The article talks about how they don't have the know-how to successfully complete the OS deployment, and you're suggesting that they actually dive into the code and fix OS problems themselves? Hahahah... seriously, I think you are missing the big picture here.
Maybe for their situation, it is unreasonable, but not for the big picture. I've worked for fortune a 50 company that spent 100s of thousands of dollars to fly in experts from all over the world to make their windows servers high-availability because rebooting every day was costing them a fortune. When the experts pinpointed it as a problem in the opperating system, they went to Microsoft to fix it and basically got the finger. After that they must have spent another million dollars switching the system over to Solaris. I think they would have been very happy to change the source code if they could, but they couldn't and that is the BIG picture.
Alot of time we see the scientific world, and understand implicitly that existence is rational, and subject our values to repeatable, measurable, and observable criteria (scientific method) - but then all of a sudden when it comes to rights or freedoms, many of the very same people will think that everything is subjective, relative, and about opinion. Well, how can we have a rational argument with such people?
Look, if you don't believe in the same rights as I do then fine, make your point. But don't go off spewing this crap that everything is subjective.
PS: If you post pictures of my mom, I'll think you're a jerk, but other than that it's out of my controll. But if you stalk my mom to get them, then don't be supprised if I'm waiting in the dark shadows for your next visit!
Thank You!!!!! and Amen !!!! IMHO this is what all the other people (like Lessing) who want a compromize between the copyright lords and the information wants to be free crowd miss. That it's not about copyrights at all, it's about free speech. In the eyes of the internet there is no difference between copyright content, porn content, and free speech content. If you have someone in a position to restrict any information, you have someone in a position to restrict any information they disagree with - it's that simple. I think in the end though, we will not be able to rely on the government to secure our free speech rights online. We're simply gonna half to do it in ourselves in defiance. We're gonna half to force an all or nothing proposition. A) Shut down the internet, B) have no controll over content online. So other than that, the internet is completely outside the governments juristiction.
The fact is that ESR knew darn well, like IBM and alot of other people in the industry (even at Sun), that market pressures were going to force Sun to consider open sourcing Java no matter what. Rather than work with Sun, or even make humble suggestions, he demands that Sun open their Java knowing darn well that no matter what happens - he will get the credit.
If Sun caves in, he gets credit... if Sun doesn't - they loose in the marketplace and he can say "I told you so" and get credit. I gotta give it to him, it was a shrewd move on his part, but I think he's a jerk because he exploited their situation for his own personal gain and ego at everyone elses expense.
I am not supprised though, this is not the first time ESR has dome somthing like this, for example, it is little known but he happens to be a studied expert on the foundations of property law. So when people talk about intellectual property - like it's real property he knows darn well it is a bogus lie, and a fraud. But, rather than jsut say that, instead he does just the opposite and impliticly puts down his peers (like RMS) and talks about how he believs in intellectual property because hs is a "libertarian". Well bullshit, IMHO he believs in nothing other than what servs him at others expense. I think ESR is untrue to his nature and we have all suffered because of it.
DRM parallel to the Industrial Revolution
on
Buzzword du Jour: DRM
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
During the 1850's there were those who believed that the entire purpose and meaning of the industrial revolution was to leverage new technology (like the cotton gin) to make their slaves more efficient and expand their plantations for unlimited profit. Of course what this ment was that it was required to have tight controll over the labor force. However at the same time, to prosper, the factories in the north relied on a mobile and specialized workforce - the anti-thesis of the plantation philosophy. Eventually the tension became so bad, that the south decided to try and fence themselves off and become a seperate union.
Long behold, 150 years later, and psycologically little has changed. Rather than deal with the information age, Microsoft, the MPAA, and the RIAA are trying to fence themselves off from the rest of the real world, and like the southern states they're gonna get their ass kicked. I wish they would "get it", it would save us all alot of headaches.
First off, in the information age there is no difference between, free speech content, copyright content, or any other type of content. You are just going to half to get used to that, either we half to appoint someone to watch all of it or none of it. Just because people worship evil cults doesn't mean that we shouldn't have freedom of religion. Just because people write bad things and tabloid trash doesn't mean we shouldn't have freedom of the press. It's no different with content, it's sad that some people find such trash entertaining, but that's just the way it is. Maybe you should disconnect from the internet because your computer uses the same routers as that stuff too.
Second, there is no such thing as evil content, only evil choices. How do you know that you aren't looking at a digitally created police photo used for training purposes? I think it's sick that you would put such an evil act on the same level as the evil content.
And finally, from the time of Moses, to the American revolution, to Rosa Parks not sitting at the back of the bus. History has prooven that the only way to mak e a serious change in the system is defiance - and that freenet is! People don't exist to serve systems, systems exist to serve people. When it comes to copyright imposition, and content sensoring the system is failing and stacked
That's another thing I don't like in America - the incessant labeling. If I want to free music, I must not be an artist or give a damn about those who starve. If I want freedom thru the GPL on as much software as possible, I must be some kind of a socialist who wants to destroy the free markets and the "commercial" software. If I think social security is a fraud and a ponzi scheme, I must want to kick grandmas wheelchair down the stairs. If I'm sick and tired of the public education system, I must want poor kids to never get ahead in life, and let the rich ones who can afford a private education squish them like bugs. If I hate patents, I must hate the little inventor. Need I go on.
Well, first off, when the government grants a person an unnatural monopoly on copying things, it is anything but free market. But second off, this really touches on something that has been bothering me about America lately. The path to wealth comes about by making freedom an end in itself, not greed. If I pointed a gun to your head, took 10K, invested it, made 20K, and then gave it back to all your friends and took the credit for it - then technically speaking the group would better off financially, but they wouldn't be better off overall because they would have lost controll over their own destinies in the process. IMHO, this is what is happening to the USA. We have lost our financial freedom even though technically speaking we are wealthier than ever.
As soon as I herd the Windows source was out there, I knew it was only a mater of time before the sunami reached the shores.
Well the good news is that now at least the Samba folks will finally be able to figure out how they bastardized SMB.
It ISN'T for the smoke...
on
Hack Your Car
·
· Score: 1, Troll
While they have some effect on the environment, the simple fact is emissions standards are promoted far more to drive used cars out of the marketplace than to protect the environment.
And also, I wouldn't worry about voiding the warranty. They often design those chip boards with very special capacitors, the kind that are likely to burn out after 5 years when the payments run out anyhow. Funny thing is that if you know what you're doing you can switch it out for $5, but if not you gotta pony up $600 mininum for a new board from the factory.
80's = PC Boom 90's = Internet Boom 00's = Linux/Information wants to be free Boom
It's because, Linux is not simply a matter of choosing apples vs oranges - it is actually a superior paradigm, and it can compete like one, and changes the society and the marketplace like one. It is only a metter of time.
Who the hell trusts their government? Who the hell wants someone else to tell them, and everybody what they can and cannot see. Information should not be controlled, and it can't ever be completely controlled.
Thanks, there seems to be this attitude that the internet cant thrive without some kind of centralized controll (corporate, government, or otherwise). I disagree - routing, protocool, addressing, and DNS can (and will) all be done indepentently of any centralized authority if needed. I envision something that is self organized (Like linux development, no central government, no central corporation, natural pressures not to fork the standard) The question we should really be asking is how to redo the DNS so that it's completely non centralized, and how to redo the address assignemnts so that you can just randomly pick out one out of 2^128 addresses, and everybody will learn how to route to you and lookup your name. Then natural pressures will keep anyone else from trying to co-opt it.
In all fairness, all to many people believe in an unworkable system called copyrights that suggests that people have some kind of moral right to restrict what other people copy. Then Microsoft abuses this system to become corrupt and powerfull. Then all of a sudden these same people get in a huff that Microsoft is unjust and monopolistic. Well WTF, why don't we just admit that copyrights are garbage and try to rid ourselves of them, and stop spewing out old worn and unproven propaganda on faith that copyrights actually help creative people more than they harm them.
... We do it as revenge, we do it so that the family of a rape victim can rest easy at night knowing that the asshole responsible is rotting away in a prison cell somewhere.
I disagree, we don't put a rapist in a prison cell for revenge, or to comfort the victim, any more than we do it to deter other rapists. The main reason why we put people like that in prison is to make sure they don't harm society like that again. Maybe it feels like personal revenge to them, because they are in a shitty situation. Maybe the family feels comfort in that they know someone else won't suffer in that way, maybe other people see the consequences of his choices and decide not to do it. - All those are consequences of justice, not justice in and of itself. The justice comes from society being able to more effectively secure their freedoms from the choices of those who wish to take them away.
Confusing justice with revenge is dangerous, because justice and revenge tend to be mutually exclusive. Revenge is more focused on someone else suffering, justice is more focused on bad choices not being made again. Revenge tends to pass arround the problem, justice tends to get to the root of it. Although it may feel otherwise to people, the simple fact is justice never leads to revenge and revenge never leads to justice. Justice tends to revolve arround choices and facts, revenge tends to revolve arround feelings and subjective things. Justice tends to teach people to be more just, revenge tends to teach people to be more vengfull.
So if you want revenge, then fine. But please don't call it justice, that is really a slap in the face, and belittles the millions of people who have suffered from crimes, but never have had the comfort to know justice. That their loss was for a greater good other than just to see some looser squirm.
If HP wants to make a printer that prints all text in piglatin and all images inside out and upside down, they can go ahead and do so. No law says you have to buy or use it.
Hold on, the law does say you half to use their stuff in more ways than you know. HP, and many large companies like them, are what one might call unnaturally large. That is they get to their size and might NOT thru genuine free market forces and consumer loyality, but more thru government intervention - like tax laws that offer special favors, or patent laws that restrict what people can immitate, or even environmental laws (like how Ford pushed thru new environmental regulations not to protect the environment, but to force used cars out of the market and special saftey federal approval regulations to make it harder for startups to compete). The law has plenty to do with it because you are being coerced to use their stuff in more ways than you know, and that gives government cronies more leverage than they should have in enforcing other rules.
Anyone renember St. Thomas, where when the king forced everyone to change to his religion, he disagreed strongly, but tried to declare that he was in full compliance of the law - because the law gave him the right to be silent.
In a way, this is what's happening today. I am confident that the GPL here is not in violation of the law, but I am also confident that copyright monopolies do not belong in the information age and must go. And the GPL is the license most true to that spirit.
PS: St Thomas was executed, inspite of his attempt to stay within the law by being silent. There's a lesson to be learned from this.
So's gravity. Anyway your "free market" sounds more like "market of anarchy", while the one we have in civilized society is all about freedom within the boundaries of a framework of rules. Maybe your inner rebel doesn't like living with rules? But that's the way it is, and I dare you to suggest something that's
Well if they passed a law that said gravity can't exist, and is immoral - I wouldn't try jumping off any bridges either. So why is it that when they pass a law that says information should be treated like pyhsical property, then all of a sudden people start calling me uncivilized and rebellious? WTF!
On this subject I'm as serious as a heart attack. This is precisely what copyrights were intended for. Repeating a previous post I made: Asking for patent/copyright reform is like asking for slavery reform - can't happen. Abolition is THE only way.
I'm sorry I underestimated you... I thought I was being mocked. It's true though, I feel pity for the poor souls who thought the free states could peacfully get along with the slave states. I wander if history won't take a similar stance in the future for those like Lessing and ESR who refuse to let go of the concept that others have a right to restrict what people copy, even though they - more than anyone, should know how evil that is.
I know you're just being funny, but believe it or not this actually has happened. In 1980, George Munster and Richard Walsh wrote a book showing how Australia was involved in the Vietnam war and the Indoneisan invasion of East Timor, and it had alot of supporting documents to prove it. It was deeply humiliating to the government, and they invoked the copyright act to effectively silence it and sieze reprints, even though the supporting documentation was clearly fair use.
This is just another side effect of a copyright society. Although copyrights alledgely promote the creation of works, does not mean they promote the dissimation of usefull works. Alot of people think that cheap tabloids that are pennies on the page, and expensive text books that are pages on the dollar is just another aspect of a free market society, along with the hype over substance that goes with - but it is not. Copyrights are not free market because they are not about freedom, they are about controll. One of these days people will learn that just because an institution calls somthing a right, does not mean that it is. The sooner we learn that with copyrights the better - especially in the information age where the only way to differentiate free speech content from copyright content is to appoint people to censor it.
In a way SCO has already won, because the debate is no longer about if copyrights are right or usefull in the information age, but rather is Linux in violation of copyrights.
It's sorta like arguing if a speech I wrote violates the Kings laws, rather than asking if the king should have the right to restrict peoples speech at all to begin with.
I hate (all) patents, but after working in technology companies awhile, I realized that many companies get patents because they half to - to keep someone else from getting one and screwing them over, and to get into cross-licensing agreements with other large companies - to keep them from being screwed over even more (with patent liability crap).
Sadly, once a patent is gotten, it tends to take a life of it's own because of investor pressures. Patents do not help the honest littel inventor in the back yard (99% of the time) - I wish we could just get rid of them.
IT's NOT about technology, but freedom
on
BSD For Linux Users
·
· Score: 1, Offtopic
The problem with the BSD approach is that it doesn't see copyrights (the right to restrict what people copy) as a restriction on peoples freedoms. It's sorta like saying I believe I should have the freedom to restrict other peoples speech, but if you don't want to restrict other peoples speech - that's OK too. Where the GPL is more like saying, "I'll use my power to restrict your speech when you use your speech to restrict others" In fact, in the information age, we minus well be discussing free speech like this because in the eyes of the internet there is no difference between copyright content and free speech content. You either half to have the power controll all of it or none of it.
The fact is that copyrights, the "right" restrict what other people copy, is an inherent restriction on peoples freedom. And leads to similar problems.
VPS stands for virtual private server. In my opinion, it is the wave of the future and what all these crazy sayings and acronims are really talking about. With VPS, multiple people can share the same hardware while each one thinks they are root and have total administrative access.
VPS means that I can have computers on high speed internet backbones all over the world without the headaches and cost of co-location or sharing a system with a zillion other user accounts. (or going thru the troubble of maxing out my DSL line, and getting dynamic DNS to deal with the DHCP assignments:) I also don't half to beg the administrator everytime I want to want to add a database, email alias, firewall rules, or user accounts. I have nearly total controll.
With VPS you can make your servers whatever you want. Web server, email server, DNS server, chat server, streaming audio server, freenet server, database server or whatnot. And if I don't like my provider, I can just tar off my system config and go somewhere else. If I want more disk, or bandwith available I just click a few configs - and I don't half to order new hardware.
VPS is not some fantasy. It is already here, and you can order it at costs that start out lower than many high end web hosting accounts. (type VPS into any search engine).
IMHO, IBM and HP don't want you to really know this because when enough people start doing this - it means they will buy less high end servers (at first anyhow) and have more options to shop arround. Another thing, is with VPS - multiple vendors are better, because it gives you less reliance on any one system.
Slashdot Mirror
The article talks about how they don't have the know-how to successfully complete the OS deployment, and you're suggesting that they actually dive into the code and fix OS problems themselves? Hahahah... seriously, I think you are missing the big picture here.
Maybe for their situation, it is unreasonable, but not for the big picture. I've worked for fortune a 50 company that spent 100s of thousands of dollars to fly in experts from all over the world to make their windows servers high-availability because rebooting every day was costing them a fortune. When the experts pinpointed it as a problem in the opperating system, they went to Microsoft to fix it and basically got the finger. After that they must have spent another million dollars switching the system over to Solaris. I think they would have been very happy to change the source code if they could, but they couldn't and that is the BIG picture.
Alot of time we see the scientific world, and understand implicitly that existence is rational, and subject our values to repeatable, measurable, and observable criteria (scientific method) - but then all of a sudden when it comes to rights or freedoms, many of the very same people will think that everything is subjective, relative, and about opinion. Well, how can we have a rational argument with such people?
Look, if you don't believe in the same rights as I do then fine, make your point. But don't go off spewing this crap that everything is subjective.
PS: If you post pictures of my mom, I'll think you're a jerk, but other than that it's out of my controll. But if you stalk my mom to get them, then don't be supprised if I'm waiting in the dark shadows for your next visit!
Thank You!!!!! and Amen !!!!
IMHO this is what all the other people (like Lessing) who want a compromize between the copyright lords and the information wants to be free crowd miss. That it's not about copyrights at all, it's about free speech. In the eyes of the internet there is no difference between copyright content, porn content, and free speech content. If you have someone in a position to restrict any information, you have someone in a position to restrict any information they disagree with - it's that simple.
I think in the end though, we will not be able to rely on the government to secure our free speech rights online. We're simply gonna half to do it in ourselves in defiance. We're gonna half to force an all or nothing proposition. A) Shut down the internet, B) have no controll over content online. So other than that, the internet is completely outside the governments juristiction.
The fact is that ESR knew darn well, like IBM and alot of other people in the industry (even at Sun), that market pressures were going to force Sun to consider open sourcing Java no matter what. Rather than work with Sun, or even make humble suggestions, he demands that Sun open their Java knowing darn well that no matter what happens - he will get the credit.
If Sun caves in, he gets credit ... if Sun doesn't - they loose in the marketplace and he can say "I told you so" and get credit. I gotta give it to him, it was a shrewd move on his part, but I think he's a jerk because he exploited their situation for his own personal gain and ego at everyone elses expense.
I am not supprised though, this is not the first time ESR has dome somthing like this, for example, it is little known but he happens to be a studied expert on the foundations of property law. So when people talk about intellectual property - like it's real property he knows darn well it is a bogus lie, and a fraud. But, rather than jsut say that, instead he does just the opposite and impliticly puts down his peers (like RMS) and talks about how he believs in intellectual property because hs is a "libertarian". Well bullshit, IMHO he believs in nothing other than what servs him at others expense. I think ESR is untrue to his nature and we have all suffered because of it.
During the 1850's there were those who believed that the entire purpose and meaning of the industrial revolution was to leverage new technology (like the cotton gin) to make their slaves more efficient and expand their plantations for unlimited profit. Of course what this ment was that it was required to have tight controll over the labor force. However at the same time, to prosper, the factories in the north relied on a mobile and specialized workforce - the anti-thesis of the plantation philosophy. Eventually the tension became so bad, that the south decided to try and fence themselves off and become a seperate union.
Long behold, 150 years later, and psycologically little has changed. Rather than deal with the information age, Microsoft, the MPAA, and the RIAA are trying to fence themselves off from the rest of the real world, and like the southern states they're gonna get their ass kicked. I wish they would "get it", it would save us all alot of headaches.
First off, in the information age there is no difference between, free speech content, copyright content, or any other type of content. You are just going to half to get used to that, either we half to appoint someone to watch all of it or none of it. Just because people worship evil cults doesn't mean that we shouldn't have freedom of religion. Just because people write bad things and tabloid trash doesn't mean we shouldn't have freedom of the press. It's no different with content, it's sad that some people find such trash entertaining, but that's just the way it is. Maybe you should disconnect from the internet because your computer uses the same routers as that stuff too.
Second, there is no such thing as evil content, only evil choices. How do you know that you aren't looking at a digitally created police photo used for training purposes? I think it's sick that you would put such an evil act on the same level as the evil content.
And finally, from the time of Moses, to the American revolution, to Rosa Parks not sitting at the back of the bus. History has prooven that the only way to mak
e a serious change in the system is defiance - and that freenet is! People don't exist to serve systems, systems exist to serve people. When it comes to copyright imposition, and content sensoring the system is failing and stacked
against us. Freenet is a real solution.
That's another thing I don't like in America - the incessant labeling. If I want to free music, I must not be an artist or give a damn about those who starve. If I want freedom thru the GPL on as much software as possible, I must be some kind of a socialist who wants to destroy the free markets and the "commercial" software. If I think social security is a fraud and a ponzi scheme, I must want to kick grandmas wheelchair down the stairs. If I'm sick and tired of the public education system, I must want poor kids to never get ahead in life, and let the rich ones who can afford a private education squish them like bugs. If I hate patents, I must hate the little inventor. Need I go on.
Well, first off, when the government grants a person an unnatural monopoly on copying things, it is anything but free market. But second off, this really touches on something that has been bothering me about America lately. The path to wealth comes about by making freedom an end in itself, not greed.
If I pointed a gun to your head, took 10K, invested it, made 20K, and then gave it back to all your friends and took the credit for it - then technically speaking the group would better off financially, but they wouldn't be better off overall because they would have lost controll over their own destinies in the process. IMHO, this is what is happening to the USA. We have lost our financial freedom even though technically speaking we are wealthier than ever.
As soon as I herd the Windows source was out there, I knew it was only a mater of time before the sunami reached the shores.
Well the good news is that now at least the Samba folks will finally be able to figure out how they bastardized SMB.
While they have some effect on the environment, the simple fact is emissions standards are promoted far more to drive used cars out of the marketplace than to protect the environment.
And also, I wouldn't worry about voiding the warranty. They often design those chip boards with very special capacitors, the kind that are likely to burn out after 5 years when the payments run out anyhow. Funny thing is that if you know what you're doing you can switch it out for $5, but if not you gotta pony up $600 mininum for a new board from the factory.
Heres my take,
80's = PC Boom
90's = Internet Boom
00's = Linux/Information wants to be free Boom
It's because, Linux is not simply a matter of choosing apples vs oranges - it is actually a superior paradigm, and it can compete like one, and changes the society and the marketplace like one. It is only a metter of time.
Who the hell trusts their government? Who the hell wants someone else to tell them, and everybody what they can and cannot see. Information should not be controlled, and it can't ever be completely controlled.
Thanks, there seems to be this attitude that the internet cant thrive without some kind of centralized controll (corporate, government, or otherwise). I disagree - routing, protocool, addressing, and DNS can (and will) all be done indepentently of any centralized authority if needed. I envision something that is self organized (Like linux development, no central government, no central corporation, natural pressures not to fork the standard) The question we should really be asking is how to redo the DNS so that it's completely non centralized, and how to redo the address assignemnts so that you can just randomly pick out one out of 2^128 addresses, and everybody will learn how to route to you and lookup your name. Then natural pressures will keep anyone else from trying to co-opt it.
In all fairness, all to many people believe in an unworkable system called copyrights that suggests that people have some kind of moral right to restrict what other people copy. Then Microsoft abuses this system to become corrupt and powerfull. Then all of a sudden these same people get in a huff that Microsoft is unjust and monopolistic. Well WTF, why don't we just admit that copyrights are garbage and try to rid ourselves of them, and stop spewing out old worn and unproven propaganda on faith that copyrights actually help creative people more than they harm them.
I disagree, we don't put a rapist in a prison cell for revenge, or to comfort the victim, any more than we do it to deter other rapists. The main reason why we put people like that in prison is to make sure they don't harm society like that again. Maybe it feels like personal revenge to them, because they are in a shitty situation. Maybe the family feels comfort in that they know someone else won't suffer in that way, maybe other people see the consequences of his choices and decide not to do it. - All those are consequences of justice, not justice in and of itself. The justice comes from society being able to more effectively secure their freedoms from the choices of those who wish to take them away.
Confusing justice with revenge is dangerous, because justice and revenge tend to be mutually exclusive. Revenge is more focused on someone else suffering, justice is more focused on bad choices not being made again. Revenge tends to pass arround the problem, justice tends to get to the root of it. Although it may feel otherwise to people, the simple fact is justice never leads to revenge and revenge never leads to justice. Justice tends to revolve arround choices and facts, revenge tends to revolve arround feelings and subjective things. Justice tends to teach people to be more just, revenge tends to teach people to be more vengfull.
So if you want revenge, then fine. But please don't call it justice, that is really a slap in the face, and belittles the millions of people who have suffered from crimes, but never have had the comfort to know justice. That their loss was for a greater good other than just to see some looser squirm.
If HP wants to make a printer that prints all text in piglatin and all images inside out and upside down, they can go ahead and do so. No law says you have to buy or use it.
Hold on, the law does say you half to use their stuff in more ways than you know. HP, and many large companies like them, are what one might call unnaturally large. That is they get to their size and might NOT thru genuine free market forces and consumer loyality, but more thru government intervention - like tax laws that offer special favors, or patent laws that restrict what people can immitate, or even environmental laws (like how Ford pushed thru new environmental regulations not to protect the environment, but to force used cars out of the market and special saftey federal approval regulations to make it harder for startups to compete). The law has plenty to do with it because you are being coerced to use their stuff in more ways than you know, and that gives government cronies more leverage than they should have in enforcing other rules.
Anyone renember St. Thomas, where when the king forced everyone to change to his religion, he disagreed strongly, but tried to declare that he was in full compliance of the law - because the law gave him the right to be silent.
In a way, this is what's happening today. I am confident that the GPL here is not in violation of the law, but I am also confident that copyright monopolies do not belong in the information age and must go. And the GPL is the license most true to that spirit.
PS: St Thomas was executed, inspite of his attempt to stay within the law by being silent. There's a lesson to be learned from this.
So's gravity. Anyway your "free market" sounds more like "market of anarchy", while the one we have in civilized society is all about freedom within the boundaries of a framework of rules. Maybe your inner rebel doesn't like living with rules? But that's the way it is, and I dare you to suggest something that's
Well if they passed a law that said gravity can't exist, and is immoral - I wouldn't try jumping off any bridges either. So why is it that when they pass a law that says information should be treated like pyhsical property, then all of a sudden people start calling me uncivilized and rebellious? WTF!
On this subject I'm as serious as a heart attack. This is precisely what copyrights were intended for. Repeating a previous post I made: Asking for patent/copyright reform is like asking for slavery reform - can't happen. Abolition is THE only way.
I'm sorry I underestimated you ... I thought I was being mocked. It's true though, I feel pity for the poor souls who thought the free states could peacfully get along with the slave states. I wander if history won't take a similar stance in the future for those like Lessing and ESR who refuse to let go of the concept that others have a right to restrict what people copy, even though they - more than anyone, should know how evil that is.
I know you're just being funny, but believe it or not this actually has happened. In 1980, George Munster and Richard Walsh wrote a book showing how Australia was involved in the Vietnam war and the Indoneisan invasion of East Timor, and it had alot of supporting documents to prove it. It was deeply humiliating to the government, and they invoked the copyright act to effectively silence it and sieze reprints, even though the supporting documentation was clearly fair use.
This is just another side effect of a copyright society. Although copyrights alledgely promote the creation of works, does not mean they promote the dissimation of usefull works. Alot of people think that cheap tabloids that are pennies on the page, and expensive text books that are pages on the dollar is just another aspect of a free market society, along with the hype over substance that goes with - but it is not. Copyrights are not free market because they are not about freedom, they are about controll. One of these days people will learn that just because an institution calls somthing a right, does not mean that it is. The sooner we learn that with copyrights the better - especially in the information age where the only way to differentiate free speech content from copyright content is to appoint people to censor it.
In a way SCO has already won, because the debate is no longer about if copyrights are right or usefull in the information age, but rather is Linux in violation of copyrights.
It's sorta like arguing if a speech I wrote violates the Kings laws, rather than asking if the king should have the right to restrict peoples speech at all to begin with.
I hate (all) patents, but after working in technology companies awhile, I realized that many companies get patents because they half to - to keep someone else from getting one and screwing them over, and to get into cross-licensing agreements with other large companies - to keep them from being screwed over even more (with patent liability crap).
Sadly, once a patent is gotten, it tends to take a life of it's own because of investor pressures. Patents do not help the honest littel inventor in the back yard (99% of the time) - I wish we could just get rid of them.
The problem with the BSD approach is that it doesn't see copyrights (the right to restrict what people copy) as a restriction on peoples freedoms. It's sorta like saying I believe I should have the freedom to restrict other peoples speech, but if you don't want to restrict other peoples speech - that's OK too. Where the GPL is more like saying, "I'll use my power to restrict your speech when you use your speech to restrict others" In fact, in the information age, we minus well be discussing free speech like this because in the eyes of the internet there is no difference between copyright content and free speech content. You either half to have the power controll all of it or none of it.
The fact is that copyrights, the "right" restrict what other people copy, is an inherent restriction on peoples freedom. And leads to similar problems.
VPS stands for virtual private server. In my opinion, it is the wave of the future and what all these crazy sayings and acronims are really talking about. With VPS, multiple people can share the same hardware while each one thinks they are root and have total administrative access.
VPS means that I can have computers on high speed internet backbones all over the world without the headaches and cost of co-location or sharing a system with a zillion other user accounts. (or going thru the troubble of maxing out my DSL line, and getting dynamic DNS to deal with the DHCP assignments:) I also don't half to beg the administrator everytime I want to want to add a database, email alias, firewall rules, or user accounts. I have nearly total controll.
With VPS you can make your servers whatever you want. Web server, email server, DNS server, chat server, streaming audio server, freenet server, database server or whatnot. And if I don't like my provider, I can just tar off my system config and go somewhere else. If I want more disk, or bandwith available I just click a few configs - and I don't half to order new hardware.
VPS is not some fantasy. It is already here, and you can order it at costs that start out lower than many high end web hosting accounts. (type VPS into any search engine).
IMHO, IBM and HP don't want you to really know this because when enough people start doing this - it means they will buy less high end servers (at first anyhow) and have more options to shop arround. Another thing, is with VPS - multiple vendors are better, because it gives you less reliance on any one system.