But, of course, when I kill my X server, I've still lost all my work.
And there are cases in which going to the command line isn't possible without a second computer. This, is course, is not worse than the situation under Windows. But, it still exists and it shouldn't. And it does make some X server lockups equivalent to a BSOD in that your only choice is to reboot.
This isn't some random company being stupid, this is the government. This means that people who use IE are being given preferential treatment with respect to registering copyrighted works. This is not OK.
Google can make some amazingly functional web pages that work in almost every browser. Why can't the government? It's not that hard.
When I look at a Python program, it seems pretty obvious what it does. There are very few special-case syntax elements. The program is clear and to the point. When I have examined Ruby programs, it was not nearly so immediately clear how they worked. There seem to be a number of special case syntaxes related to lists, strings and blocks of code used as arguments that render Ruby code much less readable.
Perhaps it is my ignorance of the language. Or maybe Python is closer to other languages I'm used to. But, I was able to pick up and understand a Python program when I was first learning Python much more quickly than I was able to pick up and understand a Ruby program.
That is why I hesitate to recommend Ruby as a beginner's language.
I had the good fortune to have someone tell me to get Knuth's "Searching and Sorting" at 15. If trying to get through that doesn't make you humble, nothing will.:-)
If someone wants to learn a language that ties them to a particular vendor, that's fine. But I don't think a school has any business teaching it. At least not one that gets any public funds.
I don't know about Ruby on Rails, but I strongly agree with you about PHP and VB. I think they both lead poorly to working in other languages.
I would recommend Python, because I'm more familiar with it than Ruby. It has a clear, elegant syntax, and many concepts in it exist in other languages as well.
But, Ruby may be perfectly adequate as well. I know that most concepts that exist in Python that aren't particularly language specific have counterparts in Ruby.
I used to recommend assembly, then scheme, just so all the people who entered thinking they were programmer hotshots because they knew BASIC, VB or C or something would find themselves in deep water and having to learn something new.
But I suspect that's a bit overly hostile. Depends on the environment of course. Still might be a good idea for people going to a hard-to-get-into technical school to knock them down a peg or two and convince them that there's stuff they don't know.
I sort of agree with you, but I think your sense of proportion and scale is all wrong. I wouldn't do this for the reasons you stated, but I don't have that much against someone who will. Really, its up to the Fedex people to change their business, not up to us to conform to some imaginary set of rules to make their business successful.
This isn't true. I believe there are many instances in which companies have opened their code after being shown the text of the GPL and having it pointed out they're in violation.
The whole Mauisoft debacle with CherryOS has also proved you wrong. They went under instead of giving out code.
As for the internal code they use to run their own website, you might very well have a point.
I agree. The new keyhole thing doesn't run on Linux, and they have no plans to port it. They aren't going to make any of their desktop stuff run on Linux. It's kinda disappointing.
I'm not saying that google hasn't given back. They've given a lot. They're no Amazon in that regard.
But really, the thing that would really make sure Microsoft's monopoly died the true death would be a good Open Source desktop alternative. If google really wants to help Linux, they'll start making sure any end-user apps run on Linux, and make that support public and official.
Reason 'a'
RedHat can profit from my code all it wants, and so can anybody else.
Reason 'b'
I don't write Open Source to be charitable. I write it because the standard copyright system of rights doesn't work for software. It leaves a small number of entities in complete control over the entire computing infrastructure, and that's just not a workable system.
Reason 'c'
This is redundant. It's the same as reason 'b'.
If the BSD license were completely public domain, or simply required attribution, that would be one thing. But, it isn't. It's just as viral as the GPL. It requires that you attach the license to the distributed code or binaries too. This means that anybody who uses BSD code must either give it away as a charity, or sell it as proprietary. The various forces in the world will always operate so that eventually the latter choice is what will win out.
You can't effectively build a community that will survive for a long period of time with BSD code. I think most of the communities that have grown up around BSD code exist because of the zeitgeist created by GPL code, and wouldn't naturally exist otherwise.
The goal of having an open media format is a very important one. So it's worth trading people's freedom for that goal. I agree with RMS in this case.
I don't see any important goals being furthered by having a BSD licensed desktop. Since it uses KDE, unless they get some sort of special dispensation, it's going to be GPL anyway, so I guess it doesn't matter that much. Except that I don't think it's very useful either to promote the widespread adoption of a non-GPL underlying platform.
Apple only gives back source to get some community good-will and so they don't have to develop an OS all on their own. It's an impressive bit of long-sighted thinking on Apple's part. But, given the current state of copyright law, Apple could change its mind at every moment and start using licensing tactics to start bludgeoning people. I fully expect that if Apple ever reaches a market dominant position that that's exactly what they'll do.
*think* That's an interesting balance. To use an analogy, I sort of think of it this way... I should be able to do whatever I want with a car I own. I should be able to look at the engine or whatever. But I do not have the same freedom with a rental car, and I shouldn't.
Then again, I am worried that if all apps of any importance become web apps that we'll end up in a very similar situation to the one we had before the GPL hit the bigtime (relatively speaking anyway).
I also think that Amazon (as an example I've had personal experience with) has a rather parasitic relationship to Open Source because of how they suck it all in and maintain it locally but don't spend much effort trying to improve anything outside the company. I think this hurts Amazon greatly, but I also think it hurts everyone else. But I can also see how short-term thinking about profit and competitiveness drives those decisions.
So, perhaps there's a balance to be struck, and if the new version of the GPL addresses the issue in a way that strikes a balance that doesn't offend me, I might be willing to use it. But a wholesale forcing of web apps to be open source isn't right.
I will say that my favorite web apps, like LJ and Slashdot _are_ Open Source. And that it hasn't hurt LJ or Slashdot in the least to be that way.
Yeah, that prevented ISOs from being distributed, but at least I could still get all the packages. There's a reason I've largely stuck with RedHat.
But, I agree, the GPL is not perfect, it's just a lot better than the BSD license in that regard. I'm not sure I'd want a GPL that was perfect either. Too much legalese and too many restrictions won't do much to increase people's freedom.
Yeah, yeah, the BSD license has even fewer restrictions, so it's more free! Well, possibly in the local sense, but in the global sense, I think the BSD license represents a net loss of freedom. It people to take freedom away as it's simpler and potentially more profitable to distribute BSD licensed proprietary binaries than it is to distribute source code.
First, the existence of organizations like the BSA indicates a deep and troubling flaw in the legal system. When you have to encourage people to rat on eachother in order to enforce laws you have a system of laws that are broken and wrong.
The deep and troubling flaw is the extension of copyright beyond commercial reproduction. Commercial reproduction is easy to find and deal with. Controlling it represents no big loss. Controlling copying at a personal level is inherently invasive.
The second issue is this...
If you ever look at the Windows platform, the home of proprietary software, the vast majority of programs on it do many things the users of those programs are not aware of, and are things that are not in those user's best interests. Basically, when you run a piece of proprietary software, you are giving control of your computer to someone else. It's no longer your computer.
If OS X were GPL, I would most likely buy copies of OS X. I do not care if it is free of charge. But I do care that I know what it's doing when it runs, and that it's actions are independently verifiable and auditable. This is likely going to be a real problem when Apple adopts hardware-level DRM.
Also, the GPL is a simple license. It states its intentions at the beginning in simple language, and the legalese is there to support those intentions in a clear and precise manner. It's the most pleasant to read legal document I've ever read.
If they try to tighten up the license to disallow web-apps without distributing their source, I'll stop using that version and use the older version. But I'll never, ever license anything under a BSD license. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot...
I don't think they will. I don't see how it increases freedom to force open the source to web applications. Now, forcing the people who have your data (like all your LJ posts or whatever) to give you a copy of it in a standard format would be great, but I don't think you can manage that one with an Open Source license.
That someone makes a commerical distribution of this and hypes the bejeezus out of it and refuses to give any of the source back to the community.
As a bonus, if it manages to gain popularity, they can introduce I'll kinds of fun little incompatibilities, and eventually DRM. It'll be great, just what the BSD people always wanted. Maybe one of them will even get audited by the BSA for running this commericial distribution they basically created in their workplace. That would be the best. Getting your behind sued off for running your own code.
Of course, Apple is well along that path already. Hooray for evil.
So, educate people. It's not that hard. It just takes some sustained effort, and it's worth it. Someone at work today called me a poster child for the EFF, but I think I can be proud of that designation.
That's something I really hate about people here. They seem to have this helpless attitude about stuff. Oh, I can't teach anybody to use Linux, it's too hard. Oh, someone might look at me funny if I mentioned the EFF. Oh, it's too technical to explain to some poor person on the street.
It's not that hard, and self-defeatism isn't going to get anybody anywhere.
So, somehow it behooves manufacturers to force something on people they don't want? Why? I find the lack of freedom implied here highly disturbing and strongly suggests that I do not live in a state that has an actual free market, nor an actual democracy. These are not acceptable conditions for me, and I hope they aren't for you either.
If they are, I suggest you go to Saudi Arabia or China and live out your dreams. I think China would be a better choice, they are doing well enough economically that you can be well fed while living in your cage.
I don't want to run Windows. And the fact the Windows doesn't run on it has nothing to do with hardware vendor lock-in. It's because Microsoft doesn't seem capable of writing an OS that actually runs on any architecture other than Intel.
I can run Linux on it, and have thought of doing so. But, I also find it very advantageous to have another flavor of Unix around for testing, so I doubt I will.
Besides, it isn't an issue of actually running another OS. It's an issue of having the freedom to do what I want with the stuff I bought. I don't want to lease a computer, I want to buy it.
I will not be buying anymore Apples then. I'm sorry. I don't care who does it, or what reason they have for doing it, crippling your hardware in that way in the name of a business model isn't acceptable.
And for all those snide comments about giving hackers something to break... Well, those same hackers will end up going to jail. We've seen what happens to mod-chip makers. This kind of hardware practically requires a mod-chip to bypass, unless you're Microsoft and make such horribly buggy software that you can exploit software flaws to do it instead. Even then though, you can go to jail for it.
I love my Powerbook. It's the best laptop I've ever owned. But, I don't care what the quality of the hardware is, I will not be buying any hardware with DRM lock-in built right into it. I haven't bought a DVD player for myself for that reason either.
If you're going to run on commodity hardware, be creative with your business model. Don't try to cripple the hardware to make a bad business model work.
Of course, the current trend is to convince employers to violate the Bill of Rights for the government, thus skirting the prohibition on Congress passing those laws. It's a marvelous trick really. Of course, you can argue that you don't have to work for the rights violating employer, but when they all do the same thing, the only choice becomes having to start your own business. And since businesses are getting laws passed every day to make it harder and harder to start businesses that compete with them, that's sort of a hollow option.
Besides, I don't think it's very free to have to do something like that in order to actually be free.
IMHO, the bigger an employer, the more strongly the Bill of Rights should apply to them too. Perhaps we can use the idea that corporations have a government charter as causing them to be de-facto agents of said government.
Actually, information wants to be free in the same sense that life wants to reproduce. The statement is about the general nature of information. Once more than a few people know it, you might as well assume that everybody might know it.
The statement is overused and misunderstood, but your rebuttal indicates that you don't have a clue either.
I doubt the fragmentation issue plays any role whatsoever. The usability issues definitely do, but the two are not strongly linked. I like fragmentation as long as it isn't at the expense of compatibility. One size does not fit all.
I've had no difficulty at all developing software that will run on practically every Linux box in existence and that has been ported with nary a change to OS X. It's not hard, and that issue is at worst a red herring, and at best an example of gross mis-perecption on the part of developers.
Slashdot Mirror
But, of course, when I kill my X server, I've still lost all my work.
And there are cases in which going to the command line isn't possible without a second computer. This, is course, is not worse than the situation under Windows. But, it still exists and it shouldn't. And it does make some X server lockups equivalent to a BSOD in that your only choice is to reboot.
This isn't some random company being stupid, this is the government. This means that people who use IE are being given preferential treatment with respect to registering copyrighted works. This is not OK.
Google can make some amazingly functional web pages that work in almost every browser. Why can't the government? It's not that hard.
That's why my CV is in straight, hand-edited HTML.
I base my opinion of Python on this...
When I look at a Python program, it seems pretty obvious what it does. There are very few special-case syntax elements. The program is clear and to the point. When I have examined Ruby programs, it was not nearly so immediately clear how they worked. There seem to be a number of special case syntaxes related to lists, strings and blocks of code used as arguments that render Ruby code much less readable.
Perhaps it is my ignorance of the language. Or maybe Python is closer to other languages I'm used to. But, I was able to pick up and understand a Python program when I was first learning Python much more quickly than I was able to pick up and understand a Ruby program.
That is why I hesitate to recommend Ruby as a beginner's language.
I had the good fortune to have someone tell me to get Knuth's "Searching and Sorting" at 15. If trying to get through that doesn't make you humble, nothing will. :-)
If someone wants to learn a language that ties them to a particular vendor, that's fine. But I don't think a school has any business teaching it. At least not one that gets any public funds.
I don't know about Ruby on Rails, but I strongly agree with you about PHP and VB. I think they both lead poorly to working in other languages.
I would recommend Python, because I'm more familiar with it than Ruby. It has a clear, elegant syntax, and many concepts in it exist in other languages as well.
But, Ruby may be perfectly adequate as well. I know that most concepts that exist in Python that aren't particularly language specific have counterparts in Ruby.
I used to recommend assembly, then scheme, just so all the people who entered thinking they were programmer hotshots because they knew BASIC, VB or C or something would find themselves in deep water and having to learn something new.
But I suspect that's a bit overly hostile. Depends on the environment of course. Still might be a good idea for people going to a hard-to-get-into technical school to knock them down a peg or two and convince them that there's stuff they don't know.
I sort of agree with you, but I think your sense of proportion and scale is all wrong. I wouldn't do this for the reasons you stated, but I don't have that much against someone who will. Really, its up to the Fedex people to change their business, not up to us to conform to some imaginary set of rules to make their business successful.
This isn't true. I believe there are many instances in which companies have opened their code after being shown the text of the GPL and having it pointed out they're in violation.
The whole Mauisoft debacle with CherryOS has also proved you wrong. They went under instead of giving out code.
As for the internal code they use to run their own website, you might very well have a point.
I agree. The new keyhole thing doesn't run on Linux, and they have no plans to port it. They aren't going to make any of their desktop stuff run on Linux. It's kinda disappointing.
I'm not saying that google hasn't given back. They've given a lot. They're no Amazon in that regard.
But really, the thing that would really make sure Microsoft's monopoly died the true death would be a good Open Source desktop alternative. If google really wants to help Linux, they'll start making sure any end-user apps run on Linux, and make that support public and official.
If the BSD license were completely public domain, or simply required attribution, that would be one thing. But, it isn't. It's just as viral as the GPL. It requires that you attach the license to the distributed code or binaries too. This means that anybody who uses BSD code must either give it away as a charity, or sell it as proprietary. The various forces in the world will always operate so that eventually the latter choice is what will win out.
You can't effectively build a community that will survive for a long period of time with BSD code. I think most of the communities that have grown up around BSD code exist because of the zeitgeist created by GPL code, and wouldn't naturally exist otherwise.
The goal of having an open media format is a very important one. So it's worth trading people's freedom for that goal. I agree with RMS in this case.
I don't see any important goals being furthered by having a BSD licensed desktop. Since it uses KDE, unless they get some sort of special dispensation, it's going to be GPL anyway, so I guess it doesn't matter that much. Except that I don't think it's very useful either to promote the widespread adoption of a non-GPL underlying platform.
Apple only gives back source to get some community good-will and so they don't have to develop an OS all on their own. It's an impressive bit of long-sighted thinking on Apple's part. But, given the current state of copyright law, Apple could change its mind at every moment and start using licensing tactics to start bludgeoning people. I fully expect that if Apple ever reaches a market dominant position that that's exactly what they'll do.
*think* That's an interesting balance. To use an analogy, I sort of think of it this way... I should be able to do whatever I want with a car I own. I should be able to look at the engine or whatever. But I do not have the same freedom with a rental car, and I shouldn't.
Then again, I am worried that if all apps of any importance become web apps that we'll end up in a very similar situation to the one we had before the GPL hit the bigtime (relatively speaking anyway).
I also think that Amazon (as an example I've had personal experience with) has a rather parasitic relationship to Open Source because of how they suck it all in and maintain it locally but don't spend much effort trying to improve anything outside the company. I think this hurts Amazon greatly, but I also think it hurts everyone else. But I can also see how short-term thinking about profit and competitiveness drives those decisions.
So, perhaps there's a balance to be struck, and if the new version of the GPL addresses the issue in a way that strikes a balance that doesn't offend me, I might be willing to use it. But a wholesale forcing of web apps to be open source isn't right.
I will say that my favorite web apps, like LJ and Slashdot _are_ Open Source. And that it hasn't hurt LJ or Slashdot in the least to be that way.
Yeah, that prevented ISOs from being distributed, but at least I could still get all the packages. There's a reason I've largely stuck with RedHat.
But, I agree, the GPL is not perfect, it's just a lot better than the BSD license in that regard. I'm not sure I'd want a GPL that was perfect either. Too much legalese and too many restrictions won't do much to increase people's freedom.
Yeah, yeah, the BSD license has even fewer restrictions, so it's more free! Well, possibly in the local sense, but in the global sense, I think the BSD license represents a net loss of freedom. It people to take freedom away as it's simpler and potentially more profitable to distribute BSD licensed proprietary binaries than it is to distribute source code.
I care about two main things...
First, the existence of organizations like the BSA indicates a deep and troubling flaw in the legal system. When you have to encourage people to rat on eachother in order to enforce laws you have a system of laws that are broken and wrong.
The deep and troubling flaw is the extension of copyright beyond commercial reproduction. Commercial reproduction is easy to find and deal with. Controlling it represents no big loss. Controlling copying at a personal level is inherently invasive.
The second issue is this...
If you ever look at the Windows platform, the home of proprietary software, the vast majority of programs on it do many things the users of those programs are not aware of, and are things that are not in those user's best interests. Basically, when you run a piece of proprietary software, you are giving control of your computer to someone else. It's no longer your computer.
If OS X were GPL, I would most likely buy copies of OS X. I do not care if it is free of charge. But I do care that I know what it's doing when it runs, and that it's actions are independently verifiable and auditable. This is likely going to be a real problem when Apple adopts hardware-level DRM.
Also, the GPL is a simple license. It states its intentions at the beginning in simple language, and the legalese is there to support those intentions in a clear and precise manner. It's the most pleasant to read legal document I've ever read.
If they try to tighten up the license to disallow web-apps without distributing their source, I'll stop using that version and use the older version. But I'll never, ever license anything under a BSD license. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot...
I don't think they will. I don't see how it increases freedom to force open the source to web applications. Now, forcing the people who have your data (like all your LJ posts or whatever) to give you a copy of it in a standard format would be great, but I don't think you can manage that one with an Open Source license.
Nah, it wouldn't stop the original from being distributed, just stop the one everybody wanted to use from being distributed.
And if I had an office full of boxes running copies of OS X that I hadn't paid for, you can be sure the BSA would take quite an interest.
That someone makes a commerical distribution of this and hypes the bejeezus out of it and refuses to give any of the source back to the community.
As a bonus, if it manages to gain popularity, they can introduce I'll kinds of fun little incompatibilities, and eventually DRM. It'll be great, just what the BSD people always wanted. Maybe one of them will even get audited by the BSA for running this commericial distribution they basically created in their workplace. That would be the best. Getting your behind sued off for running your own code.
Of course, Apple is well along that path already. Hooray for evil.
So, educate people. It's not that hard. It just takes some sustained effort, and it's worth it. Someone at work today called me a poster child for the EFF, but I think I can be proud of that designation.
That's something I really hate about people here. They seem to have this helpless attitude about stuff. Oh, I can't teach anybody to use Linux, it's too hard. Oh, someone might look at me funny if I mentioned the EFF. Oh, it's too technical to explain to some poor person on the street.
It's not that hard, and self-defeatism isn't going to get anybody anywhere.
So, somehow it behooves manufacturers to force something on people they don't want? Why? I find the lack of freedom implied here highly disturbing and strongly suggests that I do not live in a state that has an actual free market, nor an actual democracy. These are not acceptable conditions for me, and I hope they aren't for you either.
If they are, I suggest you go to Saudi Arabia or China and live out your dreams. I think China would be a better choice, they are doing well enough economically that you can be well fed while living in your cage.
I don't want to run Windows. And the fact the Windows doesn't run on it has nothing to do with hardware vendor lock-in. It's because Microsoft doesn't seem capable of writing an OS that actually runs on any architecture other than Intel.
I can run Linux on it, and have thought of doing so. But, I also find it very advantageous to have another flavor of Unix around for testing, so I doubt I will.
Besides, it isn't an issue of actually running another OS. It's an issue of having the freedom to do what I want with the stuff I bought. I don't want to lease a computer, I want to buy it.
I will not be buying anymore Apples then. I'm sorry. I don't care who does it, or what reason they have for doing it, crippling your hardware in that way in the name of a business model isn't acceptable.
And for all those snide comments about giving hackers something to break... Well, those same hackers will end up going to jail. We've seen what happens to mod-chip makers. This kind of hardware practically requires a mod-chip to bypass, unless you're Microsoft and make such horribly buggy software that you can exploit software flaws to do it instead. Even then though, you can go to jail for it.
I love my Powerbook. It's the best laptop I've ever owned. But, I don't care what the quality of the hardware is, I will not be buying any hardware with DRM lock-in built right into it. I haven't bought a DVD player for myself for that reason either.
If you're going to run on commodity hardware, be creative with your business model. Don't try to cripple the hardware to make a bad business model work.
Of course, the current trend is to convince employers to violate the Bill of Rights for the government, thus skirting the prohibition on Congress passing those laws. It's a marvelous trick really. Of course, you can argue that you don't have to work for the rights violating employer, but when they all do the same thing, the only choice becomes having to start your own business. And since businesses are getting laws passed every day to make it harder and harder to start businesses that compete with them, that's sort of a hollow option.
Besides, I don't think it's very free to have to do something like that in order to actually be free.
IMHO, the bigger an employer, the more strongly the Bill of Rights should apply to them too. Perhaps we can use the idea that corporations have a government charter as causing them to be de-facto agents of said government.
Actually, information wants to be free in the same sense that life wants to reproduce. The statement is about the general nature of information. Once more than a few people know it, you might as well assume that everybody might know it.
The statement is overused and misunderstood, but your rebuttal indicates that you don't have a clue either.
I doubt the fragmentation issue plays any role whatsoever. The usability issues definitely do, but the two are not strongly linked. I like fragmentation as long as it isn't at the expense of compatibility. One size does not fit all.
I've had no difficulty at all developing software that will run on practically every Linux box in existence and that has been ported with nary a change to OS X. It's not hard, and that issue is at worst a red herring, and at best an example of gross mis-perecption on the part of developers.