I'd would bet he meant exactly what he said, since he was trying to convince the Brazilian gouv that Open Source was bad. Whether he think it or not is irrelevant.
What's odd is that MS is supposed to support Open Source now. I wonder if it's really just a MS guy speaking without thinking of his company's vision or the limit of MS supporting Openness.
When you can go to Mars you can go a little farther... And hopefully you begin to make bigger and better spaceship... And maybe after the colonisation of the solar system we can try a bigger jump.
But I don't see a big inter-stellar jump with humanity staying on Earth until then.
Well, I say "work on both"! We are far enough people on this planet to do this and that... Saving Earth and giving Humanity an edge in case something goes wrong. An other of those "don't put eggs in the same basket" things...
How the Hell is that post insightful? It's totally beside the point.
GP doesn't say anything about what the users should do or not do with free software. He just state that Freedom is and should be an important value of F/OSS. (indeed, if it wasn't, F/OSS wouldn't be.)
Freedom is also freedom to use it even if you don't share it's core value.
Agreed. Ones again people will confuse things and diabolise a those two things with a single name. Kinda sad... And I'm sure some people will make anything to make it worse...
Trying not to appear ignorant, but isn't this issue what patents are meant to solve? I thought the whole issue surrounding software patents was that some people consider software to be a type of 'thing' while others an expression of an idea. But hardware is clearly a 'thing'.
Hardware is indeed a thing, but hardware design? How is that different from software? I know : you can use the software, but you have to build the hardware before you can use it.
Well, hardware design sound more like an idea type of thing...
Anyway, hardware design is sell-able and maintainable, the same way a software is. So money isn't only in "building and shipping the product". ARM is very successful selling it's design without selling actual hardware. So I don't really see the difference with software here. So really, why not open source hardware design?
I may have exaggerated but my point is that it is a science definition, it belong to scientists to modify it if it is handy. I really don't care if pluto is a planet or a turtle. It's just not the lawyer jurisdiction.
Why does they say pluto is a freaking planet? Because the guy who discover it lived here! It's just a freaking ego problem.
But I wonder what else people can came up with, if they have so much ego.
The big deal is when a state mess up with science. Ok, it's not really important if pluto is a planet or not, but it's not for a state to make a law about it...
What next? Pi will be called Mey because someone is bored? Will triangle have 4 side because the governor's son doesn't know how to count? Earth will be officially a cube? The Univers will be 6000 years old by law?
I like to sign my works under a nickname, but I don't think about it as a fake name. Darfeld is me. Bertrand Vie-Ducasse is me. Both name are only pointers pointing me.
In the end, it's a matter of context and mood. Maybe if I work on a more serious stuff, I'll put my real name, maybe not... Maybe I'll put both.
Well I guess that I really don't give a damn... It's just weird to sign with my real name on the Internet. But I understand the work doesn't look as serious if you don't sign by your real name.
Slashdot Mirror
I'd would bet he meant exactly what he said, since he was trying to convince the Brazilian gouv that Open Source was bad. Whether he think it or not is irrelevant.
What's odd is that MS is supposed to support Open Source now. I wonder if it's really just a MS guy speaking without thinking of his company's vision or the limit of MS supporting Openness.
Yeah, right... And they get drunk too...
When you can go to Mars you can go a little farther... And hopefully you begin to make bigger and better spaceship... And maybe after the colonisation of the solar system we can try a bigger jump.
But I don't see a big inter-stellar jump with humanity staying on Earth until then.
No it presumes enough people have something to eat, etc... What you describe would be a goal, not a requirement.
Well, I say "work on both"! We are far enough people on this planet to do this and that... Saving Earth and giving Humanity an edge in case something goes wrong. An other of those "don't put eggs in the same basket" things...
Well, I think those terrorists of 9/11 played Flight Simulator... But somehow I doubt it was what made them violent.
If we put her in a shrödinger box, would she be dead enough?
Just wait for the iWhatever to hold your pad. Only $500.
Sun is probably going to start disappearing over the next 1-6 years if Oracle can't make a decent profit from it.
Correction : Sun will desappear over the next 1-6 years, becauce it's Oracle business plan.
... ....
IT'S OVER 9000! ... ...
I'm deeply sorry for that....
It's the step 3 which is missing. So it's like that :
1. Build email searching app
2. *** GET BOUGHT BY GOOGLE *** (darn, we have to buy ANOTHER one of these?)
3. ????
4. Profit!
How the Hell is that post insightful? It's totally beside the point.
GP doesn't say anything about what the users should do or not do with free software. He just state that Freedom is and should be an important value of F/OSS. (indeed, if it wasn't, F/OSS wouldn't be.)
Freedom is also freedom to use it even if you don't share it's core value.
On one side, I don't like the fact that peoples can't make the difference between two versions of a software.
On the other side, browser diversity can't be bad, so I guess anything that can make people try something that is not IE is good.
Agreed. Ones again people will confuse things and diabolise a those two things with a single name. Kinda sad... And I'm sure some people will make anything to make it worse...
Trying not to appear ignorant, but isn't this issue what patents are meant to solve? I thought the whole issue surrounding software patents was that some people consider software to be a type of 'thing' while others an expression of an idea. But hardware is clearly a 'thing'.
Hardware is indeed a thing, but hardware design? How is that different from software?
I know : you can use the software, but you have to build the hardware before you can use it.
Well, hardware design sound more like an idea type of thing...
Anyway, hardware design is sell-able and maintainable, the same way a software is. So money isn't only in "building and shipping the product". ARM is very successful selling it's design without selling actual hardware. So I don't really see the difference with software here. So really, why not open source hardware design?
Maybe we need a -1 FAIL!!! modération.
And, in Apples case, you're made to learn a crappy language that has absolutely no use outside Mac OS and Iphone development. BTW - Thats Lock-in.
It looks more like lock-out to me...
Well, then explain me what the hell is it with pluto being a planet or a dwarf planet? You see, there is even steal the word "planet" in the latest.
This legislature is just ego without any other benefit.
I may have exaggerated but my point is that it is a science definition, it belong to scientists to modify it if it is handy. I really don't care if pluto is a planet or a turtle. It's just not the lawyer jurisdiction.
Why does they say pluto is a freaking planet? Because the guy who discover it lived here! It's just a freaking ego problem.
But I wonder what else people can came up with, if they have so much ego.
The big deal is when a state mess up with science. Ok, it's not really important if pluto is a planet or not, but it's not for a state to make a law about it...
What next? Pi will be called Mey because someone is bored? Will triangle have 4 side because the governor's son doesn't know how to count? Earth will be officially a cube? The Univers will be 6000 years old by law?
Andy
No, the 90s where a turbulent time filled with drugs, rock music and Java.
When you put it like it, Java actually sound like a lot of fun.
I like to sign my works under a nickname, but I don't think about it as a fake name. Darfeld is me. Bertrand Vie-Ducasse is me. Both name are only pointers pointing me.
In the end, it's a matter of context and mood. Maybe if I work on a more serious stuff, I'll put my real name, maybe not... Maybe I'll put both.
Well I guess that I really don't give a damn... It's just weird to sign with my real name on the Internet. But I understand the work doesn't look as serious if you don't sign by your real name.
Well it's probably to cold, even for penguin out there. :p
No, I can assure you that no science has ever been compromised with anything called "nucyalar" bombs.
Know remember : dihydrogen-monoxide is bad for your health! You can die with that stuff!!