Simple. If no one makes a product you like, don't buy any of them. Why would you deliberately buy something you don't want?
No, corporations are not "evil". And, yes, if there's money to be made selling something, odds are someone will make and sell it. Remember, though, that your personal distaste for a product doesn't equate to society's distaste for that product.
For instance, I don't like to wear ties, but every clothing store I walk into sells ties. So, it must be a conspiracy of evil corporations that keeps forcing other people to buy ties, right?
>> Ownership of anything (though it's really not the right word for copyrighted works) is a social construct that depends entirely on people respecting your desire to own a given thing.
That's fundamentally wrong, although I'm sure you believe it to be true. So be it. Marx thought he was correct, too.
Society, by expressing its will via a democratic government, has the right to determine how property -- intellectual and physical -- is used, but society does not have the right to assume or transfer ownership of an individual's property. If I create or author a work, all rights to that work belong to me and any rights to it enjoyed by others are, definition, the rights I transferred to them.
If Ford won't let you put non-Ford tires on an Escort, don't buy a Ford.
If you don't want to get locked into buying one brand of ink jet refiller, don't buy that brand of ink jet printer. Or, any ink jet printer.
The biggest weapon people have against products that they believe infringe on their rights is to simply stop buying those products. Turning to legislation to impose your beliefs on society simply empowers the other side to do the same.
Open source is supported by "a" community, not "the" community. I don't want my tax dollars supporting a software development model any more than I want my tax dollars supporting a model airplane.
Fire, water, roads, etc., are examples of universal requirements. Using open source software is not.
Besides, you need to justify your contention that open source serves the public welfare.
I won't accept your definition of journalism as reporting what is happening. That's far too broad. I'm not practicing journalism if I write a letter to a friend describing what I did yesterday. Someone who blogs a conference they're attneding isn't practicing journalism, either.
It's foolish -- and not very important -- to expect journalists to have no opinions about the events they're reporting. If your standard of impartiality requires every journalist to report every possible slant and every potential voice on every story he writes, then you've raised a standard that is impossible to meet. You can't choose to participate in an activity and then also report on that activity as a journalist. You can write about it as a participant, or separate yourself from it and behave as a journalist, but you can't do both at the same time.
What you can expect journalists to do is to make an effort to keep their opinions out of a story, and to make an effort to present the facts as they see them. If you believe a given journalistic source -- a newspaper, a network, a station -- is deliberately slanting story selection and tone, then you may opt to go elsewhere.
Most people seem to equate "impartial" or "independent" journalism with reportage that confirms the opinions they already hold. They also seem to identify as journalism deliberately slanted outlets whose primary purpose is to sway opinion. These outlets are practicing propaganda, not jounalism. Examples abound in talk radio and on the web.
The primary reason to reject the notion that blog writing is journalism is that fact that blog writers lack editorial oversight, seldom obtain more than a single source to verify a story point (if they manage to obtain even a single source), and infuse their stories with entirely too much information about themselves.
The navel-gazing segment of the blogging community has been getting headaches asking itself if blogging is journalism. Some of them seem to believe they're in the vanguard of Yet Another Revolution That Will Save The World.
But...
Journalism is a profession, a craft, a discipline. You don't become a journalist when you pick up a pen, or lay hands on a keyboard. You become a journalist by behaving like a journalist. You might write your report using a fountain pen, or you might post it on your blog. If you are a journalist and what you write is an example of journalism, then it will remain journalism regardless of the tools you use or the publication method.
As for participatory journalism...well, I expect journalists to make an effort at impartiality; to watch, not participate. A participant's account might be interesting, even informative, but it won't be journalism. Merely producing information is not jouranlism.
Bad analogy. Formula One manufacturers don't tout their cars as the better choice for consumers and insult consumers as "stupid" and "sheep". Open source adherents do that on a reguar basis.
Remember, this isn't about the technical merits of open source versus proprietary software. It's about the contradictory attitudes expressed by many in oen source.
Great. There are more Apache installations than IIS installations. I don't run a server, so why should I care?
Look, it is hypocritical for open source to trumpet itself as being superior to commercial software while simultaneously declaring that only developers determine what programs are developed, and that users should keep their mouths shut and be grateful for any scraps the developers toos to them.
If that's the case, then open source is just a cult of developers who like to swap code.
That's silly. Open source developers are not "the people". They're a very tiny fraction of the people. Some of them try to develop programs that "real" people can use, but a lot of them develop only what interests them personally.
>> The old argument that no one likes reading on a computer has pretty much eroded.
Says who? I can't stand to stare at my monitor for more than 20-30 minutes without walking away.
But then, 20 minutes probably exceeds the attention span of most Slashdot readers.
As for piracy, the solution will come with technology that prevents unauthorized copying. Say, a chip in the book (or CD) that wants to talk to another chip in the scanner or PC. If the second chip hasn't received an electronic authorization, it disables the scan.
>> I don't expect any of these developers to cater to me, Why do you feel they should cater to you?
Because the so-called open source "community" is trumpeting itself as technically, ethically and morally superior to proprietary software. How can that be true if that "community" actively ignores the views of users?
Software exists for software users, not software developers.
No, your best option with commercial software is to >b>not buy it. Sales are the measure of success, not how many support calls or bug reports are made.
Since commercial developers are subject to market pressures and open source developers are not, one could argue that commercial developers are more likely, in the long run, to market software that more people actually want.
I have better things to do with my time than write code so I can cajole someone else's code to do what I need. It's much simpler just to drop that program and move on to something else.
Ditto w/Microsoft: I won't buy it if I don't want to use it.
So, we're all supposed to accept whatever glorious wonders open source delivers and never complain? Nice approach: open source as a playground for developers, but, sorry, no room for users.
No one says you can't sell open source software. I'd be happy to pay if it would give users more control of the product and eliminate the hypocritical notion that open source is the wave of the future, but only open source developers have a right to comment on it.
That's arrogant nonsense drawn from the same well as racism and bigotry.
When I acquire a piece of software that isn't labelled "beta" or "pre-release" I expect it to work, whether or not it is open source or commercial. I'm getting tired of OSS developers who can never manage to get to a 1.00 release. It must be nice to have that kind of cover for your own mistakes.
>> Congress can make it a crime to offer $5,000 to kill someone because even though that is "speech", the law is written to prohibit efforts to kill somebody.
Interesting logic. Then it follows that a society can prohibit and punish speech that incites any behavior it considers criminal.
>>...people who choose to make/view porn in some sence consider it "nurturing" to them.
Society has no obligation to protect the "right" of individuals to do things that threaten that society. Some people are comfortable selling drugs to kids. Other people are comfortable killing people whose ancestors were born in the "wrong" place. Some people are comfortable robbing banks. Criminal behavior threatens a society, and every society is free to define criminal behavior as it chooses. That doesn't eliminate an individual's range of choices, it just alters the risk of certain behavior.
In other words, the rights of an individual do not absolve that individual from the repercussions of engaging in anything that society considers criminal behavior. There's a lot of ranting to the contrary here, but it's just like all ranting: pointless and stupid.
Any application must have some form of default behavior, even if it is to do nothing more than sit there whining at the user to please give it a command. Command line apps usually do that by displaying a usage message; the interface of a GUI app is the usage message.
Defaulting to what most users want most of the time is reasonable, if other users can turn off this behavior. If someone writes a command line application whose default behavior assumes it is being executed against a file format that, in the vast majority of cases, is that format, then anyone who uses it in a script can specify an option to do something else. The app still does what people tell it to do.
A 486? Geez, not too many years ago I claimed that upgrading to a 386 just to run Windws 3.1 was a waste of money. A nice 20 mHz 286 machine running DOS and DesqView with a collection of good DOS apps would do the job.
>> They're not supposed to do too many things automatically....
Says who?
There's no reason a command line app can't offer the same options as a GUI app. The only difference is the interface: The GUI presents options for selection, while the command line app forces the users to enter them manually.
No application should make assumptions and then act on them without getting permission from the user. In particular, a convenient default behavior for a command line app won't break scripts if the app provides an option to override the default.
Slashdot Mirror
Simple. If no one makes a product you like, don't buy any of them. Why would you deliberately buy something you don't want?
No, corporations are not "evil". And, yes, if there's money to be made selling something, odds are someone will make and sell it. Remember, though, that your personal distaste for a product doesn't equate to society's distaste for that product.
For instance, I don't like to wear ties, but every clothing store I walk into sells ties. So, it must be a conspiracy of evil corporations that keeps forcing other people to buy ties, right?
>>
Ownership of anything (though it's really not the right word for copyrighted works) is a social construct that depends entirely on people respecting your desire to own a given thing.
That's fundamentally wrong, although I'm sure you believe it to be true. So be it. Marx thought he was correct, too.
Society, by expressing its will via a democratic government, has the right to determine how property -- intellectual and physical -- is used, but society does not have the right to assume or transfer ownership of an individual's property. If I create or author a work, all rights to that work belong to me and any rights to it enjoyed by others are, definition, the rights I transferred to them.
If Ford won't let you put non-Ford tires on an Escort, don't buy a Ford.
If you don't want to get locked into buying one brand of ink jet refiller, don't buy that brand of ink jet printer. Or, any ink jet printer.
The biggest weapon people have against products that they believe infringe on their rights is to simply stop buying those products. Turning to legislation to impose your beliefs on society simply empowers the other side to do the same.
Bunk. Give me a reason why someone who makes something does not have the right to determine how copies are made and who uses them.
Or...give me a reason why you have a right to use what I own.
Open source is supported by "a" community, not "the" community. I don't want my tax dollars supporting a software development model any more than I want my tax dollars supporting a model airplane.
Fire, water, roads, etc., are examples of universal requirements. Using open source software is not.
Besides, you need to justify your contention that open source serves the public welfare.
I won't accept your definition of journalism as reporting what is happening. That's far too broad. I'm not practicing journalism if I write a letter to a friend describing what I did yesterday. Someone who blogs a conference they're attneding isn't practicing journalism, either.
It's foolish -- and not very important -- to expect journalists to have no opinions about the events they're reporting. If your standard of impartiality requires every journalist to report every possible slant and every potential voice on every story he writes, then you've raised a standard that is impossible to meet. You can't choose to participate in an activity and then also report on that activity as a journalist. You can write about it as a participant, or separate yourself from it and behave as a journalist, but you can't do both at the same time.
What you can expect journalists to do is to make an effort to keep their opinions out of a story, and to make an effort to present the facts as they see them. If you believe a given journalistic source -- a newspaper, a network, a station -- is deliberately slanting story selection and tone, then you may opt to go elsewhere.
Most people seem to equate "impartial" or "independent" journalism with reportage that confirms the opinions they already hold. They also seem to identify as journalism deliberately slanted outlets whose primary purpose is to sway opinion. These outlets are practicing propaganda, not jounalism. Examples abound in talk radio and on the web.
The primary reason to reject the notion that blog writing is journalism is that fact that blog writers lack editorial oversight, seldom obtain more than a single source to verify a story point (if they manage to obtain even a single source), and infuse their stories with entirely too much information about themselves.
"Flavour" is the British spelling, "flavor" is the American spelling.
The navel-gazing segment of the blogging community has been getting headaches asking itself if blogging is journalism. Some of them seem to believe they're in the vanguard of Yet Another Revolution That Will Save The World.
But...
Journalism is a profession, a craft, a discipline. You don't become a journalist when you pick up a pen, or lay hands on a keyboard. You become a journalist by behaving like a journalist. You might write your report using a fountain pen, or you might post it on your blog. If you are a journalist and what you write is an example of journalism, then it will remain journalism regardless of the tools you use or the publication method.
As for participatory journalism...well, I expect journalists to make an effort at impartiality; to watch, not participate. A participant's account might be interesting, even informative, but it won't be journalism. Merely producing information is not jouranlism.
Bad analogy. Formula One manufacturers don't tout their cars as the better choice for consumers and insult consumers as "stupid" and "sheep". Open source adherents do that on a reguar basis.
Remember, this isn't about the technical merits of open source versus proprietary software. It's about the contradictory attitudes expressed by many in oen source.
Great. There are more Apache installations than IIS installations. I don't run a server, so why should I care?
Look, it is hypocritical for open source to trumpet itself as being superior to commercial software while simultaneously declaring that only developers determine what programs are developed, and that users should keep their mouths shut and be grateful for any scraps the developers toos to them.
If that's the case, then open source is just a cult of developers who like to swap code.
That's silly. Open source developers are not "the people". They're a very tiny fraction of the people. Some of them try to develop programs that "real" people can use, but a lot of them develop only what interests them personally.
>> We need to educate people not put them in prison.
OK. You go educate people who don't already know that stealing is a crime.
I'd rather prosecute criminals and use technology tp thwart theft.
>> The old argument that no one likes reading on a computer has pretty much eroded.
Says who? I can't stand to stare at my monitor for more than 20-30 minutes without walking away.
But then, 20 minutes probably exceeds the attention span of most Slashdot readers.
As for piracy, the solution will come with technology that prevents unauthorized copying. Say, a chip in the book (or CD) that wants to talk to another chip in the scanner or PC. If the second chip hasn't received an electronic authorization, it disables the scan.
>> I don't expect any of these developers to cater to me, Why do you feel they should cater to you?
Because the so-called open source "community" is trumpeting itself as technically, ethically and morally superior to proprietary software. How can that be true if that "community" actively ignores the views of users?
Software exists for software users, not software developers.
No, your best option with commercial software is to >b>not buy it. Sales are the measure of success, not how many support calls or bug reports are made.
Since commercial developers are subject to market pressures and open source developers are not, one could argue that commercial developers are more likely, in the long run, to market software that more people actually want.
I have better things to do with my time than write code so I can cajole someone else's code to do what I need. It's much simpler just to drop that program and move on to something else.
Ditto w/Microsoft: I won't buy it if I don't want to use it.
I don't submit patches to Microsoft. Why should I submit patches to some open source developer?
It's supremely hypocritical to argue that open source turns out better code for people to use, but then hide behind a "Developer's Only" sign.
If open source is simply a little playground for developers, then why should anyone else care?
Sure, pay them more if they they merit it.
If someone gives me bad support because he thinks he's not paid enough, he doesn't merit it.
The improved performance comes first. The money is an incentive.
So, we're all supposed to accept whatever glorious wonders open source delivers and never complain? Nice approach: open source as a playground for developers, but, sorry, no room for users.
No one says you can't sell open source software. I'd be happy to pay if it would give users more control of the product and eliminate the hypocritical notion that open source is the wave of the future, but only open source developers have a right to comment on it.
That's arrogant nonsense drawn from the same well as racism and bigotry.
When I acquire a piece of software that isn't labelled "beta" or "pre-release" I expect it to work, whether or not it is open source or commercial. I'm getting tired of OSS developers who can never manage to get to a 1.00 release. It must be nice to have that kind of cover for your own mistakes.
In my experience, most tech support people don't merit higher pay based on the quality of the support they provide.
Feel better, now?
...people who choose to make/view porn in some sence consider it "nurturing" to them.
>> Congress can make it a crime to offer $5,000 to kill someone because even though that is "speech", the law is written to prohibit efforts to kill somebody.
Interesting logic. Then it follows that a society can prohibit and punish speech that incites any behavior it considers criminal.
>>
Society has no obligation to protect the "right" of individuals to do things that threaten that society. Some people are comfortable selling drugs to kids. Other people are comfortable killing people whose ancestors were born in the "wrong" place. Some people are comfortable robbing banks. Criminal behavior threatens a society, and every society is free to define criminal behavior as it chooses. That doesn't eliminate an individual's range of choices, it just alters the risk of certain behavior.
In other words, the rights of an individual do not absolve that individual from the repercussions of engaging in anything that society considers criminal behavior. There's a lot of ranting to the contrary here, but it's just like all ranting: pointless and stupid.
I'm not talking about magic or autodetection.
Any application must have some form of default behavior, even if it is to do nothing more than sit there whining at the user to please give it a command. Command line apps usually do that by displaying a usage message; the interface of a GUI app is the usage message.
Defaulting to what most users want most of the time is reasonable, if other users can turn off this behavior. If someone writes a command line application whose default behavior assumes it is being executed against a file format that, in the vast majority of cases, is that format, then anyone who uses it in a script can specify an option to do something else. The app still does what people tell it to do.
A 486? Geez, not too many years ago I claimed that upgrading to a 386 just to run Windws 3.1 was a waste of money. A nice 20 mHz 286 machine running DOS and DesqView with a collection of good DOS apps would do the job.
>> They're not supposed to do too many things automatically....
Says who?
There's no reason a command line app can't offer the same options as a GUI app. The only difference is the interface: The GUI presents options for selection, while the command line app forces the users to enter them manually.
No application should make assumptions and then act on them without getting permission from the user. In particular, a convenient default behavior for a command line app won't break scripts if the app provides an option to override the default.