Well, you know, I don't do drugs (for various reasons, all valid unlike yours) but I do damn well smoke, and I'm very pleased at this moment to take your jackboots and your brown shirt and fuck yourself, okay, asshole?
Tell you what...if it's your life, cancel your health insurance, and pay your own medical bills when the time comes (and it will). Oh...I guess it's only your life until something goes wrong...then it's everyone's problem. A bit hypocritical, wouldn't you say?
I did most of my VLSI project stoned. I got an A, and a commendation from the prof.
Yeah...so you did a second-rate job on your project, and your prof (who must have been stoned as well) did a second-rate job grading it. It's not something I'd be bragging about.
http://www.flashykernelnews.com to read the latest about the kernel developments. Unfortunately one day you get run over by a car and you lose your sight. Are you now not interested in the Linux kernel developments? Because now http://www.flashykernelnews.com is not accessible to you anymore.
If I was the one hit by a car, would the loss of my sight by my problem, or someone else's? That's the point here...this is just one more step in the relentless drive by our government to make everyone's problems everyone else's problems.
"Violates freedom of the press?" I don't know if I've ever seen a lamer appeal to Constitutionality. Clue: "Freedom of the press" refers to the ability to print what you want.
Print what you want, how you want. That's the whole drive behind creative expression! If it's mandated that I must express myself in a particular way, it's not censorship, but it is definitely limiting my freedom to express myself how I see fit.
OK look, why do you care that the networks will know about your watching habits? Are you worried that they'll be judgmental about how all you/.ers rack up them "Adult TV" hours?
No....it's the arrogance and utter contempt these companies exhibit by assuming they have some kind of right to this information.
Now they want to automatically track what you watch and not pay you a dime while they collect?
Put more accurately, with these new set-top boxes, you pay them to track what you watch. It's a complete reversal. But, as long as consumers are willing to let companies get away with this, they'll keep pushing the envelope.
I agree with this. I've been without cable for a LONG time, and while there are some shows I'd LIKE to see, it's not like my life is any worse for not having seen them. Overall, I'm amused at all the whining that consumers do about things like this, all the while forgetting that THEY have the most powerful influence of all at their disposal: their wallet.
For the past 30 years, linux has been relegated to a "non-consumer" status. In other words, it may have been used widely, but only within certain types of environments. Most of them were probably technical or academic in nature.
Today we're talking about the entire software user base, which is a completely different animal, and comes with a completely different set of needs and expectations. The article does a very good job addressing the issues related to free software in the consumer arena, and the logic used to support the notion of a "temporary phenomenon" seems quite plausible.
Linux itself, as well as some of the currently well-known applications (the gimp, for example), probably won't fade from existence any time soon. Free software is fine - so long as the means to support it exist. Right now, this isn't a problem. But if you take the whole of the commercial software industry and try to convert it to the "free software" paradigm, I think we're going to have one HUGE, unworkable mess on our hands.
Spending is only ONE aspect of government. Another is the amount and kind of regulation. This having been said, the difference between Democrats and Republicans can be summed up very succinctly in the following manner:
Democrats: A desire to control what people do in America's boardrooms. Republicans: A desire to control what people do in America's bedrooms.
While I'm not sure I agree with *everything* the Libertarian party stands for, it does offer a much better approach to government.
While oil is an excellent example of a valuable resource supplied by foreign countries, do we "take" it from them? And how many of those who supply us with oil are considered "developing" countries?
Here's what I don't understand - if foreign aid and military defense are exchanged as part of a TRADE agreement, how is it that these foreign countries are getting screwed (which is what was suggested in the original post)?
If you look at the RedHat installation guide, it recommends a certain set of partitions. For new users, why can't there be an option that allows the installation process to create these partitions/mount points for you by default? Not only that, but the hoops you have to jump through to support a large hard drive seem unncessary - these should also be hidden from the average user. There's still a ways to go before Linux (Redhat at least) is as easy to install as 'doze is.
But once that happens, the choice is gone -- when you create software, you'll have to give it up, or it doesn't get used.
I don't think this will ever happen. Let's say you have a business problem that my software can solve TODAY, but for a fee. You, as the consumer, have two choices: Assuming it doesn't already exist, you can wait until someone in the open source community decides that it's important enough to THEM to put in the time required, or you can hire a programmer to do it for you. What do you think the most likely choice would be?
Do we have an item in the federal budget called "Foreign Aid" because of money they loan to us? Is it their technology and resources that are helping us to improve our standard of living?
Since we've established that what OSS proposes, and what we know as capitalism are the same, it seems like we'd be simply replacing one paradigm (capitalism), with another (OSS) - like interchangeable pieces of a puzzle. Other than very general assertions like, "society will benefit as a whole," no one yet fully understands the degree to which the "free software" paradigm will succeed, or even why.
The best method of creation is what nature has settled on -- natural selection.
How can OSS claim this as a benefit unto itself? Natural selection occurs every day in the market place we call capitalism. Generally, good ideas prosper, bad ones fall by the wayside. In fact, your entire post, though you've used it to describe the benefits of an open source environment, actually describe a capitalistic market! Whether or not software is proprietary, generally speaking, good software will still prevail (Microsoft notwithstanding), and that which is poorly written will not.
There's one other aspect of this issue that seems to get lost amid the hype. There are many factors that contribute to the creation of a software monopoly. One in particular, which has nothing to do with the software company itself, is the need for corporations to standardize their procedures. If it just so happens that these procedures include the use of the Windows OS on all of their machines, nothing in the OSS movement will change this. The operating system could just as easily be RedHat, and if more of the business community is using RedHat, that's what it's likely to be. Either way, you could easily have a monopoly.
is moving in the exact opposite direction. Since more funding is being provided by private enterprise, it is becoming increasingly common for them to demand secrecy. Researchers are being confronted more and more frequently with the prospect of discovering something, only to have it kept under wraps by those who paid for the research. Peer review as we know it, may become a thing of the past. Unfortunately, for the world of scientific research, I'm not aware of a "free research" movement - and I seriously doubt there will ever be one.
But there is at least one thing that may stall their effort. First and foremost is one of the very reasons that Zawinski cited for netscape's troubles - M$ destroyed the browser market by offering Explorer for free. Since iCab eventually plans to charge for their browser, it will be interesting to see how many people will part with $50 in order to use what can be had for free from two other companies.
Just the same, iCab has some interesting things going for it - cookie management, ad filtering, a "checkable" hotlist, etc. etc. These innovative features, along with a lean code base, may get them a loyal following. There are, however, a few things I'd like to see improved:
1. Most ad filtering only prevents the ad from being drawn - because the HTML is still there, the space is still allocated, so your stuck with something almost as bad as looking at the ads themselves - blank space. I'd like to see an option to REMOVE the HREFs that point to ads, rather than just keep them from drawing.
2. The personal toolbar (even in Netscape) is a nice touch - but it'd be nice if it would expand to multiple lines if a user wants to include more than one line's worth of URLs. Folders shouldn't be excluded either- the folder name should appear and behave like a hierarchical menu.
Maybe both M$ and Netscape should pay attention here. Sometimes the biggest isn't always the best.
"Nice" doesn't pay the phone bill, put money in the bank, or tend to the payroll. I'm not suggesting that companies should conduct business in an openly hostile way, but they DO need to look after their own interests, lest they get butts kicked by both their competitors AND their customers.
BTW...donations to charity are a tax benefit. Without this, I'm not sure we'd see nearly the rate of generosity that we do...especially from corporations.
The problem wtih proprietary software is the government uses FORCE against people who share that software.
Most likely because in their efforts to be so generous (using someone else's skill and labor, no less), they're attempting to distribute something to which they have no legal title (of ownership).
If you share a copy of a program, the original author doesn't lose his copy. And, if you share a copy, you help a friend.
But the original author doesn't get compensated for the value the software provides the friend that is now using it - presumably to do something he couldn't do before, or to do something more efficiently.
A possible business model I can think for free software to work in the Real World [tm], is to get people to bid on software. For instance, set up a system such that people make binding contracts that if X feature is added or X program is written, they will send the company Y amount of dollars.
Don't we already have this? It's called work for hire. I assume you left out one important detail, however: the company paying the bill won't own the source code.
If someone develops software that allows a company to increase its profits by 20%, why should this value go unrecognized, simply because the act of copying the software doesn't cost anything?
I think it's worked that way in the fashion industry for years, and you don't see the clothing designers starving.
Actually, clothing designers get a cut of everything with their name on it. Do you think they're being kind-hearted by allowing themselves no more than a certain percentage over the cost of production? I seriously doubt it. They're in for the same reason everyone else is...to make money, and to make as much of it as they can.
If there is a second lag on a PII 450, there is either something wrong with your OS, your machine, your intallation, or what you were doing. I'm running Blender on a P90...and though I'd like it to be faster, it's fast enough for now.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, you know, I don't do drugs (for various reasons, all valid unlike yours) but I do damn well smoke, and I'm very pleased at this moment to take your jackboots and your brown shirt and fuck yourself, okay, asshole?
Tell you what...if it's your life, cancel your health insurance, and pay your own medical bills when the time comes (and it will). Oh...I guess it's only your life until something goes wrong...then it's everyone's problem. A bit hypocritical, wouldn't you say?
My clients love me. I make $110K/yr, have Jag and Porsche convertibles, and a small (but especially pretty) farm.
Rising to the pinnacle of mediocrity. Quite an accomplishment.
I did most of my VLSI project stoned. I got an A, and a commendation from the prof.
Yeah...so you did a second-rate job on your project, and your prof (who must have been stoned as well) did a second-rate job grading it. It's not something I'd be bragging about.
http://www.flashykernelnews.com to read the latest about the kernel developments. Unfortunately one day you get run over by a car and you lose your sight. Are you now not interested in the Linux kernel developments? Because now http://www.flashykernelnews.com is not accessible to you anymore.
If I was the one hit by a car, would the loss of my sight by my problem, or someone else's? That's the point here...this is just one more step in the relentless drive by our government to make everyone's problems everyone else's problems.
"Violates freedom of the press?" I don't know if I've ever seen a lamer appeal to Constitutionality. Clue: "Freedom of the press" refers to the ability to print what you want.
Print what you want, how you want. That's the whole drive behind creative expression! If it's mandated that I must express myself in a particular way, it's not censorship, but it is definitely limiting my freedom to express myself how I see fit.
OK look, why do you care that the networks will know about your watching habits? Are you worried that they'll be judgmental about how all you /.ers rack up them "Adult TV" hours?
No....it's the arrogance and utter contempt these companies exhibit by assuming they have some kind of right to this information.
Now they want to automatically track what you watch and not pay you a dime while they collect?
Put more accurately, with these new set-top boxes, you pay them to track what you watch. It's a complete reversal. But, as long as consumers are willing to let companies get away with this, they'll keep pushing the envelope.
I agree with this. I've been without cable for a LONG time, and while there are some shows I'd LIKE to see, it's not like my life is any worse for not having seen them. Overall, I'm amused at all the whining that consumers do about things like this, all the while forgetting that THEY have the most powerful influence of all at their disposal: their wallet.
This will relegate the whole notion of the internet as "the great equalizer" to a mere footnote in its ongoing evolution. That's too bad.
For the past 30 years, linux has been relegated to a "non-consumer" status. In other words, it may have been used widely, but only within certain types of environments. Most of them were probably technical or academic in nature.
Today we're talking about the entire software user base, which is a completely different animal, and comes with a completely different set of needs and expectations. The article does a very good job addressing the issues related to free software in the consumer arena, and the logic used to support the notion of a "temporary phenomenon" seems quite plausible.
Linux itself, as well as some of the currently well-known applications (the gimp, for example), probably won't fade from existence any time soon. Free software is fine - so long as the means to support it exist. Right now, this isn't a problem. But if you take the whole of the commercial software industry and try to convert it to the "free software" paradigm, I think we're going to have one HUGE, unworkable mess on our hands.
Spending is only ONE aspect of government. Another is the amount and kind of regulation. This having been said, the difference between Democrats and Republicans can be summed up very succinctly in the following manner:
Democrats: A desire to control what people do in America's boardrooms.
Republicans: A desire to control what people do in America's bedrooms.
While I'm not sure I agree with *everything* the Libertarian party stands for, it does offer a much better approach to government.
Microsoft staff assigned to Barcelona have but one task: Find the next Bill Gates.
What in HELL has Gates done that is so brilliant?
This HAS to be a joke!
While oil is an excellent example of a valuable resource supplied by foreign countries, do we "take" it from them? And how many of those who supply us with oil are considered "developing" countries?
Here's what I don't understand - if foreign aid and military defense are exchanged as part of a TRADE agreement, how is it that these foreign countries are getting screwed (which is what was suggested in the original post)?
If you look at the RedHat installation guide, it recommends a certain set of partitions. For new users, why can't there be an option that allows the installation process to create these partitions/mount points for you by default? Not only that, but the hoops you have to jump through to support a large hard drive seem unncessary - these should also be hidden from the average user. There's still a ways to go before Linux (Redhat at least) is as easy to install as 'doze is.
But once that happens, the choice is gone -- when you create software, you'll have to give it up, or it doesn't get used.
I don't think this will ever happen. Let's say you have a business problem that my software can solve TODAY, but for a fee. You, as the consumer, have two choices: Assuming it doesn't already exist, you can wait until someone in the open source community decides that it's important enough to THEM to put in the time required, or you can hire a programmer to do it for you. What do you think the most likely choice would be?
communism: a system in which goods are owned in common and are available to all as needed
This hasn't ever worked, and never will.
F*cked over by capitalism? Please explain.
Do we have an item in the federal budget called "Foreign Aid" because of money they loan to us? Is it their technology and resources that are helping us to improve our standard of living?
Since we've established that what OSS proposes, and what we know as capitalism are the same, it seems like we'd be simply replacing one paradigm (capitalism), with another (OSS) - like interchangeable pieces of a puzzle. Other than very general assertions like, "society will benefit as a whole," no one yet fully understands the degree to which the "free software" paradigm will succeed, or even why.
The best method of creation is what nature has settled on -- natural selection.
How can OSS claim this as a benefit unto itself? Natural selection occurs every day in the market place we call capitalism. Generally, good ideas prosper, bad ones fall by the wayside. In fact, your entire post, though you've used it to describe the benefits of an open source environment, actually describe a capitalistic market! Whether or not software is proprietary, generally speaking, good software will still prevail (Microsoft notwithstanding), and that which is poorly written will not.
There's one other aspect of this issue that seems to get lost amid the hype. There are many factors that contribute to the creation of a software monopoly. One in particular, which has nothing to do with the software company itself, is the need for corporations to standardize their procedures. If it just so happens that these procedures include the use of the Windows OS on all of their machines, nothing in the OSS movement will change this. The operating system could just as easily be RedHat, and if more of the business community is using RedHat, that's what it's likely to be. Either way, you could easily have a monopoly.
is moving in the exact opposite direction. Since more funding is being provided by private enterprise, it is becoming increasingly common for them to demand secrecy. Researchers are being confronted more and more frequently with the prospect of discovering something, only to have it kept under wraps by those who paid for the research. Peer review as we know it, may become a thing of the past. Unfortunately, for the world of scientific research, I'm not aware of a "free research" movement - and I seriously doubt there will ever be one.
But there is at least one thing that may stall their effort. First and foremost is one of the very reasons that Zawinski cited for netscape's troubles - M$ destroyed the browser market by offering Explorer for free. Since iCab eventually plans to charge for their browser, it will be interesting to see how many people will part with $50 in order to use what can be had for free from two other companies.
Just the same, iCab has some interesting things going for it - cookie management, ad filtering, a "checkable" hotlist, etc. etc. These innovative features, along with a lean code base, may get them a loyal following. There are, however, a few things I'd like to see improved:
1. Most ad filtering only prevents the ad from being drawn - because the HTML is still there, the space is still allocated, so your stuck with something almost as bad as looking at the ads themselves - blank space. I'd like to see an option to REMOVE the HREFs that point to ads, rather than just keep them from drawing.
2. The personal toolbar (even in Netscape) is a nice touch - but it'd be nice if it would expand to multiple lines if a user wants to include more than one line's worth of URLs. Folders shouldn't be excluded either- the folder name should appear and behave like a hierarchical menu.
Maybe both M$ and Netscape should pay attention here. Sometimes the biggest isn't always the best.
"Nice" doesn't pay the phone bill, put money in the bank, or tend to the payroll. I'm not suggesting that companies should conduct business in an openly hostile way, but they DO need to look after their own interests, lest they get butts kicked by both their competitors AND their customers.
BTW...donations to charity are a tax benefit. Without this, I'm not sure we'd see nearly the rate of generosity that we do...especially from corporations.
The problem wtih proprietary software is the government uses FORCE against people who share that software.
Most likely because in their efforts to be so generous (using someone else's skill and labor, no less), they're attempting to distribute something to which they have no legal title (of ownership).
If you share a copy of a program, the original author doesn't lose his copy. And, if you share a copy, you help a friend.
But the original author doesn't get compensated for the value the software provides the friend that is now using it - presumably to do something he couldn't do before, or to do something more efficiently.
A possible business model I can think for free software to work in the Real World [tm], is to get people to bid on software. For instance, set up a system such that people make binding contracts that if X feature is added or X program is written, they will send the company Y amount of dollars.
Don't we already have this? It's called work for hire. I assume you left out one important detail, however: the company paying the bill won't own the source code.
If someone develops software that allows a company to increase its profits by 20%, why should this value go unrecognized, simply because the act of copying the software doesn't cost anything?
I think it's worked that way in the fashion industry for years, and you don't see the clothing designers starving.
Actually, clothing designers get a cut of everything with their name on it. Do you think they're being kind-hearted by allowing themselves no more than a certain percentage over the cost of production? I seriously doubt it. They're in for the same reason everyone else is...to make money, and to make as much of it as they can.
Does it generate revenue? In some cases. Does it generate enough revenue? Apparently not in Blender's case. Does it maximize revenue? Absolutely not.
If there is a second lag on a PII 450, there is either something wrong with your OS, your machine, your intallation, or what you were doing. I'm running Blender on a P90...and though I'd like it to be faster, it's fast enough for now.