Many people use computers, but few use them as extensively as the/. crowd. Fewer still have to put up with the ugly kludges behind the pretty icons, or have to borrow the secretary's Windows box because some management nitwit wants a memo in MS-word format instead of plain text or Postscript.
So I am not surprised that a bunch of part-time users don't feel harmed. They have their WIMP interface and their PowerPoint and they think they've got it made. They don't appreciate problems like software bloat and embrace-and-extend strategies.
The media have done a nice job of speculating about an MS breakup, but they have done a poor job of explaining what MS has done wrong. Are you really surprised a majority don't support major penalties?
They can devise a rating system if they want, but it won't make writers and publishers adopt it. So we get a rating system, and it promptly dies of neglect because no one wants to deal with the hassle of using it.
Let's keep the facts and the speculation separate. The development of a rating system, though generally bad, does not imply that governments will immediately pass censorship laws based on that system. They might discuss censorship laws, but passing them is another matter entirely.
I think we should give up and ignore this bad article. The author and his editor don't know how to use an apostrophe (look at the headline). And why doesn't a *journalist* know the difference between a trademark and a copyright? The author's evident lack of fundamental knowledge in his own career-field give scant hope of his writing an insightful article about a complex business and technology topic.
Moody is just trolling and/or trying to gain hits from the Slashdot Effect. His estimated cost of crashes is unsubstantiated: pure fiction. I am not a Windows fan or anything, but Moody clearly did no research for this "opinion." He just wrote down the first thing that popped into his head.
If you think about it, how many of these systems really *need* to be secure? Do I really need to have a unique, six-digit, alphanumeric password just to read the NYT, or my e-mail for that matter? It's not as if it were my bank account or anything. If you want security, use strong encryption. Otherwise, don't waste my time.
I'm not a Constitutional lawyer. But I think the following relevant excerpts make one thing very clear: states have no jurisdiction over patent law. Article I, Section 8, Clause 8: [Congress shall have the power] To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries; Article VI, Clause 2: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof... shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. That seems pretty clear to me, eighteenth-century diction aside. It would take a gross distortion of the Constitution to side with the defendant and say that patent law isn't binding on state governments or agencies.
I'm getting tired of the way the mainstream press equates "free" with "zero-cost." Gates, of course, may be using this as a tactic to undermine the credibility of free software. Or he may be just a blathering idiot. You decide.
By now, newswriters should know better. Whether we're on the "free" or "open-source" side of the holy war, we need to stop letting the press debase the concept of free software (whoops, my allegiance slips out). Otherwise Linux and the rest of the movement will be forever misunderstood and dismissed.
All right, I admit I'm off topic. But I would be interested in anyone's ideas about how to fix this PR problem.
But, unlike proprietary software that's distributed binary-only, free software will always be maintained and upgraded by the people who use it. Proprietary software exists only as long as it's profitable to market. Proprietary software comes and goes, but free software accumulates.
I think the development might be slower when there isn't a lot of money pushing a project along, but the result will be better because there is much less pressure to compromise quality to keep to a release schedule. Mozilla is a case in point.
So, be patient. It is only a few years since there has been a stand-alone free operating system. It will be a few more years before there are top-notch free office suites and slick free browsers and whatever else the "average consumer" wants. But I think it will happen, as long as there are programmers interested in bringing free software "to the masses."
But, unlike proprietary software that's distributed binary-only, free software will always be maintained and upgraded by the people who use it. Proprietary software exists only as long as it's profitable to market. Proprietary software comes and goes, but free software accumulates.
I think the development might be slower when there isn't a lot of money pushing a project along, but the result will be better because there is much less pressure to compromise quality to keep to a release schedule. Mozilla is a case in point.
So, be patient. It is only a few years since there has been a stand-alone free operating system. It will be a few more years before there are top-notch free office suites and slick free browsers and whatever else Joe Consumer wants. But I think it will happen, as long as there are programmers interested in bringing free software "to the masses."
And in this country, that sucker has a lawyer. When AOL switched to flat-rate billing and the value of the free account dropped to $21.95/month: why didn't the volunteers quit en masse? Either they're idiots, or they're motivated by something other than money. Either way the Department of Labor should not help them.
Johnson's thesis can be attacked on many levels. With aplogies to RMS, let us set aside ethical issues, and discuss productivity. The effort contributed to a software project may loosely be divided into production and administration. Johnson suggests diverting resources into administration in order to manage licenses and allocate "contribution points". So in addition to the essential administrative effort of coordinating the actual development, a non-essential layer of administration would be introduced to collect and distribute the money. How can one argue that this is the "fittest" approach? Adding cost and effort without adding productivity is an intrinsic flaw of the closed development model. Is Johnson seriously suggesting we adopt it?
Depends on the definition of literacy
on
Assorted Katz Hype
·
· Score: 1
It is one thing to read technical material; it's quite another to contemplate literature and assimilate it on an intellectual level. At the risk of putting words in Wood's mouth, this somewhat snobbish point is what I think he was trying to convey. I have to agree with him- and to put myself squarely on the "functionally illiterate" side of the fence.
It's a marketing tactic IBM used "back in the day" to make customers afraid to switch to competitors' products. Today it means a factually-unfounded attempt by an established company to besmirch the reputation of a new, innovative idea.
How is an exclusive business deal w/RedHat possible, when the GPL permits anyone to copy Linux and install it on two machines, or a million? Unless RedHat is distributing non-GPL'd code... can anyone elaborate on this allegation? It sounds like a vicious, unfounded rumor.
There is, however, a crying need for a standardized open software license that... does not
require the original source (person or company) to sacrifice all of their intellectual property rights...
Why?
I mean that as a legitimate question. In what ways are intellectual property rights on software advantageous? How do they make sense in the context of what we call free software? I can understand the free point of view, I can understand the proprietary point of view, but you seem to be suggesting some kind of hybrid. That baffles me. Can you explain?
This is a danger of using non-free applications on a free OS. I used to think RMS was a crackpot, but maybe his anti-"open source" stance saw this coming.
All this vendor interest in Linux is probably a bad thing. Big companies (MS being only one of them) have many reasons to fork Linux if and when they can.
they want to maintain the ownership of their "open" code, and we want to maintain the freedom of the improvements that result from the opening of that code
Those are irreconcilable aims. Companies need to understand that things just don't work the same way in the free-software (my RMS alligience slips out) world as they do in the proprietary world. They can't have it both ways, and neither can we.
This license and those who use it are missing the point. It's a step down the slippery slope of semi-free, nominally free, or we-can-make-people-think-it's-free licensing. I think such a mentality is bad for the community.
If you want to make money licensing code, fine, do it. You can always re-lease it under a free license later. But don't call code with a restricted license "free." It's an abuse of the term and an affront to the community.
I hope MS delays its Office port to Linux long enough for someone else to get some market share. Then maybe the world will wake up and see that Office's "ease of use" is a big lie.
Now I am not a big fan of proprietary software in general, but it is a fact of life on Joe User's desktop and it will be for some time. At least MS's head-in-the-sand policy will give Corel or Star Division (maybe Lotus?) a chance to sell some software again.
So, what did you write?
on
Linux on CNN
·
· Score: 1
If you hope others will make points that you missed, it would help if you posted a copy of your letter.:)
I feel like a voice in the wilderness here, but I find his prose style overbearing and pretentious. Let's not stroke the ego of another hacker wannabe.
The quality of his thesis is better than the quality of his prose. This man needs a tough, competent editor: with a little ego-deflation this article would be very good. But I don't see Slashdot as a literary forum and, no offense Rob, I am not sure any of "us geeks" are qualified to be that tough, competent editor.
Slashdot Mirror
So I am not surprised that a bunch of part-time users don't feel harmed. They have their WIMP interface and their PowerPoint and they think they've got it made. They don't appreciate problems like software bloat and embrace-and-extend strategies.
The media have done a nice job of speculating about an MS breakup, but they have done a poor job of explaining what MS has done wrong. Are you really surprised a majority don't support major penalties?
They can devise a rating system if they want, but it won't make writers and publishers adopt it. So we get a rating system, and it promptly dies of neglect because no one wants to deal with the hassle of using it.
Let's keep the facts and the speculation separate. The development of a rating system, though generally bad, does not imply that governments will immediately pass censorship laws based on that system. They might discuss censorship laws, but passing them is another matter entirely.
I think we should give up and ignore this bad article. The author and his editor don't know how to use an apostrophe (look at the headline). And why doesn't a *journalist* know the difference between a trademark and a copyright? The author's evident lack of fundamental knowledge in his own career-field give scant hope of his writing an insightful article about a complex business and technology topic.
Moody is just trolling and/or trying to gain hits from the Slashdot Effect. His estimated cost of crashes is unsubstantiated: pure fiction. I am not a Windows fan or anything, but Moody clearly did no research for this "opinion." He just wrote down the first thing that popped into his head.
If you think about it, how many of these systems really *need* to be secure? Do I really need to have a unique, six-digit, alphanumeric password just to read the NYT, or my e-mail for that matter? It's not as if it were my bank account or anything. If you want security, use strong encryption. Otherwise, don't waste my time.
I'm not a Constitutional lawyer. But I think the following relevant excerpts make one thing very clear: states have no jurisdiction over patent law. Article I, Section 8, Clause 8: [Congress shall have the power] To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries; Article VI, Clause 2: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof ... shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. That seems pretty clear to me, eighteenth-century diction aside. It would take a gross distortion of the Constitution to side with the defendant and say that patent law isn't binding on state governments or agencies.
Cute though. Does LDP know about this?
I'm getting tired of the way the mainstream press equates "free" with "zero-cost." Gates, of course, may be using this as a tactic to undermine the credibility of free software. Or he may be just a blathering idiot. You decide.
By now, newswriters should know better. Whether we're on the "free" or "open-source" side of the holy war, we need to stop letting the press debase the concept of free software (whoops, my allegiance slips out). Otherwise Linux and the rest of the movement will be forever misunderstood and dismissed.
All right, I admit I'm off topic. But I would be interested in anyone's ideas about how to fix this PR problem.
But, unlike proprietary software that's distributed binary-only, free software will always be maintained and upgraded by the people who use it. Proprietary software exists only as long as it's profitable to market. Proprietary software comes and goes, but free software accumulates.
I think the development might be slower when there isn't a lot of money pushing a project along, but the result will be better because there is much less pressure to compromise quality to keep to a release schedule. Mozilla is a case in point.
So, be patient. It is only a few years since there has been a stand-alone free operating system. It will be a few more years before there are top-notch free office suites and slick free browsers and whatever else the "average consumer" wants. But I think it will happen, as long as there are programmers interested in bringing free software "to the masses."
But, unlike proprietary software that's distributed binary-only, free software will always be maintained and upgraded by the people who use it. Proprietary software exists only as long as it's profitable to market. Proprietary software comes and goes, but free software accumulates.
I think the development might be slower when there isn't a lot of money pushing a project along, but the result will be better because there is much less pressure to compromise quality to keep to a release schedule. Mozilla is a case in point.
So, be patient. It is only a few years since there has been a stand-alone free operating system. It will be a few more years before there are top-notch free office suites and slick free browsers and whatever else Joe Consumer wants. But I think it will happen, as long as there are programmers interested in bringing free software "to the masses."
And in this country, that sucker has a lawyer. When AOL switched to flat-rate billing and the value of the free account dropped to $21.95/month: why didn't the volunteers quit en masse? Either they're idiots, or they're motivated by something other than money. Either way the Department of Labor should not help them.
Johnson's thesis can be attacked on many levels. With aplogies to RMS, let us set aside ethical issues, and discuss productivity. The effort contributed to a software project may loosely be divided into production and administration. Johnson suggests diverting resources into administration in order to manage licenses and allocate "contribution points". So in addition to the essential administrative effort of coordinating the actual development, a non-essential layer of administration would be introduced to collect and distribute the money. How can one argue that this is the "fittest" approach? Adding cost and effort without adding productivity is an intrinsic flaw of the closed development model. Is Johnson seriously suggesting we adopt it?
It is one thing to read technical material; it's quite another to contemplate literature and assimilate it on an intellectual level. At the risk of putting words in Wood's mouth, this somewhat snobbish point is what I think he was trying to convey. I have to agree with him- and to put myself squarely on the "functionally illiterate" side of the fence.
There is non-GPL free software in Debian: the Debian Free Software Guidelines permit licenses other than GPL. Example: the BSD license.
The point that not all free software is GPL'd is an excellent one. As far as I know there is no "GPL-only" distribution. Someone correct me?
It's a marketing tactic IBM used "back in the day" to make customers afraid to switch to competitors' products. Today it means a factually-unfounded attempt by an established company to besmirch the reputation of a new, innovative idea.
How is an exclusive business deal w/RedHat possible, when the GPL permits anyone to copy Linux and install it on two machines, or a million? Unless RedHat is distributing non-GPL'd code... can anyone elaborate on this allegation? It sounds like a vicious, unfounded rumor.
Why?
I mean that as a legitimate question. In what ways are intellectual property rights on software advantageous? How do they make sense in the context of what we call free software? I can understand the free point of view, I can understand the proprietary point of view, but you seem to be suggesting some kind of hybrid. That baffles me. Can you explain?
This is a danger of using non-free applications on a free OS. I used to think RMS was a crackpot, but maybe his anti-"open source" stance saw this coming.
All this vendor interest in Linux is probably a bad thing. Big companies (MS being only one of them) have many reasons to fork Linux if and when they can.
Those are irreconcilable aims. Companies need to understand that things just don't work the same way in the free-software (my RMS alligience slips out) world as they do in the proprietary world. They can't have it both ways, and neither can we.
This license and those who use it are missing the point. It's a step down the slippery slope of semi-free, nominally free, or we-can-make-people-think-it's-free licensing. I think such a mentality is bad for the community.
If you want to make money licensing code, fine, do it. You can always re-lease it under a free license later. But don't call code with a restricted license "free." It's an abuse of the term and an affront to the community.
I hope MS delays its Office port to Linux long enough for someone else to get some market share. Then maybe the world will wake up and see that Office's "ease of use" is a big lie.
Now I am not a big fan of proprietary software in general, but it is a fact of life on Joe User's desktop and it will be for some time. At least MS's head-in-the-sand policy will give Corel or Star Division (maybe Lotus?) a chance to sell some software again.
If you hope others will make points that you missed, it would help if you posted a copy of your letter. :)
I feel like a voice in the wilderness here, but I find his prose style overbearing and pretentious. Let's not stroke the ego of another hacker wannabe.
The quality of his thesis is better than the quality of his prose. This man needs a tough, competent editor: with a little ego-deflation this article would be very good. But I don't see Slashdot as a literary forum and, no offense Rob, I am not sure any of "us geeks" are qualified to be that tough, competent editor.
Your mother must be so proud.
Especially on zdnet. It's bad enough that unfounded rumors are being published on that virtual rag. Do we have to repeat them here?