I'm glad they've backed down from their earlier "FLOSS everywhere" policy because it was simply impractical while also being completely unfair to NFCSS (non-free closed source software) companies. I think our local government (Australian Capital Territory) had a far more intelligent policy; you should consider open source software but still pick the best (read: most economical) tool for the job. It seems Massachusetts has now chosen a similarly balanced policy and that makes me happy.
Another motivation is practicality. I know of and sometimes work in certain areas where moving to FLOSS would be a significant step backwards. I am not talking about office automation, but areas like scientific software and certain limit cases (eg, terabyte databases). These are niches where the NFCSS companies have had several decades head start. It will take a very long time for FLOSS to catchup to NFCSS in those niche fields, if that's even possible.
BTW: my real motivation for supporting "choice" over "mandate" is partly fairness, partly common sense, but also partly smugness. I have no doubt that FLOSS software will win on its own merits, given enough time. I definitely don't want FLOSS to be govt-mandated now and 10 years later have a bunch of disgruntled ex-Microsofties bitch about how "FLOSS would never have won if the govt didn't make it compulsory".
l_r_sensitive's point was that your original post seemed to imply that your interpretation of fair use rights had no limit. Which is also the way I read it.
Yeah, two other people said the same thing, so I went back and read it and I have to agree it was very poorly worded. I would have thought the same thing if I hadn't written it myself. My intention wasn't to say the rights were limitless, but that certain copying rights are granted because they're necessary for fair use.
I differ with you on one major point... in the phrase "fair use", "fair" is not synonymous with "unobstructed" as you state.
Yes, it seems that I did a really bad job of explaining myself. The anon coward before you did a better job of saying what I meant to say, even if I personally didn't come close.
I think my second attempt (in response to ir_sensitive) is a little better.
CD-based DRM, particularly the kind which prevents me from playing originals in my Pathfinder's CD player, is utterly retarded and I am sure that the free market economy will eventually kill it.
Bear in mind that nothing about copyright is truly a free market, because the existence of copyright is dependent on government intervention. A truly free market for information would permit unfettered copying by any party. Though I don't advocate a truly free market because I think it would discourage authors and artists from publishing their work in the first place.
Fair use rights means the right to use your legally purchased goods however you see fit
Wrong. In this (US) context, "fair use" refers to a set of allowed exceptions to copyright law.
No, I'm not wrong, I'm just not very good at expressing myself. Though I thought it was pretty clear from the rest of my post that I was talking about making copies for the purposes of backups, time-shifting, space-shifting, etc. My examples were all different situations where you're allowed to make copies. The way you have quoted me makes it seem like I'm advocating actions other than copying for personal use. eg, copying for resale or copying for public display. That's not what I was trying to say.
That sentence of mine is admittedly slack in that it's misleading in isolation. Chalk that up to my inability to write clearly. But read the same sentence in the context of the entire post and I don't see how you could think I was talking about anything else.
Fair use has nothing to do with your use of your original copy, but rather the circumstances under which you are allowed to make a copy without license from the copyright owner.
Ok, that's very literal, so I'm guessing you work with computers all day just like I do:-) But ask yourself, if those rights really have nothing to do with "use", then why is the phrase "Fair Use" as opposed to "Fair Copying" or "Fair Exemptions". I think it's because these limited exceptions to copyright are considered necessary to use the information.
If you buy scissors you don't have the right to remove my eyes with them. Just buying an item is not carte blanche. (allthough perhaps you would like to...)
So you're accusing me of being a psychopath.
Wow. I'm impressed.
Reasonable use rights cease to be a right when they infringe on others rights.
Sure, and making an MP3 for personal use does not infringe on another person's rights. I'm not stabbing them in the eye with an MP3.
Which is exactly what happens when you unlawfully copy and distribute copyrighted materials. Your reasonable use right is being used an excuse to trample the rights of the copyright holder to their creations.
For the second time, fair use rights does not mean unlawful copying. Copyright does deliver certain limited copying rights to the end-user. For example, with software you are permitted a backup copy. With television broadcasts you are allowed to make a copy to VHS for the purposes of time-shifting. Educators can make restricted and size-limited copies for the purposes of education. All of this can be done without first asking the copyright holder.
You need to let go of this incorrect idea that copyright means "no copying". Your fair use rights means certain copying is permitted, even if you are not the copyright holder.
Put it another way, your defintion of reasonable use means that if I paid for a GPL program means I can do whatever I want with it, include modify and sell it again without abiding by the restrictions of the GPL on such activity.
#1: I didn't provide a definition of reasonable use. I didn't even use the word "reasonable".
#2: I fail to see the similarity between making copies of legally purchased music for personal use - as permitted by law - and your ludicrous strawman example of disobeying a software license.
Both are property, you can't support a devlopers rights to his property while obviating the rights of labels, composers and lyricists to theirs.
And for the third time, fair use has nothing to do with obviating the rights of anybody else.
Secondly, what is this fair use rights? I strongly suspect in the end it boils down to your assertion that you should get something for nothing. That is an incorrect assertion.
That's right, you've made an incorrect assertion.
If you are talking about the try then buy "right"
And another one.
Fair use rights means the right to use your legally purchased goods however you see fit. That's why it's called fair (as in unobstructed) use (as in application).
If I buy a pair of scissors then I have the fair use rights to use those scissors to cut paper, or cloth, or as a substitute screwdriver. They're my scissors. How I use those scissors is nobody's business but my own.
When I buy a CD I also have these fair use rights. I can listen to the music in my car. Or my house. Or on a portable player. I can use it as background music while I wash the dishes, or play it loud and throw my arms around like a pretend conductor. I can use that CD as I see fit.
And this includes using the music on that CD in ways that the seller did not intend. That includes using it on a portable MP3 player, or in a compilation disc for my car. My fair use rights gives me that permission.
DRM takes away my fair use rights because it unfairly stops me using the music in perfectly legitimate ways. DRM is an obstruction to my usage of the CD and the music. That's why it's not fair.
So when you equate "fair use" with piracy and illegal copying, you are incorrect. Fair use has nothing to do with piracy. It has everything to do with fair use of the goods you have already paid for.
With Linux, you have an active common component: the kernel. This is the common denominator across Linux distributions. The distribution will take a certain version (more or less current) of the kernel, maybe tweak it a bit, surround it with userland tools of their choice, and now you have a complete OS distribution. Meanwhile, the common component (the kernel) continues separate development by Linus and crew. A new kernel is released, and later on you see updated versions of the distributions all based upon this new common code. And so on.
The relationship between the *BSDs however is purely historical. There is no ongoing common BSD kernel that is developed separate from each project which is then shared by all. As a result, you don't tend to here a *BSD user say they run "BSD" like a RH/Debian/Gentoo/SuSE user might say they run "Linux". Instead, they name the specific BSD they use. I don't run BSD, I run FreeBSD. Saying you run "BSD" is pretty meaningless. However, saying you run "Linux" defines you better as a Gentoo/whatever user as you share an ongoing common relationship with all other Linux distributions.
OK, so your distinction is that the *BSDs have different kernels but the Linux distributions use the same kernel.
So what about RTLinux and uLinux? They're very different from the mainstream kernel and there are distributions built around at least uLinux.
Also what about the distribution specific kernels; eg, Red Hat kernels and Debian kernels carry different patchsets and different feature sets. It's not possible to drop a Red Hat kernel into a Debian system; it simply won't boot.
How would you interpret Debian/BSD? Yes, there is a version of Debian using a NetBSD kernel but standard Debian userspace. I know that's Debian but is it also NetBSD? Or just *BSD?
Also I'm still having difficulty seeing why you're placing so much emphasis on the kernel. I know that the *BSDs use common userspace packages. The userspace makes more of an impact on the "look and feel" of a system than the kernel. So why does the kernel get special treatment in deciding when a system is "unique" vs "one of many"?
I would say that FreeBSD and Gentoo share more in common than Gentoo and Red Hat. I would guess you'd disagree because they use different kernels. But I see that they share the same philosophy of "ports" and similar toolchains like GCC and EMACS. Both kernels are mostly POSIX. They use different libc but the API is similar. The same applications run on both platforms.
If I took Fedora 1 and switched out the Linux kernel, switching in the FreeBSD kernel, doing the appropriate hacks to the libc along the way, have I got FreeBSD? I'd guess you say no because there is more to FreeBSD than just the kernel. But that was my original point: FreeBSD is the whole package, just like Fedora 1 is the whole package. So comparing FreeBSD to Linux is unfair. It's like comparing Fedora 1 to the UNIX family.
Indemnification: We take full responsibility. Any legal action will come completely though us, no matter the cost.
Novell has just announced indemnification to an upper limit of 1.25x the purchase price. I think indemnification has another meaning than "full responsibility, no matter the cost".
System V from the BSD OSes is public domain. That has been decided by a court of law.
No, it has not been decided. The judge said it was likely to be in the public domain but AT&T settled out of court rather than push the issue. The judge never made an actual decision or declaration.
Though SCO would be wise to not bring this up. The judge's comments were fairly damning. If push came to shove it seems like it'd be fairly easy to prove that AT&T put the code into the public domain years ago.
So, extended warranties (the more extended the better) are WORTH every penny on laptops. You hope and pray you never need it, but when you do need it, and you don't have it, yer fucked big time.
No, they're not.
Think of it this way. The vendor isn't going to offer the extended warranty at a loss. They're making a tidy profit on those extended warranties. If you bought enough laptops that you get the average number of failures, then you're going to be worse off for buying the extended warranties.
That's not to say they might not be beneficial if you're one of the unlucky people who has more failures than the average, or if you don't buy enough laptops to see an average in the first place, but it's not the case that the warranties are worth it. They're entirely in the vendor's favour.
Free/Open/NetBSD are certainly not "distributions of BSD". It is true that the Free-, Net- and OpenBSD kernels have much in common, but that is only because they inherit from a common code base. It's not like my linux distro is based on 2.4.x and mine on 2.6.x.
The Linux distros also inherit from a common code base. The Linux distros also have much in common. The *BSDs also bundle upstream packages just like the Linux distributions. The Linux distros also have differentiation in their user and kernel space just like the *BSDs. There's more than one Linux distro and there's more than one *BSD.
What exactly do you think the difference is? I'm not being facetious. I'm honestly curious as to this difference that you can apparently see but I cannot.
Now Ive got my new computer with SuSE 9.0 (1666Mhz with 768 Mb RAM), I won't ever want to go back to Windows if they paid me. Still I know two freinds still on Windows 9x, both with older machines, (233mhz with 32Mb RAM and 800mhz with 64Mb ram) Should I convince them to switch or convince them to get a new computer?
With only 32MB and 64MB RAM they haven't got a hope of running KDE. Leave them with Windows 9x; it's the best option for those computers.
I'm no BSD expert, but I believed that the *BSD systems came with their own packaging system, namely the 'ports' system. But therein lies the question: if Mac OS X is derived from a FreeBSD kernel,
MacOS X is not derived from the FreeBSD kernel. The kernel in MacOS X is the Mach microkernel. FreeBSD is one of the 5 personalities that MacOS X offers for applications. Many applications on MacOS X use the Cocoa personality rather than the FreeBSD personality.
I look forward to the responses of the BSD community. Mac OS X, powered by FreeBSD, is a really rockin' platform!!
This myth needs to die. Please stop spreading it around.
3) Consolidation. There is only one "FreeBSD". If I have 5.2 and you have 5.2, we have the same OS. There is no one "Linux". In reality, Linux is a kernel, and when you add a userland then you have a distribution. FreeBSD is kernel + userland.
That really is a non-argument. Rephrase it like this to see why it makes no sense:
There is only one "Debian". If I have 3.0 and you have 3.0, we have the same OS. There is no one "BSD". In reality, BSD is a shared base, and when you add a userland then you have a distribution. FreeBSD is shared base + userland.
Summary: you were comparing FreeBSD - a single distribution of BSD - with Linux. You should have compared *BSD with Linux or FreeBSD with a single Linux distribution.
4) File organization. Linux seems to lay out its file hierarchy somewhat randomly, with no consistancy of where an installed executable binary might be placed or separation of base/user.
I disagree. All the major Linux distributions follow the FHS. It is not "random". It is just different to what you prefer.
9) Driver stability. Linux may have the drivers first, but when the FreeBSD drivers come out you know they've had a lot of work and review put into them.
Shrug. I find it's about the same. There are good and bad drivers on both sides.
5) Community. I find the FreeBSD community to be less fanatical and instead more disciplined and polite.
Cough. If you can look past all the BSD snobs who turn their nose up at the "Linux proles".
IMO, they're both good. I really don't see the need for this "my grass is greener" crap. It's all better than proprietary.
I don't intend to troll, but really, *who cares*? What's the big issue here? Mindshare? Proper credit? Counting ego coup?
Maybe all of those things, but I would add... growth. If the MPlayer dudes didn't care about getting contributions back they'd have chosen the BSD license. That they chose the GPL shows that they want MPlayer to grow through its user base. KISS is taking without giving back and that does not help MPlayer to grow.
Is this a zealotry issue... trying to uphold the RMS/FSF flag for its own sake?... Crap. It sounds like I turned into a flamebait at the end here.
But, yeah, it's a *much* better product now that it runs on Linux... Whatever.
Well, as a person who had a licensed version of StarOffice back before Sun got involved, I have to say that OpenOffice.org is a significantly better product than those old versions of StarOffice. I don't think that has anything to do with Linux, and arguably nothing to do with open-source, but it is "a *much* better product now".
I would kill for a platform that had a UI as powerful as the Workplace Shell. Object oriented since 1992. I hear BeOS is very similar, but I'm tired of being stuck with dead operating systems!:)
I used Warp for quite some time and though it was good (especially for the time) I think you're remembering it with rosy coloured glasses. Much like I used to have fonder memories of MacOS7 and Amiga Workbench than was truly justified. Fire up a copy of OS/2 in Bochs and reevaluate it. I think you'll be disappointed.
Linux isn't an issue for secrataries. Applications are an issue for secretaries. Do you think a secretary CARES what operating system s/he is using. If anything, they probably would prefer Macs because they could they look prettier.
Sure, but in this context people are saying "Linux" to mean "the entire package, including the applications, that are available on the operating system incorporating the Linux kernel". They're not saying "Linux" to mean "the kernel" or even to mean "the operating system".
I can agree with you that the terminology has been bastardised - RMS has been harping on about this problem for years - but "Linux" these days means "the entire software stack, including the free and non-free applications". You need to be less literal. This is an informal blog; not a collection of carefully constructed essays.
I have some ideas after using several inadequate electronics benches. Some of these ideas I've put into practise but some are still on my wishlist.
Make sure the bench is not too deep. Deep benches accumulate more clutter and it's too difficult to reach the back to retrieve things. Sit down and reach across a table; the depth you can reach to is how deep the bench should be.
A bench is most useful when you can use it sitting down or standing up. So make the bench high and get a stool, rather than making it the height of a desk and using a desk chair.
Powerpoints! Lots of powerpoints, each with their own indicator light and switch. These need to be off the bench and within arms reach.
A grip (ie, a vice) on a movable arm. This can be mounted to the side of the bench, just so long as the arm reaches to where you work.
A shelf about 1 foot above the bench to hold all your test equipment, power supplies, etc. It must be within arm's reach so not too deep and not too high.
A flouro just below the shelf to illuminate the whole bench. Make it bright. Put a thin strip of wood in front (attached to the shelf) so the flouro doesn't shine in your eyes.
A second much brighter lamp on a movable arm (eg, halogen). Attach it to the shelf to keep the bench space clear.
A vertical rod coming out of the bench, off to one side, to hold spools of your most commonly used wires, solder, etc. About a foot long is all you need.
Attach a raised lip (about 1cm high) around the entire bench. There's nothing worse than crawling around the floor trying to find tiny pieces that rolled off the bench.
A kickback across the back of the bench. Same idea as the lip but go all the way up to the shelf. It stops tools falling behind the bench.
A sliding drawer under the bench, off to the side, with compartments to store all your most commonly used tools (eg, side cutters, needle noses). Btw, don't go overboard with things under the bench (eg, drawers, cupboards, etc) because they just get in the way of your legs.
But the truth is, people don't want to choose, they want you to choose for them.
I partially agree. For desktops, some people do want to have many options to choose from and other people want to have the choice made for them. But even when that choice is made for them, almost everybody wants some level of control over certain aspects of the desktop (eg, the backgrounds, the colours).
I agree with you that there are many desktops in Linux, but only KDE and GNOME seem to have any significant mindshare. I see it as very similar to the early days of GUIs on MS-DOS. We had options that included GEM, GeOS, Desqview and Windows (of course). It was a mess. Eventually the market made a decision and Windows now dominates.
But even when Windows became hugely successful (with version 3.0) there were multiple competing widget sets. I don't know what your experience is like, but I still recall the big battle between Borland and Microsoft. Some applications used the (IMO ugly) Borland widget set with the Big Green Tick for the OK button and the nasty 3D border effects. Other applications used the Microsoft widgets. Over time, Borland lost marketshare, and Microsoft improved at a faster rate than Borland, and now we have "consistency" on Windows. Though I think if you look hard enough you can still find some applications aren't consistent (eg, recently I installed an ASUS motherboard and the AsusProbe software looks nothing like the rest of Windows).
I see something similar eventually happening in the KDE/GNOME war. Right now we have two strong desktops and that causes confusion to some users (admittedly the users who can least deal with the confusion). I expect over the next five years we'll see more "integration stories" like this. Eventually the superficial differences will disappear - the user experience will at last be consistent - and all that will be left will be the programming models. That's no different to any of the existing platforms; they all offer multiple programming models that have superficially similar appearance. We're already seeing improved levels of integration in drag and drop, Desktop folders, metadata formats, etc. This story now says we're soon going to see improvements in integration in widgets, themes, event loops, etc. It's all slowly getting better.
Ok, I've rambled. My point is that Linux on the desktop is immature. What we're seeing now has been replayed on every other platform as it "grew up". Eventually the inconsistency is all settled from the users point of view, though I don't think it's ever consistent from the programmer's point of view. These "integration stories" are (IMO) normal and expected. It might be confusing now but it is going to get better if history repeats (and I think it will).
3 response and you still haven't come back to the discussion we're having.
As I've said before, there was no discussion. You accused me of insulting your profession. I wasn't. You accused me of trying to take Adobe's freedoms away. I wasn't. Debates don't usually involve people getting on soapboxes and claiming personal injury and making false accusations.
This isn't a debate. This is you insulting me. I'm not going to be drawn. The only statement I'm making and willing to discuss is that Photoshop isn't free. Disagree all you want. That's really not something worth debating, in my opinion.
Interestingly, you're doing exactly what you're accusing me of.
Those in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. You haven't been exactly restrained with the insults either. I think you should step back and take a good hard look at yourself. I've stepped back and reread the thread. There is no debate here. There are two idiots (now three) saying very stupid things. Leave it alone. You are no less guilty than I am, despite what you may think now.
There was no debate about Photoshop and freedom. Photoshop isn't free. That can't be debated because it's a fact.
You might think I'm "immature" but if you read the thread you can see that the first person to sling mud was Nanogator, not me.
Now you have joined Nanogator in the mud-slinging. But I have a firm opinion of both of you (especially from reading your other posts) and I really don't care what you think of me.
My opinion of this "debate" was that I stated a fact, Nanogator disagreed but chose to insult me first, then he got indignant over a perceived (but never intended) slight, and this "debate" has since degraded into "he said" "she said" nonsense on both sides. Now we've got a cheerleader (you) who would rather jeer and sneer than contribute in any meaningful way.
I know a lost cause when I see it. You go ahead and think what you want. I really don't care. You don't affect me one way or the other.
Actually I wasn't whining or complaining, I was answering your question. You blew your own credibility before you even made your point heh.
It sounded like you were whining to me. "Demeaning your point" and "disrespecting your profession". That sounds like "whine whine" and "wah wah cry sob" to me.
Blew my own credibility? So apparently using the word "nifty" was the lynch pin, eh? Can't use the word "nifty" or NanoGator wins the argument. Got it. Now we're learning "debating style", are we? Or at least, Nanogator's bizarro version of debating.
You whined that I used the words "nifty", "crying" and "spuds". I'm not sure exactly why those words started you whining - they're not exactly that harsh - but you have no right to assume the high moral ground. You had previously accused me of being "ill-thought", "extreme", "inconsiderate" "over-simplified", "biased", "disrespectful", "demeaning"... the list goes on and on. Yet when you claim that I'm attempting to take away Adobe's freedom, and I say "bullshit" because that's a perfect description for what's coming out of your typing fingers, you get all defensive and indignant.
Silly boy.
So are ya reply with a rebuttal or are you going to sit there and continue to sulk because I pointed out your folly?
There is nothing to rebut. Your last comment that wasn't an insult said that I've "lost" the "debate" because I used the word "nifty". That's not a debate. It's wishful thinking.
Well, I pay my bill monthly. If I don't like my ISP I have to give them a month's notice to quit. Likewise they have a similar termination right. A lot of the time, arguing about contract terms is pointless. They can decline to renew without giving a reason, the same as I can. I've hit caps a couple of times, and my ISP hasn't suggested they would terminate within a payment period.
Sure, but the point was that the previous poster was claiming companies had this god-given right to refuse service. They don't. They have to obey the law, just like everybody else.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm glad they've backed down from their earlier "FLOSS everywhere" policy because it was simply impractical while also being completely unfair to NFCSS (non-free closed source software) companies. I think our local government (Australian Capital Territory) had a far more intelligent policy; you should consider open source software but still pick the best (read: most economical) tool for the job. It seems Massachusetts has now chosen a similarly balanced policy and that makes me happy.
Another motivation is practicality. I know of and sometimes work in certain areas where moving to FLOSS would be a significant step backwards. I am not talking about office automation, but areas like scientific software and certain limit cases (eg, terabyte databases). These are niches where the NFCSS companies have had several decades head start. It will take a very long time for FLOSS to catchup to NFCSS in those niche fields, if that's even possible.
BTW: my real motivation for supporting "choice" over "mandate" is partly fairness, partly common sense, but also partly smugness. I have no doubt that FLOSS software will win on its own merits, given enough time. I definitely don't want FLOSS to be govt-mandated now and 10 years later have a bunch of disgruntled ex-Microsofties bitch about how "FLOSS would never have won if the govt didn't make it compulsory".
Terry Pratchett's originality. They're both names of characters from his Discworld books.
Yeah, two other people said the same thing, so I went back and read it and I have to agree it was very poorly worded. I would have thought the same thing if I hadn't written it myself. My intention wasn't to say the rights were limitless, but that certain copying rights are granted because they're necessary for fair use.
Yes, it seems that I did a really bad job of explaining myself. The anon coward before you did a better job of saying what I meant to say, even if I personally didn't come close.
I think my second attempt (in response to ir_sensitive) is a little better.
Bear in mind that nothing about copyright is truly a free market, because the existence of copyright is dependent on government intervention. A truly free market for information would permit unfettered copying by any party. Though I don't advocate a truly free market because I think it would discourage authors and artists from publishing their work in the first place.
No, I'm not wrong, I'm just not very good at expressing myself. Though I thought it was pretty clear from the rest of my post that I was talking about making copies for the purposes of backups, time-shifting, space-shifting, etc. My examples were all different situations where you're allowed to make copies. The way you have quoted me makes it seem like I'm advocating actions other than copying for personal use. eg, copying for resale or copying for public display. That's not what I was trying to say.
That sentence of mine is admittedly slack in that it's misleading in isolation. Chalk that up to my inability to write clearly. But read the same sentence in the context of the entire post and I don't see how you could think I was talking about anything else.
Ok, that's very literal, so I'm guessing you work with computers all day just like I do :-) But ask yourself, if those rights really have nothing to do with "use", then why is the phrase "Fair Use" as opposed to "Fair Copying" or "Fair Exemptions". I think it's because these limited exceptions to copyright are considered necessary to use the information.
So you're accusing me of being a psychopath.
Wow. I'm impressed.
Sure, and making an MP3 for personal use does not infringe on another person's rights. I'm not stabbing them in the eye with an MP3.
For the second time, fair use rights does not mean unlawful copying. Copyright does deliver certain limited copying rights to the end-user. For example, with software you are permitted a backup copy. With television broadcasts you are allowed to make a copy to VHS for the purposes of time-shifting. Educators can make restricted and size-limited copies for the purposes of education. All of this can be done without first asking the copyright holder.
You need to let go of this incorrect idea that copyright means "no copying". Your fair use rights means certain copying is permitted, even if you are not the copyright holder.
#1: I didn't provide a definition of reasonable use. I didn't even use the word "reasonable".
#2: I fail to see the similarity between making copies of legally purchased music for personal use - as permitted by law - and your ludicrous strawman example of disobeying a software license.
And for the third time, fair use has nothing to do with obviating the rights of anybody else.
That's right, you've made an incorrect assertion.
And another one.
Fair use rights means the right to use your legally purchased goods however you see fit. That's why it's called fair (as in unobstructed) use (as in application).
If I buy a pair of scissors then I have the fair use rights to use those scissors to cut paper, or cloth, or as a substitute screwdriver. They're my scissors. How I use those scissors is nobody's business but my own.
When I buy a CD I also have these fair use rights. I can listen to the music in my car. Or my house. Or on a portable player. I can use it as background music while I wash the dishes, or play it loud and throw my arms around like a pretend conductor. I can use that CD as I see fit.
And this includes using the music on that CD in ways that the seller did not intend. That includes using it on a portable MP3 player, or in a compilation disc for my car. My fair use rights gives me that permission.
DRM takes away my fair use rights because it unfairly stops me using the music in perfectly legitimate ways. DRM is an obstruction to my usage of the CD and the music. That's why it's not fair.
So when you equate "fair use" with piracy and illegal copying, you are incorrect. Fair use has nothing to do with piracy. It has everything to do with fair use of the goods you have already paid for.
OK, so your distinction is that the *BSDs have different kernels but the Linux distributions use the same kernel.
So what about RTLinux and uLinux? They're very different from the mainstream kernel and there are distributions built around at least uLinux.
Also what about the distribution specific kernels; eg, Red Hat kernels and Debian kernels carry different patchsets and different feature sets. It's not possible to drop a Red Hat kernel into a Debian system; it simply won't boot.
How would you interpret Debian/BSD? Yes, there is a version of Debian using a NetBSD kernel but standard Debian userspace. I know that's Debian but is it also NetBSD? Or just *BSD?
Also I'm still having difficulty seeing why you're placing so much emphasis on the kernel. I know that the *BSDs use common userspace packages. The userspace makes more of an impact on the "look and feel" of a system than the kernel. So why does the kernel get special treatment in deciding when a system is "unique" vs "one of many"?
I would say that FreeBSD and Gentoo share more in common than Gentoo and Red Hat. I would guess you'd disagree because they use different kernels. But I see that they share the same philosophy of "ports" and similar toolchains like GCC and EMACS. Both kernels are mostly POSIX. They use different libc but the API is similar. The same applications run on both platforms.
If I took Fedora 1 and switched out the Linux kernel, switching in the FreeBSD kernel, doing the appropriate hacks to the libc along the way, have I got FreeBSD? I'd guess you say no because there is more to FreeBSD than just the kernel. But that was my original point: FreeBSD is the whole package, just like Fedora 1 is the whole package. So comparing FreeBSD to Linux is unfair. It's like comparing Fedora 1 to the UNIX family.
I'm interested in your thoughts on this.
Novell has just announced indemnification to an upper limit of 1.25x the purchase price. I think indemnification has another meaning than "full responsibility, no matter the cost".
No, it has not been decided. The judge said it was likely to be in the public domain but AT&T settled out of court rather than push the issue. The judge never made an actual decision or declaration.
Though SCO would be wise to not bring this up. The judge's comments were fairly damning. If push came to shove it seems like it'd be fairly easy to prove that AT&T put the code into the public domain years ago.
No, they're not.
Think of it this way. The vendor isn't going to offer the extended warranty at a loss. They're making a tidy profit on those extended warranties. If you bought enough laptops that you get the average number of failures, then you're going to be worse off for buying the extended warranties.
That's not to say they might not be beneficial if you're one of the unlucky people who has more failures than the average, or if you don't buy enough laptops to see an average in the first place, but it's not the case that the warranties are worth it. They're entirely in the vendor's favour.
The Linux distros also inherit from a common code base. The Linux distros also have much in common. The *BSDs also bundle upstream packages just like the Linux distributions. The Linux distros also have differentiation in their user and kernel space just like the *BSDs. There's more than one Linux distro and there's more than one *BSD.
What exactly do you think the difference is? I'm not being facetious. I'm honestly curious as to this difference that you can apparently see but I cannot.
With only 32MB and 64MB RAM they haven't got a hope of running KDE. Leave them with Windows 9x; it's the best option for those computers.
MacOS X is not derived from the FreeBSD kernel. The kernel in MacOS X is the Mach microkernel. FreeBSD is one of the 5 personalities that MacOS X offers for applications. Many applications on MacOS X use the Cocoa personality rather than the FreeBSD personality.
This myth needs to die. Please stop spreading it around.
That really is a non-argument. Rephrase it like this to see why it makes no sense:
Summary: you were comparing FreeBSD - a single distribution of BSD - with Linux. You should have compared *BSD with Linux or FreeBSD with a single Linux distribution.
I disagree. All the major Linux distributions follow the FHS. It is not "random". It is just different to what you prefer.
Shrug. I find it's about the same. There are good and bad drivers on both sides.
Cough. If you can look past all the BSD snobs who turn their nose up at the "Linux proles".
IMO, they're both good. I really don't see the need for this "my grass is greener" crap. It's all better than proprietary.
Maybe all of those things, but I would add... growth. If the MPlayer dudes didn't care about getting contributions back they'd have chosen the BSD license. That they chose the GPL shows that they want MPlayer to grow through its user base. KISS is taking without giving back and that does not help MPlayer to grow.
Yes, you did.
Well, as a person who had a licensed version of StarOffice back before Sun got involved, I have to say that OpenOffice.org is a significantly better product than those old versions of StarOffice. I don't think that has anything to do with Linux, and arguably nothing to do with open-source, but it is "a *much* better product now".
I used Warp for quite some time and though it was good (especially for the time) I think you're remembering it with rosy coloured glasses. Much like I used to have fonder memories of MacOS7 and Amiga Workbench than was truly justified. Fire up a copy of OS/2 in Bochs and reevaluate it. I think you'll be disappointed.
Sure, but in this context people are saying "Linux" to mean "the entire package, including the applications, that are available on the operating system incorporating the Linux kernel". They're not saying "Linux" to mean "the kernel" or even to mean "the operating system".
I can agree with you that the terminology has been bastardised - RMS has been harping on about this problem for years - but "Linux" these days means "the entire software stack, including the free and non-free applications". You need to be less literal. This is an informal blog; not a collection of carefully constructed essays.
I have some ideas after using several inadequate electronics benches. Some of these ideas I've put into practise but some are still on my wishlist.
Make sure the bench is not too deep. Deep benches accumulate more clutter and it's too difficult to reach the back to retrieve things. Sit down and reach across a table; the depth you can reach to is how deep the bench should be.
A bench is most useful when you can use it sitting down or standing up. So make the bench high and get a stool, rather than making it the height of a desk and using a desk chair.
Powerpoints! Lots of powerpoints, each with their own indicator light and switch. These need to be off the bench and within arms reach.
A grip (ie, a vice) on a movable arm. This can be mounted to the side of the bench, just so long as the arm reaches to where you work.
A shelf about 1 foot above the bench to hold all your test equipment, power supplies, etc. It must be within arm's reach so not too deep and not too high.
A flouro just below the shelf to illuminate the whole bench. Make it bright. Put a thin strip of wood in front (attached to the shelf) so the flouro doesn't shine in your eyes.
A second much brighter lamp on a movable arm (eg, halogen). Attach it to the shelf to keep the bench space clear.
A vertical rod coming out of the bench, off to one side, to hold spools of your most commonly used wires, solder, etc. About a foot long is all you need.
Attach a raised lip (about 1cm high) around the entire bench. There's nothing worse than crawling around the floor trying to find tiny pieces that rolled off the bench.
A kickback across the back of the bench. Same idea as the lip but go all the way up to the shelf. It stops tools falling behind the bench.
A sliding drawer under the bench, off to the side, with compartments to store all your most commonly used tools (eg, side cutters, needle noses). Btw, don't go overboard with things under the bench (eg, drawers, cupboards, etc) because they just get in the way of your legs.
I hope some of this has been helpful.
I partially agree. For desktops, some people do want to have many options to choose from and other people want to have the choice made for them. But even when that choice is made for them, almost everybody wants some level of control over certain aspects of the desktop (eg, the backgrounds, the colours).
I agree with you that there are many desktops in Linux, but only KDE and GNOME seem to have any significant mindshare. I see it as very similar to the early days of GUIs on MS-DOS. We had options that included GEM, GeOS, Desqview and Windows (of course). It was a mess. Eventually the market made a decision and Windows now dominates.
But even when Windows became hugely successful (with version 3.0) there were multiple competing widget sets. I don't know what your experience is like, but I still recall the big battle between Borland and Microsoft. Some applications used the (IMO ugly) Borland widget set with the Big Green Tick for the OK button and the nasty 3D border effects. Other applications used the Microsoft widgets. Over time, Borland lost marketshare, and Microsoft improved at a faster rate than Borland, and now we have "consistency" on Windows. Though I think if you look hard enough you can still find some applications aren't consistent (eg, recently I installed an ASUS motherboard and the AsusProbe software looks nothing like the rest of Windows).
I see something similar eventually happening in the KDE/GNOME war. Right now we have two strong desktops and that causes confusion to some users (admittedly the users who can least deal with the confusion). I expect over the next five years we'll see more "integration stories" like this. Eventually the superficial differences will disappear - the user experience will at last be consistent - and all that will be left will be the programming models. That's no different to any of the existing platforms; they all offer multiple programming models that have superficially similar appearance. We're already seeing improved levels of integration in drag and drop, Desktop folders, metadata formats, etc. This story now says we're soon going to see improvements in integration in widgets, themes, event loops, etc. It's all slowly getting better.
Ok, I've rambled. My point is that Linux on the desktop is immature. What we're seeing now has been replayed on every other platform as it "grew up". Eventually the inconsistency is all settled from the users point of view, though I don't think it's ever consistent from the programmer's point of view. These "integration stories" are (IMO) normal and expected. It might be confusing now but it is going to get better if history repeats (and I think it will).
And I give no real attention to people whose first words to me are to call me an "immature" "ass".
Your opinion is worthless to me. I have no intention of correcting your false views of me.
As I've said before, there was no discussion. You accused me of insulting your profession. I wasn't. You accused me of trying to take Adobe's freedoms away. I wasn't. Debates don't usually involve people getting on soapboxes and claiming personal injury and making false accusations.
This isn't a debate. This is you insulting me. I'm not going to be drawn. The only statement I'm making and willing to discuss is that Photoshop isn't free. Disagree all you want. That's really not something worth debating, in my opinion.
Those in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. You haven't been exactly restrained with the insults either. I think you should step back and take a good hard look at yourself. I've stepped back and reread the thread. There is no debate here. There are two idiots (now three) saying very stupid things. Leave it alone. You are no less guilty than I am, despite what you may think now.
There was no debate about Photoshop and freedom. Photoshop isn't free. That can't be debated because it's a fact.
You might think I'm "immature" but if you read the thread you can see that the first person to sling mud was Nanogator, not me.
Now you have joined Nanogator in the mud-slinging. But I have a firm opinion of both of you (especially from reading your other posts) and I really don't care what you think of me.
My opinion of this "debate" was that I stated a fact, Nanogator disagreed but chose to insult me first, then he got indignant over a perceived (but never intended) slight, and this "debate" has since degraded into "he said" "she said" nonsense on both sides. Now we've got a cheerleader (you) who would rather jeer and sneer than contribute in any meaningful way.
I know a lost cause when I see it. You go ahead and think what you want. I really don't care. You don't affect me one way or the other.
It sounded like you were whining to me. "Demeaning your point" and "disrespecting your profession". That sounds like "whine whine" and "wah wah cry sob" to me.
Blew my own credibility? So apparently using the word "nifty" was the lynch pin, eh? Can't use the word "nifty" or NanoGator wins the argument. Got it. Now we're learning "debating style", are we? Or at least, Nanogator's bizarro version of debating.
You whined that I used the words "nifty", "crying" and "spuds". I'm not sure exactly why those words started you whining - they're not exactly that harsh - but you have no right to assume the high moral ground. You had previously accused me of being "ill-thought", "extreme", "inconsiderate" "over-simplified", "biased", "disrespectful", "demeaning"... the list goes on and on. Yet when you claim that I'm attempting to take away Adobe's freedom, and I say "bullshit" because that's a perfect description for what's coming out of your typing fingers, you get all defensive and indignant.
Silly boy.
There is nothing to rebut. Your last comment that wasn't an insult said that I've "lost" the "debate" because I used the word "nifty". That's not a debate. It's wishful thinking.
Sure, but the point was that the previous poster was claiming companies had this god-given right to refuse service. They don't. They have to obey the law, just like everybody else.