No, that kind of GPL clause would be very stupid and misguided. I meant that many developers and users will ignore them.
This will cause them increased costs because developers won't include changes requested by Lindows if the changes primarily benefit Lindows. It will also reduce the base of technically sophisticated users who use their product, which in turn will make their product costlier to effectively support.
Unless they can make enough money to make up for these problems, they will lose. Since even Microsoft can't keep up with their largely closed community, I doubt Lindows could do better.
The key to having a strong, profitable distribution is having the support of developers and users as a whole. It will lower your overall costs and increase the quality of your product. It's a win for everyone.
But, that download site won't have your brand and label associated with it. So, if you make your brand valuable enough (like RedHat), people will go buy it, even though they can freely download it elsewhere.
They have every right to do it, and DesktopLinux has every right (and, after reading the article, every reason) to withdraw its support.
But, if they aren't willing to play nice with the other people in the Linux community, the other people in the Linux community won't play nice with them, and they will eventually fail.
There is 'anti-mass'. It's called negative energy, and has some very strange properties. It also isn't allowed to exist for very long. But, given sufficient amounts of the stuff you can create wormholes, travel 'faster-than-light', and do any number of other bizarre things.
We pay them for bandwidth. We pay them for sifting through 100s (at least) of submissions a day, and choosing which get posted. We pay them to maintain the databases and servers. We pay them to maintain the code and add new features. A minor thing like a broken link is a small, tiny fraction of what we pay them for.
I believe what Microsoft did constitutes criminal fraud. Not that any criminal behavior on the part of Microsoft will ever actually be punished by our judicial system.
You have discovered the secret to RedHat's ability to make money. Congratulations. I'ts no secret that building brand loyalty has been what they've been all about since their inception.
But, if RedHat were ever to turn evil, and start making descisions that didn't benefit their customers, it would be much easier to switch away from them to somebody else that it is to switch away from Microsoft. They have to keep on making their customer's happy and maintaining their brand image in order to survive.
Sure, a brute force attack would take years. But you wouldn't apply a brute force attack. You would pluck the key out of memory while Word was decrypting the document. If Word were Palladium enabled on Palladium enabled hardware, you'd no longer be able to do that, and you would be reduced to trying a brute force attack.
Because if the porting cost is small enough that Linux sales exceed it, then the game has made more money than it would've under just Windows.
In fact, economically, it makes more sense for lower profit, easy to port games to be ported to Linux because they're the ones who's profits would increase by the largest percentage given a few extra sales.
What you don't realize is that the sale and trading of broadcast spectrum is intrinsic to the survival of business. Any consideration of freeing up some of that spectrum to be used by people who didn't pay for it may seriously harm their interests. All spectrum should be owned, and we should consider anything business choose to broadcast over it loving gifts.
But, the patents and trade secrets IBM would be giving up! Think of them! Clearly, IBM couldn't possibly make money anymore if they reveal the deep dark secrets of that mystery that is OS/2. I don't know what manner of Open Source zealotry would possess you that you should even think that IBM should release their code Open Source.
I'm talking total hardware and software price. It really doesn't make any sense to talk about anything else since the hardware is useless without the software, and the software is useless without the hardware.
If you read my post, you'd realize why I don't get a Matrox card. As you said, their performance is sadly lacking. I clearly laid out the parameters under which I would consider a different card.
Ahh, yes, the business world... Can't find a way to make money without installing secret, possibly trojaned software on my computer. I feel so sorry for them. Next I suppose you'll tell me they need government handouts to survive. If you want to follow along to the endpoint of that stupid road, install Kazaa, Audio Galaxy, Morpheus and Windows XP on your computer.
If you want to be there, quit using your Linux box and Open Source all together. Clearly, scam artists making money is more important to you than your freedom.
Businesses exist to serve me, and my interests. That's why they get my money. They have no intrinsic right to exist or make money. If I were complaining about the quality of their harware (which I'm not, because it's excellent), or that their drivers constantly crashed (which, though I'm very suspicious of them, I don't think they do), you'd have no vitriol to spew. Their drivers not being Open Source is just another missing feature, and one I place an explicit value on.
Insecure and unstable isn't a big issue for me on my workstation machine at home. I have some pretty strict limits on what can get into and out of that machine, and nobody but me depends on it to be running.
The driver ATI has that is actually performance comparable to the nVidia drivers is also not Open Source. So, no benefit to going ATI. Until I heard that, I was ready to drop my nVidia card in favor of ATI.
I don't care how many times this is mentioned. Every time something comes up about the nVidia cards, I hope we get a whole flood of people posting about this problem. I don't really care what excuse they have for not having Open Source drivers. I only care that they aren't.
It makes my kernel unsafe and insecure whenever I load the non-Open Source drivers into it. I end up suspecting them first in every case of strange system behavior because I know they haven't undergone peer review. I am extremely distrustful of them, and if I had any other choice that was within 75% of the performance and used Open Source drivers, I'd jump to it in an instant, even if it was %20 more in price.
I'm just waiting for the day I can drop their hardware like a hot rock. And if there's something that comes along where I can actively help that day come to pass, I'll do it.
I don't care how many times this is mentioned. Every time something comes up about the nVidia cards, I hope we get a whole flood of people posting about this problem. I don't really care what excuse they have for not having Open Source drivers. I only care that they aren't.
It makes my kernel unsafe and insecure whenever I load the non-Open Source drivers into it. I end up suspecting them first in every case of strange system behavior because I know they haven't undergone peer review. I am extremely distrustful of them, and if I had any other choice that was within 75% of the performance and used Open Source drivers, I'd jump to it in an instant, even if it was %20 more in price.
In this case, the algorithm is guaranteed to work with a wide range of parameters governing its precise functioning. The genetic algorithm is only being used to search the parameter space for the most efficient parameters. Since the algorithm will work no matter which parameters you pick, this is a perfectly fine way to use genetic algorithms.
Can I make a book of RMS's essays and sell it for $2.00 over the cost of printing and give none to RMS?
Yes, as long as you credit RMS as the author.
Can I make copies of this book and redistribute it for $2.00 over the cost of copying?
Yes. As long as you leave the bits in the book that say who the authors of the individual essays were.
I do not believe that ALL software should be freely distributable. That is for the author of the software to decide.
Without the protection afforded by a government granted monopoly, the author wouldn't have a choice. Absent a government, the author wouldn't be able to enforce copyright at all.
Besides, I don't think proprietary software will exist in 10-20 years. It's horribly economically inefficient. It won't survive. It's the wrong way to do things.
I think you will find that the book is available in a freely redistributable electronic format. You should read the messages posted here again.
Besides, it isn't in conflict with his principles for the book to not be available in a digital format. It would be in conflict if the book didn't have a notice in it explicitly permitting you to make copies of it, but the book does have such a notice.
I think you will find it extremely difficult to impossible to find any trace of hypocrisy in anything RMS does. You are so conditioned to find it by the behavior of all of our other public figures in the US that I don't blame you for thinking RMS must practice this vice as well. But, as far as I can tell, he doesn't.
It's sad to see that the most valuable aspect of any product - the time put in by people - is the least valued by RMS (from my perspective).
If you ever looked at his consulting rates, you wouldn't say that. 10 years ago, his rates were (justifiably) $200/hr. Seems like he values his time and effort quite highly. I suspect he does of others too.
His point is that holding ideas hostage is morally wrong, and that you should find other means to recover those costs. Free Software most emphatically does NOT mean the programmer isn't paid.
Slashdot Mirror
No, that kind of GPL clause would be very stupid and misguided. I meant that many developers and users will ignore them.
This will cause them increased costs because developers won't include changes requested by Lindows if the changes primarily benefit Lindows. It will also reduce the base of technically sophisticated users who use their product, which in turn will make their product costlier to effectively support.
Unless they can make enough money to make up for these problems, they will lose. Since even Microsoft can't keep up with their largely closed community, I doubt Lindows could do better.
The key to having a strong, profitable distribution is having the support of developers and users as a whole. It will lower your overall costs and increase the quality of your product. It's a win for everyone.
But, that download site won't have your brand and label associated with it. So, if you make your brand valuable enough (like RedHat), people will go buy it, even though they can freely download it elsewhere.
The subject says it all. This is the most cogent, level headed post I've seen in this entire discussion so far.
They have every right to do it, and DesktopLinux has every right (and, after reading the article, every reason) to withdraw its support.
But, if they aren't willing to play nice with the other people in the Linux community, the other people in the Linux community won't play nice with them, and they will eventually fail.
There is 'anti-mass'. It's called negative energy, and has some very strange properties. It also isn't allowed to exist for very long. But, given sufficient amounts of the stuff you can create wormholes, travel 'faster-than-light', and do any number of other bizarre things.
Yes, cave trolls like you. It's kind of amusing to write trolls about trolls.
We pay them for bandwidth. We pay them for sifting through 100s (at least) of submissions a day, and choosing which get posted. We pay them to maintain the databases and servers. We pay them to maintain the code and add new features. A minor thing like a broken link is a small, tiny fraction of what we pay them for.
I believe what Microsoft did constitutes criminal fraud. Not that any criminal behavior on the part of Microsoft will ever actually be punished by our judicial system.
If they don't change something, they will lose, no matter how much money they have in the bank.
You have discovered the secret to RedHat's ability to make money. Congratulations. I'ts no secret that building brand loyalty has been what they've been all about since their inception.
But, if RedHat were ever to turn evil, and start making descisions that didn't benefit their customers, it would be much easier to switch away from them to somebody else that it is to switch away from Microsoft. They have to keep on making their customer's happy and maintaining their brand image in order to survive.
Sure, a brute force attack would take years. But you wouldn't apply a brute force attack. You would pluck the key out of memory while Word was decrypting the document. If Word were Palladium enabled on Palladium enabled hardware, you'd no longer be able to do that, and you would be reduced to trying a brute force attack.
Because if the porting cost is small enough that Linux sales exceed it, then the game has made more money than it would've under just Windows.
In fact, economically, it makes more sense for lower profit, easy to port games to be ported to Linux because they're the ones who's profits would increase by the largest percentage given a few extra sales.
What you don't realize is that the sale and trading of broadcast spectrum is intrinsic to the survival of business. Any consideration of freeing up some of that spectrum to be used by people who didn't pay for it may seriously harm their interests. All spectrum should be owned, and we should consider anything business choose to broadcast over it loving gifts.
But, the patents and trade secrets IBM would be giving up! Think of them! Clearly, IBM couldn't possibly make money anymore if they reveal the deep dark secrets of that mystery that is OS/2. I don't know what manner of Open Source zealotry would possess you that you should even think that IBM should release their code Open Source.
I'm talking total hardware and software price. It really doesn't make any sense to talk about anything else since the hardware is useless without the software, and the software is useless without the hardware.
If you read my post, you'd realize why I don't get a Matrox card. As you said, their performance is sadly lacking. I clearly laid out the parameters under which I would consider a different card.
Ahh, yes, the business world... Can't find a way to make money without installing secret, possibly trojaned software on my computer. I feel so sorry for them. Next I suppose you'll tell me they need government handouts to survive. If you want to follow along to the endpoint of that stupid road, install Kazaa, Audio Galaxy, Morpheus and Windows XP on your computer.
If you want to be there, quit using your Linux box and Open Source all together. Clearly, scam artists making money is more important to you than your freedom.
Businesses exist to serve me, and my interests. That's why they get my money. They have no intrinsic right to exist or make money. If I were complaining about the quality of their harware (which I'm not, because it's excellent), or that their drivers constantly crashed (which, though I'm very suspicious of them, I don't think they do), you'd have no vitriol to spew. Their drivers not being Open Source is just another missing feature, and one I place an explicit value on.
Insecure and unstable isn't a big issue for me on my workstation machine at home. I have some pretty strict limits on what can get into and out of that machine, and nobody but me depends on it to be running.
The driver ATI has that is actually performance comparable to the nVidia drivers is also not Open Source. So, no benefit to going ATI. Until I heard that, I was ready to drop my nVidia card in favor of ATI.
There are about 20-30 games for Linux. Go see http://www.tuxgames.com/. I will admit though, that there are only about 10 pretty good ones. :-)
The comment isn't getting old.
I don't care how many times this is mentioned. Every time something comes up about the nVidia cards, I hope we get a whole flood of people posting about this problem. I don't really care what excuse they have for not having Open Source drivers. I only care that they aren't.
It makes my kernel unsafe and insecure whenever I load the non-Open Source drivers into it. I end up suspecting them first in every case of strange system behavior because I know they haven't undergone peer review. I am extremely distrustful of them, and if I had any other choice that was within 75% of the performance and used Open Source drivers, I'd jump to it in an instant, even if it was %20 more in price.
I'm just waiting for the day I can drop their hardware like a hot rock. And if there's something that comes along where I can actively help that day come to pass, I'll do it.
I don't care how many times this is mentioned. Every time something comes up about the nVidia cards, I hope we get a whole flood of people posting about this problem. I don't really care what excuse they have for not having Open Source drivers. I only care that they aren't.
It makes my kernel unsafe and insecure whenever I load the non-Open Source drivers into it. I end up suspecting them first in every case of strange system behavior because I know they haven't undergone peer review. I am extremely distrustful of them, and if I had any other choice that was within 75% of the performance and used Open Source drivers, I'd jump to it in an instant, even if it was %20 more in price.
For some artists, the CD is designed to be listened to in order. The songs tell a story. In a sense, the entire CD is one song.
So, you're saying that tapes are good forever?
In this case, the algorithm is guaranteed to work with a wide range of parameters governing its precise functioning. The genetic algorithm is only being used to search the parameter space for the most efficient parameters. Since the algorithm will work no matter which parameters you pick, this is a perfectly fine way to use genetic algorithms.
Also, genetic algorithms aren't self-modifying.
Yes, as long as you credit RMS as the author.
Yes. As long as you leave the bits in the book that say who the authors of the individual essays were.
Without the protection afforded by a government granted monopoly, the author wouldn't have a choice. Absent a government, the author wouldn't be able to enforce copyright at all.
Besides, I don't think proprietary software will exist in 10-20 years. It's horribly economically inefficient. It won't survive. It's the wrong way to do things.
I think you will find that the book is available in a freely redistributable electronic format. You should read the messages posted here again.
Besides, it isn't in conflict with his principles for the book to not be available in a digital format. It would be in conflict if the book didn't have a notice in it explicitly permitting you to make copies of it, but the book does have such a notice.
I think you will find it extremely difficult to impossible to find any trace of hypocrisy in anything RMS does. You are so conditioned to find it by the behavior of all of our other public figures in the US that I don't blame you for thinking RMS must practice this vice as well. But, as far as I can tell, he doesn't.
If you ever looked at his consulting rates, you wouldn't say that. 10 years ago, his rates were (justifiably) $200/hr. Seems like he values his time and effort quite highly. I suspect he does of others too.
His point is that holding ideas hostage is morally wrong, and that you should find other means to recover those costs. Free Software most emphatically does NOT mean the programmer isn't paid.