It shouldn't be earth-shattering news to anyone that musicians in the limelight are actually better than the guy down the street. Grammy's, People's Choice, and other awards that place image above sound do nothing but show the world that the music industry has become, above all else about the visual and the video rather than the audible.
Darwin and open-source have both shown us that survival of the fittest is the best way to go if you want the cream of the crop. I believe that the sharing of music across the internet is the ultimate tool in levelling the playing field in music. I'm tired of having "music" shoved down my throat on TV, billboards, and everywhere else that the industry can find to hype the "beautiful people" that lip sync better than anyone else.
Do you believe that a revolution should/would hit the music industry if the distribution model were changed so that musicians would earn an average salary through performances and nobody would earn anything through the distribution of the media?
"If I give away my code for free, it's stays just that - FREE. Not being sold to line the pockets of some capitalist assholes pockets."
That's not "free". As RMS states it, "free" is not a monitary term. You're using it as such. "Free" means basically to do whatever you want with it. Clearly, as you pointed out, a company has a hard time implementing code under the GPL and thus you can't do whatever you want with it and it is therefore not "free".
Let RMS spew all he wants about freedom. The license speaks for itself. You want freedom, use the BSD license. You want proprietary software, use the GPL.
RMS has an agenda which is not for freedom. It's all about sticking it to "the man". He has such a grudge against the world, it's not funny. And the GPL has great power to do great damage. You want real freedom then use the BSD license. Check them out. It's all there in black and white.
I used to follow the FSF and GNU, but after witnessing your attitude on the tech@openbsd.org list and after having some personal contact with you, I have changed my mind.
This is from an email we exchanged:
"When I say what I intend to do, that is not a promise... If I had agreed to a contract with someone about what I would say on that list, perhaps it would make sense...I don't consider netiquette very important."
This was when you invaded the list to talk about yourself (ie. not OpenBSD). It was all rather sad and didn't look very good on you at all.
My question is: What do you say to those who read your papers, hear or read your words, take those things as your word (i mean, how else are we to take it?) only to find out later that you would only consider sticking to it if it were in a contract?
From the emails that were sent to the list and from the quote above, it's quite evident that you feel that your words belong everywhere but that you need not ever live up to them unless forced by law. How do you think this reflects on the work that GNU and the FSF tries to do?
I'm sure the list is archived for those who are curious.
Are you insane? RMS is responsible for your so called open source movement.
And i wonder where RMS got his god complex from.
Are you serious?? The open source movement was not started by RMS, and would not die without him. There are lots of (arguably) better licenses out there besides the GPL. Have you ever installed a BSD at all?? Yes, there is GCC which is a very important utility. But if it didn't exist under the GPL someone would have written one under another license because they needed it.
Johnny-come-latelys to the open source scene (like you) disgust me by disrespecting the people...
If I were you i'd watch yourself here. Because it's guys like you, the Johnny-come-only-to-the-GNU-world people that are rabid FS advocates and haven't really learned the real history or the current world that make themselves sound rather silly by assuming that GNU is the only player in the free software world. Stop reading the GNU and Linux ads and start learning about other licenses and other areas that write free software.
If you want to talk about disrespect, I have an email from RMS that states quite plainly that he doesn't care at all about etiquette and thinks that his ideas and opinions are wanted by everyone and he can infultrate any list he wants and say whatever he wants, even though the people involved have rejected the ideas he gives out by choosing a different open-source license. That's disrespect!
I used to be in the dark about the state of FS, like yourself. And i used to advocate GNU constantly. Whether he knows it or not it's RMS that actually turned me into a fence sitter that may be leaning towards the BSD side of things and leaving the GNU side of things behind.
I would really like you to expand your knowledge of free software before jumping down someone's throat like that.
Seriously, I think RMS is bad for the Open Source movement
Yes! Richard has some serious issues. I had the privilage (?) to see him assault the tech list at openbsd.org a while back. It was confirmed to me that Richard has some serious grudges against the corporate software world, and the GPL is a direct attempt to destroy that world. He disagrees with the BSD licensing scheme since it doesn't try to obliterate the idea of making money from writing software.
His ego, victim complex, and irrational "manifest destiny" can do no good for the open-source community. I once followed him, but then learned better.
So MS has finally invented links. Took them long enough. Now we unix geeks can use them! I mean, since they've been invented and everything.
But i wonder why there is only mention of the fact that you don't have to have copies of data all over the place (incidently the 80-90% figure is ridiculous -- you only get that if you're a complete moron, i would think), but make no mention of the other uses of links.
I never really use links to save diskspace, but to make use of the other advantages, which we all know. Would this be a side effect of what they've written? Probably not, i guess.
Q
Re:mooooooooderators! Up! Up! The Above! (n/m)
on
A New DeCSS
·
· Score: 1
I agree! This is the first work i've actually done for this site... jeez:P
I contend that if YOU are really making a choice here (instaed of following some random principle) you would do exactly the same thing. In fact free will seems to require at least some minor form of predictability.
You're ignoring one extremely important point. And I think a few people have been trying to hit it but have been missing a bit. It's the point of indecision. In fuzzy logic (a fairly well accepted analogue to the brain) this could be expressed as 0.5 on the measurement of "Do I save them or me?"
This is where the unpredictability lies. The individual is on the fence, so to speak. Not even (s)he can guess what her outcome will be until it happens. Nor can you guarantee that even when you know the outcome of the previous trial.
It is the parents' job to teach the children what is appropriate and what is not
Well said! The software titles "Net Nanny" and "Cyber Sitter" speak volumes. IE. Please make sure that we don't have to be good parents. Censor our kids' input so that we don't have to explain things to them.
One of the biggest problems in North America (et. al) is that parents and children are so far apart from each other that the kids have no direction. This only serves to open the gap. Teach your children what porn actually is. Help them learn, and everyone wins.
And that's all I've got to say about that.:P ------
Thanks for the info. I looked at the docs, the tutorial, lib reference, etc... I found them lacking in a "tie it in together" sort of way. I find that i miss some of the neat subtleties and tricks you can get from a fellow programmer (rather than developer).
I looked at "learning python" and it was rather jokey:) I mean, i know what a "for" loop is, and i know what OOP is, so that book didn't cover much that i needed.
"Programming Python" has its drawbacks, for sure. There are already some things i would like to see different. But it has also had some of those "tying in together" kind of things that i wanted. Is it worth the $60+ (CDN)? That remains to be seen. But so far it's not too bad.
And anyways, my job owes me about 200 hours of "geek improvement time". I know perl, c, c++, shell, blah blah blah... all the unix geek, administrator stuff. So Python is what i'm looking at now. And just as you advised, i've got my coffee, and i've got the time (they're paying me to do this:P)
I agree no book (O'Reilly or otherwise) is perfect. But uhh... i have to ask: Why on earth didn't you look in the book(s) to see if it had what you wanted first?
As geek books go i find that OR books tend to be pretty high up there. They are certainly the ones which are most consistently good. Other books have better information in them that beat one of OR's books from time to time, but there isn't anything out there i've found that can beat them all, or even come close to doing that.
I've used perl a LOT, and i think it's extremely sweet. AND i appreciate the review of the book since i think i will be getting my little brother into something soon and i _may_ choose perl since he likes the web and such. It would get him plugged into CGI quickly.
However, i've been hearing more and more about python, so i decided to grab Mark Lutz's book "Programming Python" published by O'Reilly. I'm not too far into it yet, but in a couple of weeks should have chunked through most of it. As a further test to see what's so great about this thing, i'm going to write an OOP app in it (not too sure what it will be yet). Cuz as of this moment i can't see the reason to switch from perl.
But the question is, would anyone care to have me post a review of this book eventually?
Well, the OPT-OUT thing is nice, but if you don't trust anyone (like me:P) you can use the following networks as masks in your ip filter (i'm just snipping out my rules from openbsd, but the ip networks are in there).
block in quick on ne0 from 199.95.208.0/24 to any block out quick on ne0 from any to 199.95.208.0/24 block in quick on ne0 from 199.95.207.0/24 to any block out quick on ne0 from any to 199.95.207.0/24 block in quick on ne0 from 209.249.231.0/24 to any block out quick on ne0 from any to 209.249.231.0/24 block in quick on ne0 from 204.253.104.0/24 to any block out quick on ne0 from any to 204.253.104.0/24 block in quick on ne0 from 208.184.29.0/24 to any block out quick on ne0 from any to 208.184.29.0/24
This seemed to be more reliable than using the doublclick.net network. But everytime i blocked on out they got back in through another spot:P These seem to be all of them though.
Sorry... this post is probably meant to be deeper inside this thread.
Are we not all just dancing around the idea of a human compiler with a vast database of algorithms, intuition, look-ahead properties, and an abstracted idea of what it is exactly that the program is doing? IE. There is no compiler, to my knowledge, which writes highly effective parallel code. Why is that? Simply because no compiler can really understand the overall problem.
How long do you think it will be before the all-powerful AI compiler is written, with all of these abilities, and more, on a box that runs at a few GHz?
Or maybe i'm just being a little too science fictiony here:)
I must respond to this, and i don't mean to be a nasty type. But hey... if you want to explore a game like quake then buy a copy, sit down in single player mode and explore away!
I am a former quake junkie, and here's what it comes down to: Multi player quake is a contact sport! It's not meant to be touchy feely. I mean, look at the blood man!:) jeez... People are going to be better than you. It's no fun for anyone if someone doesn't play to their fullest. That's what it's about!
Explore, learn, offline... do some serious gibbing online! In my opinion, you're just whining here. You get your butt kicked? When you're a newbie, you're supposed to!
This bothers me. Do you really believe that all linux gurus have a mission to destroy windows? Do you want linux to go mainstream? Look at what the public wants. If they want windows then only another windows OS is going to replace it. I don't want my linux to be like that.
And by the way... to keep on topic a bit... Those who flame without intelligence (eg. Katz is a jerk) generally don't have that intelligence to begin with. It takes intelligence and savvy to insult or flame properly. So this "breeding the brightest jerks" stuff is incorrect. Most jerks are not that bright. If they were then the hostile, simplistic flames that show no thought or creativity, would not exist.
I think what we may be talking about here is the FPGA. The Field Programmable Gate Array is just a huge bunch of transistor "black boxes"; adders, multiplexors, etc.. and a single SRAM bit controls the connections that they make with each other. So the entire chip can be reconfigured to handle particular tasks (like a particular encryption session with the key decoder/encoder hardwired onto the chip -- put the sequence of bytes in on one end and they come out the other, encoded or decoded as you like), or mimmick a particular architecture. I don't believe that they're ready for prime time yet, unless transmeta has done something really slick.
Well, as a former christian who eventually clued in, i have to say that i'm glad that the "prophets" and religious fanatics were, once again, incorrect. And the Y2K bug did not signal the second coming of jesus christ.
They always manage to take a defeat and put a spin on it that makes it out to be a victory (Didn't someone make a reference to Orwell and 1984 in this thread?:)). I look forward to reading what they make out of this one.
Hell, if a hostile force depends on computing technology to destroy and kill, then can we please knock that out first before going in and ripping people apart with explosives?
I think that the 'rules of war' should state that the war _begins_ with computer warfare.
What war is this? Ladies and gentlemen, the lack of a cool browser isn't going to spell the end of Linux. Please.
Why do we use Linux? We use it because it's fast, stable, configurable, flexible, etc etc... What isn't Linux? It's not (ahem!) "user friendly" if we use windows as a benchmark for that term.
The world wants that "user friendliness". They don't want stability, etc etc... they want the computer to decide. They don't want to have to think about one single thing other than "where's that cool URL?".
I don't want _that_ OS. I want the OS that I'm using now (which is any one of about 5 Unix variants). If you _really_ want to win the war, create the next version of windows, not Unix.
That will win you the war.
Make something with pretty pictures.
That will win you the war.
Leave stability behind, go for mediocre quality, but don't ask the user any questions.
That will win you the war.
Create proprietary code which is closed off from the real world so that nobody can migrate from it without extreme pain.
That will win you the war.
Spend more money are marketing than development and research. Blind the customer to the fact that it's bug ridden. Charge for each new release of the code. Make sure that previous versions become obsolete.
That will win you the war.
In short ladies and gentlemen: If you want to win this, so called 'war', then you had better stop trying to do it on the high ground. The subjects of this war don't live there. They live in the pit where they get spoon fed whatever corporate america gives them.
Can we stop with this "war" business and get back to computing? Let the general public have their mess. We know the better solution. Unix is not going away... ever. We solve the problems "they" give us, each and every time. A non-cool browser? Heh... big deal.
Slashdot Mirror
duh... i read it three times and still missed the mistake.
"... news to anyone that musicians in the limelight aren't actually better than..."
Sorry
It shouldn't be earth-shattering news to anyone that musicians in the limelight are actually better than the guy down the street. Grammy's, People's Choice, and other awards that place image above sound do nothing but show the world that the music industry has become, above all else about the visual and the video rather than the audible.
Darwin and open-source have both shown us that survival of the fittest is the best way to go if you want the cream of the crop. I believe that the sharing of music across the internet is the ultimate tool in levelling the playing field in music. I'm tired of having "music" shoved down my throat on TV, billboards, and everywhere else that the industry can find to hype the "beautiful people" that lip sync better than anyone else.
Do you believe that a revolution should/would hit the music industry if the distribution model were changed so that musicians would earn an average salary through performances and nobody would earn anything through the distribution of the media?
"If I give away my code for free, it's stays just that - FREE. Not being sold to line the pockets of some capitalist assholes pockets."
That's not "free". As RMS states it, "free" is not a monitary term. You're using it as such. "Free" means basically to do whatever you want with it. Clearly, as you pointed out, a company has a hard time implementing code under the GPL and thus you can't do whatever you want with it and it is therefore not "free".
It's funny that this rarely gets said.
Let RMS spew all he wants about freedom. The license speaks for itself. You want freedom, use the BSD license. You want proprietary software, use the GPL.
RMS has an agenda which is not for freedom. It's all about sticking it to "the man". He has such a grudge against the world, it's not funny. And the GPL has great power to do great damage. You want real freedom then use the BSD license. Check them out. It's all there in black and white.
I used to follow the FSF and GNU, but after witnessing your attitude on the tech@openbsd.org list and after having some personal contact with you, I have changed my mind.
This is from an email we exchanged:
"When I say what I intend to do, that is not a promise... If I had agreed to a contract with someone about what I would say on that list, perhaps it would make sense...I don't consider netiquette very important."
This was when you invaded the list to talk about yourself (ie. not OpenBSD). It was all rather sad and didn't look very good on you at all.
My question is: What do you say to those who read your papers, hear or read your words, take those things as your word (i mean, how else are we to take it?) only to find out later that you would only consider sticking to it if it were in a contract?
From the emails that were sent to the list and from the quote above, it's quite evident that you feel that your words belong everywhere but that you need not ever live up to them unless forced by law. How do you think this reflects on the work that GNU and the FSF tries to do?
I'm sure the list is archived for those who are curious.
Sincerely,
Derek Wyatt
wyatt@dear.god.dont.spam.my.ass.syndesis.com
Are you insane? RMS is responsible for your so called open source movement.
And i wonder where RMS got his god complex from.
Are you serious?? The open source movement was not started by RMS, and would not die without him. There are lots of (arguably) better licenses out there besides the GPL. Have you ever installed a BSD at all?? Yes, there is GCC which is a very important utility. But if it didn't exist under the GPL someone would have written one under another license because they needed it.
Johnny-come-latelys to the open source scene (like you) disgust me by disrespecting the people...
If I were you i'd watch yourself here. Because it's guys like you, the Johnny-come-only-to-the-GNU-world people that are rabid FS advocates and haven't really learned the real history or the current world that make themselves sound rather silly by assuming that GNU is the only player in the free software world. Stop reading the GNU and Linux ads and start learning about other licenses and other areas that write free software.
If you want to talk about disrespect, I have an email from RMS that states quite plainly that he doesn't care at all about etiquette and thinks that his ideas and opinions are wanted by everyone and he can infultrate any list he wants and say whatever he wants, even though the people involved have rejected the ideas he gives out by choosing a different open-source license. That's disrespect!
I used to be in the dark about the state of FS, like yourself. And i used to advocate GNU constantly. Whether he knows it or not it's RMS that actually turned me into a fence sitter that may be leaning towards the BSD side of things and leaving the GNU side of things behind.
I would really like you to expand your knowledge of free software before jumping down someone's throat like that.
Cheers,
DQ
Seriously, I think RMS is bad for the Open Source movement
Yes! Richard has some serious issues. I had the privilage (?) to see him assault the tech list at openbsd.org a while back. It was confirmed to me that Richard has some serious grudges against the corporate software world, and the GPL is a direct attempt to destroy that world. He disagrees with the BSD licensing scheme since it doesn't try to obliterate the idea of making money from writing software.
His ego, victim complex, and irrational "manifest destiny" can do no good for the open-source community. I once followed him, but then learned better.
Certainly unfortunate.
Cheers,
DQ
So MS has finally invented links. Took them long
enough. Now we unix geeks can use them! I mean,
since they've been invented and everything.
But i wonder why there is only mention of the fact that you don't have to have copies of data all over the place (incidently the 80-90% figure is ridiculous -- you only get that if you're a complete moron, i would think), but make no mention of the other uses of links.
I never really use links to save diskspace, but to make use of the other advantages, which we all know. Would this be a side effect of what they've written? Probably not, i guess.
Q
I agree! This is the first work i've actually done for this site... jeez :P
:)
Damned moderators
Ok, I've added my own software to the mix :)
:)
Please download this highly useful code.
Right from here
Great idea by the way
Cheers,
Q
--------
I contend that if YOU are really making a choice here (instaed of following some random principle) you would do exactly the same thing. In fact free will seems to require at least some minor form of predictability.
You're ignoring one extremely important point. And I think a few people have been trying to hit it but have been missing a bit. It's the point of indecision. In fuzzy logic (a fairly well accepted analogue to the brain) this could be expressed as 0.5 on the measurement of "Do I save them or me?"
This is where the unpredictability lies. The individual is on the fence, so to speak. Not even (s)he can guess what her outcome will be until it happens. Nor can you guarantee that even when you know the outcome of the previous trial.
Intriguing thought though.
Cheers,
DQuinn
It is the parents' job to teach the children what is appropriate and what is not
:P
Well said! The software titles "Net Nanny" and "Cyber Sitter" speak volumes. IE. Please make sure that we don't have to be good parents. Censor our kids' input so that we don't have to explain things to them.
One of the biggest problems in North America (et. al) is that parents and children are so far apart from each other that the kids have no direction. This only serves to open the gap. Teach your children what porn actually is. Help them learn, and everyone wins.
And that's all I've got to say about that.
------
Thanks for the info. I looked at the docs, the tutorial, lib reference, etc... I found them lacking in a "tie it in together" sort of way. I find that i miss some of the neat subtleties and tricks you can get from a fellow programmer (rather than developer).
:) I mean, i know what a "for" loop is, and i know what OOP is, so that book didn't cover much that i needed.
:P)
I looked at "learning python" and it was rather jokey
"Programming Python" has its drawbacks, for sure. There are already some things i would like to see different. But it has also had some of those "tying in together" kind of things that i wanted. Is it worth the $60+ (CDN)? That remains to be seen. But so far it's not too bad.
And anyways, my job owes me about 200 hours of "geek improvement time". I know perl, c, c++, shell, blah blah blah... all the unix geek, administrator stuff. So Python is what i'm looking at now. And just as you advised, i've got my coffee, and i've got the time (they're paying me to do this
Cheers,
DQ
I agree no book (O'Reilly or otherwise) is perfect. But uhh... i have to ask: Why on earth didn't you look in the book(s) to see if it had what you wanted first?
As geek books go i find that OR books tend to be pretty high up there. They are certainly the ones which are most consistently good. Other books have better information in them that beat one of OR's books from time to time, but there isn't anything out there i've found that can beat them all, or even come close to doing that.
I've used perl a LOT, and i think it's extremely sweet. AND i appreciate the review of the book since i think i will be getting my little brother into something soon and i _may_ choose perl since he likes the web and such. It would get him plugged into CGI quickly.
( 115),10);'}
However, i've been hearing more and more about python, so i decided to grab Mark Lutz's book "Programming Python" published by O'Reilly. I'm not too far into it yet, but in a couple of weeks should have chunked through most of it. As a further test to see what's so great about this thing, i'm going to write an OOP app in it (not too sure what it will be yet). Cuz as of this moment i can't see the reason to switch from perl.
But the question is, would anyone care to have me post a review of this book eventually?
Cheers,
DQ
------
perl -e 'print {$i=pack(c5,(41*2),sqrt(7056),(unpack(c,H)-2),oct
Well, the OPT-OUT thing is nice, but if you don't trust anyone (like me :P) you can use the following networks as masks in your ip filter (i'm just snipping out my rules from openbsd, but the ip networks are in there).
:P These seem to be all of them though.
block in quick on ne0 from 199.95.208.0/24 to any
block out quick on ne0 from any to 199.95.208.0/24
block in quick on ne0 from 199.95.207.0/24 to any
block out quick on ne0 from any to 199.95.207.0/24
block in quick on ne0 from 209.249.231.0/24 to any
block out quick on ne0 from any to 209.249.231.0/24
block in quick on ne0 from 204.253.104.0/24 to any
block out quick on ne0 from any to 204.253.104.0/24
block in quick on ne0 from 208.184.29.0/24 to any
block out quick on ne0 from any to 208.184.29.0/24
This seemed to be more reliable than using the doublclick.net network. But everytime i blocked on out they got back in through another spot
Sorry... this post is probably meant to be deeper inside this thread.
:)
Are we not all just dancing around the idea of a human compiler with a vast database of algorithms, intuition, look-ahead properties, and an abstracted idea of what it is exactly that the program is doing? IE. There is no compiler, to my knowledge, which writes highly effective parallel code. Why is that? Simply because no compiler can really understand the overall problem.
How long do you think it will be before the all-powerful AI compiler is written, with all of these abilities, and more, on a box that runs at a few GHz?
Or maybe i'm just being a little too science fictiony here
Cheers,
D
I must respond to this, and i don't mean to be a nasty type. But hey... if you want to explore a game like quake then buy a copy, sit down in single player mode and explore away!
:) jeez... People are going to be better than you. It's no fun for anyone if someone doesn't play to their fullest. That's what it's about!
I am a former quake junkie, and here's what it comes down to: Multi player quake is a contact sport! It's not meant to be touchy feely. I mean, look at the blood man!
Explore, learn, offline... do some serious gibbing online! In my opinion, you're just whining here. You get your butt kicked? When you're a newbie, you're supposed to!
This bothers me. Do you really believe that all linux gurus have a mission to destroy windows? Do you want linux to go mainstream? Look at what the public wants. If they want windows then only another windows OS is going to replace it. I don't want my linux to be like that.
And by the way... to keep on topic a bit... Those who flame without intelligence (eg. Katz is a jerk) generally don't have that intelligence to begin with. It takes intelligence and savvy to insult or flame properly. So this "breeding the brightest jerks" stuff is incorrect. Most jerks are not that bright. If they were then the hostile, simplistic flames that show no thought or creativity, would not exist.
I think what we may be talking about here is the FPGA. The Field Programmable Gate Array is just a huge bunch of transistor "black boxes"; adders, multiplexors, etc.. and a single SRAM bit controls the connections that they make with each other. So the entire chip can be reconfigured to handle particular tasks (like a particular encryption session with the key decoder/encoder hardwired onto the chip -- put the sequence of bytes in on one end and they come out the other, encoded or decoded as you like), or mimmick a particular architecture. I don't believe that they're ready for prime time yet, unless transmeta has done something really slick.
Well, as a former christian who eventually clued in, i have to say that i'm glad that the "prophets" and religious fanatics were, once again, incorrect. And the Y2K bug did not signal the second coming of jesus christ.
:)). I look forward to reading what they make out of this one.
They always manage to take a defeat and put a spin on it that makes it out to be a victory (Didn't someone make a reference to Orwell and 1984 in this thread?
Or maybe i should just worship Kurt.
DQ
Hell, if a hostile force depends on computing technology to destroy and kill, then can we please knock that out first before going in and ripping people apart with explosives?
I think that the 'rules of war' should state that the war _begins_ with computer warfare.
What war is this? Ladies and gentlemen, the lack of a cool browser isn't going to spell the end of Linux. Please.
Why do we use Linux? We use it because it's fast, stable, configurable, flexible, etc etc... What isn't Linux? It's not (ahem!) "user friendly" if we use windows as a benchmark for that term.
The world wants that "user friendliness". They don't want stability, etc etc... they want the computer to decide. They don't want to have to think about one single thing other than "where's that cool URL?".
I don't want _that_ OS. I want the OS that I'm using now (which is any one of about 5 Unix variants). If you _really_ want to win the war, create the next version of windows, not Unix.
That will win you the war.
Make something with pretty pictures.
That will win you the war.
Leave stability behind, go for mediocre quality, but don't ask the user any questions.
That will win you the war.
Create proprietary code which is closed off from the real world so that nobody can migrate from it without extreme pain.
That will win you the war.
Spend more money are marketing than development and research. Blind the customer to the fact that it's bug ridden. Charge for each new release of the code. Make sure that previous versions become obsolete.
That will win you the war.
In short ladies and gentlemen: If you want to win this, so called 'war', then you had better stop trying to do it on the high ground. The subjects of this war don't live there. They live in the pit where they get spoon fed whatever corporate america gives them.
Can we stop with this "war" business and get back to computing? Let the general public have their mess. We know the better solution. Unix is not going away... ever. We solve the problems "they" give us, each and every time. A non-cool browser? Heh... big deal.
Cheers,
Quinn