This just shows misunderstanding on the developers part. You can install the KDE and GNOME libraries on the same harddisk. You can run them and they will run without stepping on each other's toes. the only choice you have to make is the choice of window manager, session manager, sound daemons, etc.
In fact, I look forward to the day that Miguel de Icaza promises, where GNOME and KDE can talk to each other. Not only will they not tread tread on each other, they will actually interoperate.
It is strange logic because of misplaced context. The context of the quote more like this:
RICHMAN1: Hey look at me! I am so humanitarian for giving all my spare change to that beggar over that.
RICHMAN2: You call that humanitarian? You and I were both born with a silver spoon in our mouths. Unlike you, I treasure what I was born with, and see it as my duty to give away money responsibly to the right people. You don't see me giving money to that beggar over there becuase I don't think he deserves it. I donate regularly to charities X, Y, Z, but I choose not to advertise that.
And no, I don't consider myself very humanitarian for that. So what's your point?
Why did MS have to add their own stuff to Kerberos, and why did they have to release documentation under a click-through agreement that says you can't use it to make an equivalent product?
Every OS has a place. I don't dispute that MS wants to be the the popular OS. But why must MS engage in business tactics that do not give the consumer choice?
Today was a horrible day. When I tried to watch TV, Fred cut me off and got to the remote first. That makes me so mad! Never want to talk to him again. But somehow, I know I will. The Mystic Force causes me to.
Yeah Diary. I must reveal this little secret. I believe in the Mystic Force. I know all of my roommates will laugh at me. There is no Force. We are all just C++ objects. But then I put on my stupid acts and ask them to explain. None of them can. Fred laughs his silly laugh and Trevor just throws a fit. Then I ask them how they can explain where we get the TV, where we get money, how the extension room to out house gets built. And Trevor gets into a bigger fit. LOL!
These men. All they can think about all day is how to get me into bed. I think the Mystic Force has something to do with it. But you know something? Just because I believe in it, doesn't mean that I don't have standards. Fred? Trevor? Ewwww. What is the Force thinking about, and how did I end up with these losers? I'd rather self->die().
Where 1 is a prime or not is largely a matter of contention. But you certainly cannot call it a composite number, for then all other prime numbers would have to be composite as well.
You are just confused about running a service and the rights to the data itself.
As long as someone has a reasonably dependable connection to the internet, they may run the CDDB service. That does not allow them to claim rights to the CD metadata itself. The people who contributed the metadata freely, in the spirit of cooperation only expect to get good data for other CD's back. If Gracenote refuses to run the service, they cannot claim that the own the data. I think FreeDB does have a case for asking for those data.
Since the license is a contract, am I free to renegogiate the terms? Suppose I, a billionaire, want to determine once and for all whether MS SQL is faster on NT4 or W2K. Can I do this, after paying off MS, and signing a contract that allows me to publish the results?
Just how much is this information worth, to MS? That is the question I ask.
Shopping cart servers should not trust anything on the client side beyond the identity of the shopper and what items it purchased. The computation of price, shipping and tax should be all done on the server, and the results presented to the consumer for him or her to endorse and finalize the purchase.
For traditional shops this should be all that necessary to prevent this. But I do see problems for certain types of auctions.
Then of course, servers can be hacked, but that is a different problem...
No, when Word started to take the market is when it had a version in Windows that introduced a novel
concept: WYSIWYG. No, WordPerfect 5 didn't have it -- it was amazing that it simply supported a
mouse. I used WP5 all the time until I saw the power of WYSIWYG editing. No longer did I have to view
a separate screen to see what it was going to look like Word 2.0 started it and it stuck. WP was too late to
the game with that. I can't really fault them for not having the advantage of getting their hands on
Windows early on, but if WP5 was clearly a better product, you'd still see it today on every desktop.
There was a good WYSIWYG wordprocessor then, before MS. It was called Lotus AmiPro. This word processor won the PC Magazine's award for the year's best software. I used it for a senior thesis, with its equation editors, spell check, everything. This was in 1994/5. It took until 1997 (Word 97) to catch up to the feature set offered by Lotus AmiPro. Office 2000 still has numerous quirks, and is still not as consistent as AmiPro was about document formatting.
Why is this good when the underlying filesystem has no protection mechanisms? So what if ctl-alt-del causes a system interrrupt that the OS locks out, so that only it itself will process that interrupt? Why can't I write someething into the Windoze binary on the harrdisk that copies the password out as the user types it on the harddisk?
At most, this is would be a good measure if and when the OS itself has a fair security model.
And we are not even talking about the DirectX api calls and such that may be used to spoof a login.
You can hardly attribute the cheapness of the Intel PC to Microsoft alone. What about the hardware motherboard makers, the BIOS makers, Intel, and so on? Saying MS made them do it is like saying the tail wags the dog.
Before MS, there was Lotus 123, Lotus AmiPro, WordStar, Borland and such. What happened to these guys?
You point out a very interesting situation. That the original author can change the license at will in future versions. This seems inevitable, and sounds bad.
But then, suppose the original author dies, or stops writing software. Everyone else now has to play by the rules of the GPL. No future modifications may be locked away. The license works even when the author dies. Isn't that good?
I defend Stallman because I have the facts, and i know what he says to be true.
You smear him by disregarding the facts, by calling him a liar when all he was doing was summarizing and giving readers an easily understood argument without sweating the details.
I don't understand. Suppose you work with IBM. IBM pays you to write GPLed software. So how is that not being paid for one's labor?
You are taking the argument way too personally.
In truth, the GPL does give you rights that would be denied to someone who bought ordinary software. It may not be absolutely free, but neither is commercial software.
In fact, this idea that one cannot make a living unless one hides the source is so ridiculous. Please show me the evidence for this, or elaborate. The interesting thing is this: If this was so, then the BSD license would be a detriment, as opposed to the GPL, which at least gives you the right to look at your competitor's modifications.
Slashdot Mirror
All thanks to MS for driving OS/2 out of the market then.
In fact, I look forward to the day that Miguel de Icaza promises, where GNOME and KDE can talk to each other. Not only will they not tread tread on each other, they will actually interoperate.
demands that this thread of argument be closed.
RICHMAN1: Hey look at me! I am so humanitarian for giving all my spare change to that beggar over that.
RICHMAN2: You call that humanitarian? You and I were both born with a silver spoon in our mouths. Unlike you, I treasure what I was born with, and see it as my duty to give away money responsibly to the right people. You don't see me giving money to that beggar over there becuase I don't think he deserves it. I donate regularly to charities X, Y, Z, but I choose not to advertise that. And no, I don't consider myself very humanitarian for that. So what's your point?
BEGGAR: Screw you man, I's rather have RICHMAN1!
Every OS has a place. I don't dispute that MS wants to be the the popular OS. But why must MS engage in business tactics that do not give the consumer choice?
Today was a horrible day. When I tried to watch TV, Fred cut me off and got to the remote first. That makes me so mad! Never want to talk to him again. But somehow, I know I will. The Mystic Force causes me to.
Yeah Diary. I must reveal this little secret. I believe in the Mystic Force. I know all of my roommates will laugh at me. There is no Force. We are all just C++ objects. But then I put on my stupid acts and ask them to explain. None of them can. Fred laughs his silly laugh and Trevor just throws a fit. Then I ask them how they can explain where we get the TV, where we get money, how the extension room to out house gets built. And Trevor gets into a bigger fit. LOL!
These men. All they can think about all day is how to get me into bed. I think the Mystic Force has something to do with it. But you know something? Just because I believe in it, doesn't mean that I don't have standards. Fred? Trevor? Ewwww. What is the Force thinking about, and how did I end up with these losers? I'd rather self->die().
Exactly.
Where 1 is a prime or not is largely a matter of contention. But you certainly cannot call it a composite number, for then all other prime numbers would have to be composite as well.
Napster is a database. It is also a communications protocol. It is a search engine and a GUI. It is all of those things and more.
Nothing is too expensive for Bill Gates. Privacy is only for rich people like him. Everyone else get in line, and bend over!
TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch. Read Robert A. Heinlein.
Not true. The Samba developers had better be careful, for instance.
As long as someone has a reasonably dependable connection to the internet, they may run the CDDB service. That does not allow them to claim rights to the CD metadata itself. The people who contributed the metadata freely, in the spirit of cooperation only expect to get good data for other CD's back. If Gracenote refuses to run the service, they cannot claim that the own the data. I think FreeDB does have a case for asking for those data.
And who pays for the government and educational institutions? And who pays them?
Since the license is a contract, am I free to renegogiate the terms? Suppose I, a billionaire, want to determine once and for all whether MS SQL is faster on NT4 or W2K. Can I do this, after paying off MS, and signing a contract that allows me to publish the results?
Just how much is this information worth, to MS? That is the question I ask.
For traditional shops this should be all that necessary to prevent this. But I do see problems for certain types of auctions.
Then of course, servers can be hacked, but that is a different problem ...
There was a good WYSIWYG wordprocessor then, before MS. It was called Lotus AmiPro. This word processor won the PC Magazine's award for the year's best software. I used it for a senior thesis, with its equation editors, spell check, everything. This was in 1994/5. It took until 1997 (Word 97) to catch up to the feature set offered by Lotus AmiPro. Office 2000 still has numerous quirks, and is still not as consistent as AmiPro was about document formatting.
At most, this is would be a good measure if and when the OS itself has a fair security model.
And we are not even talking about the DirectX api calls and such that may be used to spoof a login.
Before MS, there was Lotus 123, Lotus AmiPro, WordStar, Borland and such. What happened to these guys?
But then, suppose the original author dies, or stops writing software. Everyone else now has to play by the rules of the GPL. No future modifications may be locked away. The license works even when the author dies. Isn't that good?
You smear him by disregarding the facts, by calling him a liar when all he was doing was summarizing and giving readers an easily understood argument without sweating the details.
You are taking the argument way too personally.
In truth, the GPL does give you rights that would be denied to someone who bought ordinary software. It may not be absolutely free, but neither is commercial software.
In fact, this idea that one cannot make a living unless one hides the source is so ridiculous. Please show me the evidence for this, or elaborate. The interesting thing is this: If this was so, then the BSD license would be a detriment, as opposed to the GPL, which at least gives you the right to look at your competitor's modifications.
Oh an insightful "all your base belong to us" comment! sheesh!