It will only convince businesses that the Linux/free software folks really are the communist, business-hating zealots that they're painted as.
Remove the "extremist" language, and they would be partly correct. It's not "business-hating communist zealotry", but "person-hating capitalist zealotry" that the FSF is opposed to.
If you're not distributing your work, there's no reason why you should be forced to open your code
There most certainly is. For example, if you take OOo and serve it up as a web page, shouldn't you be required to release the changes you've made to it?
It's a loophole that wasn't really apparent or highly bothersome before web services came along.
This is a case that lies upon the border between legitimate GPL enforcement, and legitimate proprietary enforcement. Maybe the FSF will have to come up with an LGPL-style compromise for web services? It's hard to say, but I think you are jumping too quick to scoff at the notion.
No, I clearly questioned whether you did. Am I wrong? You continue to avoid answering that question.
Then you state: "He implied that these weren't "serious failures".
So you went from asking something to implying I said something.
Since I was talking to someone who wasn't you, what am I supposed to do, ask him what you meant? It's rational to state what I think you were doing. I've also stated why I believe you are implying what I've stated--which you continue to refuse to refute.
If I'm wrong, all you have to do is say that that wasn't your point. But you continue to refuse to do so.
You speak of people playing games, but you sure seem to be the master of putting words in someone's mouth.
I'm not playing games. I'm trying to determine what you're saying, why don't you just come out and say it? Was the original poster wrong, were the shuttle explosions not serious failures?
All you have to do is give a yes or no. Why don't you? Yes, or no. It's really quite simple. Playing games is making a big deal out of something instead of addressing it directly.
Yes? No? Choose one.
If I'm trying to troll you and trying to play games, why would I ask you a yes/no question in my first post to you? Was I betting that you'd go so long without answering it?
I'm only going to reply to your trolls this once. If I don't reply any further, it means I think you're clearly just being an ass, and not actually trying to engage in useful or productive conversation. Please feel free to prove me wrong--I'd be happy if you would. I implore you, put forth a reasoned, rational, and civil response (as I have done for you).
What?
I asked in this post for the guy to clarify how he got from A to B, and gave him actual reasons why he's wrong.
Don't like people stuffing words down your throat?
Please point out where I got pissed off there? I'm actually trying to clarify the point, not get all huffy.
And people wonder why the corporate world is leery of linux.
Huge swaths of the "corporate world" embrace Linux. Some parts may be leery of Linux, but that's not due to names, it's due to primarily to the ignorance of the implications of the GPL.
I personally like the Ubuntu names, such as "Ubuntu, the Hoary Hedgehog Release" and it doesn't really break my heart if some "VP of Something-or-other" or "Director of This-and-That" doesn't like it. There are plenty of unimaginatively named Linuxes for them to choose from (as well as a few BSDs, a Solaris and a Mac OS X, all of which are Unix and promote, to varying degrees, the use and acceptance of Linux and Open Source/Free Software).
Yes, in the form of a correction. When you say, "you call them failures, I call them fuckups", you are correcting someone.
"What you call business as usual, I call raping our natural resources."
"What you call letting off steam, I call assault and battery."
That's correcting someone--you are asserting that your opinion is more valid than someone else's. So all I asked was for you to point out what makes your opinion more valid that someone his?
I don't have to prove or justify anything
You're right, you don't. I'm allowed to ask you to, though. You can do so or not, but you're just playing this game of ambiguity. You are making the motions of trying to "prove or justify" yourself, but doing so without reason, just insults and vague statemnts ("You clearly haven't read both reports", lol. How, exactly, does that prove or justify your point?).
especially not to a troll like you
The troll here is obvious--I've been rational and reasonable throughout the thread. You've been acerbic and confrontational.
Read my initial post again if you can't see that. I clearly ask if you are saying they aren't "serious failures".
You may want to learn more about the concept not only personal but professional ethics... which are not legal based.
What's that got to do with the subject at hand? Where did I say it was legal, and therefor OK?
If your employer is engaged in unethical activities, what possible convoluted system of ethics could state that you must keep your mouth shut? Those are the ethics of the oppressed, or of the complicant.
I think the fact that the first thing that came into your mind when faced with a female poster was her being raped by her dad says alot about you as a person.
<sarcasm>Yeah, I feel real bad about thinking that being raped by a father would be something horrible to go through. Oh, I'm such an awful person.</sarcasm>
What's it say about you as a person, that you thought this was a sexist thing to say (and where do you get the idea that this was "the first thing that came into my mind"?)? Both boys and girls are raped, you see, and I did consider that fact at the time of writing. Did you? It's also common enough that it's not an absurd example, and it's something people can relate to, even though odds are it hasn't happened to them.
I tried to think of something that would be horrible to have lived through, but would also be something people might feel ashamed of or self-conscious about, and that specifically one would want kept secret. Yes, I did personalize it. When someone shows such callous disregard for the feelings and the plight of others, that's what you have to do. Even if I was replying to someone with a male name, don't you think this would have been a good example? What could be worse for a woman or man (in other words, any person, you sexist pig) to have gone through as a child?
Thanks for helping me make my point, though. Wouldn't I be wise to wish to avoid the illogical and irrational judgment you are all too eager to dole out?
Wow, you ARE a troll, aren't you? But I'll bite. As trolls like you don't bother looking things up, I'll give you the names of these (what you clueslessly call 'non-identified') reports:
What exactly am I supposed to look up? Saying, "Obviously you haven't read both reports," isn't a rational argument--you have to point out both what two reports you're referring to, and why I need to read them. You did neither.
If I 'obviously' didn't read the reports, please point out exactly where in the reports they call the accidents "fuckups", and I'll stand corrected.
"do they combine to somehow conclude that Challenger and Columbia weren't "serious failures"?"
I never said that, troll; but you trollishly try to imply that I did. Trolls are like that; they put words into people's mouth.
If I'm wrong, point it out. Calling me a troll is not a refutation. Look up "ad hominem fallacy".
You claimed that they weren't "serious failures", but that they were "fuckups". You were trying (but failed) to make a distinction between the two. If, instead, you didn't mean to make such a distinction, say so. That's all you had to do. Hell, that's still all you have to do!
Don't blame me for reading a post as one which comes across as one that's trying to make a "correction", but was really meant to be one of agreement--because it certainly came off as one of "correction". Do you agree with the original poster that the accidents were serious failures? Do you? If so, and more specifically, *if* you weren't trying to deny that the failures were, indeed, failures, then this thread and all the contention ends.
Either that, or continue the thread by pointing out why they accidents *weren't* "serious failures", but were instead a "fuckups".
Then, you trollishly came along and tried to put words in my mouth.
Blow this 'troll' tripe out your ass. I'm not trolling.
You were trying to 'correct' someone, ("What you call failures, I call fuckups"), then proceeded to state facts that didn't make any distinction between a "serious failure" and a "fuckup".
said that I called these "failures" (oh, sorry, "serious failure") as "Fuckups".
The difference between "failures" and "serious failures" is significant--you're the one who sauntered into the realm of semantics!
So, point out why you think we should call the accidents "fuckups" and not serious (I generally use catastrophic) failures. And don't play the innocent victim here. You clearly meant this as a correction to the original poster, otherwise what use are all your facts?
Heya, Beka... What if you've been raped by your dad and you want to let people know about the hell it's put you through, but you don't want all the attention and bs you'll have to deal with if you post it under your real name?
What if you work for a government agency, or corporate entity, etc, that is engaged in all sorts of chicanery? Would you post with your real name, and be fired on the spot, or would you post anonymously so you can be a "voice from the inside"?
What if you are an atheist in a strictly Muslim country? Or a drug user in a country currently engaged in a "War on Drugs"?
What tripe. What complete unadulterated tripe.
Empty words, since you didn't back up your opinion with any logic or reasoning.
Or are they not really thoughts worth standing up for?
What you fail to understand is that just because something is worth standing up for that doesn't mean that there won't be negative, unjust, or undesirable consequences for posting something. The world isn't fair or just, and until it is (ie: never), there will be a need for anonymity.
Transcript from tonight's O'Reilly Factor (not really)...
The Big O: We're back tonight with Chuck Meyers, the head of space research at the non-partisan "Conservative Christian Political Activist Consortium". Chuck, is this crack in the shuttle's fuel tank due to NASA's liberalism or their anti-Americanism?
CM: Well, Bill, it's really tough to say, it could be either one, but I think if you take into account the atheism rampant in the scientific community, this crack makes more sense.
O: I hadn't thought of that. Here on the Factor, we're not afraid to admit we didn't think of something, unlike the liberal media. So what you're saying is that the atheist ACLU-aligned scientists at NASA (and remember, the ACLU is the most dangerous organization in the world, more dangerous than al Qaida), are afraid of letting the shuttle getting to close to the firmament, and have sabotaged the shuttle in order to keep the wool over the people's eyes.
CM: Exactly right Bill. The crack in the shuttle tank is a sure sign that we haven't learned from the rampant activism of our judiciary, who murdered Terri Schiavo, and are now-
O: Just a second, Mr. Meyers. This is the "no spin zone".
CM: Oh, I thought we were supposed to blame the liberal-
O: No, I meant you need to stop spinning in your chair, it doesn't look good on camera.
CM: Ah, sorry. Where was I? Yes, the atheist liberal scientists, who are thumbing their noses at the Pope's passing by continuing to work on the so-called "space" shuttle...
What I do give a monkey for, is how *I* do my work.
And you don't see the connection between the two?
it's just that I need that one additional feature too.
That feature exists in OS X, and is easier to set up than it is in Linux, and if you bothered to read the OS News article you linked to, you'd know that.
That would be true, if it weren't for the fact that it is a law.
A law is just a general or universal statement of the way things are. Some are imposed by man, some are imposed by nature, and others are based on the observation of trends.
That's what makes Murphy's Law a law, what makes Godwin's Law a law, and, yes, what makes Moore's Law a law.
Laws don't even have to be right to be a law.
it's an observation
It's that too. These aren't mutually exclusive things.
Did you know the term 'law' for a scientific theory was coined by Isaac Newton
Did you know that "Moore's Law" isn't a scientific theory?
Ever since, every theory both worthy and crackpot has been called a 'law'.
Wrong. We don't call Relativity, Gravity, Evolution, etc, 'laws', we call them "theories". The theories may contain 'laws', but you are getting things mixed up here.
It's about time we returned to the humbler 'theory', 'theorem' or 'observation'.
It's been that way for... basically ever, in contemporary science. Where have you been lurking that people are calling every theory a law?
In the case of Moore's 'Law', it's not even a very good theory,
Then it's a good thing it's not called "Moore's Theory of IC Complexity"!
Then terrorists started coming in through Canada because it was so easy.
WTF? The 9/11 terrorists were documented and legally in America as Saudi nationals. They weren't here pretending to be "Americans returning home from Canada".
True, but comparing the prices of the projects involved is a valid way of measuring/contrasting/evaluating the choices being made.
~$4m/year for a probe that's already there, or start over from scratch later, right? So it's fair to ask what $4m/year is--is it a lot? A little? Well, to get where they are, hundreds of millions (billions?) were spent, which provides some scale.
Sunk cost is one thing, but searching for context, and seeing what you have available (the existing locations of the probes) are relevant things to consider.
BUT, NASA has a lot they have to balance right now... the ISS, gettin gthe shuttle back up,
"Getting the shuttle back up"? You mean, not spending money launching the shuttle is costing them money? WTF?
replacing the shuttle, and now, thanks to Bush, look at getting back to the moon and Mars (I think they are worth while, just not the way Bush has laid them out)...
In other words, they are not worthwhile. That's what "just not the way Bush has laid them out" means.
let's not forget the rovers, too.
You forgot Poland!!!
No one has forgotten the rovers.
There is some amazing data that might get lost, but you pick some programs to cut from that budget, while being expected to further new programs...
Duh. And a ~$4m/year Voyager probe is the sort of program you pick to fund. To study the edge of the solar system, we can spend a few million now, or wait 10-20 years and spend a few billion or so.
NASA is the worst-funded Federal government agency. This isn't a case of "you can't get everything you want!", it's "you don't even have the funds to get the basics of your job done."
Seriously, a space agency can't spend a few million on a unique chance to study the outside of the solar system--true interstellar space?
Slashdot Mirror
How is this different from "evil commercial vendor lock-in"?
In any practical sense, how is this the same?
No matter what changes are made in v3 of the GPL, absolutely none of Google's current code is under that license.
It will only convince businesses that the Linux/free software folks really are the communist, business-hating zealots that they're painted as.
Remove the "extremist" language, and they would be partly correct. It's not "business-hating communist zealotry", but "person-hating capitalist zealotry" that the FSF is opposed to.
If you're not distributing your work, there's no reason why you should be forced to open your code
There most certainly is. For example, if you take OOo and serve it up as a web page, shouldn't you be required to release the changes you've made to it?
It's a loophole that wasn't really apparent or highly bothersome before web services came along.
This is a case that lies upon the border between legitimate GPL enforcement, and legitimate proprietary enforcement. Maybe the FSF will have to come up with an LGPL-style compromise for web services? It's hard to say, but I think you are jumping too quick to scoff at the notion.
You are the one that implied that I did.
No, I clearly questioned whether you did. Am I wrong? You continue to avoid answering that question.
Then you state: "He implied that these weren't "serious failures".
So you went from asking something to implying I said something.
Since I was talking to someone who wasn't you, what am I supposed to do, ask him what you meant? It's rational to state what I think you were doing. I've also stated why I believe you are implying what I've stated--which you continue to refuse to refute.
If I'm wrong, all you have to do is say that that wasn't your point. But you continue to refuse to do so.
You speak of people playing games, but you sure seem to be the master of putting words in someone's mouth.
I'm not playing games. I'm trying to determine what you're saying, why don't you just come out and say it? Was the original poster wrong, were the shuttle explosions not serious failures?
All you have to do is give a yes or no. Why don't you? Yes, or no. It's really quite simple. Playing games is making a big deal out of something instead of addressing it directly.
Yes? No? Choose one.
If I'm trying to troll you and trying to play games, why would I ask you a yes/no question in my first post to you? Was I betting that you'd go so long without answering it?
They have the actual rankings on their popularity page.
I'm only going to reply to your trolls this once. If I don't reply any further, it means I think you're clearly just being an ass, and not actually trying to engage in useful or productive conversation. Please feel free to prove me wrong--I'd be happy if you would. I implore you, put forth a reasoned, rational, and civil response (as I have done for you).
What?
I asked in this post for the guy to clarify how he got from A to B, and gave him actual reasons why he's wrong.
Don't like people stuffing words down your throat?
Please point out where I got pissed off there? I'm actually trying to clarify the point, not get all huffy.
Hypocrite.
Not at all.
Now, if you have nothing useful to add, good day.
And people wonder why the corporate world is leery of linux.
Huge swaths of the "corporate world" embrace Linux. Some parts may be leery of Linux, but that's not due to names, it's due to primarily to the ignorance of the implications of the GPL.
I personally like the Ubuntu names, such as "Ubuntu, the Hoary Hedgehog Release" and it doesn't really break my heart if some "VP of Something-or-other" or "Director of This-and-That" doesn't like it. There are plenty of unimaginatively named Linuxes for them to choose from (as well as a few BSDs, a Solaris and a Mac OS X, all of which are Unix and promote, to varying degrees, the use and acceptance of Linux and Open Source/Free Software).
NO. I was clearly stating an opinion.
Yes, in the form of a correction. When you say, "you call them failures, I call them fuckups", you are correcting someone.
"What you call business as usual, I call raping our natural resources."
"What you call letting off steam, I call assault and battery."
That's correcting someone--you are asserting that your opinion is more valid than someone else's. So all I asked was for you to point out what makes your opinion more valid that someone his?
I don't have to prove or justify anything
You're right, you don't. I'm allowed to ask you to, though. You can do so or not, but you're just playing this game of ambiguity. You are making the motions of trying to "prove or justify" yourself, but doing so without reason, just insults and vague statemnts ("You clearly haven't read both reports", lol. How, exactly, does that prove or justify your point?).
especially not to a troll like you
The troll here is obvious--I've been rational and reasonable throughout the thread. You've been acerbic and confrontational.
Read my initial post again if you can't see that. I clearly ask if you are saying they aren't "serious failures".
I'm done with your games. Good day.
Geez, if you can't take the 5-10 seconds to do a google search for "Challenger report" or "Columbia Report" , then you are pretty fucking clueless.
Again, assertion without logic or reason. The adjective "fuck" doesn't make you correct, just forceful, as thought that makes your point for you.
Good day.
You may want to learn more about the concept not only personal but professional ethics... which are not legal based.
What's that got to do with the subject at hand? Where did I say it was legal, and therefor OK?
If your employer is engaged in unethical activities, what possible convoluted system of ethics could state that you must keep your mouth shut? Those are the ethics of the oppressed, or of the complicant.
I think the fact that the first thing that came into your mind when faced with a female poster was her being raped by her dad says alot about you as a person.
<sarcasm>Yeah, I feel real bad about thinking that being raped by a father would be something horrible to go through. Oh, I'm such an awful person.</sarcasm>
What's it say about you as a person, that you thought this was a sexist thing to say (and where do you get the idea that this was "the first thing that came into my mind"?)? Both boys and girls are raped, you see, and I did consider that fact at the time of writing. Did you? It's also common enough that it's not an absurd example, and it's something people can relate to, even though odds are it hasn't happened to them.
I tried to think of something that would be horrible to have lived through, but would also be something people might feel ashamed of or self-conscious about, and that specifically one would want kept secret. Yes, I did personalize it. When someone shows such callous disregard for the feelings and the plight of others, that's what you have to do. Even if I was replying to someone with a male name, don't you think this would have been a good example? What could be worse for a woman or man (in other words, any person, you sexist pig) to have gone through as a child?
Thanks for helping me make my point, though. Wouldn't I be wise to wish to avoid the illogical and irrational judgment you are all too eager to dole out?
I know where the line is that you just shouldn't step over.
Excellent reasoning, citizen! Remember, don't rock the boat--those in power don't like it when you do. Posting anonymously is an act of subversion!
Always obey the wishes of those in power, for they are never wrong.
EvilCabbage, you are truly an inspiration to all your brothers and sisters in the Party.
You implied that you weren't a "troll". Only a troll could claim he wasn't.
Yeah, that's logical, lol!
Wait a moment, aren't you implying that you aren't a troll? Why, then that must mean...
Wow, you ARE a troll, aren't you? But I'll bite. As trolls like you don't bother looking things up, I'll give you the names of these (what you clueslessly call 'non-identified') reports:
What exactly am I supposed to look up? Saying, "Obviously you haven't read both reports," isn't a rational argument--you have to point out both what two reports you're referring to, and why I need to read them. You did neither.
If I 'obviously' didn't read the reports, please point out exactly where in the reports they call the accidents "fuckups", and I'll stand corrected.
"do they combine to somehow conclude that Challenger and Columbia weren't "serious failures"?"
I never said that, troll; but you trollishly try to imply that I did. Trolls are like that; they put words into people's mouth.
If I'm wrong, point it out. Calling me a troll is not a refutation. Look up "ad hominem fallacy".
You claimed that they weren't "serious failures", but that they were "fuckups". You were trying (but failed) to make a distinction between the two. If, instead, you didn't mean to make such a distinction, say so. That's all you had to do. Hell, that's still all you have to do!
Don't blame me for reading a post as one which comes across as one that's trying to make a "correction", but was really meant to be one of agreement--because it certainly came off as one of "correction". Do you agree with the original poster that the accidents were serious failures? Do you? If so, and more specifically, *if* you weren't trying to deny that the failures were, indeed, failures, then this thread and all the contention ends.
Either that, or continue the thread by pointing out why they accidents *weren't* "serious failures", but were instead a "fuckups".
Then, you trollishly came along and tried to put words in my mouth.
Blow this 'troll' tripe out your ass. I'm not trolling.
You were trying to 'correct' someone, ("What you call failures, I call fuckups"), then proceeded to state facts that didn't make any distinction between a "serious failure" and a "fuckup".
said that I called these "failures" (oh, sorry, "serious failure") as "Fuckups".
The difference between "failures" and "serious failures" is significant--you're the one who sauntered into the realm of semantics!
So, point out why you think we should call the accidents "fuckups" and not serious (I generally use catastrophic) failures. And don't play the innocent victim here. You clearly meant this as a correction to the original poster, otherwise what use are all your facts?
Heya, Beka... What if you've been raped by your dad and you want to let people know about the hell it's put you through, but you don't want all the attention and bs you'll have to deal with if you post it under your real name?
What if you work for a government agency, or corporate entity, etc, that is engaged in all sorts of chicanery? Would you post with your real name, and be fired on the spot, or would you post anonymously so you can be a "voice from the inside"?
What if you are an atheist in a strictly Muslim country? Or a drug user in a country currently engaged in a "War on Drugs"?
What tripe. What complete unadulterated tripe.
Empty words, since you didn't back up your opinion with any logic or reasoning.
Or are they not really thoughts worth standing up for?
What you fail to understand is that just because something is worth standing up for that doesn't mean that there won't be negative, unjust, or undesirable consequences for posting something. The world isn't fair or just, and until it is (ie: never), there will be a need for anonymity.
Obviously you haven't read both reports.
Wow, that was non sequitur.
Clearly you haven't attended the fourth hearing. (I just made that up, isn't that what we're doing now?)
If you read both of these non-identified reports, do they combine to somehow conclude that Challenger and Columbia weren't "serious failures"?
Duh! youself troll. I agree with the original poster's assessment that these are fuckups more than anything else.
Troll? WTF? The poster made a distinction that didn't exist.
He implied that these weren't "serious failures". Only a moron could claim they weren't.
What you call failures, I call fuck-ups.
Actually, he called them, "serious failures". Are you saying they weren't?
Both times upper management overruled the engineers.
Which resulted in... serious failures, duh.
Transcript from tonight's O'Reilly Factor (not really)...
Honestly, I don't give a monkey "how osx works".
That's plain retarded.
What I do give a monkey for, is how *I* do my work.
And you don't see the connection between the two?
it's just that I need that one additional feature too.
That feature exists in OS X, and is easier to set up than it is in Linux, and if you bothered to read the OS News article you linked to, you'd know that.
It's not a law
That would be true, if it weren't for the fact that it is a law.
A law is just a general or universal statement of the way things are. Some are imposed by man, some are imposed by nature, and others are based on the observation of trends.
That's what makes Murphy's Law a law, what makes Godwin's Law a law, and, yes, what makes Moore's Law a law.
Laws don't even have to be right to be a law.
it's an observation
It's that too. These aren't mutually exclusive things.
Did you know the term 'law' for a scientific theory was coined by Isaac Newton
Did you know that "Moore's Law" isn't a scientific theory?
Ever since, every theory both worthy and crackpot has been called a 'law'.
Wrong. We don't call Relativity, Gravity, Evolution, etc, 'laws', we call them "theories". The theories may contain 'laws', but you are getting things mixed up here.
It's about time we returned to the humbler 'theory', 'theorem' or 'observation'.
It's been that way for... basically ever, in contemporary science. Where have you been lurking that people are calling every theory a law?
In the case of Moore's 'Law', it's not even a very good theory,
Then it's a good thing it's not called "Moore's Theory of IC Complexity"!
There's no reason for us to be smug about our backwardness.
Yet your entire post smugly promotes moving backwards.
Then terrorists started coming in through Canada because it was so easy.
WTF? The 9/11 terrorists were documented and legally in America as Saudi nationals. They weren't here pretending to be "Americans returning home from Canada".
True, but comparing the prices of the projects involved is a valid way of measuring/contrasting/evaluating the choices being made.
~$4m/year for a probe that's already there, or start over from scratch later, right? So it's fair to ask what $4m/year is--is it a lot? A little? Well, to get where they are, hundreds of millions (billions?) were spent, which provides some scale.
Sunk cost is one thing, but searching for context, and seeing what you have available (the existing locations of the probes) are relevant things to consider.
BUT, NASA has a lot they have to balance right now... the ISS, gettin gthe shuttle back up,
"Getting the shuttle back up"? You mean, not spending money launching the shuttle is costing them money? WTF?
replacing the shuttle, and now, thanks to Bush, look at getting back to the moon and Mars (I think they are worth while, just not the way Bush has laid them out)...
In other words, they are not worthwhile. That's what "just not the way Bush has laid them out" means.
let's not forget the rovers, too.
You forgot Poland!!!
No one has forgotten the rovers.
There is some amazing data that might get lost, but you pick some programs to cut from that budget, while being expected to further new programs...
Duh. And a ~$4m/year Voyager probe is the sort of program you pick to fund. To study the edge of the solar system, we can spend a few million now, or wait 10-20 years and spend a few billion or so.
NASA is the worst-funded Federal government agency. This isn't a case of "you can't get everything you want!", it's "you don't even have the funds to get the basics of your job done."
Seriously, a space agency can't spend a few million on a unique chance to study the outside of the solar system--true interstellar space?