As I pointed out, once the code is identified as tainted, they can likely demand that you stop using it. Although I didn't specifically point it out, that should imply that it also means you can not distribute it. If they can show that you knowingly and wilfully used or distributed the code after knowing it to be tainted, they might be able to sue you. But they almost certainly can not sucessfully sue you for using/distributing the code before it was known to be tainted.
Thanks, now I can RTFA. In doing so, it appears that the author did not do his homework particularly well, as both he and his sources seem to be thoroughtly confused on the issues.
Quote: "They sued AutoZone and DaimlerChrysler even though those companies didn't do anything wrong and acted in good faith," says Daniel Egger, a partner at the venture capital firm Eno River Capital. AutoZone and DaimlerChrysler simply purchased open-source software; they didn't write the code. But "because of a quirk in our legal system," Egger says, "you can be sued for using software when you did nothing wrong, just because some third party claims that they own part of that software or that the software infringes on their rights."
This is woefully uninformed. SCO sued neither Autozone nor DC for using Linux.
SCO's claim against Autozone arises from the fact that Autozone was using applications on SCO Unix and switched those applications from SCO to Linux in a very short time. The only way to do that, SCO claims, is by integrating the libraries from SCO Unix into Linux, which is a violation of the licensing terms for SCO Unix. SCO has no evidence that this happened other than the fact that Autozone switched over very rapidly, so they MUST have used SCO's libraries. Autozone and the consultant who did the switch both claim this is not the case, and it should be straightforward to demonstrate this in court.
The DC lawsuit arises because DC failed to return a certification of compliance. SCO sent out forms to everyone who has a license for SCO Unix and demanded that they certify that they were not using SCO code with Linux. Part of the license for SCO Unix says that they may demand such a certification of compliance.
So neither Autozone nor DC are being sued for "purchasing open source software." Both are being sued for violating the terms under which they licensed SCO software. Despite their many threats, SCO is suing their own customers, not Linux users. The case against Autozone seems extremely weak. The case against DC rests on a legal technicality that I'm not qualified to judge. If they do succeed in that case, however, it will have nothing to do with Linux.
Obligatory IANAL disclaimer but it's difficult to see how this would work. Despite SCO's blustering threats to sue Linux users, it's extremely doubtful MS would have a case against anyone but John Doe in your scenario. After all, if I plagarize John Grisholm in my new novel, he can certainly sue me but he can't sue the people who buy my novel, even though they now have a copy of his work without paying him for it.
Once MS identifies their code in the Linux kernel, they might be able to demand that people stop using it, leading to the need for everyone running Linux to download a new kernel or patch.
It seems to me that the primary need for Linux indemnification is not that you may be succesfully sued for copyright infringement (even SCO has largely dropped the copyright infringment claim from their case against IBM) but to protect against RIAA-like tactics where one is extorted to settle out of court or face ruinous legal fees to defend oneself. IBM can afford to fight SCO and their ilk. Small business owners can't.
As a 38 year old grandfather (yes, really) I am concerned that another grandparent is so silly as to get her knee-length knickers in a wad over an offhand remark. Look at yourself! You've gotten so upset over this that some of your gray hair has come out of it's bun, your granny glasses are sitting crooked and you're about to lose your dentures. Why don't you have a seat here in the rocker, wrap this quilt you made around your legs and I'll go fix you a nice glass of lemonade.
Note that this page doesn't mention using the capital 'F' to distinguish between the two definitions of "free." It's a common convention but I'm not sure where or how it started.
Both Freedom 1 and Freedom 3 require that software be Open Source in order for it to be Free.
Sigh. Are you a troll or are you really that unaware of the issues? I said nothing about freeware. I said Free software. The capital "F" implies that we're talking about "free as in speech," not "free as in beer." There's lots of free software that is not Open Source. There is no Free software that is not Open Source. Part of the definition of Free software is that the source is available. If it isn't Open Source, it might be free, but it ain't Free.
The Borland compiler is free but it is not Free. It is "free as in beer" but not "free as in speech." In order to be Free (as in speech), it must include the source code. Therefore, by definition, all Free software is Open Source. However, it is perfectly possible to release source code under a license which does not meet the definition of Free (witness the recent uproar over XFree86's change in their license.) Therefore, not all Open Source software is Free. Thus, Free software is a perfect subset of Open Source software.
I don't think she clouds the issue. I think the majority of the people couldn't care less about the difference between the two. The only ones who find the difference compelling are those who buy into the Free software philosophy, and they're certainly knowledgable enough to understand the sense in which the term is being used.
To use your analogy, if you're discussing sexual positions, it doesn't matter why you're doing it so there's no need to differentiate between sex-for-fun and sex-for-procreation. It's irrelevant to the discussion. The only people who would care are those who find sex-for-fun sinful.
Finally, she's discussing a software development method. I hear and see lots of discussion about the Open Source development model. I see nothing about the Free Software development model. It's quite common to use the term just as she did. Her only mistake was to bother explaining that she used the term in its inclusive sense, as that invited criticism from the Free Software zealots.
That would be true if, and only if, you define Open Source as "Software that is open source but not free." RMS may use it that way but it's not the common usage. Common usage is to include all open source software, which includes Free software.
She's referring to Open Source as a development model and not as a particular piece of software.
And I didn't say she wasn't referring to Free Software. She's referring to both. To go back to the puppy analogy above, referring to puppies necessarily refers to poodles. Not all dogs are poodles, but all poodles are certainly dogs. One needn't refer to "puppies and poodles." The term "puppies" necessarily includes poodles.
In a discussion of the relative merits of poodles, it might be appropriate to specify poodles in some places. In a general discussion of puppies, saying "puppies and poodles" is redundant. Similarly, there are some conversations where it makes sense to differentiate between Free Software and software that is Open Source but not Free. This isn't one of those discussions, since the issue is the develpment process and not the philosophy behind the movements.
Vender written software that is released as Open Source probably does not fall under the article because it likely wasn't developed using the Open Source development method.
Violent puppy rape is not consensual sex between adults. Using the former term to refer to the latter act is incorrect and makes no sense.
Free Software IS Open Source software. It says so right on the label. Some, but not all, Open Source software is free software. In other words, Free software is a perfect subset of Open Source software. Using Open Source to refer to both is technically correct and should be perfectly acceptable. Using Free software to refer to both would be incorrect.
I strongly suspect that you're a troll but I'll take a few moments to reply for the benefit of those that may take you seriously.
First, I'm not a zealot. Computers are tools. They aren't spouses or lifemates or religions. They're just tools that do a job. I use Linux for two reasons. One - it's cheap. I run a web server, a mail server, a couple of mailing lists, a DNS server, etc. on my home network (seven machines.) I simply can't afford to purchase Windows server software to do all that. (Well, I guess I could afford it - I make a decent living. But I simply refuse to lay out that kind of cash for what I'm trying to do.) Two - it's powerful. It drives me batty that Windows doesn't have decent scripting and command line tools. Some of that is correctable (Cygnus, Perl, etc) but some of it is not (the lack of links on the file system.) And some of the stuff that is technically correctable can't be done because I can only install approved apps on the server. (I work as a system administrator for a government system.) I've been working in both Windows and Unix environments for a long time.
You're right that there are people who have no business sitting down at a computer. They simply don't grok them, and no amount of training seems to get through to them. For those people, it doesn't matter if it's Linux or Windows or OSX. It's hard.
You (and other posters to this sub-thread) are also right that Windows has hard problems too. But I run a network of seven computers at home, four of which are Linux boxes and four of which are Windows boxes. (My laptop dual-boots, for those who noted that those numbers don't add up.) At work, I have two independent networks - one is unclassified and one is classified. There are about 60 machines on each network, all of them Windows. I spend more time on Google researching problems on those four Linux machines than I do researching problems for over 120 Windows machines.
That isn't a scientific study. It's my personal experience.
But to me, the key thing is that when I have no clue how to accomplish something on Windows, I can usually start poking around the menus and options and figure it out without having to hit Google. With Linux, I sometimes have no idea where to even start, and I'm not a Linux newbie.
One quick case in point. I was about ready to pull my hair out last weekend. I moved a hard drive from hdb to hda last weekend. Before moving it, I was mounting hdb as the root of my fs, with LILO installed on the mbr of hda. I configured lilo.conf, and did a chrooted lilo, shutdown and moved the hard drive. My system went scizophrenic. It claimed it was mounted hdb as a ReiserFS system when it was actually mounting hda as ext3. You Linux gurus probably already know what I did - or rather, didn't do. I didn't update my fstab when I moved the hard drive.
I'm sure that there are a number of horror stories people can post about things they did or problems they've had with Windows too. I've got a few myself. But things like this consistently pop up to bite you in the ass with Linux, and all too often you don't even know what to Google on to find the answer. (I never was able to solve this problem on Google. A newsgroup post get the answer for me a couple of days later.) They happen in Windows too, but not near as often. In many ways, the additional complexity of Linux that causes problems is the very reason for that additional power I was praising just a few paragraphs up. I'm very aware of that. I'm not knocking Linux or praising Windows. I'm simply saying that, in my experience, Windows is much easier to administer than is a Linux box.
Yes, this is warm and cute and cuddly and completely precious. It's also complete and utter bullshit. Not that I'm saying it's not true - I certainly assume that it is true in regards to the facts of the situation. Howver, the conclusions it tries to draw are completely unrelated to the facts. It's a snow job.
The basic interface between MS and Linux is essentially identical. It's point and click. There's only so much variation you can have. And yes, a child can learn to point and click on Linux just as well as they can Windows.
But when people say Linux is difficult, they don't mean that it's difficult to figure out how to start a program, how to type text into a dodcument, or how to log on to the system. They mean that it's difficult to configure a printer, to setup the network, to install the driver for that new wireless card, etc.
I've been using Linux for over ten years, and it has made tremendous strides. An average user can sit down and install Mandrake or SuSe or Red Hat without difficulty. They can fire up Open Office and type out a letter or open Mozilla and browse the web. They can do all of these things without difficulty - IF everything works right. The problem is that things don't always work right, and when they don't work right, getting them fixed is usually much more difficult on Linux than it is on Windows. That's what people mean when they say Linux is difficult to use, and four year old girls, no matter how cute and cuddly, do nothing to address that.
A standard bycycle sits you too high to fit at a standard height desk, and you can't lower the seat height very much becuase you need to be able to extend your legs when you pedal. A recumbent bike offers more possibilities. However, I question whether you'd really want to do any significant exercise wearing standard business clothes at work. Do you really want to work up a good sweat in your businesss suit? Even if you're in a job with more relaxed attire, do you want to be sweating while you're doing that job? Do you want your workmates working up a good sweat? And if you're not working hard enough to work up a sweat, it's doubtful you're accomplishing much by way of exercise.
At home, it might be more practical to throw on a pair of sweats and work out while also working on the latest business projections. Most recumbents have a post with a display where the handlebars would be on a standard bike. If you can remove or lower that, and possible raise your desk slightly, you might be able to slide the recumbent into your cubby hole. Alternately, you could mount a board on legs to set across the bike just above your lap. Sit the bike next to your desk, turn your monitor around and put your cordless keyboard and mouse on the board across your lap.
Your analogy doesn't hold water. I pay (directly or through taxes) security companies, police, the fire company, etc. for a service they provide. I don't pay them NOT to do something. I have to pay a particular registrar or the phone company NOT to publish my info. Police, FD, etc. are protecting me from the actions of other people. Registrars and the phone company are, in essence, "protecting" me from dangers that they theyselves cause. It's almost like a protection racket. "You pay us money or we're going to publish your info for everybody to see."
Of course you can in the real world. But in this example, they can only give you one and, while you're waiting to go to court on that one, they can't give you any more.
Actually, that's not a bad analogy. I park illegally and get a parking ticket, but I can only get one a month. I go to court and they charge me a $10.00 fine and tell me to use the parking garage. But the parking garage wants $25.00 a month to park. So I can park illegally and risk a $10.00 fine every month, or I can pay $25.00 up front to park legally. Which would you do?
This issue is actually getting some high level attention. The British Royal Society told the House of Commons that open publishing was "... a threat to the vitality of the country's scientific community."
This is an example of one person who does not understand how to organize information in a useful manner. It's a valid point, and quite frustrating if you're the poor sod who has to try to make sense out of his mess, but it doesn't invalidate the idea of using spreadsheets as simple databases. I've had to work with real databases that were designed by people who quite obviously had no clue what they were doing and had never heard of the concept of normalization. That isn't a strike against databases, it's just an indication of users in severe need of training.
Excel as a simple database has a number of advantages. It's portable - most business users have access to Excel, and OpenOffice imports Excel sheets quite well. It requires limited knowledge to get some use out of it. Even unsophisticated users can usually manage a simpe search for the data they're looking for, and can update records. A well designed Access database can be easy to use, but it's much less portable. Not all users have Access, and I'm not aware of any Linux app which will open an Access database directly. (You can export the database from Access and then import it into MySQL or other database server, but that's obviously a great deal more work.) A database run on any of various servers with a custom front end, either web based or not, can be easy to use but is obviously much more difficult to attach to an email.
If you need the power and robustness of a relational database, then use one. But for simple data collection functionality, particularly when portability is an issue, a spreadsheet works well.
If you're going to talk about legal terms, you need to refer to legal sources. For example, Findlaw defines theft/larceny as:... the taking of almost anything of value without the consent of the owner, with the intent to permanently deprive him or her of the value of the property taken. (Emphasis mine.) (Findlaw may ask you for your zip code before showing you the content of the link above.)
If I download a copy of Metallica's "One," I haven't deprived them, their publisher or whomever holds the actual copyright of anything, either temporarily or permanently. As I said, a better analogy is trespassing, where I enter your property without permission or against your express wishes. I haven't deprived you of anything of value, but I have ignored your wishes as to the use of your property.
Both are crimes, but theft is the illicit transfer of value from one person to another. The thief gains and the victim loses by the same amount. In copyright infringement, value does not transfer. They are fundamentally different. If you must use an analogy, copyright infringement is more akin to trespassing than it is to theft.
I didn't quote you out of context to twist your words. Many people really will quit. You tried to imply that you're somehow superior to those people, which point I ignored because it's irrelevant. But I didn't twist your words - I merely emphasized the point you yourself stated.
Part of the appeal of Windows is that there's One True Way to do everything and all programs must work that way; Linux is for people that don't believe this.
That's exactly my point! If you want Linux to remain the exclusive purview of the technical elite, then there's no need to change it. If however, the goal is to have Linux compete with Windows (and that's the context of this thread), it needs to take into account that a significant percentage of users won't "click around" and aren't interested in devoting a great deal of time and effort into learning to use a computer. They want it simple, and they want to be able to use the same skills on their home machines, their work machines and the machine at the corner Internet Cafe.
Slashdot Mirror
As I pointed out, once the code is identified as tainted, they can likely demand that you stop using it. Although I didn't specifically point it out, that should imply that it also means you can not distribute it. If they can show that you knowingly and wilfully used or distributed the code after knowing it to be tainted, they might be able to sue you. But they almost certainly can not sucessfully sue you for using/distributing the code before it was known to be tainted.
Thanks, now I can RTFA. In doing so, it appears that the author did not do his homework particularly well, as both he and his sources seem to be thoroughtly confused on the issues.
Quote: "They sued AutoZone and DaimlerChrysler even though those companies didn't do anything wrong and acted in good faith," says Daniel Egger, a partner at the venture capital firm Eno River Capital. AutoZone and DaimlerChrysler simply purchased open-source software; they didn't write the code. But "because of a quirk in our legal system," Egger says, "you can be sued for using software when you did nothing wrong, just because some third party claims that they own part of that software or that the software infringes on their rights."
This is woefully uninformed. SCO sued neither Autozone nor DC for using Linux.
SCO's claim against Autozone arises from the fact that Autozone was using applications on SCO Unix and switched those applications from SCO to Linux in a very short time. The only way to do that, SCO claims, is by integrating the libraries from SCO Unix into Linux, which is a violation of the licensing terms for SCO Unix. SCO has no evidence that this happened other than the fact that Autozone switched over very rapidly, so they MUST have used SCO's libraries. Autozone and the consultant who did the switch both claim this is not the case, and it should be straightforward to demonstrate this in court.
The DC lawsuit arises because DC failed to return a certification of compliance. SCO sent out forms to everyone who has a license for SCO Unix and demanded that they certify that they were not using SCO code with Linux. Part of the license for SCO Unix says that they may demand such a certification of compliance.
So neither Autozone nor DC are being sued for "purchasing open source software." Both are being sued for violating the terms under which they licensed SCO software. Despite their many threats, SCO is suing their own customers, not Linux users. The case against Autozone seems extremely weak. The case against DC rests on a legal technicality that I'm not qualified to judge. If they do succeed in that case, however, it will have nothing to do with Linux.
Obligatory IANAL disclaimer but it's difficult to see how this would work. Despite SCO's blustering threats to sue Linux users, it's extremely doubtful MS would have a case against anyone but John Doe in your scenario. After all, if I plagarize John Grisholm in my new novel, he can certainly sue me but he can't sue the people who buy my novel, even though they now have a copy of his work without paying him for it.
Once MS identifies their code in the Linux kernel, they might be able to demand that people stop using it, leading to the need for everyone running Linux to download a new kernel or patch.
It seems to me that the primary need for Linux indemnification is not that you may be succesfully sued for copyright infringement (even SCO has largely dropped the copyright infringment claim from their case against IBM) but to protect against RIAA-like tactics where one is extorted to settle out of court or face ruinous legal fees to defend oneself. IBM can afford to fight SCO and their ilk. Small business owners can't.
RTFAs. The older discussion was about a new tax proposal. This discussion is about a law passed in 1985. Similar, but different stories.
As a 38 year old grandfather (yes, really) I am concerned that another grandparent is so silly as to get her knee-length knickers in a wad over an offhand remark. Look at yourself! You've gotten so upset over this that some of your gray hair has come out of it's bun, your granny glasses are sitting crooked and you're about to lose your dentures. Why don't you have a seat here in the rocker, wrap this quilt you made around your legs and I'll go fix you a nice glass of lemonade.
Well, here is a good place to start.
Note that this page doesn't mention using the capital 'F' to distinguish between the two definitions of "free." It's a common convention but I'm not sure where or how it started.
Both Freedom 1 and Freedom 3 require that software be Open Source in order for it to be Free.
Sigh. Are you a troll or are you really that unaware of the issues? I said nothing about freeware. I said Free software. The capital "F" implies that we're talking about "free as in speech," not "free as in beer." There's lots of free software that is not Open Source. There is no Free software that is not Open Source. Part of the definition of Free software is that the source is available. If it isn't Open Source, it might be free, but it ain't Free.
The Borland compiler is free but it is not Free. It is "free as in beer" but not "free as in speech." In order to be Free (as in speech), it must include the source code. Therefore, by definition, all Free software is Open Source. However, it is perfectly possible to release source code under a license which does not meet the definition of Free (witness the recent uproar over XFree86's change in their license.) Therefore, not all Open Source software is Free. Thus, Free software is a perfect subset of Open Source software.
I don't think she clouds the issue. I think the majority of the people couldn't care less about the difference between the two. The only ones who find the difference compelling are those who buy into the Free software philosophy, and they're certainly knowledgable enough to understand the sense in which the term is being used.
To use your analogy, if you're discussing sexual positions, it doesn't matter why you're doing it so there's no need to differentiate between sex-for-fun and sex-for-procreation. It's irrelevant to the discussion. The only people who would care are those who find sex-for-fun sinful.
Finally, she's discussing a software development method. I hear and see lots of discussion about the Open Source development model. I see nothing about the Free Software development model. It's quite common to use the term just as she did. Her only mistake was to bother explaining that she used the term in its inclusive sense, as that invited criticism from the Free Software zealots.
That would be true if, and only if, you define Open Source as "Software that is open source but not free." RMS may use it that way but it's not the common usage. Common usage is to include all open source software, which includes Free software.
She's referring to Open Source as a development model and not as a particular piece of software.
And I didn't say she wasn't referring to Free Software. She's referring to both. To go back to the puppy analogy above, referring to puppies necessarily refers to poodles. Not all dogs are poodles, but all poodles are certainly dogs. One needn't refer to "puppies and poodles." The term "puppies" necessarily includes poodles.
In a discussion of the relative merits of poodles, it might be appropriate to specify poodles in some places. In a general discussion of puppies, saying "puppies and poodles" is redundant. Similarly, there are some conversations where it makes sense to differentiate between Free Software and software that is Open Source but not Free. This isn't one of those discussions, since the issue is the develpment process and not the philosophy behind the movements.
Vender written software that is released as Open Source probably does not fall under the article because it likely wasn't developed using the Open Source development method.
Damn it, I've got one moderator point left but I've already posted to this story so I can't give it to you. Somebody, mod parent up.
Get a clue.
Violent puppy rape is not consensual sex between adults. Using the former term to refer to the latter act is incorrect and makes no sense.
Free Software IS Open Source software. It says so right on the label. Some, but not all, Open Source software is free software. In other words, Free software is a perfect subset of Open Source software. Using Open Source to refer to both is technically correct and should be perfectly acceptable. Using Free software to refer to both would be incorrect.
I strongly suspect that you're a troll but I'll take a few moments to reply for the benefit of those that may take you seriously.
First, I'm not a zealot. Computers are tools. They aren't spouses or lifemates or religions. They're just tools that do a job. I use Linux for two reasons. One - it's cheap. I run a web server, a mail server, a couple of mailing lists, a DNS server, etc. on my home network (seven machines.) I simply can't afford to purchase Windows server software to do all that. (Well, I guess I could afford it - I make a decent living. But I simply refuse to lay out that kind of cash for what I'm trying to do.) Two - it's powerful. It drives me batty that Windows doesn't have decent scripting and command line tools. Some of that is correctable (Cygnus, Perl, etc) but some of it is not (the lack of links on the file system.) And some of the stuff that is technically correctable can't be done because I can only install approved apps on the server. (I work as a system administrator for a government system.) I've been working in both Windows and Unix environments for a long time.
You're right that there are people who have no business sitting down at a computer. They simply don't grok them, and no amount of training seems to get through to them. For those people, it doesn't matter if it's Linux or Windows or OSX. It's hard.
You (and other posters to this sub-thread) are also right that Windows has hard problems too. But I run a network of seven computers at home, four of which are Linux boxes and four of which are Windows boxes. (My laptop dual-boots, for those who noted that those numbers don't add up.) At work, I have two independent networks - one is unclassified and one is classified. There are about 60 machines on each network, all of them Windows. I spend more time on Google researching problems on those four Linux machines than I do researching problems for over 120 Windows machines.
That isn't a scientific study. It's my personal experience.
But to me, the key thing is that when I have no clue how to accomplish something on Windows, I can usually start poking around the menus and options and figure it out without having to hit Google. With Linux, I sometimes have no idea where to even start, and I'm not a Linux newbie.
One quick case in point. I was about ready to pull my hair out last weekend. I moved a hard drive from hdb to hda last weekend. Before moving it, I was mounting hdb as the root of my fs, with LILO installed on the mbr of hda. I configured lilo.conf, and did a chrooted lilo, shutdown and moved the hard drive. My system went scizophrenic. It claimed it was mounted hdb as a ReiserFS system when it was actually mounting hda as ext3. You Linux gurus probably already know what I did - or rather, didn't do. I didn't update my fstab when I moved the hard drive.
I'm sure that there are a number of horror stories people can post about things they did or problems they've had with Windows too. I've got a few myself. But things like this consistently pop up to bite you in the ass with Linux, and all too often you don't even know what to Google on to find the answer. (I never was able to solve this problem on Google. A newsgroup post get the answer for me a couple of days later.) They happen in Windows too, but not near as often. In many ways, the additional complexity of Linux that causes problems is the very reason for that additional power I was praising just a few paragraphs up. I'm very aware of that. I'm not knocking Linux or praising Windows. I'm simply saying that, in my experience, Windows is much easier to administer than is a Linux box.
Yes, this is warm and cute and cuddly and completely precious. It's also complete and utter bullshit. Not that I'm saying it's not true - I certainly assume that it is true in regards to the facts of the situation. Howver, the conclusions it tries to draw are completely unrelated to the facts. It's a snow job.
The basic interface between MS and Linux is essentially identical. It's point and click. There's only so much variation you can have. And yes, a child can learn to point and click on Linux just as well as they can Windows.
But when people say Linux is difficult, they don't mean that it's difficult to figure out how to start a program, how to type text into a dodcument, or how to log on to the system. They mean that it's difficult to configure a printer, to setup the network, to install the driver for that new wireless card, etc.
I've been using Linux for over ten years, and it has made tremendous strides. An average user can sit down and install Mandrake or SuSe or Red Hat without difficulty. They can fire up Open Office and type out a letter or open Mozilla and browse the web. They can do all of these things without difficulty - IF everything works right. The problem is that things don't always work right, and when they don't work right, getting them fixed is usually much more difficult on Linux than it is on Windows. That's what people mean when they say Linux is difficult to use, and four year old girls, no matter how cute and cuddly, do nothing to address that.
A standard bycycle sits you too high to fit at a standard height desk, and you can't lower the seat height very much becuase you need to be able to extend your legs when you pedal. A recumbent bike offers more possibilities. However, I question whether you'd really want to do any significant exercise wearing standard business clothes at work. Do you really want to work up a good sweat in your businesss suit? Even if you're in a job with more relaxed attire, do you want to be sweating while you're doing that job? Do you want your workmates working up a good sweat? And if you're not working hard enough to work up a sweat, it's doubtful you're accomplishing much by way of exercise.
At home, it might be more practical to throw on a pair of sweats and work out while also working on the latest business projections. Most recumbents have a post with a display where the handlebars would be on a standard bike. If you can remove or lower that, and possible raise your desk slightly, you might be able to slide the recumbent into your cubby hole. Alternately, you could mount a board on legs to set across the bike just above your lap. Sit the bike next to your desk, turn your monitor around and put your cordless keyboard and mouse on the board across your lap.
Just a couple of thoughts.
Your analogy doesn't hold water. I pay (directly or through taxes) security companies, police, the fire company, etc. for a service they provide. I don't pay them NOT to do something. I have to pay a particular registrar or the phone company NOT to publish my info. Police, FD, etc. are protecting me from the actions of other people. Registrars and the phone company are, in essence, "protecting" me from dangers that they theyselves cause. It's almost like a protection racket. "You pay us money or we're going to publish your info for everybody to see."
Of course you can in the real world. But in this example, they can only give you one and, while you're waiting to go to court on that one, they can't give you any more.
Actually, that's not a bad analogy. I park illegally and get a parking ticket, but I can only get one a month. I go to court and they charge me a $10.00 fine and tell me to use the parking garage. But the parking garage wants $25.00 a month to park. So I can park illegally and risk a $10.00 fine every month, or I can pay $25.00 up front to park legally. Which would you do?
This issue is actually getting some high level attention. The British Royal Society told the House of Commons that open publishing was " ... a threat to the vitality of the country's scientific community."
Open access publishers quickly rebutted the claim.
This is an example of one person who does not understand how to organize information in a useful manner. It's a valid point, and quite frustrating if you're the poor sod who has to try to make sense out of his mess, but it doesn't invalidate the idea of using spreadsheets as simple databases. I've had to work with real databases that were designed by people who quite obviously had no clue what they were doing and had never heard of the concept of normalization. That isn't a strike against databases, it's just an indication of users in severe need of training.
Excel as a simple database has a number of advantages. It's portable - most business users have access to Excel, and OpenOffice imports Excel sheets quite well. It requires limited knowledge to get some use out of it. Even unsophisticated users can usually manage a simpe search for the data they're looking for, and can update records. A well designed Access database can be easy to use, but it's much less portable. Not all users have Access, and I'm not aware of any Linux app which will open an Access database directly. (You can export the database from Access and then import it into MySQL or other database server, but that's obviously a great deal more work.) A database run on any of various servers with a custom front end, either web based or not, can be easy to use but is obviously much more difficult to attach to an email.
If you need the power and robustness of a relational database, then use one. But for simple data collection functionality, particularly when portability is an issue, a spreadsheet works well.
If you're going to talk about legal terms, you need to refer to legal sources. For example, Findlaw defines theft/larceny as: ... the taking of almost anything of value without the consent of the owner, with the intent to permanently deprive him or her of the value of the property taken. (Emphasis mine.) (Findlaw may ask you for your zip code before showing you the content of the link above.)
If I download a copy of Metallica's "One," I haven't deprived them, their publisher or whomever holds the actual copyright of anything, either temporarily or permanently. As I said, a better analogy is trespassing, where I enter your property without permission or against your express wishes. I haven't deprived you of anything of value, but I have ignored your wishes as to the use of your property.
It is not theft. It is copyright infringement.
Both are crimes, but theft is the illicit transfer of value from one person to another. The thief gains and the victim loses by the same amount. In copyright infringement, value does not transfer. They are fundamentally different. If you must use an analogy, copyright infringement is more akin to trespassing than it is to theft.
I didn't quote you out of context to twist your words. Many people really will quit. You tried to imply that you're somehow superior to those people, which point I ignored because it's irrelevant. But I didn't twist your words - I merely emphasized the point you yourself stated.
Part of the appeal of Windows is that there's One True Way to do everything and all programs must work that way; Linux is for people that don't believe this.
That's exactly my point! If you want Linux to remain the exclusive purview of the technical elite, then there's no need to change it. If however, the goal is to have Linux compete with Windows (and that's the context of this thread), it needs to take into account that a significant percentage of users won't "click around" and aren't interested in devoting a great deal of time and effort into learning to use a computer. They want it simple, and they want to be able to use the same skills on their home machines, their work machines and the machine at the corner Internet Cafe.
It might be archaic but devicelogics is quite proud of it. 5 user licenses, $200.00. Where was that post with the URL for FreeDOS?