Re:Only True Within the Developer Community
on
Novell Buys Ximian
·
· Score: 1
The first option will be ruled out by the first manager who says: "You know, if we'd bought Windows, we wouldn't be in this spot right now. Why should we start hiring developers? We're not a software company. This open source stuff is going to cost too much."
If you bought Windows you wouldn't even have this choice. I don't understand why you think having fewer choices is the better position.
The second option will be ruled out by the first manager who says: "We need this code to keep our business running. How can we depend on some anonymous and amorphous bunch of developers to support our requirements? What happens if they walk away from this code? Face it, we either need to spend money to move back to Windows or spend money to pay some people to maintain this code ourselves. Either way, we're spending money we wouldn't be spending if we'd stuck with Microsoft."
And what happens if Microsoft goes bust (and don't say that'll never happen; it has happened to bigger companies than Microsoft). Or Microsoft drops the particular project your business depends upon. Or Microsoft sells the software to another company who changes how it works. Or Microsoft themselves changes how the software works.
Except for the first example, all of these things have already happened with Microsoft products. Buying from Microsoft does not provide any magic guarantees.
Ok, these are, technically, gains in marketshare for AMD and Transmeta, but they're so small that they are statistically insignificant, aren't they?
I don't think marketshare figures are statistics. They are derived from sales figures. Statistics implies a sample; that's where the error comes from. There's no error if you're going off 100% of the data.
Since you sound very knowledgeable about the topic, can you explain exactly how actors, directors, cinematographers, writers, or even key grips get paid when you pirate a movie and don't pay a dime for it?
Sure, but first you explain how everybody gets paid for the 1000s of movies each year I don't watch. Are we obligated to pay money to movies we don't watch, just so everybody gets paid?
Actually I don't think you understand the predictions very well. Nostrodamus was coming from the background not of Islam but in a society very much in the control of christianity, so the statement
I think you missed the point; that verse wasn't written by Nostrodamus. It was written by a student to demonstrate how vague predictions might be interpreted to mean anything.
Yep, it's just like when you buy a used stereo from a guy, and find out later that he stole it from someone else. Since you bought it in good faith, and in legal fashion, you get to keep it! After all, you didn't do anything wrong, why should YOU get screwed?
It's not the same thing, because your example deals with physical property and the article's example is related to intellectual property and contractual agreements.
Boy, this legal stuff is fun -- hit me with another one!
Why bother, when you get even the easy ones wrong. Especially when the article is basically rephrasing what Eben Moglen said; you know, the professor who actually does know "legal stuff".
Moglen points out that copyright law is not relevant to customers "using" Linux. In much the same way that readers can enjoy a book or a newspaper without a copyright license, so can users of software -- unless they have agreed to additional use restrictions in, for example, a shrink-wrapped box of software.
But why do I get the impression that you're going to keep talking anyway.
So how easy is it to get a refund for MacOS, if you want to run Linux on on your Powerbook instead of MacOS?
If MacOS comes with a license agreement that explicitly states that you're entitled to a refund - just like the Windows EULA - then I would expect it to be easy.
This isn't just about bundling. This is about somebody claiming a refund the license offered. His experience proves that the offer of a refund is lip-service; this guy had to go to *court* to get his refund.
And the absence of the "Microsoft Tax" will equate to a whopping $10 in savings.
$10 is $10. I'm glad you can throw money away but many (most?) people think that's pretty stupid.
They can throw XP on there, I don't care. I might or might not use it.
"They can throw Autocad on there. I don't care. I might or might not use it. It's only $10000 extra on the price. Hey, Autodesk has to make money too, right?"
The CEO probably never knew this case ever happened and it may only get told at Christmas parties while everyone sits around and laughs at how this nut crazed Linux guy sued them.
Yeah, they can sit around and laugh at how this nut crazed Linux guy sued them... AND WON.
I reckon the laughter would trail off pretty quickly.
For the love of Mike, most Slashdot readers here are geeks; they build their own machines, not buy machines bundled with Windows.
In the past, I might have agreed with you. But these days manufacturers are far more responsive to building customised machines for you. I prefer they waste their time assembling it rather than waste my time. It's way better than spending an hour or two shopping, another hour or two assembling, and crossing my fingers that there's nothing DOA. I love the convenience of ordering machines decked out with exactly the hardware I chose and picking it up, fully assembled and fully guaranteed, less than 24 hours later. Also if you buy it pre-assembled you pay OEM prices for the hardware instead of RRP. It often works out much cheaper than buying the pieces separately.
The Windows thing doesn't affect me because in Australia (at least) several vendors will knock off the price of the OEM license for Windows. You typically get a machine with Redhat preinstalled. That really rocks.
I'm pretty sure the Slashdot crowd, given 2 hammers that work well, can argue on and on about which one is "better."
You're damn right. I've got 4 hammers and they all have different purposes. My 20lb sledge is good for gardening work. My claw hammer does the job for most woodwork. I also have a wooden mallet and a tiny hammer for cabinet work. For particular tasks, one hammer is better than another. That's not debatable.
Even within the same genre of hammers there are clearly "better" hammers and "worse" hammers. Consider the material for the shaft (wood vs iron vs fibreglass) and the grip (rubber vs cotton vs tape). There are inferior decisions you can make when building a hammer.
You're damn right I can argue on and on about which hammer is "better". Pick up a woodworking magazine and you'll see that amateur carpenters argue over hammers in exactly the same way that Slashdotters argue over technology. Slashdot isn't "special" in this regard. We're all human. Arguing seems to be our second nature.
When you purchase a palm, it comes with software, written to interopolate with your outlook. All your contacts, notes, calendars are synchronized perfectly with outlook just by installing the software, connecting the palm cradle to the PC and putting your palm in the cradle.
And what happens when you don't use Outlook?
Linux on the other hand has about 8 groupware solutions out there, so the first question would be what to pick?
And there's never more than 1 groupware option for Windows.
I don't think you've ever had to support a corporate network in your life. When you get out of school and into the real world, you're going to find that end users and their superiors make most of the software/hardware purchase decisions based on their needs, and not the "bottom line"
When you've supported a corporate network for a little longer than you have, you suddenly realise that the "bottom line" is the *only* thing that management considers. The needs of users rarely enter into the decision process.
Stac was a PATENT INFRINGEMENT case. No code was touched.
Not quite that simple. Stac sued Microsoft for the big three: copyright infringement, patent infringement and trade secret violation. They won the patent infringement (2 cases) and lost the others.
Though Microsoft claims that they didn't copy Stacker code, instead writing it from the ground up, from what I read of the case I'm willing to accept that Microsoft did have access to Stacker code. I also believe Microsoft did copy the code, making only minor changes to (unsuccessfully) avoid patent infringement. There are numerous statements by Microsoft employees in the court transcript that hint at this.
I think you could properly refer to the GPL as a "(re)distribution license", as it dictates how one may distribute the code and any modifications to it.
I like to think of the GPL as a hybrid between a Developer License and an OEM License. As you say, it's not an End-User License. You can use code that has been licensed with the GPL without agreeing to the terms of the GPL.
Even with BSD your code still remains open and in the public domain.
Not in the public domain. BSD code is owned by the copyright holders (typically the authors). The BSD *license* allows additional rights, above and beyond what standard copyright would allow. It is, however, still only a *license*. The BSD license is not a revocation of copyright and it is not a declaration that the code is in the public domain.
Even if some company like Microsoft takes your code and incorporates it into their product, the code you released to the public is still available and people can still benefit from it.
True, unfortunately it permits the worst kind of fork; the closed-source fork. Perfect example; the commercial BSDs vs the free BSDs.
With the pressure on Microsoft, I don't think they would risk getting caught stealing code.
Stac. Timeline. Syn'X.
Microsoft have "stolen" code more than once. But because it's closed source, it is difficult for the victims to discover and prove the infringement.
If such an accusation came up and had even the slightest whiff of legitimacy, I'd expect to see several MS developers fired immediately and MS offering a large settlement deal.
History has shown that Microsoft chooses to fight the accusations in court. Whether the Microsoft developers were fired or not, I don't know.
Slashdot Mirror
If you bought Windows you wouldn't even have this choice. I don't understand why you think having fewer choices is the better position.
And what happens if Microsoft goes bust (and don't say that'll never happen; it has happened to bigger companies than Microsoft). Or Microsoft drops the particular project your business depends upon. Or Microsoft sells the software to another company who changes how it works. Or Microsoft themselves changes how the software works.
Except for the first example, all of these things have already happened with Microsoft products. Buying from Microsoft does not provide any magic guarantees.
I don't think marketshare figures are statistics. They are derived from sales figures. Statistics implies a sample; that's where the error comes from. There's no error if you're going off 100% of the data.
So do perhaps 90% of the people reading Slashdot. IMO it's not much to be proud of.
You're a pompous ass. He probably has better qualifications than you do.
Sure, but first you explain how everybody gets paid for the 1000s of movies each year I don't watch. Are we obligated to pay money to movies we don't watch, just so everybody gets paid?
I think you missed the point; that verse wasn't written by Nostrodamus. It was written by a student to demonstrate how vague predictions might be interpreted to mean anything.
You get 0/10 for using the tired cliche of saying something is "obvious" to lend a veneer of false credibility to your indefensible opinion.
You get negative points for choosing to call me a liar by claiming a misquote! That's your best argument? You're pathetic.
<sarcasm>And so many legal decisions are based on analogies rather than the law</sarcasm>
I merely quoted Eben Moglen. If you're saying he's wrong then that's your call, but I'm betting he knows more about copyright law than you do.
It's not the same thing, because your example deals with physical property and the article's example is related to intellectual property and contractual agreements.
Why bother, when you get even the easy ones wrong. Especially when the article is basically rephrasing what Eben Moglen said; you know, the professor who actually does know "legal stuff".
But why do I get the impression that you're going to keep talking anyway.
You can delete pictures and shoot them again. Can't do that with a film-based camera.
If MacOS comes with a license agreement that explicitly states that you're entitled to a refund - just like the Windows EULA - then I would expect it to be easy.
This isn't just about bundling. This is about somebody claiming a refund the license offered. His experience proves that the offer of a refund is lip-service; this guy had to go to *court* to get his refund.
$10 is $10. I'm glad you can throw money away but many (most?) people think that's pretty stupid.
"They can throw Autocad on there. I don't care. I might or might not use it. It's only $10000 extra on the price. Hey, Autodesk has to make money too, right?"
Yeah, they can sit around and laugh at how this nut crazed Linux guy sued them... AND WON.
I reckon the laughter would trail off pretty quickly.
In the past, I might have agreed with you. But these days manufacturers are far more responsive to building customised machines for you. I prefer they waste their time assembling it rather than waste my time. It's way better than spending an hour or two shopping, another hour or two assembling, and crossing my fingers that there's nothing DOA. I love the convenience of ordering machines decked out with exactly the hardware I chose and picking it up, fully assembled and fully guaranteed, less than 24 hours later. Also if you buy it pre-assembled you pay OEM prices for the hardware instead of RRP. It often works out much cheaper than buying the pieces separately.
The Windows thing doesn't affect me because in Australia (at least) several vendors will knock off the price of the OEM license for Windows. You typically get a machine with Redhat preinstalled. That really rocks.
You're damn right. I've got 4 hammers and they all have different purposes. My 20lb sledge is good for gardening work. My claw hammer does the job for most woodwork. I also have a wooden mallet and a tiny hammer for cabinet work. For particular tasks, one hammer is better than another. That's not debatable.
Even within the same genre of hammers there are clearly "better" hammers and "worse" hammers. Consider the material for the shaft (wood vs iron vs fibreglass) and the grip (rubber vs cotton vs tape). There are inferior decisions you can make when building a hammer.
You're damn right I can argue on and on about which hammer is "better". Pick up a woodworking magazine and you'll see that amateur carpenters argue over hammers in exactly the same way that Slashdotters argue over technology. Slashdot isn't "special" in this regard. We're all human. Arguing seems to be our second nature.
Only an American would say something that stupid.
Yes, thank you, that was my point. Welcome to The Land of Sarcasm. Maybe I should insert a laugh track for all the humor-impaired Americans?
And what happens when you don't use Outlook?
And there's never more than 1 groupware option for Windows.
When you've supported a corporate network for a little longer than you have, you suddenly realise that the "bottom line" is the *only* thing that management considers. The needs of users rarely enter into the decision process.
Episode 4: A GNU Hope
Episode 5: Microsoft Strikes Back
Episode 6: Return of the Linus
?!?
Linux' big selling point to me is that it's similar to UNIX. I couldn't care less about Windows.
The only metric that matters to a company is how much money they make.
And while the XBox might outsell Cube, it isn't outselling PS2.
But don't let facts stand in the way of your astroturfing.
You don't forgive the mob boss just because he donates some of his ill-gained cash to orphans.
Not quite that simple. Stac sued Microsoft for the big three: copyright infringement, patent infringement and trade secret violation. They won the patent infringement (2 cases) and lost the others.
Though Microsoft claims that they didn't copy Stacker code, instead writing it from the ground up, from what I read of the case I'm willing to accept that Microsoft did have access to Stacker code. I also believe Microsoft did copy the code, making only minor changes to (unsuccessfully) avoid patent infringement. There are numerous statements by Microsoft employees in the court transcript that hint at this.
I like to think of the GPL as a hybrid between a Developer License and an OEM License. As you say, it's not an End-User License. You can use code that has been licensed with the GPL without agreeing to the terms of the GPL.
Not in the public domain. BSD code is owned by the copyright holders (typically the authors). The BSD *license* allows additional rights, above and beyond what standard copyright would allow. It is, however, still only a *license*. The BSD license is not a revocation of copyright and it is not a declaration that the code is in the public domain.
True, unfortunately it permits the worst kind of fork; the closed-source fork. Perfect example; the commercial BSDs vs the free BSDs.
Stac. Timeline. Syn'X.
Microsoft have "stolen" code more than once. But because it's closed source, it is difficult for the victims to discover and prove the infringement.
History has shown that Microsoft chooses to fight the accusations in court. Whether the Microsoft developers were fired or not, I don't know.