On the other hand, software distributors and systems integrators have the benefit of using the code without paying too much for it, driving down their costs and either improving their profits or decreasing consumer costs. I bet in the end the economy is still better than it would have been.
Also, you'd have to spread part of the whole amount over many years, since GNU tools have been under development for a long time.
- Do YOU want to work for free?
I work on stuff that I find interesting. It lets me get away from the sometimes boring stuff I do at work, it's a nice release valve and learning experience to experiment with some different kinds of code than I would normally see during the day, and in the end I get software that works more like I want it to. I don't think there are really that many people in free software "working for free" - I think most people get more out of it than they put in, and that's why they do it.
Caution: contents may be quarrelsome and meticulous!
See, the joke is the jwz quote "Linux is only free if your time has no value." In both cases you have to put in the time to get the reward of supposedly free stuff.
Caution: contents may be quarrelsome and meticulous!
Part of the reason to statically link was mentioned in the recent article about Gnucash: you avoid DLL Hell if you carry all your libs around with you. I don't think it's a great reason, but it's a reason.
Caution: contents may be quarrelsome and meticulous!
In this particular case, the satellite probably cost more. If you use that satellite to bust enough fraud complaints, then it may pay for itself. This was more of a test case/new technology prototype than anything.
Caution: contents may be quarrelsome and meticulous!
Then you say that RHAT has a marketing department that works against the engineers out of spite? Sounds like a
sick company to me, in the black or not.
Really? Sounds like a typical technical company to me:)
Caution: contents may be quarrelsome and meticulous!
I think that a lot of Microsoft PR these days is aimed towards confounding the admitted virus-like nature of GPL'd code with the advantages and disadvantages of using GPL'd products. I agree with you on the "narrow interpretation", but I think Microsoft is trying to a fast one and hang the problems of their narrow interpretation onto the larger issue of using GPL'd products and platforms in business.
Most users of GPL'd software don't ever alter it or link it into their products, and so they have nothing to fear (example: our proprietary product is compiled with gcc). Microsoft is trying to make those users fearful for their livelihood, and drive them back into the Windows fold. Their argument (or at least what they want people to hear) is that any use of GPL'd software will infect your business, which is disproved by Microsoft's use of anything that is GPL'd. It doesn't disprove what they say so much as provide a counterexample to the dangers they're warning about.
Caution: contents may be quarrelsome and meticulous!
According to the full interview, nobody's ever asked! It's great that you've figured out what we've all been missing for so long (according to Mr. Gates). And to think, all we had to do was ask Microsoft, and they'd just start giving back to the community just like that. We've really been too harsh on Microsoft - with friends like that, who needs the GPL?
(of course this was sarcasm, but not directed at you MeNeXT:)
Caution: contents may be quarrelsome and meticulous!
I agree, such an expectation would be ludicrous in the extreme. The point of the comment about stats.zone.com is just that - if the GPL is really cancer-like or pac-man-like, they would have no choice but to GPL their proprietary code. The fact that obviously they haven't done so, and the FSF hasn't gone after them to do so, shows that the Mundie/Gates story is pure FUD.
Caution: contents may be quarrelsome and meticulous!
Totally untrue. The FSF et al. have always agreed that you can run proprietary software on a GPL'd operating system, and even distribute the two together, providing source for the OS but not the proprietary app. This is because the app is not a derivative work of the OS. Proprietary software could run just as well on the Hurd, for example (although I don't know if there is any yet).
Linus did make a special exception to allow binary-only device drivers into the kernel in some cases, but in that case the OS + those drivers is a derivative work, since they're essentially linked in to the OS kernel. Maybe that's what you're thinking of?
Caution: contents may be quarrelsome and meticulous!
And that is true, the BSD license does give you more
freedom, and with more freedom, you have more of a responsibility, part of that being to give back to the
community that you borrowed from.
Mr. Gates seems very happy with that freedom to use BSD-licensed software, but I can't quite recall - when was the last time he shouldered his responsibility to return some Windows code into the community for others to use? Oh wait, never.
I understand from a theoretical point of view that the BSD license depends more on the goodwill of the users of the code to get modifications back out into the community, but I don't think too many businesses are really interested in community. Like Microsoft, they'd prefer the taking without the giving.
But the BSD gives you the freedom to make that choice on your own, the GPL
does not, it forces you to conform.
The GPL forces you to conform if you wish to use GPL'd code, yes. I would posit that this operation of the GPL has resulted in more proprietary code becoming GPL'd than the goodwill expectations of the BSD license has. It's not some sort of cancer or trap like Gates & Co. make it out to be, but GPL'd code does exert powerful leverage by way of its license, and the lever becomes a little more powerful with every bit of new, good, GPL'd code in the world.
Caution: contents may be quarrelsome and meticulous!
Ha ha, but in fact "wrt" is a perfectly good acronym for "With Respect To", although it is usually in caps: WRT. Of all the potential targets, you picked the wrong editorial mistake:)
Caution: contents may be quarrelsome and meticulous!
I'd subscribe, especially if it would return the site to the kind of discussions it had a couple years ago. Just a modest fee to wade out the amateur trolls, please...
Caution: contents may be quarrelsome and meticulous!
I read on the LKML about another web server which was almost as fast as Tux (sorry, no direct link because I can't remember the name). It was user-space rather than kernel space, but almost as fast as Tux and still faster than Apache because it was able to make use of some of the kernel improvements spawned by Tux.
Apache was never the real target, anyway - they've never claimed to be particularly speedy, just robust, flexible, and correct.
Caution: contents may be quarrelsome and meticulous!
Or (personal best) when someone passes you on the raised median in the center of the road at a much greater speed than you were driving or the road was rated for. I prayed for part of a sign or a rock for them to run over, but no joy:(
Caution: contents may be quarrelsome and meticulous!
My favorite: $50 added to the fine because it was a work zone. I would be a lot more understanding if it hadn't been 1:00 AM on a deserted highway in the middle of Indiana - trust me, there were no road crews out there for me to hit. If they'd been working, I'd have been happy to pay the extra $50, except that the sight of Indiana road crews actually working (and at night to boot) might have killed me first.
Caution: contents may be quarrelsome and meticulous!
Better yet, fasten the receiver onto the track of the garage door. It will look like you make a lot of short trips back and forth across your garage:)
But seriously, if GPS receivers are ever required in cars, there will be laws against removing them, or more specifically against driving without one installed. Just like emissions control devices, the government could easily make GPS required equipment for operating an automobile on public roads.
Caution: contents may be quarrelsome and meticulous!
Slashdot Mirror
It might be more productive - I post on /. a lot more from work than I do when hacking at home :)
Caution: contents may be quarrelsome and meticulous!
On the other hand, software distributors and systems integrators have the benefit of using the code without paying too much for it, driving down their costs and either improving their profits or decreasing consumer costs. I bet in the end the economy is still better than it would have been.
Also, you'd have to spread part of the whole amount over many years, since GNU tools have been under development for a long time.
I work on stuff that I find interesting. It lets me get away from the sometimes boring stuff I do at work, it's a nice release valve and learning experience to experiment with some different kinds of code than I would normally see during the day, and in the end I get software that works more like I want it to. I don't think there are really that many people in free software "working for free" - I think most people get more out of it than they put in, and that's why they do it.
Caution: contents may be quarrelsome and meticulous!
See, the joke is the jwz quote "Linux is only free if your time has no value." In both cases you have to put in the time to get the reward of supposedly free stuff.
Caution: contents may be quarrelsome and meticulous!
Part of the reason to statically link was mentioned in the recent article about Gnucash: you avoid DLL Hell if you carry all your libs around with you. I don't think it's a great reason, but it's a reason.
Caution: contents may be quarrelsome and meticulous!
In this particular case, the satellite probably cost more. If you use that satellite to bust enough fraud complaints, then it may pay for itself. This was more of a test case/new technology prototype than anything.
Caution: contents may be quarrelsome and meticulous!
Really? Sounds like a typical technical company to me :)
Caution: contents may be quarrelsome and meticulous!
I think that a lot of Microsoft PR these days is aimed towards confounding the admitted virus-like nature of GPL'd code with the advantages and disadvantages of using GPL'd products. I agree with you on the "narrow interpretation", but I think Microsoft is trying to a fast one and hang the problems of their narrow interpretation onto the larger issue of using GPL'd products and platforms in business.
Most users of GPL'd software don't ever alter it or link it into their products, and so they have nothing to fear (example: our proprietary product is compiled with gcc). Microsoft is trying to make those users fearful for their livelihood, and drive them back into the Windows fold. Their argument (or at least what they want people to hear) is that any use of GPL'd software will infect your business, which is disproved by Microsoft's use of anything that is GPL'd. It doesn't disprove what they say so much as provide a counterexample to the dangers they're warning about.
Caution: contents may be quarrelsome and meticulous!
The funny ones, at least :)
Caution: contents may be quarrelsome and meticulous!
Is there a web form somewhere that spits these out, sort of like a Mad Lib? I would hate to think you guys are doing all of these by hand :)
Caution: contents may be quarrelsome and meticulous!
According to the full interview, nobody's ever asked! It's great that you've figured out what we've all been missing for so long (according to Mr. Gates). And to think, all we had to do was ask Microsoft, and they'd just start giving back to the community just like that. We've really been too harsh on Microsoft - with friends like that, who needs the GPL?
(of course this was sarcasm, but not directed at you MeNeXT :)
Caution: contents may be quarrelsome and meticulous!
I agree, such an expectation would be ludicrous in the extreme. The point of the comment about stats.zone.com is just that - if the GPL is really cancer-like or pac-man-like, they would have no choice but to GPL their proprietary code. The fact that obviously they haven't done so, and the FSF hasn't gone after them to do so, shows that the Mundie/Gates story is pure FUD.
Caution: contents may be quarrelsome and meticulous!
Totally untrue. The FSF et al. have always agreed that you can run proprietary software on a GPL'd operating system, and even distribute the two together, providing source for the OS but not the proprietary app. This is because the app is not a derivative work of the OS. Proprietary software could run just as well on the Hurd, for example (although I don't know if there is any yet).
Linus did make a special exception to allow binary-only device drivers into the kernel in some cases, but in that case the OS + those drivers is a derivative work, since they're essentially linked in to the OS kernel. Maybe that's what you're thinking of?
Caution: contents may be quarrelsome and meticulous!
Not on new Windows XP :)
Caution: contents may be quarrelsome and meticulous!
Mr. Gates seems very happy with that freedom to use BSD-licensed software, but I can't quite recall - when was the last time he shouldered his responsibility to return some Windows code into the community for others to use? Oh wait, never.
I understand from a theoretical point of view that the BSD license depends more on the goodwill of the users of the code to get modifications back out into the community, but I don't think too many businesses are really interested in community. Like Microsoft, they'd prefer the taking without the giving.
The GPL forces you to conform if you wish to use GPL'd code, yes. I would posit that this operation of the GPL has resulted in more proprietary code becoming GPL'd than the goodwill expectations of the BSD license has. It's not some sort of cancer or trap like Gates & Co. make it out to be, but GPL'd code does exert powerful leverage by way of its license, and the lever becomes a little more powerful with every bit of new, good, GPL'd code in the world.
Caution: contents may be quarrelsome and meticulous!
Ha ha, but in fact "wrt" is a perfectly good acronym for "With Respect To", although it is usually in caps: WRT. Of all the potential targets, you picked the wrong editorial mistake :)
Caution: contents may be quarrelsome and meticulous!
I'd subscribe, especially if it would return the site to the kind of discussions it had a couple years ago. Just a modest fee to wade out the amateur trolls, please...
Caution: contents may be quarrelsome and meticulous!
A story when all the trolls about VA Linux going under are actually on-topic! Have at it, guys :)
Caution: contents may be quarrelsome and meticulous!
I read on the LKML about another web server which was almost as fast as Tux (sorry, no direct link because I can't remember the name). It was user-space rather than kernel space, but almost as fast as Tux and still faster than Apache because it was able to make use of some of the kernel improvements spawned by Tux.
Apache was never the real target, anyway - they've never claimed to be particularly speedy, just robust, flexible, and correct.
Caution: contents may be quarrelsome and meticulous!
Yeah, but why would you leave your eyes on Roseanne all night? Heck, if anything you're going to burn in a login screen...
Caution: contents may be quarrelsome and meticulous!
I would totally pay to be able to do that to other drivers. Unfortunately, the last people to opt in would be the ones that need it the most...
Caution: contents may be quarrelsome and meticulous!
Or (personal best) when someone passes you on the raised median in the center of the road at a much greater speed than you were driving or the road was rated for. I prayed for part of a sign or a rock for them to run over, but no joy :(
Caution: contents may be quarrelsome and meticulous!
My favorite: $50 added to the fine because it was a work zone. I would be a lot more understanding if it hadn't been 1:00 AM on a deserted highway in the middle of Indiana - trust me, there were no road crews out there for me to hit. If they'd been working, I'd have been happy to pay the extra $50, except that the sight of Indiana road crews actually working (and at night to boot) might have killed me first.
Caution: contents may be quarrelsome and meticulous!
Better yet, fasten the receiver onto the track of the garage door. It will look like you make a lot of short trips back and forth across your garage :)
But seriously, if GPS receivers are ever required in cars, there will be laws against removing them, or more specifically against driving without one installed. Just like emissions control devices, the government could easily make GPS required equipment for operating an automobile on public roads.
Caution: contents may be quarrelsome and meticulous!
The amazing thing is that ever single post on that story was in-character. It gets my vote, at least in the humor category. Oh wait, I mean
Delight and bemusement at those k5 denizens.
Self-deprecating humor ending with an inappropriate smiley.
Lame-ass (but confrontational, always confrontational) sig to follow:
Caution: contents may be quarrelsome and meticulous!
At some point, yes. Well, except for the "MicroVax framebuffer on acid" part :)
Caution: contents may be quarrelsome and meticulous!