So fighting FOSS is like fighting terrorism. FOSS is an idea, it's almost impossible to fight ideas. Microsoft probably sees FOSS on the same level as terrorism.
You'll need to invert some concepts to apply more generally. Terrorism is an idea held by the victims, as in "We have had acts of terrorism put against us innocent people", but to the terrorists themselves, they more likely believe that they are the innocent ones who must destroy the guilty heretics. Who is right and wrong is very difficult to reason dialectically.
Microsoft may actually feel this is the case, and I'm sure some F/OSS advocates do as well. In the better scheme, that of the public, neither side is a victim or a perpetrator. The public does depend on at least one of them to succeed, and it is even better if both are improving their 'products' for the while.
I would hope it's difficult to fight an idea, but unfortunately Microsoft has done well to suppress F/OSS or divert developers away from it. I am confident (as in, it is one of the few faiths I hold) that F/OSS will become the sort of licensing that people will respect.
This Microsoft wireless mouse I've been using has impressed me. It's accurate, never loses signal, has a resolution I'm quite pleased with, and I've been using the same AA batteries in it for damned near a year now.
I'm sure Office would still sell, but I'm doubtful it would make enough money to keep anything more than a townhouse called "Microsoft HQ" alive.
Of course, being in the fight-or-flight position might actually make Microsoft feel the need to innovate instead of argue over what improvement is.
F/OSS was around before Windows or even DOS, and yet Microsoft managed to make its mark by convincing IBM that they would benefit from buying licenses of their software on a per-copy basis. From that has come a thriving, worldwide software industry. Proprietary software changed the game by giving developers a way to make a living as a programmer at home rather than on a corporate mainframe in a cubicle.
It may be of some significance to point out only a few people, like Richard Stallman, had any real hard lessons with the problems of proprietary licensing by this time. It is also perfectly fair to assume that proprietary software made the computer revolution what it was through competition.
That competition is over, and now that computers are common place, hardware is cheap and enough people are technically minded to work with computers personally, there is more than enough room for F/OSS to wedge itself in.
With the perpetual popular image of "if you don't like it, fix it yourself" and lack of centralized accountability, F/OSS has as much chance of beating Microsoft as communism did of beating capitalism. Money talks, and people instinctively believe that something that costs money has more inherent quality than something that they can get for free. If F/OSS is going to win, it's most probably going to be from reactionary elements from outside the United States who for financial or political reasons don't want to be beholden to the Microsoft behemoth.
That overused analogy it terrible; Capitalism was never at war with Communism, Russia was at a standoff with the United States because both countries had an incredible amount of destructive power and both sides with aggressively intent on preemptively defending themselves.
'Communism' and 'Capitalism' were the mid-20th century buzzwords the nations used to rally their populace into fighting (speaking for either term) "this dangerous force that seeks to take away freedom and make slaves of us all".
F/OSS isn't going to "win", it already exists and will continue to exist. It will become a more popular concept in software, while Microsoft and Apple will inevitably be destroyed. Proprietary software, however, will far outlive either company, but it will certainly not be in some epic conflict with F/OSS.
Browsers don't go to war, argumentative people go to 'war'. It's irrelevant if IE of Firefox or Safari or Chrome is better, none will ever destroy the rest because a Hell of a lot of people just like to go with whatever perceived side is weaker and make it better.
Yes, the iPhone and iPod are niches. The Zune is another product, but it failed to fill a niche largely because of the iPod but mostly because it's a piece of shit. The iPhone is indeed popular, but Windows Mobile plays a different role and provides significant competitive options. It also fills a niche.
The "YoTLD" is nonsense, Free Software doesn't have a turning point that can be suggested. Governments are mandating open source, countless consumer devices pick free pieces of software all the time, even if they don't always comply by the license they are released under, Microsoft not only acknowledges the existence of the idea of F/OSS but the actively combat it.
Free Software doesn't have to 'sell better', it doesn't have to be more popular to continue to exist. It just does, and it continues to improve and be used the world around. Free Software products will inevitably prevail over proprietary options because it is the moral and intelligent decision.
F/OSS won't take over the world, the world will take over it. The reason it can't be fought is because it doesn't exist, it's entirely abstract and supported cognitively. What Microsoft has pushes is their software as a physical item, the boundaries of which separated by licensing and legal agreements.
Consider how Microsoft is splitting hairs over virtualization, how they desperately try to redefine where the software starts and where it ends. Microsoft's power isn't in programming, it's in litigation, and their arguments are becoming less significant as people stop caring.
It's not just cost free, it's not just morally free, it's not just legally free, it's not just free to redistribute and free to modify, it's not just freedom... Free Software accepts the fact that ideas are impossible to solely possess, and dare I resort to anthropomorphism; Free Software has a free life all of its own.
Why would anyone write about their husband/wife, sexual orientation, race, religion, or their favorite breed of dog in a GAMER PROFILE?!?!? It's a gamer profile, not your fucking personal blog.
Because it is natural for people to identify with other people who share interests or status. What's wrong with a gay gamer being interested in playing with other gay gamers? What about Christian gamers wanting to play with other Christian gamers?
Merely taking offense to someone saying "I am gay" is incredibly senseless. That's not even the problem, people don't have to say it, they can 'act' it and it's offensive.
As much as homosexually frightens anyone, I am far more frightened by mindless attitudes.
Of identifying your sexual orientation in your profile anyway? Leave that for your Facebook/Myspace profiles or your blog, or maybe even shut up about your sexual orientation like all of us straight people do about ours. Just a thought anyway.
You just told me you're straight, where's my cookie?
I think I have a good example of how hard it is to fight Linux. It's a little black and would probably offend many people, though.
If you drop a nuclear bomb on Redmond, Microsoft would be gone or damn near close.
If you drop a nuclear bomb on Cupertino, Apple would be gone or damn near close.
Where can you possibly drop a single nuclear bomb to destroy free software? GNU? Linus Torvalds? Novell? Red Hat? The EFF? Can you destroy any one country and eliminate it?
Apple just isn't a threat. They fill a niche, and because of the strong OS-centrism the users who go with Apple there's just no wrestling them away, but they're also a selective breed. Anyone can use a Mac, but not just anyone wants to. It's still a centralized ideal in proprietary software.
F/OSS changes the game completely and if it were to succeed Microsoft just couldn't fight back, there's no way they'd survive selling mice, consoles and 'Office Productivity Software'. It would be the death of the software giant.
Proprietary software is restrictive, Free software is, well, free! It's so easy to spin proprietary software as evil and free software as good, but if free software were already the accepted norm, how could you possibly break it claiming proprietary software was good?
Microsoft and Apple compete with each other. GNU/Linux just slowly assimilates as necessary or as remotely useful. If anything, Microsoft should be supporting Apple's ass to keep afloat the competition they can pull the same rope with.
Huh? That's ridiculous, everyone knows everything comes from The Good Old US of A and that because of that everything follows US compliance.
Seriously, though, it wouldn't be that much of a stretch to install a converter and a US 110/15 polarized grounded receptacle. I mean, it's a little ridiculous for one device, but certainly doable.
I kind of wish the US would adopt something like the EU plug, it's so much safer and it's practically impossible to be in contact with the 'blade' while plugging it in or removing it. It's a little on the bulky side, but it sure stays in a lot better and you don't have to worry about it halfway hanging out.
You completely misunderstand, I'm not disagreeing with your political positions one bit, just your philosophical approach. You seem to be so negative and every one of your responses is an avalanche of verbosity.
You, dear Slashdotter, are an amazing specimen of overreaction. Chill out, yeah?
I'm not talking about the employee's decision, I mean the sheer disgust in a company dropping employees because they can't afford to keep paying them over time, and after they pay them a severance they turn around and say "Oh, we gave you too much. Hope you're doing alright finding a new job, we're going to take back some of those funds you were to depend on until you could get that job".
Fuck principle. I keep my hands clean, but the maximum amount I allow anyone to fuck things up for me is a total of One. Maybe a.3 here and a.7 there, but laying me off and then telling me to give them money definitely puts it over that one.
It's remarkable you extrapolate so much from just a link I gave you! The link was only in reply to
"And the only problem with "The lesser of two evils" is you're always voting for evil,no matter what."
We can live our lives by adages or we can make new decisions for our own generation. For someone who trusts neither the Democrat or Republican party, you are precariously positioned in regurgitating the same bullshit I've seen posted all over the internet.
The shortcomings of the experiment are significant but explaining them does nothing for the argument. Maybe something more significant needs to be performed.
My assumption is, and I really do hate to take anything for granted, is the folks 'only following order' were in the belief that Germany would destroy the Allies and at the least their injustices would be forgotten.
I suppose like any investor who funds a company, the individuals who invested in the war with their decisions should have to lose if the 'corporation' loses.
Yes. Anyone who keeps something that doesn't belong to them is an honorless cheating scumbag.
A few grand is something worth considering the honor in, but if Microsoft is bitching about 5 or 10 or 50 bucks each person, this isn't making ends meet, it's adding insult to injury.
Do you have any idea how much of a bitch it is to keep backups of gigabytes or terabytes of data constantly preserved and updated? How much time it takes to make an image and put it on tapes?
Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft (if the accusation is true) probably did her a favor in banning her.
So fighting FOSS is like fighting terrorism. FOSS is an idea, it's almost impossible to fight ideas. Microsoft probably sees FOSS on the same level as terrorism.
You'll need to invert some concepts to apply more generally. Terrorism is an idea held by the victims, as in "We have had acts of terrorism put against us innocent people", but to the terrorists themselves, they more likely believe that they are the innocent ones who must destroy the guilty heretics. Who is right and wrong is very difficult to reason dialectically.
Microsoft may actually feel this is the case, and I'm sure some F/OSS advocates do as well. In the better scheme, that of the public, neither side is a victim or a perpetrator. The public does depend on at least one of them to succeed, and it is even better if both are improving their 'products' for the while.
I would hope it's difficult to fight an idea, but unfortunately Microsoft has done well to suppress F/OSS or divert developers away from it. I am confident (as in, it is one of the few faiths I hold) that F/OSS will become the sort of licensing that people will respect.
This Microsoft wireless mouse I've been using has impressed me. It's accurate, never loses signal, has a resolution I'm quite pleased with, and I've been using the same AA batteries in it for damned near a year now.
I'm sure Office would still sell, but I'm doubtful it would make enough money to keep anything more than a townhouse called "Microsoft HQ" alive.
Of course, being in the fight-or-flight position might actually make Microsoft feel the need to innovate instead of argue over what improvement is.
F/OSS was around before Windows or even DOS, and yet Microsoft managed to make its mark by convincing IBM that they would benefit from buying licenses of their software on a per-copy basis. From that has come a thriving, worldwide software industry. Proprietary software changed the game by giving developers a way to make a living as a programmer at home rather than on a corporate mainframe in a cubicle.
It may be of some significance to point out only a few people, like Richard Stallman, had any real hard lessons with the problems of proprietary licensing by this time. It is also perfectly fair to assume that proprietary software made the computer revolution what it was through competition.
That competition is over, and now that computers are common place, hardware is cheap and enough people are technically minded to work with computers personally, there is more than enough room for F/OSS to wedge itself in.
With the perpetual popular image of "if you don't like it, fix it yourself" and lack of centralized accountability, F/OSS has as much chance of beating Microsoft as communism did of beating capitalism. Money talks, and people instinctively believe that something that costs money has more inherent quality than something that they can get for free. If F/OSS is going to win, it's most probably going to be from reactionary elements from outside the United States who for financial or political reasons don't want to be beholden to the Microsoft behemoth.
That overused analogy it terrible; Capitalism was never at war with Communism, Russia was at a standoff with the United States because both countries had an incredible amount of destructive power and both sides with aggressively intent on preemptively defending themselves.
'Communism' and 'Capitalism' were the mid-20th century buzzwords the nations used to rally their populace into fighting (speaking for either term) "this dangerous force that seeks to take away freedom and make slaves of us all".
F/OSS isn't going to "win", it already exists and will continue to exist. It will become a more popular concept in software, while Microsoft and Apple will inevitably be destroyed. Proprietary software, however, will far outlive either company, but it will certainly not be in some epic conflict with F/OSS.
Browsers don't go to war, argumentative people go to 'war'. It's irrelevant if IE of Firefox or Safari or Chrome is better, none will ever destroy the rest because a Hell of a lot of people just like to go with whatever perceived side is weaker and make it better.
...neither of which are really Apples typical customer base. Linux on the other hand is better placed to pick them up if MS gets too heavy on them.
Excellent thinking, I hadn't thought of that.
Yes, the iPhone and iPod are niches. The Zune is another product, but it failed to fill a niche largely because of the iPod but mostly because it's a piece of shit. The iPhone is indeed popular, but Windows Mobile plays a different role and provides significant competitive options. It also fills a niche.
The "YoTLD" is nonsense, Free Software doesn't have a turning point that can be suggested. Governments are mandating open source, countless consumer devices pick free pieces of software all the time, even if they don't always comply by the license they are released under, Microsoft not only acknowledges the existence of the idea of F/OSS but the actively combat it.
Free Software doesn't have to 'sell better', it doesn't have to be more popular to continue to exist. It just does, and it continues to improve and be used the world around. Free Software products will inevitably prevail over proprietary options because it is the moral and intelligent decision.
F/OSS won't take over the world, the world will take over it. The reason it can't be fought is because it doesn't exist, it's entirely abstract and supported cognitively. What Microsoft has pushes is their software as a physical item, the boundaries of which separated by licensing and legal agreements.
Consider how Microsoft is splitting hairs over virtualization, how they desperately try to redefine where the software starts and where it ends. Microsoft's power isn't in programming, it's in litigation, and their arguments are becoming less significant as people stop caring.
It's not just cost free, it's not just morally free, it's not just legally free, it's not just free to redistribute and free to modify, it's not just freedom... Free Software accepts the fact that ideas are impossible to solely possess, and dare I resort to anthropomorphism; Free Software has a free life all of its own.
No no, it's like the GLA in C&C Generals. No, wait... yes.
Why would anyone write about their husband/wife, sexual orientation, race, religion, or their favorite breed of dog in a GAMER PROFILE?!?!? It's a gamer profile, not your fucking personal blog.
Because it is natural for people to identify with other people who share interests or status. What's wrong with a gay gamer being interested in playing with other gay gamers? What about Christian gamers wanting to play with other Christian gamers?
Merely taking offense to someone saying "I am gay" is incredibly senseless. That's not even the problem, people don't have to say it, they can 'act' it and it's offensive.
As much as homosexually frightens anyone, I am far more frightened by mindless attitudes.
Of identifying your sexual orientation in your profile anyway? Leave that for your Facebook/Myspace profiles or your blog, or maybe even shut up about your sexual orientation like all of us straight people do about ours. Just a thought anyway.
You just told me you're straight, where's my cookie?
I think I have a good example of how hard it is to fight Linux. It's a little black and would probably offend many people, though.
If you drop a nuclear bomb on Redmond, Microsoft would be gone or damn near close.
If you drop a nuclear bomb on Cupertino, Apple would be gone or damn near close.
Where can you possibly drop a single nuclear bomb to destroy free software? GNU? Linus Torvalds? Novell? Red Hat? The EFF? Can you destroy any one country and eliminate it?
Apple just isn't a threat. They fill a niche, and because of the strong OS-centrism the users who go with Apple there's just no wrestling them away, but they're also a selective breed. Anyone can use a Mac, but not just anyone wants to. It's still a centralized ideal in proprietary software.
F/OSS changes the game completely and if it were to succeed Microsoft just couldn't fight back, there's no way they'd survive selling mice, consoles and 'Office Productivity Software'. It would be the death of the software giant.
Proprietary software is restrictive, Free software is, well, free! It's so easy to spin proprietary software as evil and free software as good, but if free software were already the accepted norm, how could you possibly break it claiming proprietary software was good?
Microsoft and Apple compete with each other. GNU/Linux just slowly assimilates as necessary or as remotely useful. If anything, Microsoft should be supporting Apple's ass to keep afloat the competition they can pull the same rope with.
Huh? That's ridiculous, everyone knows everything comes from The Good Old US of A and that because of that everything follows US compliance.
Seriously, though, it wouldn't be that much of a stretch to install a converter and a US 110/15 polarized grounded receptacle. I mean, it's a little ridiculous for one device, but certainly doable.
I kind of wish the US would adopt something like the EU plug, it's so much safer and it's practically impossible to be in contact with the 'blade' while plugging it in or removing it. It's a little on the bulky side, but it sure stays in a lot better and you don't have to worry about it halfway hanging out.
A low power NAS that wouldn't kill your bill to keep on all the time like another computer would.
I think ethernet is cheaper to implement. If this particular unit picks up, I expect Marvell will make a wireless version.
What would be really funny is if the ethernet chipset isn't Marvell. I think that's where they made their big start.
You completely misunderstand, I'm not disagreeing with your political positions one bit, just your philosophical approach. You seem to be so negative and every one of your responses is an avalanche of verbosity.
You, dear Slashdotter, are an amazing specimen of overreaction. Chill out, yeah?
See? Another assumption, if you took one minute to read anything else I've said on /. you'd realize nationalism is the furthest thing from my mind.
When Microsoft *fingerquotes* WINS *fingerquotes*
I'm not talking about the employee's decision, I mean the sheer disgust in a company dropping employees because they can't afford to keep paying them over time, and after they pay them a severance they turn around and say "Oh, we gave you too much. Hope you're doing alright finding a new job, we're going to take back some of those funds you were to depend on until you could get that job".
Fuck principle. I keep my hands clean, but the maximum amount I allow anyone to fuck things up for me is a total of One. Maybe a .3 here and a .7 there, but laying me off and then telling me to give them money definitely puts it over that one.
I just can't talk to you, you assume way too much.
Yeah, that really takes all the trouble out of it.
It's remarkable you extrapolate so much from just a link I gave you! The link was only in reply to
"And the only problem with "The lesser of two evils" is you're always voting for evil,no matter what."
We can live our lives by adages or we can make new decisions for our own generation. For someone who trusts neither the Democrat or Republican party, you are precariously positioned in regurgitating the same bullshit I've seen posted all over the internet.
The shortcomings of the experiment are significant but explaining them does nothing for the argument. Maybe something more significant needs to be performed.
My assumption is, and I really do hate to take anything for granted, is the folks 'only following order' were in the belief that Germany would destroy the Allies and at the least their injustices would be forgotten.
I suppose like any investor who funds a company, the individuals who invested in the war with their decisions should have to lose if the 'corporation' loses.
Should the employees give it back?
Yes. Anyone who keeps something that doesn't belong to them is an honorless cheating scumbag.
A few grand is something worth considering the honor in, but if Microsoft is bitching about 5 or 10 or 50 bucks each person, this isn't making ends meet, it's adding insult to injury.
Do you have any idea how much of a bitch it is to keep backups of gigabytes or terabytes of data constantly preserved and updated? How much time it takes to make an image and put it on tapes?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Package-deal_fallacy