I'm not going to argue whether the moderation was justified or not, but there's certainly something amusing about seeing this comment moderated "flamebait".:)
The sixth counterclaim, to be precise. (Just search for "SIXTH".)
But of course, in a case like this (as opposed to the IBM case), you don't normally sue for "GPL violations"; you sue for simple copyright violation, and leave it up to the defense to raise the issue of the GPL if they think it will help (which it won't if they haven't followed its terms). Note that IBM also includes copyright violations for their code in Linux in their eighth counterclaim (which is going to be the basis of a motion for summary judgement as soon as expert testimony is complete).
If they want to get the GPL ruled unenforceable, they're going to need to find a better trick than distibuting someone else's code without that someone else's permission. 'Cause that's illegal whether or not the GPL is involved.
To be fair to Amazon, while I think the one-click patent is nonsense, and I have nothing but contempt for their attempts to enforce it, at least it's something they're using! I generally think of a patent troll as a company that exists for no other purpose but to squeeze money out of patents. Amazon seems to be more interested in preventing others from using their precious technique than it persuading others to use it, and to pay for the privilege. Plus they actually have a business plan of sorts. We can argue later over whether it's a good plan or not, but it is a plan and it doesn't just involve suing other companies.
I hate to argue in Amazon's defense, but does being a hypocrite actually make them wrong? Doesn't it more depend on whether they're...well...wrong or not? If Charles Manson called for stronger penalties for mass murderers, would he be wrong just because he's Charles Manson? If Ken Lay asked for stronger legal protections for stockholders, would he be wrong just because he's Ken Lay? If Darl McBride called for mandatory jail time for anyone who files a fraudulent lawsuit, would he be wrong just because he's Darl McBride? If Natalie Portman asked me to rub hot grits all over her sweaty, naked body, would....
Er, sorry, guess that last one didn't make much sense, but I needed something to get the image of Ken Lay and Darl McBride out of my mind!:)
Indeed, if sites with breasts get red-flagged, a lot of people will get the wrong message when they actually go to sites with spyware or viruses. If you want to warn people about dangerous stuff, don't also mark the stuff that they're actually looking for!:)
And which of those do you imagine could be ported to Linux without, essentially, a complete rewrite (which would make the source licensing terms moot, as I said originally). Perhaps ZFS--Linux has good FS layer abstraction, and IBM was able to port JFS (from OS/2, no less, although the original implementation was for AIX) without too much trouble. Other than that, not a chance! I'm going to have to guess that you've never looked at the source code for either system if you think those are things that could easily be added to Linux.
Beyond that, Linus has been highly reluctant to use code from BSD, even when the BSD versions were (at least in the early stages) much better. What makes you think he would react differently to code borrowed from Solaris, even if the code were usable in Linux (which, as I said, is highly unlikely). "Oh, that's already been done--let's try a new approach" seems to be Linus's standard tack. Which is why Linux is so different internally. I'd worry more about BSD taking Solaris features, since they're far more compatible. But using the GPL would have prevented that, if it was something worth preventing (something else I'm not convinced of).
I mentioned drivers (ported from Linux to Solaris), because that's one of the rare cases where a lot of the code is actually fairly independent of the kernel architecture. But even there, I suspect that at least 40-60% of the code would have to be rewritten to go from Linux to Solaris. For features like you mention, a 90% rewrite is probably closer to the mark, and if you're going to go that far, why not just rewrite the whole thing and avoid all the licensing issues?
If anybody actually thinks that any of those features are worth porting to Linux (and aside from Dtrace and perhaps ZFS, I'm not convinced they are), then they will be ported/reimplemented. IBM and HP between them have more than enough talent and expertise to do the job, and know everything that needs to be known about clean-room reverse engineering. In fact, if those features were as important as you seem to think, I think the porting would have already started.
Several idiots seem to have interpreted my original post as some sort of bash on Solaris, but I'm a big fan of Solaris, in general. It was SunOS (back in the day) that first convinced me that Unix could really be a world-class system, and I've never lost my love for Sun's work--not completely. I just think that Sun made a really bone-heaed move with their licensing, and nothing you've said has even started to convince me that I'm wrong. Sun could have built a best-of-breed OS with all the high quality features of Solaris combined with the broad hardware support of Linux, and really gone somewhere, but their paranoia and uncertainty got the best of them. So what if Linux did use those features, even assuming it were possible to do so without a 100% rewrite? So what? Sun could (and does) support Linux as well as Solaris! They wouldn't be losing anything; they'd be gaining options!
I know, inside Sun, there's this attitude that IBM and HP et al are a bunch of idiots who couldn't possibly compete with the perfection that is Solaris, but I gotta tell you that from out here, in the trenches, it doesn't look that way.
> Do you really think the sharing would be in anything other than one direction?
No, I don't.
> What incentive would Sun have to see all their crown jewels taken and added to Linux?
What on earth are you talking about? Why would Linux want anything from Solaris??? I assumed you were talking about Linux's huge collection of drivers for just about sort of device known to man. I mean, I've used Solaris for many many years, and there's a lot of things I like about it, but I really just don't see much in it that would actually benefit Linux.
Heck, driver code is actually pretty adaptable between OSes (relatively speaking), because much of the design of the code is driven by the features of the device. Solaris could probably have benefitted from Linuxes drivers without too much work. Whereas, the advanced features of the kernels themselves are unlikely to be even slightly sharable between the two OSes without such a complete re-write that copyright wouldn't apply in the first place.
If that was actually the reason that Sun made their decision (and I admit it does sound plausible), then I think it was a clear example of some really fuzzy, not-well-thought-out thought on their part. I've really found it frustrating, for years, how Sun can be so smart one moment, and so completely bone-headed the next. Oh well.:)
I don't have first-hand knowledge, but I can certainly think of a number of reasons why they might have done so...
They found that Linux met their specific needs better, or
they found that SUSE in particular met their needs better, or
they got a better deal on support from Novell than Sun was willing to offer, or
they wanted to use SUSE because it is (or was) a German company, while Sun is a US company, or
they discovered that Linux admins are more plentiful/cheaper than Solaris admins in their area, or
their brains exploded when they tried to decypher Sun's convoluted licenses (or maybe that's just me), or
some combination of the above.
I've used Solaris since...well, since before it was named Solaris, and I've used Linux since not long after the first experimental releases, and BSD for nearly as long, and I think all three are great systems, but they're not interchangable. They each have different strengths and weaknesses. If I had to pick just one, I'd probably pick Linux, as it seems to be the most versatile overall, but I'm very glad I don't have to pick just one, and can instead use the one that's best for a specific job or role.
But what I really want to know is this: planets orbit stars, and moons orbit planets, right? So what would you call something orbiting a moon?
Actually, I think we should have three categories: star, planet, asteroid. It shouldn't matter what it's orbiting. If it's big, round, and burning, it's a star. If it's big, round and not burning, it's a planet. If it's not so big and not so round, it's an asteroid. Luna, Ganymede, and Titan are both moons and planets. Phobos and Deimos are both moons and asteroids. Ceres and Pluto are planets. Comets are mostly asteroids, but some of them may be planets.
Fortunately for all of you, nobody listens to me.:)
Hey, hey, hey, don't go insulting hippies in the middle of all this. Hippies pretty much invented free music. And Unix and Macs. You should be thanking hippies, not insulting them by suggesting that some money-grubbing parasite is one of their number!:)
Boy, talk about missing the point completely! I'm not suggesting that Apple or Linux or Sun or BSD should take over as the new monopoly. I don't think we need *A* "system for the masses". I think we need a free, open market! With multiple systems available to fit different needs, desires and even tastes. Then the competitors will come! There is little point in Apple or Linux trying to compete directly with MS at the moment, because MS is too well entrenched, and has shown that they have no hestition about playing dirty when it comes to competitors or potential competitors. Apple has gotten by only because they've played to the artsy-fartsy crowd, which isn't MS's main target, and because MS likes having a token competitor to parade around. And Linux is getting by only because it's free (so MS has little leverage) and because it has strong nerd appeal. If there were a free market, on the other hand, and if MS were willing to acknowledge and work with open standards, then Be (for example) might have survived, and other vendors would surely have sprung up.
If Ford had established a monopoly in the automobile market the way that MS has in the consumer software market, your argument would be like saying, "well, John Deere only makes tractors, they can't compete with Ford." That's both true and completely irrelevant. I'm not asking for John Deere brand automobiles. I'm asking for a free and open market where Chevy and Toyota and Misubishi and Volvo and BWM can exist and compete!
I have some other quibbles with your post, but they're irrelevant to my main point above, so I'll leave them. The point is that MS killed off all of their actual competition, and now they're whining about the fact that they can't meet everyone's needs and demands at the same time. Well, big F'ing surprise there!
Well, for one thing, the name is printed in all-caps on the spine of huge numbers of books on my bookshelf. For another, I thought it was an acronym (like DAW). I now see (thanks to your link) that that's not true, but if TOR/Tor doesn't want their name printed in all-caps, they shouldn't print it in all-caps in the most obvious spot where most people see it (on their books).
> I can't be the only one who first read that as TOR Publishing.
Nope, you're not. I assume that you (like me) have a lot more TOR books on your shelves than you do O'Reilly books? (Though I admit I have plenty of both.)
Other people have provided some reasonable answers to this, but I think there's one that they (and you) are overlooking. The alleged "threat" (and we only have MS's word that there was a threat) was to sue for ANTI-TRUST issues! That's the kind of charge that can only stick against a company which has been legally judged (or could be legally judged) to have a MONOPOLY! Apple, lacking any sort of effective monopoly in desktop platforms, is free from the threat of anti-trust suits in this matter. Microsoft is NOT!
Don't like it? Get Microsoft to open up the market to competition, and give us a thriving free market again, and Microsoft will no longer be in any danger of this sort of suit. But I'm not holding my breath!:)
What it boils down to is that Apple is not in a position to kill the market in PDF-generating software--Microsoft is!
Stop overstating things. The only way you're going to understand this issue is if you recognize what's actually going on.
> Yeah, people had the same reactions to Windows XP Service Pack 2.
SOME people had the same reaction.
> Everyone spent years telling Microsoft to improve security.
No, SOME people spent years telling Microsoft....
Microsoft is damned if they do, damned if they don't because they eliminated all their competition through whatever means they could, foul or fair, and now they're stuck trying to satisfy everyone, even though different people have different needs, priorities and desires! If there were a free market here, then different vendors could meet different people's different needs and desires. Microsoft made their own bed; now they have to lie in it. Imagine my utter and complete lack of sympathy, if you can.
Here's a freakin' clue for ya! NOT EVERYONE IN THE WORLD WANTS THE SAME THING! Your post is carefully crafted on the assumption that the entire market is a single person who is contradicting him/herself ("you've probably had a relative, friend, girlfriend or a kid like this..."). Well, guess what--the entire market is not a single individual with a mass of contradictory opinions. It is a whole mass of people! And different people OFTEN want (or need) different things! This isn't troublesome--this is NORMAL!
Maybe (and I know this is a tough nut for you microsofties to swallow) the problem is that you just can't make a one-size-fits-all system any more! Maybe the fact that you've killed off almost all of your competition means that you're left ALONE trying to satisfy a large mass of people with different and often contradictory needs and desires, and that's just not possible. MAYBE IT'S TIME TO GIVE UP YOUR FREAKIN' MONOPOLY! You can't satisfy all your potential customers. How about you focus on your core competencies, satisfy the ones you can, and FOLLOW SOME OPEN STANDARDS so the ones you can't satisfy can find alternatives that work for them!
I know, I know, pigs will fly out of my nose before MS voluntarily gives up their monopoly. But at least my suggestion is POSSIBLE! Your suggestion (that everyone in the world decide they want exactly the same things) is not! Quicher Bichen and suck it up!
If you're going to play the pedant, you have to expect pedantic responses. It IS a word! I think an American dictionary (like the Merriam-Webster that grandparent linked to) would be a more reliable (and more "proper") source on American usage than a British dictionary, like the Oxford. My own personal MW also has "relatedly" listed. It's a word! (At least, hyar in Amurricuh.)
Now, if you want to argue that it shouldn't be a word, I might be sympathetic. If you want to claim that it's an awkward word, probably shouldn't be used, and/or that the article misused it (at best), I would agree wholeheartedly. But you didn't do that. You claimed, flatly, that it's "not a word", and you are, flatly, wrong.
That said, I fully agree with your suggested alternate phrasings. But this is slashdot, where bad grammar and worse spelling are apparently considered to be part of the ambiance. Which drives me insane. Keep fighting the good fight, and I'll try to back you up...when you're not wrong!:)
If you want to appear professional, the correct response is, "no, thank you, but I have no interest whatsoever in paying more than a standard domain registration fee." This is unfortunate, because the most appropriate response is far less polite!:)
"Leviticus 18:22 - Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."
Note that while this forbids gay men from having sex with each other, it also (read strictly) excludes heterosexual women from having sex with men! And as for the heterosexual men, well, surely leading the heterosexual women into sin is itself a sin! Thus, the only blessed, bible-certified-and-approved form of sex is lesbian sex!:)
I don't own a copy of Word. Never owned it, never used it. My entire collection of Microsoft software consists of a bunch of old DOS floppies (and Microsoft C for DOS) in a shoebox somewhere in the garage, and one Win95 OSR2 CD. I don't have anything they're even supporting any more, let alone selling. Do you think it still counts as a lost sale if you copy something they're no longer selling?:)
How about WINE? I can easily make copies of WINE! Do you suppose that (legally) copying an up-to-date emulator of their system hurts them more or less than (illegally) copying an obsolete version of their actual product? The philosophical implications could be amazing!:)
According to one notable handicapping service, the RIAA would win, but just barely. On the other hand, you can see that Free Software kicks the BSA's ass, which suggests a possible alternative.:)
How did this get modded "insightful"? RMS is not complaining about "open source" vs. "free", nor is he disparaging Sun for what they did or didn't do. He's simply pointing out that Sun did NOT make Java into Libre Software, despite many reports that they did. That is true. His comment about the term "open source" was clearly an aside (but a valid point nonetheless).
I see no criticism of Sun here; merely a truthful observation that Sun did nothing (from the perspective of the Free/Libre/Open-Source communit(y|ies). Yes, Sun did say that they plan to release under an OSI-approved license someday, and that's good news, but that's not doing, that's merely saying.
> "Whats funny is I don't understand the confusion here."
That's the whole point! You clearly recognize that Sun's new license is NOT free/libre/open-source. I also recognize that and RMS recognizes that. But a LOT of people seem to be confused about the matter, and those are the people RMS is addressing. You and I and he are all on the same page about this point (if nothing else).
As for why RMS won't give up the whole "anti-'open source' label" thing--I suspect it has a lot to do with the fact that ESR is a major jackass, but I'm not completely sure. Me, I dislike the term "open source" because the word "open" has been an industry synonym for "loser" for decades. But I mostly ignore these stupid labelling squabbles. As far as I'm concerned, FreeBSD is a fine version of Linux.:)
> "one of the Debian Project Leader candidates (and self proclaimed "Debian Pope") Jonathan Walther"...
Any member of the project (about 800-1000 people worldwide at this point) can toss their hat into the ring. Saying that he was a candidate is true, but the implications may not be as serious as they seem. Mr. Walther was the first person ever to be ranked below "None of the Above" in a Debian Project Leader election (in the 2005 elections) In the 2006 DPL election, two candidates came in below "None of the Above", but one of them, Ari Pollak, was running as an openly "joke" candidate; his platform involved allowing his cat help him make decisions, and putting snakes on Plan9 (don't ask). Despite this, Mr. Pollak still managed to garner more votes than Mr. Walther, who was again, dead last.
I wouldn't worry about the Debian leadership until someone like Mr. Walther can at least beat "None of the Above" in an election.:)
> Anyone proficient with Linux had to climb the steep learning curve.
Even ignoring the bad metaphor (a "steep" learning curve is one where learning occurs quickly), this is simply not true. Anyone who (like me) was already familiar with Unix before encountering Linux--in my case, before Linux was created--will find learning Linux a fairly trivial task. Or, to be more precise, learning GNU. (My proficiency with the kernel and its obscure interfaces is quite low, but my proficiency with GNU and the layers above is very high.)
There's also the question: do you need to become proficient with Linux or GNU/Linux? Most people who use Windows are not proficient with it. In fact, it is nearly impossible to become truly proficient with Windows, since so much of it is deliberately hidden and opaque. The only version of Windows that I can claim even the faintest proficiency with is Win3.1, and even there, I barely scratched the surface (although I was a DOS guru). What most people do is become proficient with various apps, and that one can do with a Linux-based system just as easily as one can with a Windows-based system without ever understanding Linux (or GNU/Linux) or Windows.
Most people will only need proficiency with Gnome and/or KDE, and then they will be free to use Linux or BSD or Solaris or any of a host of other systems, free or otherwise. Some (like me) may need or want proficiency with POSIX and/or GNU, and again, they will be ready and productive with a variety of systems. Only the tiniest handful actually need proficiency with Linux, and they are the ubergeeks!:)
In any case, I think the point here is that gaining "proficiency in Linux" depends both on where you start and where you want to end up. I haven't read the first of those books, but the second strikes me as a somewhat dubious recommendation (it is possible to use Linux without ever touching bash--it's even possible to run Linux without having bash installed). And the third is a fine book, but not necessarily one I would recommend to the average office user.
Slashdot Mirror
> die in a fire!
:)
I'm not going to argue whether the moderation was justified or not, but there's certainly something amusing about seeing this comment moderated "flamebait".
> they want to get sued for violating the GPL.
0 43539340
They already are; it's one of IBM's counterclaims in SCO v IBM.
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20040331
The sixth counterclaim, to be precise. (Just search for "SIXTH".)
But of course, in a case like this (as opposed to the IBM case), you don't normally sue for "GPL violations"; you sue for simple copyright violation, and leave it up to the defense to raise the issue of the GPL if they think it will help (which it won't if they haven't followed its terms). Note that IBM also includes copyright violations for their code in Linux in their eighth counterclaim (which is going to be the basis of a motion for summary judgement as soon as expert testimony is complete).
If they want to get the GPL ruled unenforceable, they're going to need to find a better trick than distibuting someone else's code without that someone else's permission. 'Cause that's illegal whether or not the GPL is involved.
To be fair to Amazon, while I think the one-click patent is nonsense, and I have nothing but contempt for their attempts to enforce it, at least it's something they're using! I generally think of a patent troll as a company that exists for no other purpose but to squeeze money out of patents. Amazon seems to be more interested in preventing others from using their precious technique than it persuading others to use it, and to pay for the privilege. Plus they actually have a business plan of sorts. We can argue later over whether it's a good plan or not, but it is a plan and it doesn't just involve suing other companies.
:)
:)
I hate to argue in Amazon's defense, but does being a hypocrite actually make them wrong? Doesn't it more depend on whether they're...well...wrong or not? If Charles Manson called for stronger penalties for mass murderers, would he be wrong just because he's Charles Manson? If Ken Lay asked for stronger legal protections for stockholders, would he be wrong just because he's Ken Lay? If Darl McBride called for mandatory jail time for anyone who files a fraudulent lawsuit, would he be wrong just because he's Darl McBride? If Natalie Portman asked me to rub hot grits all over her sweaty, naked body, would....
Er, sorry, guess that last one didn't make much sense, but I needed something to get the image of Ken Lay and Darl McBride out of my mind!
(Natalie--call me!)
Indeed, if sites with breasts get red-flagged, a lot of people will get the wrong message when they actually go to sites with spyware or viruses. If you want to warn people about dangerous stuff, don't also mark the stuff that they're actually looking for! :)
And which of those do you imagine could be ported to Linux without, essentially, a complete rewrite (which would make the source licensing terms moot, as I said originally). Perhaps ZFS--Linux has good FS layer abstraction, and IBM was able to port JFS (from OS/2, no less, although the original implementation was for AIX) without too much trouble. Other than that, not a chance! I'm going to have to guess that you've never looked at the source code for either system if you think those are things that could easily be added to Linux.
Beyond that, Linus has been highly reluctant to use code from BSD, even when the BSD versions were (at least in the early stages) much better. What makes you think he would react differently to code borrowed from Solaris, even if the code were usable in Linux (which, as I said, is highly unlikely). "Oh, that's already been done--let's try a new approach" seems to be Linus's standard tack. Which is why Linux is so different internally. I'd worry more about BSD taking Solaris features, since they're far more compatible. But using the GPL would have prevented that, if it was something worth preventing (something else I'm not convinced of).
I mentioned drivers (ported from Linux to Solaris), because that's one of the rare cases where a lot of the code is actually fairly independent of the kernel architecture. But even there, I suspect that at least 40-60% of the code would have to be rewritten to go from Linux to Solaris. For features like you mention, a 90% rewrite is probably closer to the mark, and if you're going to go that far, why not just rewrite the whole thing and avoid all the licensing issues?
If anybody actually thinks that any of those features are worth porting to Linux (and aside from Dtrace and perhaps ZFS, I'm not convinced they are), then they will be ported/reimplemented. IBM and HP between them have more than enough talent and expertise to do the job, and know everything that needs to be known about clean-room reverse engineering. In fact, if those features were as important as you seem to think, I think the porting would have already started.
Several idiots seem to have interpreted my original post as some sort of bash on Solaris, but I'm a big fan of Solaris, in general. It was SunOS (back in the day) that first convinced me that Unix could really be a world-class system, and I've never lost my love for Sun's work--not completely. I just think that Sun made a really bone-heaed move with their licensing, and nothing you've said has even started to convince me that I'm wrong. Sun could have built a best-of-breed OS with all the high quality features of Solaris combined with the broad hardware support of Linux, and really gone somewhere, but their paranoia and uncertainty got the best of them. So what if Linux did use those features, even assuming it were possible to do so without a 100% rewrite? So what? Sun could (and does) support Linux as well as Solaris! They wouldn't be losing anything; they'd be gaining options!
I know, inside Sun, there's this attitude that IBM and HP et al are a bunch of idiots who couldn't possibly compete with the perfection that is Solaris, but I gotta tell you that from out here, in the trenches, it doesn't look that way.
> Do you really think the sharing would be in anything other than one direction?
:)
No, I don't.
> What incentive would Sun have to see all their crown jewels taken and added to Linux?
What on earth are you talking about? Why would Linux want anything from Solaris??? I assumed you were talking about Linux's huge collection of drivers for just about sort of device known to man. I mean, I've used Solaris for many many years, and there's a lot of things I like about it, but I really just don't see much in it that would actually benefit Linux.
Heck, driver code is actually pretty adaptable between OSes (relatively speaking), because much of the design of the code is driven by the features of the device. Solaris could probably have benefitted from Linuxes drivers without too much work. Whereas, the advanced features of the kernels themselves are unlikely to be even slightly sharable between the two OSes without such a complete re-write that copyright wouldn't apply in the first place.
If that was actually the reason that Sun made their decision (and I admit it does sound plausible), then I think it was a clear example of some really fuzzy, not-well-thought-out thought on their part. I've really found it frustrating, for years, how Sun can be so smart one moment, and so completely bone-headed the next. Oh well.
I've used Solaris since...well, since before it was named Solaris, and I've used Linux since not long after the first experimental releases, and BSD for nearly as long, and I think all three are great systems, but they're not interchangable. They each have different strengths and weaknesses. If I had to pick just one, I'd probably pick Linux, as it seems to be the most versatile overall, but I'm very glad I don't have to pick just one, and can instead use the one that's best for a specific job or role.
...but I know what I like! :)
:)
But what I really want to know is this: planets orbit stars, and moons orbit planets, right? So what would you call something orbiting a moon?
Actually, I think we should have three categories: star, planet, asteroid. It shouldn't matter what it's orbiting. If it's big, round, and burning, it's a star. If it's big, round and not burning, it's a planet. If it's not so big and not so round, it's an asteroid. Luna, Ganymede, and Titan are both moons and planets. Phobos and Deimos are both moons and asteroids. Ceres and Pluto are planets. Comets are mostly asteroids, but some of them may be planets.
Fortunately for all of you, nobody listens to me.
Hey, hey, hey, don't go insulting hippies in the middle of all this. Hippies pretty much invented free music. And Unix and Macs. You should be thanking hippies, not insulting them by suggesting that some money-grubbing parasite is one of their number! :)
Boy, talk about missing the point completely! I'm not suggesting that Apple or Linux or Sun or BSD should take over as the new monopoly. I don't think we need *A* "system for the masses". I think we need a free, open market! With multiple systems available to fit different needs, desires and even tastes. Then the competitors will come! There is little point in Apple or Linux trying to compete directly with MS at the moment, because MS is too well entrenched, and has shown that they have no hestition about playing dirty when it comes to competitors or potential competitors. Apple has gotten by only because they've played to the artsy-fartsy crowd, which isn't MS's main target, and because MS likes having a token competitor to parade around. And Linux is getting by only because it's free (so MS has little leverage) and because it has strong nerd appeal. If there were a free market, on the other hand, and if MS were willing to acknowledge and work with open standards, then Be (for example) might have survived, and other vendors would surely have sprung up.
If Ford had established a monopoly in the automobile market the way that MS has in the consumer software market, your argument would be like saying, "well, John Deere only makes tractors, they can't compete with Ford." That's both true and completely irrelevant. I'm not asking for John Deere brand automobiles. I'm asking for a free and open market where Chevy and Toyota and Misubishi and Volvo and BWM can exist and compete!
I have some other quibbles with your post, but they're irrelevant to my main point above, so I'll leave them. The point is that MS killed off all of their actual competition, and now they're whining about the fact that they can't meet everyone's needs and demands at the same time. Well, big F'ing surprise there!
Well, for one thing, the name is printed in all-caps on the spine of huge numbers of books on my bookshelf. For another, I thought it was an acronym (like DAW). I now see (thanks to your link) that that's not true, but if TOR/Tor doesn't want their name printed in all-caps, they shouldn't print it in all-caps in the most obvious spot where most people see it (on their books).
> I can't be the only one who first read that as TOR Publishing.
Nope, you're not. I assume that you (like me) have a lot more TOR books on your shelves than you do O'Reilly books? (Though I admit I have plenty of both.)
Other people have provided some reasonable answers to this, but I think there's one that they (and you) are overlooking. The alleged "threat" (and we only have MS's word that there was a threat) was to sue for ANTI-TRUST issues! That's the kind of charge that can only stick against a company which has been legally judged (or could be legally judged) to have a MONOPOLY! Apple, lacking any sort of effective monopoly in desktop platforms, is free from the threat of anti-trust suits in this matter. Microsoft is NOT!
:)
Don't like it? Get Microsoft to open up the market to competition, and give us a thriving free market again, and Microsoft will no longer be in any danger of this sort of suit. But I'm not holding my breath!
What it boils down to is that Apple is not in a position to kill the market in PDF-generating software--Microsoft is!
Stop overstating things. The only way you're going to understand this issue is if you recognize what's actually going on.
> Yeah, people had the same reactions to Windows XP Service Pack 2.
SOME people had the same reaction.
> Everyone spent years telling Microsoft to improve security.
No, SOME people spent years telling Microsoft....
Microsoft is damned if they do, damned if they don't because they eliminated all their competition through whatever means they could, foul or fair, and now they're stuck trying to satisfy everyone, even though different people have different needs, priorities and desires! If there were a free market here, then different vendors could meet different people's different needs and desires. Microsoft made their own bed; now they have to lie in it. Imagine my utter and complete lack of sympathy, if you can.
Here's a freakin' clue for ya! NOT EVERYONE IN THE WORLD WANTS THE SAME THING! Your post is carefully crafted on the assumption that the entire market is a single person who is contradicting him/herself ("you've probably had a relative, friend, girlfriend or a kid like this..."). Well, guess what--the entire market is not a single individual with a mass of contradictory opinions. It is a whole mass of people! And different people OFTEN want (or need) different things! This isn't troublesome--this is NORMAL!
Maybe (and I know this is a tough nut for you microsofties to swallow) the problem is that you just can't make a one-size-fits-all system any more! Maybe the fact that you've killed off almost all of your competition means that you're left ALONE trying to satisfy a large mass of people with different and often contradictory needs and desires, and that's just not possible. MAYBE IT'S TIME TO GIVE UP YOUR FREAKIN' MONOPOLY! You can't satisfy all your potential customers. How about you focus on your core competencies, satisfy the ones you can, and FOLLOW SOME OPEN STANDARDS so the ones you can't satisfy can find alternatives that work for them!
I know, I know, pigs will fly out of my nose before MS voluntarily gives up their monopoly. But at least my suggestion is POSSIBLE! Your suggestion (that everyone in the world decide they want exactly the same things) is not! Quicher Bichen and suck it up!
I can use it in a sentence:
:)
"That's my cousin," said Tom, relatedly.
If you're going to play the pedant, you have to expect pedantic responses. It IS a word! I think an American dictionary (like the Merriam-Webster that grandparent linked to) would be a more reliable (and more "proper") source on American usage than a British dictionary, like the Oxford. My own personal MW also has "relatedly" listed. It's a word! (At least, hyar in Amurricuh.)
:)
Now, if you want to argue that it shouldn't be a word, I might be sympathetic. If you want to claim that it's an awkward word, probably shouldn't be used, and/or that the article misused it (at best), I would agree wholeheartedly. But you didn't do that. You claimed, flatly, that it's "not a word", and you are, flatly, wrong.
That said, I fully agree with your suggested alternate phrasings. But this is slashdot, where bad grammar and worse spelling are apparently considered to be part of the ambiance. Which drives me insane. Keep fighting the good fight, and I'll try to back you up...when you're not wrong!
If you want to appear professional, the correct response is, "no, thank you, but I have no interest whatsoever in paying more than a standard domain registration fee." This is unfortunate, because the most appropriate response is far less polite! :)
"Leviticus 18:22 - Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."
:)
Note that while this forbids gay men from having sex with each other, it also (read strictly) excludes heterosexual women from having sex with men! And as for the heterosexual men, well, surely leading the heterosexual women into sin is itself a sin! Thus, the only blessed, bible-certified-and-approved form of sex is lesbian sex!
I don't own a copy of Word. Never owned it, never used it. My entire collection of Microsoft software consists of a bunch of old DOS floppies (and Microsoft C for DOS) in a shoebox somewhere in the garage, and one Win95 OSR2 CD. I don't have anything they're even supporting any more, let alone selling. Do you think it still counts as a lost sale if you copy something they're no longer selling? :)
:)
How about WINE? I can easily make copies of WINE! Do you suppose that (legally) copying an up-to-date emulator of their system hurts them more or less than (illegally) copying an obsolete version of their actual product? The philosophical implications could be amazing!
According to one notable handicapping service, the RIAA would win, but just barely. On the other hand, you can see that Free Software kicks the BSA's ass, which suggests a possible alternative. :)
> Software patents are known as intelectual property. So they ARE property.
:)
Iron Pyrite is known as Fool's Gold. So it IS gold!
How did this get modded "insightful"? RMS is not complaining about "open source" vs. "free", nor is he disparaging Sun for what they did or didn't do. He's simply pointing out that Sun did NOT make Java into Libre Software, despite many reports that they did. That is true. His comment about the term "open source" was clearly an aside (but a valid point nonetheless).
:)
I see no criticism of Sun here; merely a truthful observation that Sun did nothing (from the perspective of the Free/Libre/Open-Source communit(y|ies). Yes, Sun did say that they plan to release under an OSI-approved license someday, and that's good news, but that's not doing, that's merely saying.
> "Whats funny is I don't understand the confusion here."
That's the whole point! You clearly recognize that Sun's new license is NOT free/libre/open-source. I also recognize that and RMS recognizes that. But a LOT of people seem to be confused about the matter, and those are the people RMS is addressing. You and I and he are all on the same page about this point (if nothing else).
As for why RMS won't give up the whole "anti-'open source' label" thing--I suspect it has a lot to do with the fact that ESR is a major jackass, but I'm not completely sure. Me, I dislike the term "open source" because the word "open" has been an industry synonym for "loser" for decades. But I mostly ignore these stupid labelling squabbles. As far as I'm concerned, FreeBSD is a fine version of Linux.
> "one of the Debian Project Leader candidates (and self proclaimed "Debian Pope") Jonathan Walther"...
:)
Any member of the project (about 800-1000 people worldwide at this point) can toss their hat into the ring. Saying that he was a candidate is true, but the implications may not be as serious as they seem. Mr. Walther was the first person ever to be ranked below "None of the Above" in a Debian Project Leader election (in the 2005 elections) In the 2006 DPL election, two candidates came in below "None of the Above", but one of them, Ari Pollak, was running as an openly "joke" candidate; his platform involved allowing his cat help him make decisions, and putting snakes on Plan9 (don't ask). Despite this, Mr. Pollak still managed to garner more votes than Mr. Walther, who was again, dead last.
I wouldn't worry about the Debian leadership until someone like Mr. Walther can at least beat "None of the Above" in an election.
> Anyone proficient with Linux had to climb the steep learning curve.
:)
Even ignoring the bad metaphor (a "steep" learning curve is one where learning occurs quickly), this is simply not true. Anyone who (like me) was already familiar with Unix before encountering Linux--in my case, before Linux was created--will find learning Linux a fairly trivial task. Or, to be more precise, learning GNU. (My proficiency with the kernel and its obscure interfaces is quite low, but my proficiency with GNU and the layers above is very high.)
There's also the question: do you need to become proficient with Linux or GNU/Linux? Most people who use Windows are not proficient with it. In fact, it is nearly impossible to become truly proficient with Windows, since so much of it is deliberately hidden and opaque. The only version of Windows that I can claim even the faintest proficiency with is Win3.1, and even there, I barely scratched the surface (although I was a DOS guru). What most people do is become proficient with various apps, and that one can do with a Linux-based system just as easily as one can with a Windows-based system without ever understanding Linux (or GNU/Linux) or Windows.
Most people will only need proficiency with Gnome and/or KDE, and then they will be free to use Linux or BSD or Solaris or any of a host of other systems, free or otherwise. Some (like me) may need or want proficiency with POSIX and/or GNU, and again, they will be ready and productive with a variety of systems. Only the tiniest handful actually need proficiency with Linux, and they are the ubergeeks!
In any case, I think the point here is that gaining "proficiency in Linux" depends both on where you start and where you want to end up. I haven't read the first of those books, but the second strikes me as a somewhat dubious recommendation (it is possible to use Linux without ever touching bash--it's even possible to run Linux without having bash installed). And the third is a fine book, but not necessarily one I would recommend to the average office user.