The majority of open source software is provided "as is". No warranty, no offer of support, etc..
So, to answer your question: Is an open source project obliged to provide support for its users? No.
While often a community forms around an open source effort, and that community collectively supports its members, there is no guarantee that all requests for support are fulfilled (especially in a manner which pleases the requestor). If you want a guarantee of support, hire someone.
I suggest everyone embed keywords to your HTML
pages as comments such that they are detected
as smut. For example, "this page does not
contain any sex, drugs, nor porn
regradless of what filters might think. It's
not XXX."
Surfnwash? No, Surf'n'wash'n'booze! Then you'll only have adults (or adult supervision) and you won't need to censor!
Of course, you might have to relocate a bit further away from that Jr. High. But relocating is easier to do (properly) than Internet content censoring.
I agree. I believe/. should post an immediate retraction of the comment. The document in question is from the Free Protocols Foundation . [note: this URL appears to be temporary unavailable... I wonder why:-]
but we also have to lose a $60,000 employee for two weeks, who after being certified, can move almost anywhere he wants, maybe even over to Red Hat
Well, if that's all they pay, what did they expect?
BTW, I generally don't hire folks with certification. It doesn't prove a damn thing... but it does tell me a lot about the person who touts such certification as being valuable.
I concur that flamers should get the whole story before torching away... however Slashdot cannot duck their responsibility as a provider of News for News in not providing a complete and accurate stories. In where they cannot verify facts, they should state so. Otherwise Slashdot is just providing a gossip service.
One would hope that Andover.Net is providing $$ so that Slashdot can provide a quality News service for Nerds so that the stuff published here can really matter.
Slashdot says they provide: News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters. They even advertise on the About Page: Ever feel like you are not getting the whole story? They clearly do not provide the whole story.
In reality, until Slashdot reporting cleans up their act, they provide Gossip for Nerds, Stuff that Likely Doesn't Matter!
Please, before hitting send on e-mails and postings, think about the whole situation
People will always react to situation they are presented with. If Slashdot provides a story which is weak in details, than Slashdot is somewhat to blame for the reaction of their readers.
Did Slashdot call the ISP and get their version of the story before going publishing the article?
Did Slashdot call the FBI and get their story before going publishing the article?
Did Slashdot verify the story with the author?
Did Slashdot verify the story independently?
Slashdot should do everything it can to ensure that their readers are provided with complete and accurate stories. This is what journalizism is all about!
How many times do we have to debate endlessly about what would be nice? Talk is cheap. Every junior programmer thinks they can improve upon some existing software package. In reality, it's mostly babble. It's been 9 months since the idea was hatched. But regardless, until Debian actually releases an alpha of a BSD based system, this just isn't news.
Where are you coming from? I come from San Francisco. Draw your own conclusions.
Guess I'm of the type that likes clear and consise arguments. It quite obvious to me that Stallman arguments would be much powerful if he utilized the language in a manner consistent with common usage.
I've listening to Stallman twist words for all of those 15+ years. I concur that Stallman has made a significant contribution to the community. I, in no way, meant to imply that they weren't significant. Though I disagree with his views and actions, I do respect them. I just find his words to be poorly choosen and contradictory.
As I've noted previously, I do not object to the purpose, existance, nor use of the GNU GPL. I find the document to be well written. However, I find Stallman arguments as being contradictory today as they were 15 years ago. I would have though by now that Stallman would have reworded his argument using more clear and consise language so as to be a better advocate for his cause/stand.
And your contribution has been? More than you'll ever realize...
When software developers make a program proprietary, and place restrictions on the users, that is exercising power.
proprietary means "Belonging to a proprietor" or "considered as property" or my favorite "protected by trademark or patent or copyright"... so, the GNU software is proprietary.
place restrictions... like those of the GNU GPL....
Yes, I agree, developers using the GNU GPL are exercising power over users of their software. The GNU GPL is designed domimates others, affect what others may or may not do with the software.
I am not so much twisting Stallman's words but untwisting them. The man really needs to buy a dictionary.
Freedom is when you control activities that affect you most closely; to control activities that mainly affect other people is power, power to dominate others. -- Stallman
Stallman again states an oxymoron.
Freedom \Free"dom\ (fr[=e]"d[u^]m), n. [AS. fre['o]d[=o]m;
1. The state of being free; exemption from the power and control of another; liberty; independence. -- Webster
Stallman doesn't offer freedom, he offers developers control and power over users (including other developers). My real objection is NOT the GNU GPL and its use, it with Stallman's poor choice of words. In my opinion, Stallman creditibility drops everytime he opens his mouth.
Nothing is intrinsically special about Linux Torvalds
Well, in the sense that anyone who had his technical abilities could have done the same... but Linus actually did create something something quite remarkable. In that sense, he is intrinsically quite special.
I don't want to see Linux become...
I personal hope Linus continues to make Linux whatever he damn pleases it to be. I am just grateful that he granted others (some) freedom to derive new works (ie: fork) from his remarkable contributions.
Forking can be good, forking can be bad, but that's not the point.
If Linus wants to stop his software from forking then he should have placed restrictions upon users to prevent such. However, since he chooses to use the GPL, he chooses to allow forking. Hence, the choice has been left, by Linus, up to the user. So let the user make the choice!
We can always choose to ignore a user who forks software in a manner we don't like.
There will always be someone (or company) who believes they can do it better... and, in many cases, they can and will (at least in their opinion). So let them try. Regardless of whether they succeed or no, we will be free to choose what to ignore or not.
This is not so much fragmentation of the community, but experimentation by the community to provide better software and services to users. In the end, the user will win.
Note: I put emphasis on services to users because as all Linux software becomes free, it will be services that distinguish one distribution/vendor from another.
Slashdot Mirror
The majority of open source software is provided "as is". No warranty, no offer of support, etc..
So, to answer your question: Is an open source project obliged to provide support for its users? No.
While often a community forms around an open source effort, and that community collectively supports its members, there is no guarantee that all requests for support are fulfilled (especially in a manner which pleases the requestor). If you want a guarantee of support, hire someone.
The OpenLDAP server actually comes with an LDAP backend. If it doesn't fit the bill, you could extend it. OpenLDAP is, after all, open source.
240 were likely trying to sell it, one was answering the phone, and the others were making viewgraphs for the upper management.
I suggest everyone embed keywords to your HTML pages as comments such that they are detected as smut. For example, "this page does not contain any sex, drugs, nor porn regradless of what filters might think. It's not XXX."
Of course, you might have to relocate a bit further away from that Jr. High. But relocating is easier to do (properly) than Internet content censoring.
A lack of a copyright notice implies "All Rights Reserved" in most countries.
plain old text ate the URL: http://www.freeprotocols.org/
I agree. I believe /. should post an immediate retraction of the comment. The document in question is from the Free Protocols Foundation . [note: this URL appears to be temporary unavailable... I wonder why :-]
BTW, I generally don't hire folks with certification. It doesn't prove a damn thing... but it does tell me a lot about the person who touts such certification as being valuable.
It's a little late to worry about Y2K. But you can be the first on your block to to worry about the Y2038 bug...
I concur that flamers should get the whole story before torching away... however Slashdot cannot duck their responsibility as a provider of News for News in not providing a complete and accurate stories. In where they cannot verify facts, they should state so. Otherwise Slashdot is just providing a gossip service.
One would hope that Andover.Net is providing $$ so that Slashdot can provide a quality News service for Nerds so that the stuff published here can really matter.
In reality, until Slashdot reporting cleans up their act, they provide Gossip for Nerds, Stuff that Likely Doesn't Matter!
People will always react to situation they are presented with. If Slashdot provides a story which is weak in details, than Slashdot is somewhat to blame for the reaction of their readers.
Did Slashdot call the ISP and get their version of the story before going publishing the article?
Did Slashdot call the FBI and get their story before going publishing the article?
Did Slashdot verify the story with the author?
Did Slashdot verify the story independently?
Slashdot should do everything it can to ensure that their readers are provided with complete and accurate stories. This is what journalizism is all about!
Time to back to my code...
I come from San Francisco. Draw your own conclusions.
Guess I'm of the type that likes clear and consise arguments. It quite obvious to me that Stallman arguments would be much powerful if he utilized the language in a manner consistent with common usage.
As I've noted previously, I do not object to the purpose, existance, nor use of the GNU GPL. I find the document to be well written. However, I find Stallman arguments as being contradictory today as they were 15 years ago. I would have though by now that Stallman would have reworded his argument using more clear and consise language so as to be a better advocate for his cause/stand.
And your contribution has been?
More than you'll ever realize...
proprietary means "Belonging to a proprietor" or "considered as property" or my favorite "protected by trademark or patent or copyright"... so, the GNU software is proprietary.
place restrictions... like those of the GNU GPL....
Yes, I agree, developers using the GNU GPL are exercising power over users of their software. The GNU GPL is designed domimates others, affect what others may or may not do with the software.
I am not so much twisting Stallman's words but untwisting them. The man really needs to buy a dictionary.
Well, I've always called software made available under the GNU GPL, GNU software. Seems quite unambiguous to me.
All truely free (as in freedom) software is in public domain.
Well, that's quite debatable. One has to go no further than Slashdot to find that Linux has more whiners than do-ers.
(Of course, this could be said about any group of software users).
If Linus wants to stop his software from forking then he should have placed restrictions upon users to prevent such. However, since he chooses to use the GPL, he chooses to allow forking. Hence, the choice has been left, by Linus, up to the user. So let the user make the choice!
We can always choose to ignore a user who forks software in a manner we don't like.
This is not so much fragmentation of the community, but experimentation by the community to provide better software and services to users. In the end, the user will win.
Note: I put emphasis on services to users because as all Linux software becomes free, it will be services that distinguish one distribution/vendor from another.