There's a lot of more useful things that we could be doing -- exploring other planets, trying to discover...
Oh no! Our Mars ship malfunctioned. Our heat shielding is detached, we're losing oxygen, and all we have is maneuvering thrusters. Oh well, at least we have enough power to make it to the International Space Station. Umm... Oh... no we don't, because some guy on/. said it was useless.
Except, with open source, you can hire a programmer to keep your system alive for long enough to either replace it/get it stable.
Only wealthy end users can do this. Home users and small mom-n-pop businesses are left high and dry.
If the upgrade cycle were a "wall function" that immediately required you to upgrade from x to y, then there would be a strong advantage to Open Source.
However, the upgrade cycle is not a wall. If I wanted to, I could still surf the net with Netscape 3.x and Windows95, and most of it would work.
I've seen legacy apps in business last even longer than that. Everybody poo-pooed them, but they worked, and the primary road block to getting them replaced was the expense of the custom programming and system integration that had to be done. An off-the-shelf solution, proprietary or otherwise, would have been preferable.
that no one envisions a world with a gene sequencer on every desktop!
Except of course the writers of Star Trek Voyager. Not only can they sequence DNA with a device the size of a Palm Pilot, they have a holographic doctor that will do it for you if you're lazy.
The one thing they can't do is shut down holographic programs when they go sour. Apparently kill -9 doesn't exist in the 23rd century.
(I'm referring to last night's episode shown on UPN)
A "pure end user" is somebody who will never look at the source. Therefore, unlimited distribution, in binary form only, is maximum freedom for the pure end user. Anything else is superfluous.
If it could be demonstrated that GPL, or any other Open Source license tended to increase the distribution of a program, then your argument might make sense from the point of view that the end user would have more software. Empirical data neither confirms nor denies this. Yes, Linux is widely distributed, but so are Internet Explorer, Napster, and a lot of other closed source programs.
The argument that GPL enhances end user freedom makes the most sense when applied in the long run, where binaries go "stale" and open source remains viable. However, there are many cases of open source going "stale" too. If the developers lose interest in developing a piece of software, and move onto something else, this is just as detrimental to end users as Microsoft's planned obsolescence.
...to make up for the curves on the iMac. Aesthetic balance, you know.
I seem to recall somebody talking about the "bubbelization of America" when the iMac was still causing a stir. I will be really amused if the Cube takes off, and somebody laments the "cubization of America".
...it's fair to say that any alien race that would put so much resources into the laughable venture of "space exploration" would most likely be a race of Communists
As a couple of people pointed out, sound travels faster in water, and as a general rule, faster in denser material.
To make sense of it, remember that sound is a vibration. Now, if you hit a brick, how fast is the hit transmitted? Likewise, if you hit the air, how fast is the hit transmitted? Finally, if you hit a vacuum, no hit is transmitted, making the speed of sound in a vacuum infinitely slow.
One of the arguments against porting apps to Linux has been, "Why bother supporting an OS with a customer base that selected the OS because they didn't feel like paying". The logic is inescapable. The fact that somebody uses NT or MacOS is proof that they will buy software.
Now, if this proves successful for AW, many others may follow. Naturally, if it proves a flop many others will stay away.
I hope AW doesn't price the Linux version any differently than for other OS's. That will make this a fair test. Also, if they priced it lower, people who view it as their killer app would start migrating to Linux for that very reason, thus decreasing AW's profits.
In 1992, I was on USENET (no web) and somebody posted an animated picture of a woman doing something with a Coke bottle, if you catch my drift.
The poster was soundly thrashed by the entire newsgroup. People lamented that "if this kind of thing is allowed, the Internet might be shut down". The poster was rumored to have lost net priveleges after that.
This was certainly not the first porn on the Internet, but it was my first experience of USENET porn. It's interesting how attitudes have shifted.
BTW, the only way we could view pictures was to uudecode (by hand) cat the (usually several) files, and then utter curses if we didn't have the proper viewer installed. I never went through the trouble to decode the picture, I just saw respondants objecting to it.
One last thing, is the GPL really considered to be the free-est license around? I am not expert or even that informed, but I was understand that the BSD license took that title?
After considerable investigation, I've decided that the license underwhich you received your education is the most free license.
To date, I have yet to hear of any school asking you to sign a EULA or even read any kind of an agreement at all pertaining to what you could or could not do with your education. You can even claim that what you know is your own knowledge, unless it's a famous piece of knowledge like the theory of relativity.
Seriously? Public Domain is usually considered the most free license, followed closely by non advertising BSD, then advertising BSD. There are several other advertising licenses that permit use in both closed and open sourced applications (such as the IJG license). Then we have copyleft licenses that allow closed-source linking, such as LGPL. Then we have pure copyleft (GPL). Then we have restricted open source (SCSL, MSRL), closed source, military projects, black military projects, "I could tell you but I'd have to kill you", and "you're dead".
A lawyer was recently consulted to see where the Artistic License might fit on this spectrum. We'll get back to you as soon as he stops laughing.
Ok, that answers the how, but not the why. If SourceGear was just sick and tired of dealing with proprietary MS file formats, and had enough spare developers lying around to do something about it, I can certainly empathize with that (while maintaining my long-standing preference for non copyleft licences of course, but that is another kettle of fish).
Sorry. It was unfair to label you as the archetype for the Open Source Advocate. In fact, it's unfair to do that to anybody.
Nevertheless, such a character does exist. Much like the "average joe" he is nobody yet everybody in the Open Source movement. At least, that is the way me and many others perceive it.
I'm intrigued. If AbiWord doesn't make money, what enables you and your cohorts to continue producing it? What is SourceGear's insentive to transfer revenue from a source (which must exist) to a sink?
But mostly I think it's fair to say that the masses can't cope with the idea of a function being a return-type in its own right (which is probably the defining feature of a pure functional language);
OK, I've been reading all these comments about "functional" vs. other types of languages trying to figure out what people mean. Now C can send back a function pointer as a return type just fine, yet the consensus here is that C is not a functional language. What am I missing?
Even in an Open Source world, there is room for multiple efforts.
I love it. Ask an Open Source advocate why all software should be free and he'll say "to avoid duplication of effort". Ask him to explain why the release of a superior product won't destroy his business and he says "there is room for multiple efforts".
Gas is the standard. Like Windows. Oh... you drive a Macintosh... we don't have any Mac mechanics.
Of course there is also the issue of building out infrastructure for other fuels. If the fuel is a liquid comparable in storage requirements to gasoline, distribution is less a problem than retrofitting all those engines.
If you want to place bets on something that might compete with gasoline, I'd say ethanol or methanol, because they can be pumped like gasoline and the engine modifications are not too severe. Obviously what's needed is cross platform automobiles that can run on more than one kind of OS... err, um fuel. Java cars?
Of course, the Java car isn't quite as fast as the regular car, and sometimes you have to type SET CLASSPATH=/carburator/intake_valve/cylinder to make it start.
Propane might be a worthy competitor too. I've been thinking it would be really cool to drive up to the propane station and swap tanks. That infrastructure is already in place throughout much of the country. The only real motive we need is for the licensing agreement, er.. um... the price on the gasoline to become a real nuisance.
Then we will start seeing all kinds of similar but slightly different fuels competing in the market place. Linux cars.
Wild, Wild West. Unbridled information warfare. Thank-you Napster, musicians, and counter-napsters for duking it out.
Napster thumbs nose at copyright, artist thumbs nose at Napster. Eventually, I'm sure there will be some kind of sane equilibrium, just as the Wild West was eventually tamed. The nice thing is that these gunfights are bloodless.
Yes... 20000 meters. Of course he neglected to mention that it's only 1 micrometer long. That's right, a unbeknownst to the inhabitants, a large portion of the earth is in fact covered with a thin layer of this man's penis. Scientists had previously mistaken it for a large mold colony.
The real problem is to make sure that help is always there for those who need it, while simultaneously instilling in people the notion that they cannot rely on that help.
If people think that they can rely on charity, some of them will, and it drags the system down. Therefore, I move that we set aside a portion of our income taxes for charity, and divide it up as follows: 25% health care, 25% housing assistance, 25% food and 25% for a massive disinformation campaign to convince the general public that the other 3 charities don't exist.
Slashdot Mirror
There's a lot of more useful things that we could be doing -- exploring other planets, trying to discover...
Oh no! Our Mars ship malfunctioned. Our heat shielding is detached, we're losing oxygen, and all we have is maneuvering thrusters. Oh well, at least we have enough power to make it to the International Space Station. Umm... Oh... no we don't, because some guy on /. said it was useless.
Except, with open source, you can hire a programmer to keep your system alive for long enough to either replace it/get it stable.
Only wealthy end users can do this. Home users and small mom-n-pop businesses are left high and dry.
If the upgrade cycle were a "wall function" that immediately required you to upgrade from x to y, then there would be a strong advantage to Open Source.
However, the upgrade cycle is not a wall. If I wanted to, I could still surf the net with Netscape 3.x and Windows95, and most of it would work.
I've seen legacy apps in business last even longer than that. Everybody poo-pooed them, but they worked, and the primary road block to getting them replaced was the expense of the custom programming and system integration that had to be done. An off-the-shelf solution, proprietary or otherwise, would have been preferable.
that no one envisions a world with a gene sequencer on every desktop!
Except of course the writers of Star Trek Voyager. Not only can they sequence DNA with a device the size of a Palm Pilot, they have a holographic doctor that will do it for you if you're lazy.
The one thing they can't do is shut down holographic programs when they go sour. Apparently kill -9 doesn't exist in the 23rd century.
(I'm referring to last night's episode shown on UPN)
A "pure end user" is somebody who will never look at the source. Therefore, unlimited distribution, in binary form only, is maximum freedom for the pure end user. Anything else is superfluous.
If it could be demonstrated that GPL, or any other Open Source license tended to increase the distribution of a program, then your argument might make sense from the point of view that the end user would have more software. Empirical data neither confirms nor denies this. Yes, Linux is widely distributed, but so are Internet Explorer, Napster, and a lot of other closed source programs.
The argument that GPL enhances end user freedom makes the most sense when applied in the long run, where binaries go "stale" and open source remains viable. However, there are many cases of open source going "stale" too. If the developers lose interest in developing a piece of software, and move onto something else, this is just as detrimental to end users as Microsoft's planned obsolescence.
...to make up for the curves on the iMac. Aesthetic balance, you know.
I seem to recall somebody talking about the "bubbelization of America" when the iMac was still causing a stir. I will be really amused if the Cube takes off, and somebody laments the "cubization of America".
What about these guys?
As a couple of people pointed out, sound travels faster in water, and as a general rule, faster in denser material.
To make sense of it, remember that sound is a vibration. Now, if you hit a brick, how fast is the hit transmitted? Likewise, if you hit the air, how fast is the hit transmitted? Finally, if you hit a vacuum, no hit is transmitted, making the speed of sound in a vacuum infinitely slow.
Just my opinion though, since I haven't psychoanalyzed the person who posted that.
One of the arguments against porting apps to Linux has been, "Why bother supporting an OS with a customer base that selected the OS because they didn't feel like paying". The logic is inescapable. The fact that somebody uses NT or MacOS is proof that they will buy software.
Now, if this proves successful for AW, many others may follow. Naturally, if it proves a flop many others will stay away.
I hope AW doesn't price the Linux version any differently than for other OS's. That will make this a fair test. Also, if they priced it lower, people who view it as their killer app would start migrating to Linux for that very reason, thus decreasing AW's profits.
In 1992, I was on USENET (no web) and somebody posted an animated picture of a woman doing something with a Coke bottle, if you catch my drift.
The poster was soundly thrashed by the entire newsgroup. People lamented that "if this kind of thing is allowed, the Internet might be shut down". The poster was rumored to have lost net priveleges after that.
This was certainly not the first porn on the Internet, but it was my first experience of USENET porn. It's interesting how attitudes have shifted.
BTW, the only way we could view pictures was to uudecode (by hand) cat the (usually several) files, and then utter curses if we didn't have the proper viewer installed. I never went through the trouble to decode the picture, I just saw respondants objecting to it.
...having to explain to all the stupid people why driving 100 mph with the windmill deployed won't get you free power.
One last thing, is the GPL really considered to be the free-est license around? I am not expert or even that informed, but I was understand that the BSD license took that title?
After considerable investigation, I've decided that the license underwhich you received your education is the most free license.
To date, I have yet to hear of any school asking you to sign a EULA or even read any kind of an agreement at all pertaining to what you could or could not do with your education. You can even claim that what you know is your own knowledge, unless it's a famous piece of knowledge like the theory of relativity.
Seriously? Public Domain is usually considered the most free license, followed closely by non advertising BSD, then advertising BSD. There are several other advertising licenses that permit use in both closed and open sourced applications (such as the IJG license). Then we have copyleft licenses that allow closed-source linking, such as LGPL. Then we have pure copyleft (GPL). Then we have restricted open source (SCSL, MSRL), closed source, military projects, black military projects, "I could tell you but I'd have to kill you", and "you're dead".
A lawyer was recently consulted to see where the Artistic License might fit on this spectrum. We'll get back to you as soon as he stops laughing.
For the record, I personally don't think duplication of effort is a bad thing at all.
It sometimes goes by another name: Diversity.
Ok, that answers the how, but not the why. If SourceGear was just sick and tired of dealing with proprietary MS file formats, and had enough spare developers lying around to do something about it, I can certainly empathize with that (while maintaining my long-standing preference for non copyleft licences of course, but that is another kettle of fish).
Sorry. It was unfair to label you as the archetype for the Open Source Advocate. In fact, it's unfair to do that to anybody.
Nevertheless, such a character does exist. Much like the "average joe" he is nobody yet everybody in the Open Source movement. At least, that is the way me and many others perceive it.
I'm intrigued. If AbiWord doesn't make money, what enables you and your cohorts to continue producing it? What is SourceGear's insentive to transfer revenue from a source (which must exist) to a sink?
But mostly I think it's fair to say that the masses can't cope with the idea of a function being a return-type in its own right (which is probably the defining feature of a pure functional language);
OK, I've been reading all these comments about "functional" vs. other types of languages trying to figure out what people mean. Now C can send back a function pointer as a return type just fine, yet the consensus here is that C is not a functional language. What am I missing?
Even in an Open Source world, there is room for multiple efforts.
I love it. Ask an Open Source advocate why all software should be free and he'll say "to avoid duplication of effort". Ask him to explain why the release of a superior product won't destroy his business and he says "there is room for multiple efforts".
Gas is the standard. Like Windows. Oh... you drive a Macintosh... we don't have any Mac mechanics.
Of course there is also the issue of building out infrastructure for other fuels. If the fuel is a liquid comparable in storage requirements to gasoline, distribution is less a problem than retrofitting all those engines.
If you want to place bets on something that might compete with gasoline, I'd say ethanol or methanol, because they can be pumped like gasoline and the engine modifications are not too severe. Obviously what's needed is cross platform automobiles that can run on more than one kind of OS... err, um fuel. Java cars?
Of course, the Java car isn't quite as fast as the regular car, and sometimes you have to type SET CLASSPATH=/carburator/intake_valve/cylinder to make it start.
Propane might be a worthy competitor too. I've been thinking it would be really cool to drive up to the propane station and swap tanks. That infrastructure is already in place throughout much of the country. The only real motive we need is for the licensing agreement, er.. um... the price on the gasoline to become a real nuisance.
Then we will start seeing all kinds of similar but slightly different fuels competing in the market place. Linux cars.
Wild, Wild West. Unbridled information warfare. Thank-you Napster, musicians, and counter-napsters for duking it out.
Napster thumbs nose at copyright, artist thumbs nose at Napster. Eventually, I'm sure there will be some kind of sane equilibrium, just as the Wild West was eventually tamed. The nice thing is that these gunfights are bloodless.
What happened to that poor soul?
Assuming the picture is real? Many months of reconstructive surgery, afterwhich I bet he looks almost normal. It's amazing what surgeons can do.
Yes... 20000 meters. Of course he neglected to mention that it's only 1 micrometer long. That's right, a unbeknownst to the inhabitants, a large portion of the earth is in fact covered with a thin layer of this man's penis. Scientists had previously mistaken it for a large mold colony.
Sorry, I'm just in a silly mood right now.
Look ma, I just shut down Slashdot.
The real problem is to make sure that help is always there for those who need it, while simultaneously instilling in people the notion that they cannot rely on that help.
If people think that they can rely on charity, some of them will, and it drags the system down. Therefore, I move that we set aside a portion of our income taxes for charity, and divide it up as follows: 25% health care, 25% housing assistance, 25% food and 25% for a massive disinformation campaign to convince the general public that the other 3 charities don't exist.
Now most music has a prelude, a quiet opener,
Ughh!!! Then they would probably keep talking during the opening parts of the song like bad radio DJs do.
grain of salt the size of a Ford Taurus
Next we'll see stuff like "this new graphics card is sweeter than a Pepsi on a hot summer day".