You're right, his example doesn't (directly) address open source... of course it wasn't supposed to. The point is that by your definition those films would qualify as "open" ("open films" if you will). You see, there's this thing called "analogy" an in this case it's been used to illustrate the idiocy of your point.
And this has nothing to do with morals, so don't try make it something it's not. Words (or terms) do not mean whatever anyone wants them to mean. Their meaning must be implicitly shared between those using it, and your definition of "open" just doesn't make the cut. It's also kind of funny (or lame) to imply that "the others" are the ones trying to subvert the meaning of "a very simple English phrase", when your characterization of open source should be described as "visible source".
"the source is open and it therefore is 'open source'
I don't think you understand how arguing works. You can't take your thesis and use it as a premise to prove it. "a -> a" might be true, but that doesn't prove "a" to be true.
You're right however in that the license allows some of the benefits of open source and nobody is denying that. It just happens to fail some of the other prerequisites to call it "open source" so, just as you wouldn't call a dog a feline because it has 4 legs and a tail, you shouldn't call MS-LPL open source (*).
(*) Just to be clear (as you seem to have troubles with analogies) I'm not calling MS-LPL a cat.
Science is about finding the truth through experiment and observation
Actually, science is more about finding theories that can fit and explain our (current) knowledge of the world and also have some predictive value. It's people who confuse scientific theories for The Truth that make it look like a religion.
I can't decide if your trolling or not, nevertheless... I've been using KDE for the last 5 years without any stability problems at all.
Actually, my experience would suggest that GTK applications crash more often than Qt's. This however is most likely related to the fact that the GTK apps I use are niche applications (for which I didn't find a suitable Qt/KDE counterpart), which generally also means less developers, less users and less mature applications which obviously leads to more crashes.
I would be really surprised if you're experience were very different. The only big KDE app that I know crashes from time to time is Konqueror (and if you are a GNOME user, you probably never used it enough to see that happen).
CPL and EPL licenses were added by Trolltech to the list of OSS licenses that can be used with Qt-GPL around the same time Qt was released (also) as GPL3 and before the Nokia buy was announced. AFIK, there's no current reason why SWT couldn't have a Qt backend now.
You can wish all you want, but that's not going to happen. KWrite is a KDE app, and as a such depends on KDElibs. I do agree though that you shouldn't need all of KDE to use it. I'm not sure what's the current situation on that regard but, in any case, it will probably improve with time.
I'm not so sure. Your argument just indicates that increased production cost would be justified by an increase in price. We definitely have had a price increase but that doesn't mean that productions cost have increased accordingly, which is something I don't really know. I do, however, feel inclined to believe otherwise, at least until I see any evidence in the contrary. But maybe that's just because I don't like playing devil's advocate as much.
please, speak for yourself... there's plenty of people contributing to Linux in particular and F/OSS in general who are actually working a lot to make it as user friendly as possible (which doesn't have to mean non geek friendly).
Well reasoned Microsoft apologists are the ones that scary me the most. What you say makes sense; yet, there's only so far you can go with that line of reasoning. Most reasoned OOXML justifications I've heard try to point out the flaws in ODF as if that could bring the 2 standards to the same level. It can't. At the end of the day ODF (with any flaws it may have) will still be a standard created to bring interoperability to the table by all players but Microsoft (granted, those whose stand to gain something by it) and OOXML is a format designed by Microsoft (the big loser in that scenario) to stop all other players from joining the party. This doesn't makes supporting ODF an anti-Microsoft crusade, it just happens to be that the whole world (expect Microsoft) stands to gain a lot from this too.
And it's not hard to understand either: If OOXML is just an interoperability scam, then it really doesn't matters much if the format is well documented or not, because it will never be implemented by Microsoft and anybody else at the same time: either Microsoft or the competition will (willingly or unwillingly) never fully comply with it and interoperability won't improve. In this is the case, OOXML ISO standardization just gave MS the rubber stamp it needed to maintain the status quo. If OOXML really was about interoperability, then they really should have questioned the need for a new standard when 1) there was already another one designed to fulfill this role (whether ODF fully satisfies this role ATM or not) 2) they were asked to join the ODF developing group (yet they refused to that which would have give them the chance to fix their flaws, hence weakening the "ODF wasn't good enough for us" claim) 3) the previous standard (ODF) went through a review process that lasted years and has already been revised and improved (and continues to be so) and OOXML was is such a bad shape that received a record number of comments despite the (unusually) short time of review it was subjected to. So, which is it? Is there a good explanation for why OOXML as an ISO standard was needed or was it just the tool MS needed to secure their dominant position?
Slashdot Mirror
You're right, his example doesn't (directly) address open source... of course it wasn't supposed to. The point is that by your definition those films would qualify as "open" ("open films" if you will). You see, there's this thing called "analogy" an in this case it's been used to illustrate the idiocy of your point.
And this has nothing to do with morals, so don't try make it something it's not. Words (or terms) do not mean whatever anyone wants them to mean. Their meaning must be implicitly shared between those using it, and your definition of "open" just doesn't make the cut. It's also kind of funny (or lame) to imply that "the others" are the ones trying to subvert the meaning of "a very simple English phrase", when your characterization of open source should be described as "visible source".
"the source is open and it therefore is 'open source'
I don't think you understand how arguing works. You can't take your thesis and use it as a premise to prove it. "a -> a" might be true, but that doesn't prove "a" to be true. You're right however in that the license allows some of the benefits of open source and nobody is denying that. It just happens to fail some of the other prerequisites to call it "open source" so, just as you wouldn't call a dog a feline because it has 4 legs and a tail, you shouldn't call MS-LPL open source (*).
(*) Just to be clear (as you seem to have troubles with analogies) I'm not calling MS-LPL a cat.
not if "working at a job they detest" is all they can choose from.
Is there a finished KDE4 HIG available somewhere? An (admittedly quick) Google search only get to this, which looks more like an early draft.
Science is about finding the truth through experiment and observation
Actually, science is more about finding theories that can fit and explain our (current) knowledge of the world and also have some predictive value. It's people who confuse scientific theories for The Truth that make it look like a religion.
I can't decide if your trolling or not, nevertheless... I've been using KDE for the last 5 years without any stability problems at all. Actually, my experience would suggest that GTK applications crash more often than Qt's. This however is most likely related to the fact that the GTK apps I use are niche applications (for which I didn't find a suitable Qt/KDE counterpart), which generally also means less developers, less users and less mature applications which obviously leads to more crashes. I would be really surprised if you're experience were very different. The only big KDE app that I know crashes from time to time is Konqueror (and if you are a GNOME user, you probably never used it enough to see that happen).
You don't need them for KDElibs since it's LGPL.
CPL and EPL licenses were added by Trolltech to the list of OSS licenses that can be used with Qt-GPL around the same time Qt was released (also) as GPL3 and before the Nokia buy was announced. AFIK, there's no current reason why SWT couldn't have a Qt backend now.
yes
You can wish all you want, but that's not going to happen. KWrite is a KDE app, and as a such depends on KDElibs. I do agree though that you shouldn't need all of KDE to use it. I'm not sure what's the current situation on that regard but, in any case, it will probably improve with time.
I'm not so sure. Your argument just indicates that increased production cost would be justified by an increase in price. We definitely have had a price increase but that doesn't mean that productions cost have increased accordingly, which is something I don't really know. I do, however, feel inclined to believe otherwise, at least until I see any evidence in the contrary. But maybe that's just because I don't like playing devil's advocate as much.
surely their recent attempt to buy yahoo (at a record amount even) serves an indication of that...
Have the linux 64 distro's come up with a way to use wine and flash?
yes, but you need a multilib system
I'm sure it doesn't use RPM.
You shouldn't be. Mandriva uses RPM packages, it just uses urpmi instead of yum (the fedora equivalent of apt-get) for dependencies resolution.
When has Romania NOT been part of Europe?
smplayer is "just" an mplayer frontend. best i've seen so far, though it's not without some quirks.
sorry, you're right of course. i misread your post as if you were saying that a program in C can't be (violently) terminated in case of error.
please, speak for yourself... there's plenty of people contributing to Linux in particular and F/OSS in general who are actually working a lot to make it as user friendly as possible (which doesn't have to mean non geek friendly).
isn't there an exit() function in c?
Well reasoned Microsoft apologists are the ones that scary me the most.
What you say makes sense; yet, there's only so far you can go with that line of reasoning. Most reasoned OOXML justifications I've heard try to point out the flaws in ODF as if that could bring the 2 standards to the same level. It can't. At the end of the day ODF (with any flaws it may have) will still be a standard created to bring interoperability to the table by all players but Microsoft (granted, those whose stand to gain something by it) and OOXML is a format designed by Microsoft (the big loser in that scenario) to stop all other players from joining the party. This doesn't makes supporting ODF an anti-Microsoft crusade, it just happens to be that the whole world (expect Microsoft) stands to gain a lot from this too.
And it's not hard to understand either: If OOXML is just an interoperability scam, then it really doesn't matters much if the format is well documented or not, because it will never be implemented by Microsoft and anybody else at the same time: either Microsoft or the competition will (willingly or unwillingly) never fully comply with it and interoperability won't improve. In this is the case, OOXML ISO standardization just gave MS the rubber stamp it needed to maintain the status quo. If OOXML really was about interoperability, then they really should have questioned the need for a new standard when
1) there was already another one designed to fulfill this role (whether ODF fully satisfies this role ATM or not)
2) they were asked to join the ODF developing group (yet they refused to that which would have give them the chance to fix their flaws, hence weakening the "ODF wasn't good enough for us" claim)
3) the previous standard (ODF) went through a review process that lasted years and has already been revised and improved (and continues to be so) and OOXML was is such a bad shape that received a record number of comments despite the (unusually) short time of review it was subjected to.
So, which is it? Is there a good explanation for why OOXML as an ISO standard was needed or was it just the tool MS needed to secure their dominant position?
I don't know about the rest of the world, but Repsol is not a monopoly on Argentina.
I share your opinion on the YPF sell, but I'm still pretty sure the person I responded just can't tell Argentina from Venezuela...
WTF are you talking about? what oil? what events?
"Hypocrisy" and "Cuba".
Haven't you heard? The whole fucking world is waiting for the US to come set it free!
Sigh... some people will never get out from their bubbles.