I write free software for a living, and I'm getting paid. I'm writing an application for a vertical market (i.e. a market with very few customers). They pay me to provide the functionality they need, and they don't care about the license.
In the other end, the horizontal market, people are getting paid as well. The Linux kernel, Mozilla, and Open Office are primarily developed by people getting paid to do so.
And in-between these two extremes, people are getting paid as well. Samba, Apache, GCC, GDB and other popular network and development applications are primarily being developed by people getting paid to do so.
It is true that most free software applications, if you count them on sourceforge, are developed by amateurs in their spare time. But most of these applications have very few users as well.
Most of the free software most people use are developed by people getting paid to do so.
For Microsoft, the only significant competition for their new products is their own old products. Going to a subscription based model they eliminated that.
If you are unhappy with Red Hat, there are plenty of others who will be happy to sell you mostly the same product. I will for one, but you would not like the price.
No, I don't. But I believe the difference between the three that leads to Linus being less hated is this:
ESR makes claim about what you *do* believe in. This is really annoying, even when he is right.
RMS makes claims about what you *should* believe in. Lots of people hate that. Pesonally, I respect that he promote his values as universally true, even when I disagree with them.
Linus only makes claim about what *he himself* belive in, it is up to you whether your coals are compatible. Few people have a problem with that, RMS as an absolutist may be one of them.
Levels of profit expected during dot.com boom?
on
The Open Code Market
·
· Score: 3, Funny
Did he mean the site didn't run with big losses and an unsustainable business plan?
He is very idealistic and uncompromising about his goals, but just as pragmatic about how to achieve them. The GPL is an example of this, he dislike the copyright system, and yet is willing to use it to achieve his goal.
He has always tried to resolve GPL violations out of court, either by making the infrigor obey the terms of the GPL or by making them stop distributing GPL'ed code.
Some would say that shows lack of confidence in the GPL, because going to court is The American Way. As an European I suspect it is just because he, as is common over here, believe that going to court should be a last resort, and threatening to go to court should be the second to last resort.
at least not in the conventional sense. It is a natural and necessary part of our ecosystem. And increased levels of CO2 are not a direct threat to our ecosystem, it will increase plant growth which is usually thought of a good thing. More plants will feed more anaimals, including us.
Increasing CO2 levels are only a problem if the increase is large enough to increase the temperature of the Earth, due to the greenhouse effect. An increased temperature will have good and bad effects, but it will change weather patterns and increase sea level, which will certainly cause problems both for us and the rest of the ecological system.
I'm sure they will deny that. They are simply redistributing some code they claim is in the public domain.
Since there is no way any sane court will accept their claim the GNU/Linux is in the public domain, and they haven't accepted the license, they are simply making a copyright violation.
By their own estomate, GNU/Linux is worth at least US$ 699 (that's their price, right?), per seat. So as a copyright holder, you should sue them for that amount for every copy of Linux ever distributed by SCO, including those downloaded from ftp. This is what RIAA does, with success.
It answers your question. But since you are obviously too lazy to do that:
Netscape was an example of a company with a dominant position on the market, but with a moderate profit, being sold to a price that suggested that investors believed the dominant position on the market could be translated into a much higher profit.
Google is in a similar position. The Economist suggest some ways Google may turn their market position into higher profit, and list some of the challanges and risks involved in doing that. One of these risks happened to be the same one that faced Netscape, namely Microsoft taking interest in the market.
When a project reaches a certain size, some red tape must be expected. Requiring that all patches are associated with a specific change request seem very modest to me.
Bugzilla is, despite its name, not just about bugs. It is just that Change Requestzilla isn't a very catchy name.
What is interesting is that France got the top spot and Germany the bottom spot.
Maybe this reflect that Germany was against the war from start to end, while France only decided in the last possible minutte, and the German position thus seem more consistsnt and less weasely.
More likely, this reflect the general US tactics towards Europe: Bribe the Russians, Fight the French and ignore the Germans.
Anyway, I agree with the general sentiment. France more or less sabotaged the possibility of a UN solution. I disagree with US starting a war without UN, but while US took the role of the bully, the Frenmch role was probably more that of a weasel.
It is a policy that all data managed by software from one company should also be accessible by software from any other company that might want to bid on a future contract. I.e. it is a mandate for open standards, a mandate that put all companies on an equal term for now and in the future.
It is a pro-competition law, which is why MS hate it. They don't like competion, there is much more money in being a de-facto monopoly.
If you can't afford the fee, they will lower it or even remove it. They promise paying the fee has no influence on whether the article is accepted.
One could view the fee as a "suggested voluntary donation", however scientist are generally not allowed to spend research grants on charity. I know I'm not, I tried to make my university donate money to the FSF as a thank for the software we use. We ended up buying overpriced stuff from them instead.
By phrasing it this way it will be a lot easier to get the payment accepted. It probably also put a higher moral pressure on the submitters to pay if they can.
According to the article, only web-sites on a manually updated blacklist would get hit.
However, that has lots of problems of its own. Is the blacklist reliable? And won't the owner of the blacklist be legaly responsible for the resulting DDOS attack on the spamvertized sites?
The statement used to be printed on otherwise blank pages in IBM documentation. Someone else took to write "This space intentionally left almost blank".
When/. insist that we write something even when we have nothing more to say, an nerdish reference seem most apropriate.
> When I visit Canada, there's nothing more annoying > than trying to cram those giant notes into my > wallet.
Maybe I just have a vivid imagination, but I can think of worse things than cramming giant notes into my wallet. In fact, I wish I more often had to cram giant (= high denomination) notes into my wallet.
But it is possible that the FSF would not have dropped funding Hurd development, which mean Hurd would have finished long ago. Given that a prefectly good GPL'ed kernel existed (Linux), development of Hurd was no longer important.
Slashdot Mirror
I write free software for a living, and I'm getting paid. I'm writing an application for a vertical market (i.e. a market with very few customers). They pay me to provide the functionality they need, and they don't care about the license.
In the other end, the horizontal market, people are getting paid as well. The Linux kernel, Mozilla, and Open Office are primarily developed by people getting paid to do so.
And in-between these two extremes, people are getting paid as well. Samba, Apache, GCC, GDB and other popular network and development applications are primarily being developed by people getting paid to do so.
It is true that most free software applications, if you count them on sourceforge, are developed by amateurs in their spare time. But most of these applications have very few users as well.
Most of the free software most people use are developed by people getting paid to do so.
Stop distributing the infringing code. The FSF don't sue for damages if the infringment stops.
I'm happy they have found a profitable niche, and also that they don't attempt to own the whole market.
Red Hat is *not* the Microsoft of Linux, they *don't* have a monopols moral obligation to serve the needs of everybody.
There is no gapping hole, there is a business opportunity for someone. Maybe SUSE.
The difference is that Red Hat is not a monopoly.
For Microsoft, the only significant competition for their new products is their own old products. Going to a subscription based model they eliminated that.
If you are unhappy with Red Hat, there are plenty of others who will be happy to sell you mostly the same product. I will for one, but you would not like the price.
Or rather, they were about the low-level technical challenges that needs to be overcome in order to make the free Unix desktops easier to use.
Poor reading skills seems to be a larger problem on /. than poor writing skills.
No, I don't. But I believe the difference between the three that leads to Linus being less hated is this:
ESR makes claim about what you *do* believe in. This is really annoying, even when he is right.
RMS makes claims about what you *should* believe in. Lots of people hate that. Pesonally, I respect that he promote his values as universally true, even when I disagree with them.
Linus only makes claim about what *he himself* belive in, it is up to you whether your coals are compatible. Few people have a problem with that, RMS as an absolutist may be one of them.
Did he mean the site didn't run with big losses and an unsustainable business plan?
.com boom.
I that was what was expected during the
The GPL was written by RMS in cooperation with some other lawyer.
He is very idealistic and uncompromising about his goals, but just as pragmatic about how to achieve them. The GPL is an example of this, he dislike the copyright system, and yet is willing to use it to achieve his goal.
He has always tried to resolve GPL violations out of court, either by making the infrigor obey the terms of the GPL or by making them stop distributing GPL'ed code.
Some would say that shows lack of confidence in the GPL, because going to court is The American Way. As an European I suspect it is just because he, as is common over here, believe that going to court should be a last resort, and threatening to go to court should be the second to last resort.
at least not in the conventional sense. It is a natural and necessary part of our ecosystem. And increased levels of CO2 are not a direct threat to our ecosystem, it will increase plant growth which is usually thought of a good thing. More plants will feed more anaimals, including us.
Increasing CO2 levels are only a problem if the increase is large enough to increase the temperature of the Earth, due to the greenhouse effect. An increased temperature will have good and bad effects, but it will change weather patterns and increase sea level, which will certainly cause problems both for us and the rest of the ecological system.
I'm sure they will deny that. They are simply redistributing some code they claim is in the public domain.
Since there is no way any sane court will accept their claim the GNU/Linux is in the public domain, and they haven't accepted the license, they are simply making a copyright violation.
By their own estomate, GNU/Linux is worth at least US$ 699 (that's their price, right?), per seat. So as a copyright holder, you should sue them for that amount for every copy of Linux ever distributed by SCO, including those downloaded from ftp. This is what RIAA does, with success.
It answers your question. But since you are obviously too lazy to do that:
Netscape was an example of a company with a dominant position on the market, but with a moderate profit, being sold to a price that suggested that investors believed the dominant position on the market could be translated into a much higher profit.
Google is in a similar position. The Economist suggest some ways Google may turn their market position into higher profit, and list some of the challanges and risks involved in doing that. One of these risks happened to be the same one that faced Netscape, namely Microsoft taking interest in the market.
When a project reaches a certain size, some red tape must be expected. Requiring that all patches are associated with a specific change request seem very modest to me.
Bugzilla is, despite its name, not just about bugs. It is just that Change Requestzilla isn't a very catchy name.
What is interesting is that France got the top spot and Germany the bottom spot.
Maybe this reflect that Germany was against the war from start to end, while France only decided in the last possible minutte, and the German position thus seem more consistsnt and less weasely.
More likely, this reflect the general US tactics towards Europe: Bribe the Russians, Fight the French and ignore the Germans.
Anyway, I agree with the general sentiment. France more or less sabotaged the possibility of a UN solution. I disagree with US starting a war without UN, but while US took the role of the bully, the Frenmch role was probably more that of a weasel.
It is a policy that all data managed by software from one company should also be accessible by software from any other company that might want to bid on a future contract. I.e. it is a mandate for open standards, a mandate that put all companies on an equal term for now and in the future.
It is a pro-competition law, which is why MS hate it. They don't like competion, there is much more money in being a de-facto monopoly.
If you can't afford the fee, they will lower it or even remove it. They promise paying the fee has no influence on whether the article is accepted.
One could view the fee as a "suggested voluntary donation", however scientist are generally not allowed to spend research grants on charity. I know I'm not, I tried to make my university donate money to the FSF as a thank for the software we use. We ended up buying overpriced stuff from them instead.
By phrasing it this way it will be a lot easier to get the payment accepted. It probably also put a higher moral pressure on the submitters to pay if they can.
According to the article, only web-sites on a manually updated blacklist would get hit.
However, that has lots of problems of its own. Is the blacklist reliable? And won't the owner of the blacklist be legaly responsible for the resulting DDOS attack on the spamvertized sites?
The statement used to be printed on otherwise blank pages in IBM documentation. Someone else took to write "This space intentionally left almost blank".
/. insist that we write something even when we have nothing more to say, an nerdish reference seem most apropriate.
When
> When I visit Canada, there's nothing more annoying
> than trying to cram those giant notes into my
> wallet.
Maybe I just have a vivid imagination, but I can think of worse things than cramming giant notes into my wallet. In fact, I wish I more often had to cram giant (= high denomination) notes into my wallet.
This space intentionally left blank.
The GPL is more or less a legal expression of RMS's political agenda, and it has been quite influential.
The kernel really doesn't matter a lot.
But it is possible that the FSF would not have dropped funding Hurd development, which mean Hurd would have finished long ago. Given that a prefectly good GPL'ed kernel existed (Linux), development of Hurd was no longer important.
He is the current Emacs maintainer, so he has gobe back to his roots, so to speak.