What kind of idiot corporation has a build process that any new employee can't grok just as easily as some Linux user interested in building the same binaries? The kind of "proprietary build process" being alluded to here is simply retarded. It's retarded simply from an internal corporate maintenance perspective.
Never mind actually publishing source code.
If you can't hand your build process over to a CS student then you're doing it wrong.
The LGPL is perfectly fine for tools and libraries and building blocks.
Big corporations can build commercial proprietary products with such tools and libraries just fine. All of this stuff is actually pretty simple once you understand what copyright is actually supposed to be about. There are a very particular set of rights that are governed by Copyrights.
The GPL is being confused and conflated with your usual Microsoft style EULA that can do all sorts of crazy things to expand the rights of software distributor and take rights away from the user.
It's funny how the likes of EA and Oracle can manage under these egregious and unacceptable attacks on their "freedom". They can use and build products based off of Free Software quite readily. The fact that they have do so as equals with everyone else is ultimately not a problem.
If you don't mix things at the source level, there's no reason to ever have heartburn. If you do, then you should be getting heartburn regardless of what licenses are involved because it's just an inherently messy situation period.
Beyond that, there really is no problem. Atlhough some people like to lie about the situation to suit their particular agenda.
Some fanboy trying to distract from the fact that Apple is openly hostile to Free Software being a good example.
Unless you're not interested in treating other people's stuff as your own private personal property, there's really no problem.
No. He was forced to upgrade his software and devices because of the restrictive nature of Apple products. Being told that you can either upgrade or lose access to your personal property is not a "choice", it's coercion.
>... and yet I find it hilarious when I read all the angry rants on wired.com and here on how poor old XP is going to lose support in 2 years a mere 13.5 years after launch.
When is the last time a new PC was sold with some version of XP installed by the hardware vendor?
THAT is your starting point for "support", not when the first version was originally released.
The whole "used nukes in anger" remark is nonsense.
We were in the middle of a war. We had been leveling cities for strategic purposes for a long while before we decided to do it with a single device.
People that like to fixate on the nukes tend to ignore all of the other cities that got bombed and all of the other people that got killed. They also tend to trivialize the Japanese.
I often wonder if there isn't a bit of racism mixed in there, trivializing the Japanese.
Then defecting to an entirely different product should not be a problem then. It doesn't even have to be Free Software. It could be one of those commercial Win32 competitors that have been marginalized.
A resume is a pretty simple document type to keep an entire copy of msoffice around for. There's nothing in a resume that should be impacted by using ANY other alternative. It simply should not be that large or complex.
Why should it take a whole week to replace something? You should be able to walk into an Apple store and have it done pretty much instantaneously.
I had a Mini that needed a brain transplant. An exchange would have be simpler since they ended up reformatting it anyways. That would have saved me the week or so being without a machine.
If there were less mindless hype surrounding Apple, there would simply be less of a story here. Although if Apple just lived up to their supposed reputation there wouldn't have been any story at all.
Slashdot Mirror
If they are really that smart, they are probably better off making their own from scratch.
What kind of idiot corporation has a build process that any new employee can't grok just as easily as some Linux user interested in building the same binaries? The kind of "proprietary build process" being alluded to here is simply retarded. It's retarded simply from an internal corporate maintenance perspective.
Never mind actually publishing source code.
If you can't hand your build process over to a CS student then you're doing it wrong.
Your entire post is FUD and fabrications. Not only is it just the usual FUD but it's also some extra absurd nonense added for good measure.
"giving away your proprietary build processes"
That statement is just filled to the brim with all different kinds of stupid.
The LGPL is perfectly fine for tools and libraries and building blocks.
Big corporations can build commercial proprietary products with such tools and libraries just fine. All of this stuff is actually pretty simple once you understand what copyright is actually supposed to be about. There are a very particular set of rights that are governed by Copyrights.
The GPL is being confused and conflated with your usual Microsoft style EULA that can do all sorts of crazy things to expand the rights of software distributor and take rights away from the user.
It's funny how the likes of EA and Oracle can manage under these egregious and unacceptable attacks on their "freedom". They can use and build products based off of Free Software quite readily. The fact that they have do so as equals with everyone else is ultimately not a problem.
> GPL advocates often have a pretty significant misunderstanding of freedom.
No we don't.
We simply understand the difference between freedom and anarchy and understand why the latter is a bad thing.
If you don't mix things at the source level, there's no reason to ever have heartburn. If you do, then you should be getting heartburn regardless of what licenses are involved because it's just an inherently messy situation period.
Beyond that, there really is no problem. Atlhough some people like to lie about the situation to suit their particular agenda.
Some fanboy trying to distract from the fact that Apple is openly hostile to Free Software being a good example.
Unless you're not interested in treating other people's stuff as your own private personal property, there's really no problem.
So what you are advocating really is extensive government meddling in the app stores.
Either that you you don't fully understand what sort of government oversight occurs within our food and water supply.
No. He was forced to upgrade his software and devices because of the restrictive nature of Apple products. Being told that you can either upgrade or lose access to your personal property is not a "choice", it's coercion.
> ... and yet I find it hilarious when I read all the angry rants on wired.com and here on how poor old XP is going to lose support in 2 years a mere 13.5 years after launch.
When is the last time a new PC was sold with some version of XP installed by the hardware vendor?
THAT is your starting point for "support", not when the first version was originally released.
> Btw, I'm guessing you mean trivializing the Japanese as a military threat. It reads like you mean it in general, which is a claim out of left field
It's the same thing really. The two are directly related to each other and can't really be separated.
I wonder if the Atari ST or Amiga had 17% market share when either of them were fertile ground for malware infections.
The whole "used nukes in anger" remark is nonsense.
We were in the middle of a war. We had been leveling cities for strategic purposes for a long while before we decided to do it with a single device.
People that like to fixate on the nukes tend to ignore all of the other cities that got bombed and all of the other people that got killed. They also tend to trivialize the Japanese.
I often wonder if there isn't a bit of racism mixed in there, trivializing the Japanese.
Copyright is not a natural right. It's not a right granted to individuals. It's a power granted to the government.
It's a statutory right that depends on no moral rights of the "owner".
It's lasted for a couple hundred years of the 10,000 years of human history.
Copyright is less than one tenth the age of some of our older books.
Then defecting to an entirely different product should not be a problem then. It doesn't even have to be Free Software. It could be one of those commercial Win32 competitors that have been marginalized.
A resume is a pretty simple document type to keep an entire copy of msoffice around for. There's nothing in a resume that should be impacted by using ANY other alternative. It simply should not be that large or complex.
This years version of office sells for the same reason that this years version of DOS does.
It's a monopoly legacy product.
If you aren't at liberty to use $FAVORITE_TOOL_OF_POSTER then there is something badly broken with the technology in question.
The difference between a monopoly and a market leader is that you can easily ignore the market leader.
You should have recorded that conversation and had it played to the jury.
In East Texas there might have even been a lynch mob afterwards.
"paid by" versus "employed by" is a pretty irrelevant semantic distinction in this case.
By your definition an engineer at a factory is a parasitic function.
> This is an oft-repeated mantra, but I'm curious: what are some real-life examples of this being the case?
Remember that oil rig that exploded in the Gulf of Mexico?
Why should it take a whole week to replace something? You should be able to walk into an Apple store and have it done pretty much instantaneously.
I had a Mini that needed a brain transplant. An exchange would have be simpler since they ended up reformatting it anyways. That would have saved me the week or so being without a machine.
You've got it backwards.
It's the shills and apologists that breed haters.
If there were less mindless hype surrounding Apple, there would simply be less of a story here. Although if Apple just lived up to their supposed reputation there wouldn't have been any story at all.