I would also like to point out that the CCAGW was not criticizing the value of using open-source open-source itself, but rather the decision to exclude all other competitors in the bidding process.
Really? Did they say Microsoft was not allowed to bid on providing open-source software?
Yes, some of those packages would have to paid for ONCE to be written. Why is tax money being wasted by buying software multiple times when new releases of the same old crap come out, at high costs, when nothing is added except for a few features (that usually aren't needed), new security holes, bigger harware requirements, and lost productivity as users have to readjust to where options have been moved to?
It isn't the only thing that nobody calls them on (at least not publicly)
How about what can they do to prove the code their showing is really the source to what they are shipping?
For being vulnerable to terrorism, (through virtual channels) how many spies work inside of Microsoft? There doesn't seem to be any agency of any government on the planet that can keep out foreign spies, why would anybody think that there aren't any inside of Microsoft.
Another potential vulnerability, what is Microsoft's build process? How many locations can build Windows and the various update patches? For all we know, maybe it only gets built in Redmond. If that is the case, what would have happened if instead of taking out the WTC, they took out MS Headquarters and with it the ability to create windows patches. Here is another sticky little scenario: right before unleashing a few nasty worms and viruses, knock out power to the nortwestern portion of the US for a week or so.
Of course, once the Americans left, petrol was being sold in litres again, and Okinawa was once more driving on the left. No doubt, it cost lots of money to revert.
Really? When did we leave??? Last time I checked Okinawa had quite a few U.S. military bases.
Re:A lot of people seem to misunderstand the GPL.
on
RMS on Java and GPL
·
· Score: 1
Wrong. The GPL doesn't give the freedoms that the BSD licence does. The GPL is constantly concerned that someone,somewhere might be coding for profit instead of giving away their labours. The BSDL doesn't fricking care about what others do. It only cares about its own source. Something that's BSD licensed is forever free.
On the other hand, anything that's GPL'd is forever coercive. And, like homeopathy, no matter how many millions of times you dilute a piece of it with the fruits of your own labours, it retains its 100% potency.
This is an example that the GPL doesn't prevent forking and that the BSDL does? In what way?
Sorry, but this seems more like an example of BSDL failure to control compatibility, by losing access to the source code of forks. Which one would give Microsoft an easier target to embrace and extend GPL or BSDL? Well, under BSDL it's simple: step 1. grab a poplular bsd. step 2. drastically change it's api. step 3. add an incredible and high innovative patch to the kernel or someplace equally critical. step 4. never freely release the patches that made the feature possible. step 5. ship MS-BSD on every win98/win2000 cd.
This seems like it would be harder to do legally under the GPL than the under BSDL. This also seems like it would be an easy way to destroy a popular bsd, but then again maybe it explains why all the bsd forks really aren't that popular.
Slashdot Mirror
Radio Shack???? Oh, yeah the Sprint Cell Phone store
now I remember.
I thought "choice" was the cornerstone of open source. Guess some folks have been taking hypocrisy lessons.
Funny, I thought the fact that the source was OPEN is the cornerstone of open source. Where is the hypocrisy in that?
I would also like to point out that the CCAGW was not criticizing the value of using open-source open-source itself, but rather the decision to exclude all other competitors in the bidding process.
Really? Did they say Microsoft was not allowed to bid on providing open-source software?
How about reverse Soviet Russia Jokes.
In Soviet Russia Government owns Corporations. In Amerika Corporations own Government.
Yes, some of those packages would have to paid for ONCE to be written. Why is tax money being wasted by buying software multiple times when new releases of the same old crap come out, at high costs, when nothing is added except for a few features (that usually aren't needed), new security holes, bigger harware requirements, and lost productivity as users have to readjust to where options have been moved to?
It isn't the only thing that nobody calls them on (at least not publicly)
How about what can they do to prove the code their showing is really the source to what they are shipping?
For being vulnerable to terrorism, (through virtual channels) how many spies work inside of Microsoft? There doesn't seem to be any agency of any government on the planet that can keep out foreign spies, why would anybody think that there aren't any inside of Microsoft.
Another potential vulnerability, what is Microsoft's build process? How many locations can build Windows and the various update patches? For all we know, maybe it only gets built in Redmond. If that is the case, what would have happened if instead of taking out the WTC, they took out MS Headquarters and with it the ability to create windows patches. Here is another sticky little scenario: right before unleashing a few nasty worms and viruses, knock out power to the nortwestern portion of the US for a week or so.
Kids Online Resources
http://www.kidsolr.com/
Of course, once the Americans left, petrol was being sold in litres again, and Okinawa was once more driving on the left. No doubt, it cost lots of money to revert.
Really? When did we leave??? Last time I checked Okinawa had quite a few U.S. military bases.
Sorry, but this seems more like an example of BSDL failure to control compatibility, by losing access to the source code of forks. Which one would give Microsoft an easier target to embrace and extend GPL or BSDL? Well, under BSDL it's simple: step 1. grab a poplular bsd. step 2. drastically change it's api. step 3. add an incredible and high innovative patch to the kernel or someplace equally critical. step 4. never freely release the patches that made the feature possible. step 5. ship MS-BSD on every win98/win2000 cd.
This seems like it would be harder to do legally under the GPL than the under BSDL. This also seems like it would be an easy way to destroy a popular bsd, but then again maybe it explains why all the bsd forks really aren't that popular.