun using Linux.

Re:Am I some sort of magnet..

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, I for one am in favor of abortion well after birth, and idiots are high on my list.

Re:MS OS

[Anonymous Coward]

Now don't be picking on Netscape.



They're doing bad enough as it is...

Am I some sort of magnet..

[Kitsune Sushi]

..for clueless replies? I never addressed the issue of who owned the fscking company. Paul Allen is not an employee , and guess what? That's all I said!! Get a clue. Respond to a post where what you said is even vaguely relavent.

This post that I'm replying to is one of the shining examples of why I flame people. If more humans put that "vaunted intellect" of theirs to good use before shooting their mouths off, I wouldn't feel so inclined to refer to them as total idiots.

Open Source Wannabies?

[cybrthng]

Uhm, Hello?

Open Source = "My source code is open, you can browse me, modify me, and turn me into whatever you want"

Suns license maintains ownership of the code and direct results from the code, in commercial and non commercial aspects.

GPL controls the source code in the same fashion, just can't be used in a commercial package.

Whats the difference? Either sun is gonna get your money, or the FSF is gonna get your money.

Open Source doesn't mean free from restrictions, nor does it mean strings attatched. Sun is progressing.. i thought progression, technology, and freedom of your choice was what it was about.

i didn't think stealing was the issue.. why else would you want to use something you had absolutely no part of in the development cycle.

Linux is a community project, its built from the ground up for whatever reason people see fit to spend there own time on. Solaris was built from the ground up to be a Commercial OS, and for SUN to maintain its support, its quality of service, and its confidence of the customers and vice versa, they feel they *NEED* complete control of THERE OS.

Sun is 100% a commercial company, selling a hardware and software based solution from workstations to enterprise class database servers. I don't think sun would be happy if some joe schmoe hacked up solaris, sold it as original and it breaks the compatibility and ultimately sun becomes responsibale for a fortune 500 company loosing 100,000,000 dollars because of an OS glitch.

This is my opinion, moderate me down and you may was well call this slashcensord.org

Re:Open Source Wannabies?

[nas]

Oh, my. Where should I start?

>Open Source = "My source code is open, you can browse me,
>modify me, and turn me into whatever you want"
>
>Suns license maintains ownership of the code and direct
>results from the code, in commercial and non commercial
>aspects.
>

So far so good.

>GPL controls the source code in the same fashion, just can't
>be used in a commercial package.

Nope. Who controls the source code? Exactly who do you
think "GPL" is? Is it an organization, a person, the FSF?
You seem to be confused. GPLing your code gives control to
no one.

Furthermore, commercial software can be GPLed. You can
charge for GPLed software.

>Whats the difference? Either sun is gonna get your money, or
>the FSF is gonna get your money.

FSF != GPL. Now how exactly is the FSF going to "get your
money"?

>Open Source doesn't mean free from restrictions, nor does it
>mean strings attatched. Sun is progressing.. i thought
>progression, technology, and freedom of your choice was what
>it was about.

Open source means allows free from restrictions (except the
restriction that it always be free from retrictions). You
can sell it or whatever, you just can't prevent other people
from doing the same.

>I don't think sun would be happy if some joe schmoe hacked
>up solaris, sold it as original and it breaks the
>compatibility and ultimately sun becomes responsibale for a
>fortune 500 company loosing 100,000,000 dollars because of
>an OS glitch.

I'm sure that "Solaris" is a trademark. How exactly would
someone sell their modified version of Solaris as
Solaris(TM)? That fortune 500 company would be none bright
to fall for this. If someone did do this, Sun would have
grounds to sue them.

What the GPL allows is that someone could sell their own
improved version of Solaris. The customer would know that
this was not Sun's version. If this new version is better
than Sun's version then there is pressure on Sun to take
improvements from this version and merge them with their
version.


You really need to spend some time to figure out what the
GPL means. I don't thing you have the idea yet.

>This is my opinion, moderate me down and you may was well
>call this slashcensord.org

Given the amount of disinformation you spewed out you should be
moderated down.

Re:Open Source Wannabies?

[cybrthng]

Well, lets see.. Linux is called linux, even though i can distribute my own version of it, so whats to stop someone from calling it RedHat Solaris.. since Sun "Owns" Solaris, they would be responsible for an OEM screwing up something.. just like people selling RedHat, i can burn a CD, and sell them support, but who's liable? bah..

All wrong.

[Bruce Perens]

the slashdot community is not so huge that they can dictate what it means for something to be 'open source'

The Open Source community has broadly accepted the Open Source definition, and we really don't like people trying to re-define Open Source for their own selfish purposes. As a community, we are big enough to give Sun a real problem in the market as their customers jump ship to Linux en masse. The SCSL is a band-aid that might reduce the hemmorage of users, but won't cure it. Sun needs to get over its Microsoft paranoia - the only reason for the SCSL is to keep Microsoft from stealing the show.

by comparison, the GPL restricts companies from developing software based on GPL stuff and selling it

No, it doesn't.

What the GPL does is enforce a quid-pro-quo. Take the example of my Electric Fence malloc() debugger. I give the product and source code away to anyone who asks, and I allow people to sell it. If you want to develop something based on it without paying me, you must give the source code away to anyone who asks, and you must allow people to sell it. If you want to do it under a commercial license without giving it away or giving people source code, you give me some money and I give you another license than the GPL.

What you are looking for is something more one-sided, where I give the software away, but someone else can take it, not give me any money, add their own changes, and then sell the result without giving me back the changes or giving anyone the source code. As the original author, what possible reason would I have for making myself someone's dupe - a sort of unpaid employee who gets no benefits - that way?

In general, free software authors write free software so that there will be more free software. They aren't interested in facilitating non-free software unless there is some obvious benefit to free software or themselves, and I can't think of why they should be interested in that.

Thanks

Bruce

Re:All wrong.

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree your comment but for the commercial license part.

Once your program reaches a certain size/importance it may receive major contributions from many people, who typically retain their copyright. (unless of course you're the FSF) Now assuming your program is under the GPL, the choice to relicense a product as proprietary effectively becomes impossible. Of course you could strip the other code out, but except for the bug-fixing effect Sun is seeking, you're not much better off than if you had just done it all by yourself.

Even if you could do this conveniently don't tell me our zealous community wouldn't think you had "sold out".

In other words, there may be a quid pro quo but, when you play by the standard rules at least, you're not gonna make a lot of money by relicensing. Therefore it's not typically going to be an option.

ps don't get me wrong, I use/support linux anyway :)

Huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sun's License means no web charting component for you. It's that simple.

What you really mean is that there is no free lunch. Nobody's stopping you from writing your own web charting component, or (gasp!) paying someone else to write one for them. It's called capitalism, and it works. Whining that someone else won't give you their property for free, is well, whining.

Re:Huh?

[Effugas]

Programmers ought to be paid to create new stuff, or generate new modifications of existing code.

The concept that it's a good thing to have millions of programmers redoing millions of lines of code is rather ludicrous; Open Source makes for the ultimate Code Reuse system.

Re:To Hack or not to Hack

[IntlHarvester]

I have my doubts that Winblows95/98 is an example of good software engineering, its more like a HACK job, or would that be better said as ONE_BIG_KLUDGE? ;-)

Don't forget that the #1 design goal of Windows 95 was to be backwards compatible with 10 years of hardware drivers and DOS/Win16 programs. They got that part right.

The #2 goal was to provide a similar API to Windows NT so that at some point in the future they could obsolete DOS/Windows. They got that mostly right, although 9x makes so much money that DOSWin isn't extinct yet.

Later on, with DirectX, they wanted to provide a better game environment than DOS could provide. I haven't seen too many DOS games lately, so I assume that's going well.

Note that security or reliablity were never high up on the design goal list for Win 9x. They already were selling Windows NT, you know, but even to this day people choose backwards compatiblity and games over a superior OS.

Watch OUT!!!

[Wah]

It's the bizarro-Gerald Holmes. Gerald!! Watch out, bad touch go 'xplode, run away!!!

Transcript ?

[Etyenne]

Does anybody have the adress of a transcript of this speech ?

Multi Media

[Wah]

(been using Linux 6mo.s, and I play games (win98))

Anyway, for multimedia streaming files (*LOUDCOUGH*) Windows Media Player, blows the pants off (*cough*) the competition. Being aware of previous Microsoft tactics (and the tendency to incorporate everything into the OS) I would not be surprised to find special APIs that Real,Quicktime and the others don't ever see. If they open some of their code (and I think they have to at this point, they're losing too many developers) some of this might come to light. At the very least it's more ideas to...evolve from.

Re:Multi Media

[Darchmare]

Actually I recall a few years back that Microsoft somehow 'ended up' with 3000 lines of key Quicktime code in one of their products. A lawsuit occured, and they were forced to pull the product off the shelf and rewrite certain portions of it (why they didn't receive a harsher punishment, I don't know).

Whether or not it's there is a moot point - they're very much capable of the practice, assuming they won't get caught.

- Darchmare
- Axis Mutatis, http://www.axismutatis.net

leave linux alone

[Anonymous Coward]

everyone knows that he cant say stuff about transmeta

Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

The bloody Technology Wars break out. Small-scale but violent conflicts erupt in many cities as technology-deprived Americans, increasingly condemned to poorly-paying menial jobs or displaced completely by computing technologies, stage riots. This unrest spreads to Third World and technologically-underveloped countries. A violent Luddite movement organizes, conducting a rash of terrorist attacks against technological targets and facilities. This is more Katz nonsense. Economics doesn't work that way. For starters, no one is going to be "deprived of technology." Computer prices are dropping so fast that pretty soon literally anyone will be able to afford one every couple of years. And even if parents are computer-illiterate, this does not preclude their kids from becoming skilled. Furthermore, the vision of being "increasingly condemned to poorly-paying menial jobs" is exactly wrong. The trend of the last hundred years has been liberating people from that kind of job. At the turn of the century, nearly everyone was either a farmer or a factory worker. This has changed, as machines have taken over those menial jobs and freed workers for more challenging tasks. The idea that machines will replace us all is similarly nonsense. Human labor is the most universally valuable commodity in existence. The reason that workers are replaced by machines is that those workers are too expensive. This means that mechanization is the result of an increased standard of living. It works the other way too. The ultimate determiner of wages is productivity. As more capital is accumulated, people are more productive and so employers are forced to pay them more to keep them. You'll notice that people in those menial jobs are typically either recent immigrants or in their teens or twenties. That's because anyone with any ambition can acquire enough skills that, even if they can't live well, they can get a job that allows them to live comfortably. The march of technology *has* improved our lives, and that's true of pretty much every sector of society. I find it hard to believe that anyone would want trade places with someone in a similar social situation 100 years ago. If they did, those people will almost certainly end up working 12-hour shifts in factories or dawn-to-usk jobs on farms. Who wants that?

Re:Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

The bloody Technology Wars break out. Small-scale but violent conflicts erupt in many cities as technology-deprived Americans, increasingly condemned to poorly-paying menial jobs or displaced completely by computing technologies, stage riots. This unrest spreads to Third World and technologically-underveloped countries. A violent Luddite movement organizes, conducting a rash of terrorist attacks against technological targets and facilities. This is more Katz nonsense. Economics doesn't work that way. For starters, no one is going to be "deprived of technology." Computer prices are dropping so fast that pretty soon literally anyone will be able to afford one every couple of years. And even if parents are computer-illiterate, this does not preclude their kids from becoming skilled. Furthermore, the vision of being "increasingly condemned to poorly-paying menial jobs" is exactly wrong. The trend of the last hundred years has been liberating people from that kind of job. At the turn of the century, nearly everyone was either a farmer or a factory worker. This has changed, as machines have taken over those menial jobs and freed workers for more challenging tasks. The idea that machines will replace us all is similarly nonsense. Human labor is the most universally valuable commodity in existence. The reason that workers are replaced by machines is that those workers are too expensive. This means that mechanization is the result of an increased standard of living. It works the other way too. The ultimate determiner of wages is productivity. As more capital is accumulated, people are more productive and so employers are forced to pay them more to keep them. You'll notice that people in those menial jobs are typically either recent immigrants or in their teens or twenties. That's because anyone with any ambition can acquire enough skills that, even if they can't live well, they can get a job that allows them to live comfortably. The march of technology *has* improved our lives, and that's true of pretty much every sector of society. I find it hard to believe that anyone would want trade places with someone in a similar social situation 100 years ago. If they did, those people will almost certainly end up working 12-hour shifts in factories or dawn-to-usk jobs on farms. Who wants that? The bloody Technology Wars break out. Small-scale but violent conflicts erupt in many cities as technology-deprived Americans, increasingly condemned to poorly-paying menial jobs or displaced completely by computing technologies, stage riots. This unrest spreads to Third World and technologically-underveloped countries. A violent Luddite movement organizes, conducting a rash of terrorist attacks against technological targets and facilities. This is more Katz nonsense. Economics doesn't work that way. For starters, no one is going to be "deprived of technology." Computer prices are dropping so fast that pretty soon literally anyone will be able to afford one every couple of years. And even if parents are computer-illiterate, this does not preclude their kids from becoming skilled. Furthermore, the vision of being "increasingly condemned to poorly-paying menial jobs" is exactly wrong. The trend of the last hundred years has been liberating people from that kind of job. At the turn of the century, nearly everyone was either a farmer or a factory worker. This has changed, as machines have taken over those menial jobs and freed workers for more challenging tasks. The idea that machines will replace us all is similarly nonsense. Human labor is the most universally valuable commodity in existence. The reason that workers are replaced by machines is that those workers are too expensive. This means that mechanization is the result of an increased standard of living. It works the other way too. The ultimate determiner of wages is productivity. As more capital is accumulated, people are more productive and so employers are forced to pay them more to keep them. You'll notice that people in those menial jobs are typically either recent immigrants or in their teens or twenties. That's because anyone with any ambition can acquire enough skills that, even if they can't live well, they can get a job that allows them to live comfortably. The march of technology *has* improved our lives, and that's true of pretty much every sector of society. I find it hard to believe that anyone would want trade places with someone in a similar social situation 100 years ago. If they did, those people will almost certainly end up working 12-hour shifts in factories or dawn-to-usk jobs on farms. Who wants that? The bloody Technology Wars break out. Small-scale but violent conflicts erupt in many cities as technology-deprived Americans, increasingly condemned to poorly-paying menial jobs or displaced completely by computing technologies, stage riots. This unrest spreads to Third World and technologically-underveloped countries. A violent Luddite movement organizes, conducting a rash of terrorist attacks against technological targets and facilities. This is more Katz nonsense. Economics doesn't work that way. For starters, no one is going to be "deprived of technology." Computer prices are dropping so fast that pretty soon literally anyone will be able to afford one every couple of years. And even if parents are computer-illiterate, this does not preclude their kids from becoming skilled. Furthermore, the vision of being "increasingly condemned to poorly-paying menial jobs" is exactly wrong. The trend of the last hundred years has been liberating people from that kind of job. At the turn of the century, nearly everyone was either a farmer or a factory worker. This has changed, as machines have taken over those menial jobs and freed workers for more challenging tasks. The idea that machines will replace us all is similarly nonsense. Human labor is the most universally valuable commodity in existence. The reason that workers are replaced by machines is that those workers are too expensive. This means that mechanization is the result of an increased standard of living. It works the other way too. The ultimate determiner of wages is productivity. As more capital is accumulated, people are more productive and so employers are forced to pay them more to keep them. You'll notice that people in those menial jobs are typically either recent immigrants or in their teens or twenties. That's because anyone with any ambition can acquire enough skills that, even if they can't live well, they can get a job that allows them to live comfortably. The march of technology *has* improved our lives, and that's true of pretty much every sector of society. I find it hard to believe that anyone would want trade places with someone in a similar social situation 100 years ago. If they did, those people will almost certainly end up working 12-hour shifts in factories or dawn-to-usk jobs on farms. Who wants that? The bloody Technology Wars break out. Small-scale but violent conflicts erupt in many cities as technology-deprived Americans, increasingly condemned to poorly-paying menial jobs or displaced completely by computing technologies, stage riots. This unrest spreads to Third World and technologically-underveloped countries. A violent Luddite movement organizes, conducting a rash of terrorist attacks against technological targets and facilities. This is more Katz nonsense. Economics doesn't work that way. For starters, no one is going to be "deprived of technology." Computer prices are dropping so fast that pretty soon literally anyone will be able to afford one every couple of years. And even if parents are computer-illiterate, this does not preclude their kids from becoming skilled. Furthermore, the vision of being "increasingly condemned to poorly-paying menial jobs" is exactly wrong. The trend of the last hundred years has been liberating people from that kind of job. At the turn of the century, nearly everyone was either a farmer or a factory worker. This has changed, as machines have taken over those menial jobs and freed workers for more challenging tasks. The idea that machines will replace us all is similarly nonsense. Human labor is the most universally valuable commodity in existence. The reason that workers are replaced by machines is that those workers are too expensive. This means that mechanization is the result of an increased standard of living. It works the other way too. The ultimate determiner of wages is productivity. As more capital is accumulated, people are more productive and so employers are forced to pay them more to keep them. You'll notice that people in those menial jobs are typically either recent immigrants or in their teens or twenties. That's because anyone with any ambition can acquire enough skills that, even if they can't live well, they can get a job that allows them to live comfortably. The march of technology *has* improved our lives, and that's true of pretty much every sector of society. I find it hard to believe that anyone would want trade places with someone in a similar social situation 100 years ago. If they did, those people will almost certainly end up working 12-hour shifts in factories or dawn-to-usk jobs on farms. Who wants that? The bloody Technology Wars break out. Small-scale but violent conflicts erupt in many cities as technology-deprived Americans, increasingly condemned to poorly-paying menial jobs or displaced completely by computing technologies, stage riots. This unrest spreads to Third World and technologically-underveloped countries. A violent Luddite movement organizes, conducting a rash of terrorist attacks against technological targets and facilities. This is more Katz nonsense. Economics doesn't work that way. For starters, no one is going to be "deprived of technology." Computer prices are dropping so fast that pretty soon literally anyone will be able to afford one every couple of years. And even if parents are computer-illiterate, this does not preclude their kids from becoming skilled. Furthermore, the vision of being "increasingly condemned to poorly-paying menial jobs" is exactly wrong. The trend of the last hundred years has been liberating people from that kind of job. At the turn of the century, nearly everyone was either a farmer or a factory worker. This has changed, as machines have taken over those menial jobs and freed workers for more challenging tasks. The idea that machines will replace us all is similarly nonsense. Human labor is the most universally valuable commodity in existence. The reason that workers are replaced by machines is that those workers are too expensive. This means that mechanization is the result of an increased standard of living. It works the other way too. The ultimate determiner of wages is productivity. As more capital is accumulated, people are more productive and so employers are forced to pay them more to keep them. You'll notice that people in those menial jobs are typically either recent immigrants or in their teens or twenties. That's because anyone with any ambition can acquire enough skills that, even if they can't live well, they can get a job that allows them to live comfortably. The march of technology *has* improved our lives, and that's true of pretty much every sector of society. I find it hard to believe that anyone would want trade places with someone in a similar social situation 100 years ago. If they did, those people will almost certainly end up working 12-hour shifts in factories or dawn-to-usk jobs on farms. Who wants that? The bloody Technology Wars break out. Small-scale but violent conflicts erupt in many cities as technology-deprived Americans, increasingly condemned to poorly-paying menial jobs or displaced completely by computing technologies, stage riots. This unrest spreads to Third World and technologically-underveloped countries. A violent Luddite movement organizes, conducting a rash of terrorist attacks against technological targets and facilities. This is more Katz nonsense. Economics doesn't work that way. For starters, no one is going to be "deprived of technology." Computer prices are dropping so fast that pretty soon literally anyone will be able to afford one every couple of years. And even if parents are computer-illiterate, this does not preclude their kids from becoming skilled. Furthermore, the vision of being "increasingly condemned to poorly-paying menial jobs" is exactly wrong. The trend of the last hundred years has been liberating people from that kind of job. At the turn of the century, nearly everyone was either a farmer or a factory worker. This has changed, as machines have taken over those menial jobs and freed workers for more challenging tasks. The idea that machines will replace us all is similarly nonsense. Human labor is the most universally valuable commodity in existence. The reason that workers are replaced by machines is that those workers are too expensive. This means that mechanization is the result of an increased standard of living. It works the other way too. The ultimate determiner of wages is productivity. As more capital is accumulated, people are more productive and so employers are forced to pay them more to keep them. You'll notice that people in those menial jobs are typically either recent immigrants or in their teens or twenties. That's because anyone with any ambition can acquire enough skills that, even if they can't live well, they can get a job that allows them to live comfortably. The march of technology *has* improved our lives, and that's true of pretty much every sector of society. I find it hard to believe that anyone would want trade places with someone in a similar social situation 100 years ago. If they did, those people will almost certainly end up working 12-hour shifts in factories or dawn-to-usk jobs on farms. Who wants that? The bloody Technology Wars break out. Small-scale but violent conflicts erupt in many cities as technology-deprived Americans, increasingly condemned to poorly-paying menial jobs or displaced completely by computing technologies, stage riots. This unrest spreads to Third World and technologically-underveloped countries. A violent Luddite movement organizes, conducting a rash of terrorist attacks against technological targets and facilities. This is more Katz nonsense. Economics doesn't work that way. For starters, no one is going to be "deprived of technology." Computer prices are dropping so fast that pretty soon literally anyone will be able to afford one every couple of years. And even if parents are computer-illiterate, this does not preclude their kids from becoming skilled. Furthermore, the vision of being "increasingly condemned to poorly-paying menial jobs" is exactly wrong. The trend of the last hundred years has been liberating people from that kind of job. At the turn of the century, nearly everyone was either a farmer or a factory worker. This has changed, as machines have taken over those menial jobs and freed workers for more challenging tasks. The idea that machines will replace us all is similarly nonsense. Human labor is the most universally valuable commodity in existence. The reason that workers are replaced by machines is that those workers are too expensive. This means that mechanization is the result of an increased standard of living. It works the other way too. The ultimate determiner of wages is productivity. As more capital is accumulated, people are more productive and so employers are forced to pay them more to keep them. You'll notice that people in those menial jobs are typically either recent immigrants or in their teens or twenties. That's because anyone with any ambition can acquire enough skills that, even if they can't live well, they can get a job that allows them to live comfortably. The march of technology *has* improved our lives, and that's true of pretty much every sector of society. I find it hard to believe that anyone would want trade places with someone in a similar social situation 100 years ago. If they did, those people will almost certainly end up working 12-hour shifts in factories or dawn-to-usk jobs on farms. Who wants that? The bloody Technology Wars break out. Small-scale but violent conflicts erupt in many cities as technology-deprived Americans, increasingly condemned to poorly-paying menial jobs or displaced completely by computing technologies, stage riots. This unrest spreads to Third World and technologically-underveloped countries. A violent Luddite movement organizes, conducting a rash of terrorist attacks against technological targets and facilities. This is more Katz nonsense. Economics doesn't work that way. For starters, no one is going to be "deprived of technology." Computer prices are dropping so fast that pretty soon literally anyone will be able to afford one every couple of years. And even if parents are computer-illiterate, this does not preclude their kids from becoming skilled. Furthermore, the vision of being "increasingly condemned to poorly-paying menial jobs" is exactly wrong. The trend of the last hundred years has been liberating people from that kind of job. At the turn of the century, nearly everyone was either a farmer or a factory worker. This has changed, as machines have taken over those menial jobs and freed workers for more challenging tasks. The idea that machines will replace us all is similarly nonsense. Human labor is the most universally valuable commodity in existence. The reason that workers are replaced by machines is that those workers are too expensive. This means that mechanization is the result of an increased standard of living. It works the other way too. The ultimate determiner of wages is productivity. As more capital is accumulated, people are more productive and so employers are forced to pay them more to keep them. You'll notice that people in those menial jobs are typically either recent immigrants or in their teens or twenties. That's because anyone with any ambition can acquire enough skills that, even if they can't live well, they can get a job that allows them to live comfortably. The march of technology *has* improved our lives, and that's true of pretty much every sector of society. I find it hard to believe that anyone would want trade places with someone in a similar social situation 100 years ago. If they did, those people will almost certainly end up working 12-hour shifts in factories or dawn-to-usk jobs on farms. Who wants that? The bloody Technology Wars break out. Small-scale but violent conflicts erupt in many cities as technology-deprived Americans, increasingly condemned to poorly-paying menial jobs or displaced completely by computing technologies, stage riots. This unrest spreads to Third World and technologically-underveloped countries. A violent Luddite movement organizes, conducting a rash of terrorist attacks against technological targets and facilities. This is more Katz nonsense. Economics doesn't work that way. For starters, no one is going to be "deprived of technology." Computer prices are dropping so fast that pretty soon literally anyone will be able to afford one every couple of years. And even if parents are computer-illiterate, this does not preclude their kids from becoming skilled. Furthermore, the vision of being "increasingly condemned to poorly-paying menial jobs" is exactly wrong. The trend of the last hundred years has been liberating people from that kind of job. At the turn of the century, nearly everyone was either a farmer or a factory worker. This has changed, as machines have taken over those menial jobs and freed workers for more challenging tasks. The idea that machines will replace us all is similarly nonsense. Human labor is the most universally valuable commodity in existence. The reason that workers are replaced by machines is that those workers are too expensive. This means that mechanization is the result of an increased standard of living. It works the other way too. The ultimate determiner of wages is productivity. As more capital is accumulated, people are more productive and so employers are forced to pay them more to keep them. You'll notice that people in those menial jobs are typically either recent immigrants or in their teens or twenties. That's because anyone with any ambition can acquire enough skills that, even if they can't live well, they can get a job that allows them to live comfortably. The march of technology *has* improved our lives, and that's true of pretty much every sector of society. I find it hard to believe that anyone would want trade places with someone in a similar social situation 100 years ago. If they did, those people will almost certainly end up working 12-hour shifts in factories or dawn-to-usk jobs on farms. Who wants that? The bloody Technology Wars break out. Small-scale but violent conflicts erupt in many cities as technology-deprived Americans, increasingly condemned to poorly-paying menial jobs or displaced completely by computing technologies, stage riots. This unrest spreads to Third World and technologically-underveloped countries. A violent Luddite movement organizes, conducting a rash of terrorist attacks against technological targets and facilities. This is more Katz nonsense. Economics doesn't work that way. For starters, no one is going to be "deprived of technology." Computer prices are dropping so fast that pretty soon literally anyone will be able to afford one every couple of years. And even if parents are computer-illiterate, this does not preclude their kids from becoming skilled. Furthermore, the vision of being "increasingly condemned to poorly-paying menial jobs" is exactly wrong. The trend of the last hundred years has been liberating people from that kind of job. At the turn of the century, nearly everyone was either a farmer or a factory worker. This has changed, as machines have taken over those menial jobs and freed workers for more challenging tasks. The idea that machines will replace us all is similarly nonsense. Human labor is the most universally valuable commodity in existence. The reason that workers are replaced by machines is that those workers are too expensive. This means that mechanization is the result of an increased standard of living. It works the other way too. The ultimate determiner of wages is productivity. As more capital is accumulated, people are more productive and so employers are forced to pay them more to keep them. You'll notice that people in those menial jobs are typically either recent immigrants or in their teens or twenties. That's because anyone with any ambition can acquire enough skills that, even if they can't live well, they can get a job that allows them to live comfortably. The march of technology *has* improved our lives, and that's true of pretty much every sector of society. I find it hard to believe that anyone would want trade places with someone in a similar social situation 100 years ago. If they did, those people will almost certainly end up working 12-hour shifts in factories or dawn-to-usk jobs on farms. Who wants that? The bloody Technology Wars break out. Small-scale but violent conflicts erupt in many cities as technology-deprived Americans, increasingly condemned to poorly-paying menial jobs or displaced completely by computing technologies, stage riots. This unrest spreads to Third World and technologically-underveloped countries. A violent Luddite movement organizes, conducting a rash of terrorist attacks against technological targets and facilities. This is more Katz nonsense. Economics doesn't work that way. For starters, no one is going to be "deprived of technology." Computer prices are dropping so fast that pretty soon literally anyone will be able to afford one every couple of years. And even if parents are computer-illiterate, this does not preclude their kids from becoming skilled. Furthermore, the vision of being "increasingly condemned to poorly-paying menial jobs" is exactly wrong. The trend of the last hundred years has been liberating people from that kind of job. At the turn of the century, nearly everyone was either a farmer or a factory worker. This has changed, as machines have taken over those menial jobs and freed workers for more challenging tasks. The idea that machines will replace us all is similarly nonsense. Human labor is the most universally valuable commodity in existence. The reason that workers are replaced by machines is that those workers are too expensive. This means that mechanization is the result of an increased standard of living. It works the other way too. The ultimate determiner of wages is productivity. As more capital is accumulated, people are more productive and so employers are forced to pay them more to keep them. You'll notice that people in those menial jobs are typically either recent immigrants or in their teens or twenties. That's because anyone with any ambition can acquire enough skills that, even if they can't live well, they can get a job that allows them to live comfortably. The march of technology *has* improved our lives, and that's true of pretty much every sector of society. I find it hard to believe that anyone would want trade places with someone in a similar social situation 100 years ago. If they did, those people will almost certainly end up working 12-hour shifts in factories or dawn-to-usk jobs on farms. Who wants that? The bloody Technology Wars break out. Small-scale but violent conflicts erupt in many cities as technology-deprived Americans, increasingly condemned to poorly-paying menial jobs or displaced completely by computing technologies, stage riots. This unrest spreads to Third World and technologically-underveloped countries. A violent Luddite movement organizes, conducting a rash of terrorist attacks against technological targets and facilities. This is more Katz nonsense. Economics doesn't work that way. For starters, no one is going to be "deprived of technology." Computer prices are dropping so fast that pretty soon literally anyone will be able to afford one every couple of years. And even if parents are computer-illiterate, this does not preclude their kids from becoming skilled. Furthermore, the vision of being "increasingly condemned to poorly-paying menial jobs" is exactly wrong. The trend of the last hundred years has been liberating people from that kind of job. At the turn of the century, nearly everyone was either a farmer or a factory worker. This has changed, as machines have taken over those menial jobs and freed workers for more challenging tasks. The idea that machines will replace us all is similarly nonsense. Human labor is the most universally valuable commodity in existence. The reason that workers are replaced by machines is that those workers are too expensive. This means that mechanization is the result of an increased standard of living. It works the other way too. The ultimate determiner of wages is productivity. As more capital is accumulated, people are more productive and so employers are forced to pay them more to keep them. You'll notice that people in those menial jobs are typically either recent immigrants or in their teens or twenties. That's because anyone with any ambition can acquire enough skills that, even if they can't live well, they can get a job that allows them to live comfortably. The march of technology *has* improved our lives, and that's true of pretty much every sector of society. I find it hard to believe that anyone would want trade places with someone in a similar social situation 100 years ago. If they did, those people will almost certainly end up working 12-hour shifts in factories or dawn-to-usk jobs on farms. Who wants that? The bloody Technology Wars break out. Small-scale but violent conflicts erupt in many cities as technology-deprived Americans, increasingly condemned to poorly-paying menial jobs or displaced completely by computing technologies, stage riots. This unrest spreads to Third World and technologically-underveloped countries. A violent Luddite movement organizes, conducting a rash of terrorist attacks against technological targets and facilities. This is more Katz nonsense. Economics doesn't work that way. For starters, no one is going to be "deprived of technology." Computer prices are dropping so fast that pretty soon literally anyone will be able to afford one every couple of years. And even if parents are computer-illiterate, this does not preclude their kids from becoming skilled. Furthermore, the vision of being "increasingly condemned to poorly-paying menial jobs" is exactly wrong. The trend of the last hundred years has been liberating people from that kind of job. At the turn of the century, nearly everyone was either a farmer or a factory worker. This has changed, as machines have taken over those menial jobs and freed workers for more challenging tasks. The idea that machines will replace us all is similarly nonsense. Human labor is the most universally valuable commodity in existence. The reason that workers are replaced by machines is that those workers are too expensive. This means that mechanization is the result of an increased standard of living. It works the other way too. The ultimate determiner of wages is productivity. As more capital is accumulated, people are more productive and so employers are forced to pay them more to keep them. You'll notice that people in those menial jobs are typically either recent immigrants or in their teens or twenties. That's because anyone with any ambition can acquire enough skills that, even if they can't live well, they can get a job that allows them to live comfortably. The march of technology *has* improved our lives, and that's true of pretty much every sector of society. I find it hard to believe that anyone would want trade places with someone in a similar social situation 100 years ago. If they did, those people will almost certainly end up working 12-hour shifts in factories or dawn-to-usk jobs on farms. Who wants that? The bloody Technology Wars break out. Small-scale but violent conflicts erupt in many cities as technology-deprived Americans, increasingly condemned to poorly-paying menial jobs or displaced completely by computing technologies, stage riots. This unrest spreads to Third World and technologically-underveloped countries. A violent Luddite movement organizes, conducting a rash of terrorist attacks against technological targets and facilities. This is more Katz nonsense. Economics doesn't work that way. For starters, no one is going to be "deprived of technology." Computer prices are dropping so fast that pretty soon literally anyone will be able to afford one every couple of years. And even if parents are computer-illiterate, this does not preclude their kids from becoming skilled. Furthermore, the vision of being "increasingly condemned to poorly-paying menial jobs" is exactly wrong. The trend of the last hundred years has been liberating people from that kind of job. At the turn of the century, nearly everyone was either a farmer or a factory worker. This has changed, as machines have taken over those menial jobs and freed workers for more challenging tasks. The idea that machines will replace us all is similarly nonsense. Human labor is the most universally valuable commodity in existence. The reason that workers are replaced by machines is that those workers are too expensive. This means that mechanization is the result of an increased standard of living. It works the other way too. The ultimate determiner of wages is productivity. As more capital is accumulated, people are more productive and so employers are forced to pay them more to keep them. You'll notice that people in those menial jobs are typically either recent immigrants or in their teens or twenties. That's because anyone with any ambition can acquire enough skills that, even if they can't live well, they can get a job that allows them to live comfortably. The march of technology *has* improved our lives, and that's true of pretty much every sector of society. I find it hard to believe that anyone would want trade places with someone in a similar social situation 100 years ago. If they did, those people will almost certainly end up working 12-hour shifts in factories or dawn-to-usk jobs on farms. Who wants that? The bloody Technology Wars break out. Small-scale but violent conflicts erupt in many cities as technology-deprived Americans, increasingly condemned to poorly-paying menial jobs or displaced completely by computing technologies, stage riots. This unrest spreads to Third World and technologically-underveloped countries. A violent Luddite movement organizes, conducting a rash of terrorist attacks against technological targets and facilities. This is more Katz nonsense. Economics doesn't work that way. For starters, no one is going to be "deprived of technology." Computer prices are dropping so fast that pretty soon literally anyone will be able to afford one every couple of years. And even if parents are computer-illiterate, this does not preclude their kids from becoming skilled. Furthermore, the vision of being "increasingly condemned to poorly-paying menial jobs" is exactly wrong. The trend of the last hundred years has been liberating people from that kind of job. At the turn of the century, nearly everyone was either a farmer or a factory worker. This has changed, as machines have taken over those menial jobs and freed workers for more challenging tasks. The idea that machines will replace us all is similarly nonsense. Human labor is the most universally valuable commodity in existence. The reason that workers are replaced by machines is that those workers are too expensive. This means that mechanization is the result of an increased standard of living. It works the other way too. The ultimate determiner of wages is productivity. As more capital is accumulated, people are more productive and so employers are forced to pay them more to keep them. You'll notice that people in those menial jobs are typically either recent immigrants or in their teens or twenties. That's because anyone with any ambition can acquire enough skills that, even if they can't live well, they can get a job that allows them to live comfortably. The march of technology *has* improved our lives, and that's true of pretty much every sector of society. I find it hard to believe that anyone would want trade places with someone in a similar social situation 100 years ago. If they did, those people will almost certainly end up working 12-hour shifts in factories or dawn-to-usk jobs on farms. Who wants that? The bloody Technology Wars break out. Small-scale but violent conflicts erupt in many cities as technology-deprived Americans, increasingly condemned to poorly-paying menial jobs or displaced completely by computing technologies, stage riots. This unrest spreads to Third World and technologically-underveloped countries. A violent Luddite movement organizes, conducting a rash of terrorist attacks against technological targets and facilities. This is more Katz nonsense. Economics doesn't work that way. For starters, no one is going to be "deprived of technology." Computer prices are dropping so fast that pretty soon literally anyone will be able to afford one every couple of years. And even if parents are computer-illiterate, this does not preclude their kids from becoming skilled. Furthermore, the vision of being "increasingly condemned to poorly-paying menial jobs" is exactly wrong. The trend of the last hundred years has been liberating people from that kind of job. At the turn of the century, nearly everyone was either a farmer or a factory worker. This has changed, as machines have taken over those menial jobs and freed workers for more challenging tasks. The idea that machines will replace us all is similarly nonsense. Human labor is the most universally valuable commodity in existence. The reason that workers are replaced by machines is that those workers are too expensive. This means that mechanization is the result of an increased standard of living. It works the other way too. The ultimate determiner of wages is productivity. As more capital is accumulated, people are more productive and so employers are forced to pay them more to keep them. You'll notice that people in those menial jobs are typically either recent immigrants or in their teens or twenties. That's because anyone with any ambition can acquire enough skills that, even if they can't live well, they can get a job that allows them to live comfortably. The march of technology *has* improved our lives, and that's true of pretty much every sector of society. I find it hard to believe that anyone would want trade places with someone in a similar social situation 100 years ago. If they did, those people will almost certainly end up working 12-hour shifts in factories or dawn-to-usk jobs on farms. Who wants that? The bloody Technology Wars break out. Small-scale but violent conflicts erupt in many cities as technology-deprived Americans, increasingly condemned to poorly-paying menial jobs or displaced completely by computing technologies, stage riots. This unrest spreads to Third World and technologically-underveloped countries. A violent Luddite movement organizes, conducting a rash of terrorist attacks against technological targets and facilities. This is more Katz nonsense. Economics doesn't work that way. For starters, no one is going to be "deprived of technology." Computer prices are dropping so fast that pretty soon literally anyone will be able to afford one every couple of years. And even if parents are computer-illiterate, this does not preclude their kids from becoming skilled. Furthermore, the vision of being "increasingly condemned to poorly-paying menial jobs" is exactly wrong. The trend of the last hundred years has been liberating people from that kind of job. At the turn of the century, nearly everyone was either a farmer or a factory worker. This has changed, as machines have taken over those menial jobs and freed workers for more challenging tasks. The idea that machines will replace us all is similarly nonsense. Human labor is the most universally valuable commodity in existence. The reason that workers are replaced by machines is that those workers are too expensive. This means that mechanization is the result of an increased standard of living. It works the other way too. The ultimate determiner of wages is productivity. As more capital is accumulated, people are more productive and so employers are forced to pay them more to keep them. You'll notice that people in those menial jobs are typically either recent immigrants or in their teens or twenties. That's because anyone with any ambition can acquire enough skills that, even if they can't live well, they can get a job that allows them to live comfortably. The march of technology *has* improved our lives, and that's true of pretty much every sector of society. I find it hard to believe that anyone would want trade places with someone in a similar social situation 100 years ago. If they did, those people will almost certainly end up working 12-hour shifts in factories or dawn-to-usk jobs on farms. Who wants that? The bloody Technology Wars break out. Small-scale but violent conflicts erupt in many cities as technology-deprived Americans, increasingly condemned to poorly-paying menial jobs or displaced completely by computing technologies, stage riots. This unrest spreads to Third World and technologically-underveloped countries. A violent Luddite movement organizes, conducting a rash of terrorist attacks against technological targets and facilities. This is more Katz nonsense. Economics doesn't work that way. For starters, no one is going to be "deprived of technology." Computer prices are dropping so fast that pretty soon literally anyone will be able to afford one every couple of years. And even if parents are computer-illiterate, this does not preclude their kids from becoming skilled. Furthermore, the vision of being "increasingly condemned to poorly-paying menial jobs" is exactly wrong. The trend of the last hundred years has been liberating people from that kind of job. At the turn of the century, nearly everyone was either a farmer or a factory worker. This has changed, as machines have taken over those menial jobs and freed workers for more challenging tasks. The idea that machines will replace us all is similarly nonsense. Human labor is the most universally valuable commodity in existence. The reason that workers are replaced by machines is that those workers are too expensive. This means that mechanization is the result of an increased standard of living. It works the other way too. The ultimate determiner of wages is productivity. As more capital is accumulated, people are more productive and so employers are forced to pay them more to keep them. You'll notice that people in those menial jobs are typically either recent immigrants or in their teens or twenties. That's because anyone with any ambition can acquire enough skills that, even if they can't live well, they can get a job that allows them to live comfortably. The march of technology *has* improved our lives, and that's true of pretty much every sector of society. I find it hard to believe that anyone would want trade places with someone in a similar social situation 100 years ago. If they did, those people will almost certainly end up working 12-hour shifts in factories or dawn-to-usk jobs on farms. Who wants that? The bloody Technology Wars break out. Small-scale but violent conflicts erupt in many cities as technology-deprived Americans, increasingly condemned to poorly-paying menial jobs or displaced completely by computing technologies, stage riots. This unrest spreads to Third World and technologically-underveloped countries. A violent Luddite movement organizes, conducting a rash of terrorist attacks against technological targets and facilities. This is more Katz nonsense. Economics doesn't work that way. For starters, no one is going to be "deprived of technology." Computer prices are dropping so fast that pretty soon literally anyone will be able to afford one every couple of years. And even if parents are computer-illiterate, this does not preclude their kids from becoming skilled. Furthermore, the vision of being "increasingly condemned to poorly-paying menial jobs" is exactly wrong. The trend of the last hundred years has been liberating people from that kind of job. At the turn of the century, nearly everyone was either a farmer or a factory worker. This has changed, as machines have taken over those menial jobs and freed workers for more challenging tasks. The idea that machines will replace us all is similarly nonsense. Human labor is the most universally valuable commodity in existence. The reason that workers are replaced by machines is that those workers are too expensive. This means that mechanization is the result of an increased standard of living. It works the other way too. The ultimate determiner of wages is productivity. As more capital is accumulated, people are more productive and so employers are forced to pay them more to keep them. You'll notice that people in those menial jobs are typically either recent immigrants or in their teens or twenties. That's because anyone with any ambition can acquire enough skills that, even if they can't live well, they can get a job that allows them to live comfortably. The march of technology *has* improved our lives, and that's true of pretty much every sector of society. I find it hard to believe that anyone would want trade places with someone in a similar social situation 100 years ago. If they did, those people will almost certainly end up working 12-hour shifts in factories or dawn-to-usk jobs on farms. Who wants that? The bloody Technology Wars break out. Small-scale but violent conflicts erupt in many cities as technology-deprived Americans, increasingly condemned to poorly-paying menial jobs or displaced completely by computing technologies, stage riots. This unrest spreads to Third World and technologically-underveloped countries. A violent Luddite movement organizes, conducting a rash of terrorist attacks against technological targets and facilities. This is more Katz nonsense. Economics doesn't work that way. For starters, no one is going to be "deprived of technology." Computer prices are dropping so fast that pretty soon literally anyone will be able to afford one every couple of years. And even if parents are computer-illiterate, this does not preclude their kids from becoming skilled. Furthermore, the vision of being "increasingly condemned to poorly-paying menial jobs" is exactly wrong. The trend of the last hundred years has been liberating people from that kind of job. At the turn of the century, nearly everyone was either a farmer or a factory worker. This has changed, as machines have taken over those menial jobs and freed workers for more challenging tasks. The idea that machines will replace us all is similarly nonsense. Human labor is the most universally valuable commodity in existence. The reason that workers are replaced by machines is that those workers are too expensive. This means that mechanization is the result of an increased standard of living. It works the other way too. The ultimate determiner of wages is productivity. As more capital is accumulated, people are more productive and so employers are forced to pay them more to keep them. You'll notice that people in those menial jobs are typically either recent immigrants or in their teens or twenties. That's because anyone with any ambition can acquire enough skills that, even if they can't live well, they can get a job that allows them to live comfortably. The march of technology *has* improved our lives, and that's true of pretty much every sector of society. I find it hard to believe that anyone would want trade places with someone in a similar social situation 100 years ago. If they did, those people will almost certainly end up working 12-hour shifts in factories or dawn-to-usk jobs on farms. Who wants that? The bloody Technology Wars break out. Small-scale but violent conflicts erupt in many cities as technology-deprived Americans, increasingly condemned to poorly-paying menial jobs or displaced completely by computing technologies, stage riots. This unrest spreads to Third World and technologically-underveloped countries. A violent Luddite movement organizes, conducting a rash of terrorist attacks against technological targets and facilities. This is more Katz nonsense. Economics doesn't work that way. For starters, no one is going to be "deprived of technology." Computer prices are dropping so fast that pretty soon literally anyone will be able to afford one every couple of years. And even if parents are computer-illiterate, this does not preclude their kids from becoming skilled. Furthermore, the vision of being "increasingly condemned to poorly-paying menial jobs" is exactly wrong. The trend of the last hundred years has been liberating people from that kind of job. At the turn of the century, nearly everyone was either a farmer or a factory worker. This has changed, as machines have taken over those menial jobs and freed workers for more challenging tasks. The idea that machines will replace us all is similarly nonsense. Human labor is the most universally valuable commodity in existence. The reason that workers are replaced by machines is that those workers are too expensive. This means that mechanization is the result of an increased standard of living. It works the other way too. The ultimate determiner of wages is productivity. As more capital is accumulated, people are more productive and so employers are forced to pay them more to keep them. You'll notice that people in those menial jobs are typically either recent immigrants or in their teens or twenties. That's because anyone with any ambition can acquire enough skills that, even if they can't live well, they can get a job that allows them to live comfortably. The march of technology *has* improved our lives, and that's true of pretty much every sector of society. I find it hard to believe that anyone would want trade places with someone in a similar social situation 100 years ago. If they did, those people will almost certainly end up working 12-hour shifts in factories or dawn-to-usk jobs on farms. Who wants that? The bloody Technology Wars break out. Small-scale but violent conflicts erupt in many cities as technology-deprived Americans, increasingly condemned to poorly-paying menial jobs or displaced completely by computing technologies, stage riots. This unrest spreads to Third World and technologically-underveloped countries. A violent Luddite movement organizes, conducting a rash of terrorist attacks against technological targets and facilities. This is more Katz nonsense. Economics doesn't work that way. For starters, no one is going to be "deprived of technology." Computer prices are dropping so fast that pretty soon literally anyone will be able to afford one every couple of years. And even if parents are computer-illiterate, this does not preclude their kids from becoming skilled. Furthermore, the vision of being "increasingly condemned to poorly-paying menial jobs" is exactly wrong. The trend of the last hundred years has been liberating people from that kind of job. At the turn of the century, nearly everyone was either a farmer or a factory worker. This has changed, as machines have taken over those menial jobs and freed workers for more challenging tasks. The idea that machines will replace us all is similarly nonsense. Human labor is the most universally valuable commodity in existence. The reason that workers are replaced by machines is that those workers are too expensive. This means that mechanization is the result of an increased standard of living. It works the other way too. The ultimate determiner of wages is productivity. As more capital is accumulated, people are more productive and so employers are forced to pay them more to keep them. You'll notice that people in those menial jobs are typically either recent immigrants or in their teens or twenties. That's because anyone with any ambition can acquire enough skills that, even if they can't live well, they can get a job that allows them to live comfortably. The march of technology *has* improved our lives, and that's true of pretty much every sector of society. I find it hard to believe that anyone would want trade places with someone in a similar social situation 100 years ago. If they did, those people will almost certainly end up working 12-hour shifts in factories or dawn-to-usk jobs on farms. Who wants that? The bloody Technology Wars break out. Small-scale but violent conflicts erupt in many cities as technology-deprived Americans, increasingly condemned to poorly-paying menial jobs or displaced completely by computing technologies, stage riots. This unrest spreads to Third World and technologically-underveloped countries. A violent Luddite movement organizes, conducting a rash of terrorist attacks against technological targets and facilities. This is more Katz nonsense. Economics doesn't work that way. For starters, no one is going to be "deprived of technology." Computer prices are dropping so fast that pretty soon literally anyone will be able to afford one every couple of years. And even if parents are computer-illiterate, this does not preclude their kids from becoming skilled. Furthermore, the vision of being "increasingly condemned to poorly-paying menial jobs" is exactly wrong. The trend of the last hundred years has been liberating people from that kind of job. At the turn of the century, nearly everyone was either a farmer or a factory worker. This has changed, as machines have taken over those menial jobs and freed workers for more challenging tasks. The idea that machines will replace us all is similarly nonsense. Human labor is the most universally valuable commodity in existence. The reason that workers are replaced by machines is that those workers are too expensive. This means that mechanization is the result of an increased standard of living. It works the other way too. The ultimate determiner of wages is productivity. As more capital is accumulated, people are more productive and so employers are forced to pay them more to keep them. You'll notice that people in those menial jobs are typically either recent immigrants or in their teens or twenties. That's because anyone with any ambition can acquire enough skills that, even if they can't live well, they can get a job that allows them to live comfortably. The march of technology *has* improved our lives, and that's true of pretty much every sector of society. I find it hard to believe that anyone would want trade places with someone in a similar social situation 100 years ago. If they did, those people will almost certainly end up working 12-hour shifts in factories or dawn-to-usk jobs on farms. Who wants that? The bloody Technology Wars break out. Small-scale but violent conflicts erupt in many cities as technology-deprived Americans, increasingly condemned to poorly-paying menial jobs or displaced completely by computing technologies, stage riots. This unrest spreads to Third World and technologically-underveloped countries. A violent Luddite movement organizes, conducting a rash of terrorist attacks against technological targets and facilities. This is more Katz nonsense. Economics doesn't work that way. For starters, no one is going to be "deprived of technology." Computer prices are dropping so fast that pretty soon literally anyone will be able to afford one every couple of years. And even if parents are computer-illiterate, this does not preclude their kids from becoming skilled. Furthermore, the vision of being "increasingly condemned to poorly-paying menial jobs" is exactly wrong. The trend of the last hundred years has been liberating people from that kind of job. At the turn of the century, nearly everyone was either a farmer or a factory worker. This has changed, as machines have taken over those menial jobs and freed workers for more challenging tasks. The idea that machines will replace us all is similarly nonsense. Human labor is the most universally valuable commodity in existence. The reason that workers are replaced by machines is that those workers are too expensive. This means that mechanization is the result of an increased standard of living. It works the other way too. The ultimate determiner of wages is productivity. As more capital is accumulated, people are more productive and so employers are forced to pay them more to keep them. You'll notice that people in those menial jobs are typically either recent immigrants or in their teens or twenties. That's because anyone with any ambition can acquire enough skills that, even if they can't live well, they can get a job that allows them to live comfortably. The march of technology *has* improved our lives, and that's true of pretty much every sector of society. I find it hard to believe that anyone would want trade places with someone in a similar social situation 100 years ago. If they did, those people will almost certainly end up working 12-hour shifts in factories or dawn-to-usk jobs on farms. Who wants that? The bloody Technology Wars break out. Small-scale but violent conflicts erupt in many cities as technology-deprived Americans, increasingly condemned to poorly-paying menial jobs or displaced completely by computing technologies, stage riots. This unrest spreads to Third World and technologically-underveloped countries. A violent Luddite movement organizes, conducting a rash of terrorist attacks against technological targets and facilities. This is more Katz nonsense. Economics doesn't work that way. For starters, no one is going to be "deprived of technology." Computer prices are dropping so fast that pretty soon literally anyone will be able to afford one every couple of years. And even if parents are computer-illiterate, this does not preclude their kids from becoming skilled. Furthermore, the vision of being "increasingly condemned to poorly-paying menial jobs" is exactly wrong. The trend of the last hundred years has been liberating people from that kind of job. At the turn of the century, nearly everyone was either a farmer or a factory worker. This has changed, as machines have taken over those menial jobs and freed workers for more challenging tasks. The idea that machines will replace us all is similarly nonsense. Human labor is the most universally valuable commodity in existence. The reason that workers are replaced by machines is that those workers are too expensive. This means that mechanization is the result of an increased standard of living. It works the other way too. The ultimate determiner of wages is productivity. As more capital is accumulated, people are more productive and so employers are forced to pay them more to keep them. You'll notice that people in those menial jobs are typically either recent immigrants or in their teens or twenties. That's because anyone with any ambition can acquire enough skills that, even if they can't live well, they can get a job that allows them to live comfortably. The march of technology *has* improved our lives, and that's true of pretty much every sector of society. I find it hard to believe that anyone would want trade places with someone in a similar social situation 100 years ago. If they did, those people will almost certainly end up working 12-hour shifts in factories or dawn-to-usk jobs on farms. Who wants that? The bloody Technology Wars break out. Small-scale but violent conflicts erupt in many cities as technology-deprived Americans, increasingly condemned to poorly-paying menial jobs or displaced completely by computing technologies, stage riots. This unrest spreads to Third World and technologically-underveloped countries. A violent Luddite movement organizes, conducting a rash of terrorist attacks against technological targets and facilities. This is more Katz nonsense. Economics doesn't work that way. For starters, no one is going to be "deprived of technology." Computer prices are dropping so fast that pretty soon literally anyone will be able to afford one every couple of years. And even if parents are computer-illiterate, this does not preclude their kids from becoming skilled. Furthermore, the vision of being "increasingly condemned to poorly-paying menial jobs" is exactly wrong. The trend of the last hundred years has been liberating people from that kind of job. At the turn of the century, nearly everyone was either a farmer or a factory worker. This has changed, as machines have taken over those menial jobs and freed workers for more challenging tasks. The idea that machines will replace us all is similarly nonsense. Human labor is the most universally valuable commodity in existence. The reason that workers are replaced by machines is that those workers are too expensive. This means that mechanization is the result of an increased standard of living. It works the other way too. The ultimate determiner of wages is productivity. As more capital is accumulated, people are more productive and so employers are forced to pay them more to keep them. You'll notice that people in those menial jobs are typically either recent immigrants or in their teens or twenties. That's because anyone with any ambition can acquire enough skills that, even if they can't live well, they can get a job that allows them to live comfortably. The march of technology *has* improved our lives, and that's true of pretty much every sector of society. I find it hard to believe that anyone would want trade places with someone in a similar social situation 100 years ago. If they did, those people will almost certainly end up working 12-hour shifts in factories or dawn-to-usk jobs on farms. Who wants that? The bloody Technology Wars break out. Small-scale but violent conflicts erupt in many cities as technology-deprived Americans, increasingly condemned to poorly-paying menial jobs or displaced completely by computing technologies, stage riots. This unrest spreads to Third World and technologically-underveloped countries. A violent Luddite movement organizes, conducting a rash of terrorist attacks against technological targets and facilities. This is more Katz nonsense. Economics doesn't work that way. For starters, no one is going to be "deprived of technology." Computer prices are dropping so fast that pretty soon literally anyone will be able to afford one every couple of years. And even if parents are computer-illiterate, this does not preclude their kids from becoming skilled. Furthermore, the vision of being "increasingly condemned to poorly-paying menial jobs" is exactly wrong. The trend of the last hundred years has been liberating people from that kind of job. At the turn of the century, nearly everyone was either a farmer or a factory worker. This has changed, as machines have taken over those menial jobs and freed workers for more challenging tasks. The idea that machines will replace us all is similarly nonsense. Human labor is the most universally valuable commodity in existence. The reason that workers are replaced by machines is that those workers are too expensive. This means that mechanization is the result of an increased standard of living. It works the other way too. The ultimate determiner of wages is productivity. As more capital is accumulated, people are more productive and so employers are forced to pay them more to keep them. You'll notice that people in those menial jobs are typically either recent immigrants or in their teens or twenties. That's because anyone with any ambition can acquire enough skills that, even if they can't live well, they can get a job that allows them to live comfortably. The march of technology *has* improved our lives, and that's true of pretty much every sector of society. I find it hard to believe that anyone would want trade places with someone in a similar social situation 100 years ago. If they did, those people will almost certainly end up working 12-hour shifts in factories or dawn-to-usk jobs on farms. Who wants that? The bloody Technology Wars break out. Small-scale but violent conflicts erupt in many cities as technology-deprived Americans, increasingly condemned to poorly-paying menial jobs or displaced completely by computing technologies, stage riots. This unrest spreads to Third World and technologically-underveloped countries. A violent Luddite movement organizes, conducting a rash of terrorist attacks against technological targets and facilities. This is more Katz nonsense. Economics doesn't work that way. For starters, no one is going to be "deprived of technology." Computer prices are dropping so fast that pretty soon literally anyone will be able to afford one every couple of years. And even if parents are computer-illiterate, this does not preclude their kids from becoming skilled. Furthermore, the vision of being "increasingly condemned to poorly-paying menial jobs" is exactly wrong. The trend of the last hundred years has been liberating people from that kind of job. At the turn of the century, nearly everyone was either a farmer or a factory worker. This has changed, as machines have taken over those menial jobs and freed workers for more challenging tasks. The idea that machines will replace us all is similarly nonsense. Human labor is the most universally valuable commodity in existence. The reason that workers are replaced by machines is that those workers are too expensive. This means that mechanization is the result of an increased standard of living. It works the other way too. The ultimate determiner of wages is productivity. As more capital is accumulated, people are more productive and so employers are forced to pay them more to keep them. You'll notice that people in those menial jobs are typically either recent immigrants or in their teens or twenties. That's because anyone with any ambition can acquire enough skills that, even if they can't live well, they can get a job that allows them to live comfortably. The march of technology *has* improved our lives, and that's true of pretty much every sector of society. I find it hard to believe that anyone would want trade places with someone in a similar social situation 100 years ago. If they did, those people will almost certainly end up working 12-hour shifts in factories or dawn-to-usk jobs on farms. Who wants that? The bloody Technology Wars break out. Small-scale but violent conflicts erupt in many cities as technology-deprived Americans, increasingly condemned to poorly-paying menial jobs or displaced completely by computing technologies, stage riots. This unrest spreads to Third World and technological

Re:Linux

[CrosseyedPainless]

Uhhh... next time you can't say "no" to the crack pipe, why not spout your screed to your own website, where it'll be (at least marginally) on-topic?

MS OS

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe MS is trying to get the world to fix its broken code for free and leech from the community and thus steal our souls as well as our dignity ClusterSnarf (My login didnt work)

Re:MS OS

[Trepidity]

sounds like *cough*Netscape*cough*

EDLIN

[DrSpoo]

...that too. Maybe even CLS.

Linus should...

[Anonymous Coward]

Linus should live as he learn. It's their code and it's they who choose license.

-T

Oh well

[warmi]

He may criticize them but to tell the truth, they have a right to do whatever they want.
They own the software - "own" the magic word that makes whole world going.
There is no proven better business model than that ...

Re:Oh well

[Rambo]

That may have a right to do whatever they want, but I object to the "open-ness" they're trying to take advantage of. Their "open" software is open like a supermarket is open. You can go in and handle or look at the goods, but don't try to go anywhere with them without paying! Truly open software gives you the right to modify and pass it around without restriction, something Sun's license fails miserably.

I still don't get it...

[Anonymous Coward]

So... 1) I've got an idea for a product 2) you develop the product for me, for free 3) I will sell it and collect all of the money ...that is insane! Oh wait, that is what Red Hat did.

Re:Seriously now..

[Frank Sullivan]

No, the purpose of Linux is to pool our resources so we can build one giant penis that everyone can use at once, and customize to our own needs!

That, and to make Microsoft's penis smaller. But, with a name like Microsoft... :}

Maybe i should just go back to promiscuous packet-sniffing...

---
Maybe that's just the price you pay for the chains that you refuse.

Lack of Imagination

[knuth]

What a lack of imagination you have. What an impoverished view of life. The only reason for a company's existence is to make money? I think not.

It's not as if even B* G* quit school saying, "I have to become a millionaire. I know, I'll wheel and deal [some would say, steal] my way into a monopoly."

Software development could flourish in a barter economy, in socialism, in communism, . . . it doesn't require a capitalist system.

Call me an idealist, but I contend that the vast majority of companies began with a product or service which they and others considered worthwhile.

Re:SCSL != GPL -- no one said it did.

[PigleT]

Uh.
The SCSL is Yet Another software license which has come to the fore with Sun "releasing" source. There are plenty of us for whom the majority of other source-available software comes out under the GPL and other Open-Source arrangements.
And if you were half-way awake during the 'sun releases solaris source' debate on here, you'd be well aware that it caused some speculative confuddlement.
I say, good on Linus for setting the record straight.
S'there :)

What if MS opened Windows source??

[RNG]

While I sincerely doubt that this will happen anytime soon, even if Microsoft would open their source code, I personally would not care much. Knowning MS, I guess we can assume that they won't really go open source; it will be some sort of community licence, along the lines of what Sun is doing. All this really boils down to, is that it's still their source code. As such, response would at best be lukewarm and probably ignored alltogether by the open source community.

Even if MS released their sources under the GPL (big chance of that happening before hell freezes over), so what? I work in what's basically a Windows-only environment and have grown to pretty much hate Windows and it's features. If I could, I would turn my back on Windows and never look back. I could care less about MS's source code as I'd rather avoid Windows alltogether, in both source and binary form ...

No, but...

[FascDot Killed My Pr]

No, using Linux won't make your penis larger. BUT, by not knuckling under to Microsoft it is easier to present yourself as an Alpha Geek to Geek Hotties. So using Linux can make your penis more in demand, which is really the outcome we want anyway, right?
---

Re:To Hack or not to Hack

[C.Lee]

>Later on, with DirectX, they wanted to provide a better game >environment than DOS could provide. I haven't seen too many DOS games > lately, so I assume that's going well.

You're an idoit. The reason you haven't seen too many DOS games is that Microsoft wants to force people into buying Windows 95/98/2000/WinWhatever. Are you actually claiming the bloated shit,er games that are coming out now for Win 95/98 are actually better that the older DOS games like Crusader: No Remorse by Origin or anything that's running on the game machines? Don't make me laugh at you....

Re: Finland - You've got to be kidding

[jpatokal]

I'm surprised the whole Transmeta team didn't just up and move to Helsinki! Do you think there was a reason Linus didn't start his own business in Finland?

While I suspect the main reason is that Transmeta is not "his company" (Linus is just an employee), Silicon Valley definitely has the advantages of better weather and, more importantly, better wages. Yeah, I know that many startups pay starvation wages with the added lure of stock options, but at least the company doesn't have to pay $200 for each $100 received by the employee, who then has $50 more substracted as income tax. And when he goes grocery shopping with that $50, another $10 is sliced off as sales tax, closer to $40 if he buys alcohol or gasoline.

I do agree with the "third-world" jab though. The US banking system is ridiculously backward, the idea of paying for everything with hand-written checks is downright hilarious to most of the rest of the world. I pay all my bills through the Web and have done so for over 5 years, but even before that, everything was handled electronically through ATMs and automated payments. I can authorize the telco or whatever to take its money directly from my bank account; of course, I get to see the bill first so I can dispute it if there are problems. (Not that I've even run into one.)

Cheers,
-j.

Japanese ATMS -- not quite that bad

[jpatokal]

The japanese case is probably because Japan has fallen behind North America and Europe when it comes to networking and the like. It's more a cultural thing than anything else; Japan does very well when it comes to other aspects of computing.

Actually, it's a legal thing: Japanese law didn't differentiate between ATMs and "real" banks, so ATMs had to comply with bank opening hours. The law was changed, so now ATMs have more sensible opening hours.

For what it's worth, I found Japanese ATMs quite fascinating. Many allow you to deposit paper money, which is immediately counted and placed in your account! And instead of getting bank statements mailed home, Japanese banks still use a little bank book which records all your transactions; when you feed it in, the ATM actually turns the pages and locates the right row to print on automatically! (You don't have to always use your bank book, the card is enough, but you can get the transaction log 'dumped' into the book whenever you want.) All Japanese ATMs are networked together (like the US Cirrus system) so you can withdraw even from competitors' ATMs, although there may be a small charge. Now this is one area where I would like Europe to get its act together, as the only way I can get cash outside Finland is through VISA, even in the euro zone. =/

Cheers,
-j.

SCSL != GPL -- no one said it did.

[MidKnight]

I'm sure this won't be popular, but I've got to take issue with Torvolds on bashing Sun's CSL. It isn't meant to be an Open Source initiative. Loosely put, it is there so that people building stuff around Sun technology don't have to pay licensing fees during the development process. Period. To quote:

"SCSL provides a more flexible process for gaining access to technology that allows tool vendors, chip designers, commercial OEMs, universities and research organizations access to the picoJavaTM and SPARCTM microprocessor source files without fees during the initial evaluation and development phases. "

To criticize SCSL's language for being too restrictive (in relation to OSS) is just plain silly. It's like a Guiness drinker decrying O'Douls because it's a non-alcolholic brew... sheesh.

--Mid

From the fringe

[jflynn]

"If you think open source software is something that has some thread of ethical or moral content, then consider yourself a "fringe" element of the open source movement."

I guess I'm way out there on the fringe then, because I believe *most* actions have a moral or ethical component, albeit small, including the choice of license for a project.

I wouldn't go nearly so far as to say only open source licenses are ethical or moral, but they *do* help convince me the company is interested in the good of their customers as well as their pocketbooks. That kind of thing used to be called business ethics, back when it was in vogue. Companies were said to have a good reputation when they acted ethically, and they spent considerable time maintaining that reputation.

Open source licenses promote freedom and choice, encourage open standards, make software available to more people, increase quality, and help prevent monopolies. I consider these social goods, and therefore give open source licenses a moral and ethical plus. I am *not* saying that closed source software is evil, more like neutral, except in the case of licenses that egregiously exploit end users or interfere with consumer choice.

??Re:This is a welcome change in Linus!

[Monty Worm]

Ummm. Bruce. Not quite.

Linus doesn't seem to have changed his mind at all. What he seems to be saying (to me, anyway) is: "Either be a wolf, or a sheep. But don't play dress-up. Don't pretend to be open-source if your licence is really non-free".

It's a valuable point. If you write your own license, you shouldn't pretend it's free if it isn't. It brings everything down.

As for Microsoft's push to make parts of Windows free: I think they've missed the point. We need the whole to be free, or nothing. If only inbuilt, interdependent components are free then we still can't do anything.

The context is different

[Etyenne]

Back then, Linux badly need more user-friendliness, end-user application and GUI. KDE was a step in that direction even if meant contaminating Linux distro with a closed-source licence. Now, there is more choice, both OSS and proprietary, so we can afford to be picky.

Basically, the balance of power is changing.

To Hack or not to Hack

[UnknownSoldier]

> The people who overuse "hack" as a verb probably would be bewildered to have to work on a project

I hope I'm not overusing "hack", but the reason I did is because I have my doubts that Winblows95/98 is an example of good software engineering, its more like a HACK job, or would that be better said as ONE_BIG_KLUDGE? ;-)

I'm a software engineer, and admist the Design Specs, and Software Engineering that I do, I also happen to HACK code. Hack in this case means Good. The Hack above has a bad conotation. Sorry for not being more clear.

Cheers

Re: Finland - You've got to be kidding

[Bitwhacker]

'their cultural and economic hegemony has allowed finland to advance technologically at a rate which silicon valley, working under the constraints of the US's social problems, simply cannot sustain. ' I'm surprised the whole Transmeta team didn't just up and move to Helsinki! Do you think there was a reason Linus didn't start his own business in Finland?

Offtopic - Ahhh... It does the heart good...

[orcrist]

...but actually "opening" it in a very closed and restricted way - is disingenuous, and deserves criticism.

...to see disingenuous, a five-syllable, non-technology-related (sp?) word, used (and spelled) correctly on Slashdot. It reminds me that there are indeed still literates (I don't claim necessarily to be one of them) active in the discussions.

There should be a moderation category for well-formed cogent arguments. Note this is not the same as interesting or insightful, but it is very communicative, allowing you to judge the arguments more accurately.

Oh well, I'm blathering now...

Chris

Re:torvalds retiring?

[orcrist]

you know... a shy retiring kind of guy, instead of the kind of guy who shys then retires (kind of like a horse).

I think I need to go to bed

Chris

Er..Uh...His company?

[gothic]

::Torvalds dodged questions about his company, a so-far top-secret Silicon Valley venture called Transmeta::

Who *does* actually own Transmeta? Or is the owner like the bad guy from the Inspector Gadget cartoon. And who else special works there? I know Linus and the MS guy, but what other well-known computer geeks are employeed by them?

Re:Er..Uh...His company?

[Mark J Tilford]

I've heard that ddt of Linux Doom/Quake and founder of crack.com went there after crack.com went under.
-----------

Re:yeah

[warmi]

Heroic ?? What so damn heroic about releasing source code ?
It is only a business. Those who win count and so far it is MS that wins consistently ...

Any access to the source is better than none

[Foaf]

There are a hell of a lot of Windows apps that proabably wouldn't have come about or been as useful without looking at the Windows source.

Citrix WinFrame comes to mind. IIRC Citrix did a deal with MS to get access to the source for Windows. This basically meant they could fix bugs more easily.

I've read various discussion groups where Sun developers are happy about Sun's decicision to open up Solaris because it will help them with their application developement. The same would go for Windows developers if MS, by some miracle, decided to let people see the source for Windows.

IMHO, the bulk of software developers, especially those who write for Windows, aren't really interested in helping maintain their OS of choice. They just want to make their software run better, with less bugs. Any access to OS source, no matter the license, will help them make this happen.
------------------------------------------------ -------

torvalds retiring?

[CommanderTaco]

Since when is linux retiring?

Re:torvalds retiring?

[tweek]

I don't think Linux will retire but LinuS might one day.
Not making fun just pointing out.

finland and technology

[thelonius]

their cultural and economic hegemony has allowed finland to advance technologically at a rate which silicon valley, working under the constraints of the US's social problems, simply cannot sustain. (not that i'm unhappy living where i do, i feel that accepting the challenges of american life can enrich, and waiting 3 months for the latest gizmo is a small price to pay for diversity and tolerance.)
further reading:
Finland and the Future of Europe
The Rise and Fall of the "Swedish Model"

I forgot to add...

[sterwill]

...real-world examples.

Sun is a hardware company. They make money by selling reliable, scalable hardware to people who need it. As I see it, Sun could release Solaris under the GPL (contracts with other source code owners aside) and it would only serve to INCREASE sales of their hardware, and therefore their profits.

Sun has hundreds, maybe thousands, of reasons not to do this right now (mostly, I think, because they're greedy, uneasy with all software projects, and inexperienced in the Free software world), but not a single one of them is "the bits for the source code for Solaris weigh more than the bits for a proprietary binary release, and it would affect our bottom line (through increased shipping costs) to move towards open software."

--

Re:I forgot to add...

[warmi]

If they are greedy then, according to your logic they should release as much code as possible since this will generate them more revenue. And by they way, being greedy is what makes business work.

Direct debit a ripoff?

[Tet]

There's a reason people don't use direct funds transfers. It's a rip-off. In case you idiots haven't noticed, most banks charge extra for direct debit

Yikes! You really do live in a backward country! :-) Here in the UK, banks charge less for direct debit, because it saves them paperwork. Utilities typically offer around a 5% discount if you pay by direct debit for the same reasons -- it saves them money. A recent survey showed an average family in the UK will save the equivalent of around US$400 a year by paying bills with direct debit.

Re:Direct debit a ripoff?

[C.Lee]

>Yikes! You really do live in a backward country! :-) Here in the UK, >banks charge less for direct debit, because it saves them paperwork.

Here in the US, most banks I've looked at have a monthly service charge of up to $5 dollars for direct debit on top of the monthly fees for the checking account itself. Direct debit is a great deal. For the banks,that is. Consumers as usual get shafted, especially the ones who can least afford it. Ironic thing is with all the "new technology" being introduced into the phone,cable and banking industry, we're seeing more and more of this comming to pass.

[Paul Crowley]

Thank-you! It's astonishing that so many people can miss this bleeding obvious point. Let's see a nice high score for this one.

How about "any interior body is better than none" or "at least it's not made of radioactive waste"?
--

Re:Linux Riot - LOL

[korpiq]

Oh my god, the pictures are great.

Ever thought there's no real difference between software advocacy, street gangs or networked marketing fandom? Be very afraid :D

Re:What the hell?

[Darren.Moffat]

I couldn't have said it better myself.

I like Linux and what it has done for the Computing community as a whole. In the past I, and many other Sun engineers, have been contributers to the Linux community.

I work for Sun and they pay my living and if the company I work for decides to give the general public access to our crown jewels then that is our buisness - we didn't have to do it.

If you don't like ours or anyone elses license terms then don't buy or use the product, thats your choice just like it is the owner of the codes choice to decide how/if/when they distribute it to anyone else.

Would all the people who are complaining that the Community Source license isn't your favorite GPL virus be happy if all of the commerical companies who have decided to let you see their source turned around now and said "you all moaned too much sorry we have all changed our mind you aren't getting to see anything" ? Huh ? Well I think that the majority of you won't even notice the slightest difference because you had no intention what so ever of doing anything with the code. How many of you who moan about this stuff actually understand the full implications of the Sun Community Source License (SCSL) or GPL ?

The Linux source might be GPL but at the end of the day if Linus or his advisors don't like the changes you suggest it won't get into the official kernel. They only really difference between SCSL and GPL in this instance is that with the GPL you can go your own way and distribute it anyway.

I could have posted this as AC but I decided it would hold more weight if MY opions (not Sun's legal department) came from me not another AC posting.

As a brit

[Wheely]

As a brit who's spent a fair amount of time in both places I can vouch for that fact that Finland is indeed streets ahead of SV in actually using modern technology. Both are streets ahead of my native UK though.

regards

Re:cause he's from finland

[orcrist]

presidents of the us need to be born here

bzzzt. Thanks for playing.

Presidents have to be natural-born citizens. It doesn't matter where they're born, rather with which status. This information is straight from the U.S. consulate in Munich, Germany, where my son was born (June 21st, 1999 :-). I'm a U.S. citizen so he's a natural-born citizen (as opposed to a naturalized citizen), which means he's still elegible to become President; although, I hope I raise him better than that :-)

Of course, in essence you're still correct; Linus isn't elegible, unless he's hidden the fact that one of his parents is a U.S. citizen...

So I guess you get 1 point.

Chris

His remark about finland is so true!

[segmond]

I have friends all over the world, thanks to the internet, and I must agree with his remark about these third world countries being more advanced than us. You may disagree, but what do I care of what you think? when I know what I know? In USA today, in classrooms we get to use PIII500mhz with 256mb of ram, and 20inch montior with windows. In third world countries we are broke, and get to use 386dx 40mhz with 16mb ram and 100mb drive. Because of the low quality of the machines, we try to make up for what we don't have, when we code, we don't use visual basic because it will be bloated, we run other better OS to utilize the hardware best, ie bsd/linux not windows. In USA, everyone gets spoiled with fine hardware and crap.
I have had the pleasure of talking to many youngsters, (11-13) in third world europe countries who code in assembly languages and run unix os. I should transfer to a finland for school, I will get a better education and for cheaper money, when I am done with my BS, just come back to the states, spend a year get a Master, and I am ready to roll.

Re:What the hell?

[Bruce Perens]

there has to be a clearly defined and industry accepted meaning of open source

I'm trying to figure out if you simply don't know that it exists, or if you reject it. There is an Open Source Definition that was announced, by yours truly, in the same announcement in which Open Source was announced. Before then the only phrase used to refer to this stuff was Free Software. The definition is on the opensource.org web site. It has broad industry acceptance.

Thanks

Bruce

Re: What the hell

[Bruce Perens]

The president of the Internet Press Guild tells me that they did use "Open Source" at the StarOffice press conference, and then they stopped using it soon afterward. He was there and seems to be a trustworthy person.

Bruce

God Complex

[Anonymous Coward]

It's nice to see that GOD...eh,uhm Torvolds I mean, still is "shy and retiring. I guess he feels his past accomplishments now allow him to shoot off his big mouth. Shut up!

Re:Seriously now..

[Anonymous Coward]

Would that be a Beopenis?

Is it licensed under the General Penis License?

(I'm so ashamed)

What the hell?

[Exanter]

Why is it that everyone feels that is their right and duty to criticize businesses who decide to take a risk and open up their code (Apple, Sun, etc) because the licenses aren't what YOU feel they should be? Is everyone forgetting the saying "he who writes the code picks the license"? It would seem even Linus is forgetting that one now.

Cripes, we should be happy that they are even giving us a chance to look at source code. If you don't like the terms of the license, then for god's sake don't bother making changes... It's not like 95% of the people bitching could even make a change, much less understand half of what they would be looking at anyways.

Re:Seriously now..

[caldroun]

I dont believe that it will make your penis larger, but it wont reboot in the middle of a process.

:)