Dress codes are dumb/employers aren't doing this.
on
Suit Up Or Ship Out?
·
· Score: 1
This idea has been floating around for a while. It's a simple issue of control. An "I want you to come into work with a suit and tie because I'm the boss and I say so" type deal. Most companies I have worked for still have the same dress code they always had.
There is absolutely no scientific proof to show that "dressing up" at work helps productivity. Speaking for myself, I find that the more comfortable I am, the more focused I am. Being more comfortable usually means a decent polo shirt and a pair of jeans.
If you can live with being controlled under the terms of the license then, by all means, use "free" BitKeeper. This is a free country. I personally will never use BitKeeper (free, pay or otherwise) after this, even if Larry McVoy changes the license back.
While CVS and Subversions may not have some of the features that the BitKeeper has. If the team were to use Subversions, they could easily make suggestions for features which are needed. This is how software in general evolves. Additionally, using the "free" version of BitKeeper endangers Free Software and Open Source software development in general.
The change in licensing is a typical tactic for proprietary software companies. Be mindful as well that this could portent a change in the for-pay BitKeeper as well. So radical a change in the free license might lead to changes in the for-pay license in a similar fashion if it's percieved that the change was accepted by the community.
and also very elegant once you get used to them. Cocoa, Apple has stated, is the preferred programming API on Mac OS X. Objective-C is the best way to use it. As a former NeXTSTEP/OPENSTEP programmer and a current GNUstep contributor, my advice is to try it.:)
For more information about GNUstep, go to: http://www.gnustep.org
The site also contains a plethora of information about Objective-C, OpenStep, and Cocoa.
Copyright is good only when it isn't abused, just like patents. Recently some very large corporate interests (read Disney) have been lobbying hard to extend copyright so that certain works would not make it into the public domain. These companies convinced congress in 1998 to extend copyright another 20 years (The Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act of 1998).
Copyrights and patents were originally put in place to spur innovation since the idea was to confer onto the artist (in the case of copyright) or the inventor (in the case of patents) a monopoly on the work for a limited time only. After this limited time, the work would pass into the public domain for anyone to use w/o paying a royalty.
Recently, however, these systems have become twisted and perverted to the liking of huge corporate interests which have no desire to allow the little guy to compete. Think of how Disney has made billions off of public domain characters such as Snow White, Alice in Wonderland, Beauty and the Beast. All of these were fairy tales 100 years before Disney "created" them. Now that early renditions of some of Disney's work is was about to pass into the public domain Disney lobbied hard to extend copyright.
The idea of the work passing into the public domain was so that other artists can create new works based on it w/o a royalty. Disney and others, have chosen to rob the masses of what the founding fathers guaranteed.
- The difference between patent and copyright
A patent secures the rights to a given invention. More specifically it gives the patent holder the ability to prevent others from using the invention for a term of 20 years from the date the patent is issued or 17 years from the date it was filed.
The idea here was to allow the inventor time to build market and sell his invention without anyone being able to copy it.
Patent differs from copyright in the sense that, with a patent a set of ideas or "claims" are covered whereas copyright covers an entire work, such as a book or a piece of music.
- Infringement
Patent infringement is VERY easy. As stated above a patent consists of a number of claims. A good patent lawyer will try to make the claims as broad as possible to widen the coverage of the patent. In order to infringe a patent all you need to do is implement an invention which contains a significant portion of *1* claim from the patent and you can be sued.
Copyright infringement is little harder For copyright you must copy a considerable portion of the work to infringe. This is why quoting a book in a paper for college doesn't constitute infringement.
DISCLAIMER: I am not a copyright or patent attorney. The above should not be taken as legal advice.
Later, GJC
P.S. Please see the links in below for more info on how patents on software are harmful.
Who's the bigger moron? The person who makes his point with insults and beratement (like you obviously like to do) or the person who makes his point through facts?
Leaving aside the fact the you posted anonymously...:) Perhaps a person who leaps into an immediate emotional diatribe, as you just did, should reconsider working on software as you can count on decisions being made on an emotional basis, not a factual one.
My point, in the previous post, was to indicate that a sudden change in licensing on the free version is an unwise manuever for BitMover, Inc. It encourages any software development done using the free version of BitKeeper, *especially* Free and Open Source software given the overly broad terms of the license (as detailed in other posts) to move away from them, potentially costing them customers.
The fact that there are developers here who are disappointed/concerned w/ the change in licensing also speaks to my point.
Even someone who simply wants to vent his/her anger as you seem to want to do should be able to understand that.
Just see if I or anyone else in the Free Software/Open Source community, other than Linus, uses BitKeeper for anything now. I know I won't. Then again having experience with superior Free Software technologies such as Subversions and CVS, I cannot understand why anyone would want to use BitKeeper in the first place, when a comparable *free* alternative exists.
Not even the really large proprietary vendors such as Rational (who makes Clearcase, which I am an expert in, BTW:) ) have this clause in the agreement (last I checked, at least). So using the universal excuse "We're a business" just doesn't cut it.
Have a nice life, Larry. You just insulted your own target market.:)
I see. So you post at 2 because of the obvious quality of your uninformed opinions. Go to www.gnu.org to learn the difference between Free Software and Freeware.
Again, you show your lack of knowledge by not being able to distinguish between the two. And I shall not waste time explaining this one to you.
First off, whoever modded this up to a 2 deserves to be shot. Second, RMS *IS NOT* the spokesman for the Open Source movement but the *INITIATOR* of the *FREE SOFTWARE* movement which is fundamentally different.
Open Source is a methodology of software development. Free Software is an idealogy concerning your rights regarding software. The two share some common traits, but are totally different underneath.
Third, show some respect, dude! People like you who denegrate others without knowing all of the facts should take the time to at least learn about things *before* making a comment.:)
Because MS is a monopoly, Apple is not. Also, MS has a habit of not playing nice w/ anyone so you can kiss all new Rare titles on other platforms goodbye going forward. GJC
especially about the origin of the universe or about evolution, do throngs of religious nuts come out of the woodwork to give their crackpot, factless reasons why it can't be so?
Are religious people so insecure in their beliefs that they must attack every scientific fact that in any way refutes what they believe and call it B.S.? I suppose they feel compelled to do this to keep the delusion going.
GJC
CORRECTION: Linux is a *HIGH END* complement..
on
Sun To Sell Linux PCs
·
· Score: 1
to Solaris. I have worked extensively with both and personal experience has shown me that Linux is a much better OS.
Sun is kidding themselves into thinking that Solaris is better and trying to brainwash the masses into thinking it too w/ their very public very sensational announcement.
Well, then given the fact that there have been many many more destructive worms, viruses and script based exploits for Windows and Windows based software than for Linux and Linux based software, there must be an awful LOT of a lazy Windows Sysadmins out there.
After a while, you begin to grasp the idea that the sysadmins are doing everything they can to stop the influx of attacks, but can do little in the face of MS's shoddy security standards.
"Public domain" code can be stolen and made proprietary. By using the FSF as a holding company, it guarantees that the code will always be free. I should have said "free" instead of "public domain" in my previous message.
The BSD license does not guarantee that all things derived from the code shall be free, and is therefore *not* a free software license, only an open source license.
Again... the freedom is only partially about YOU having freedom, it's about the code as well. It's wrong for you to be able to take code which is free and developed by someone else and use it in a closed source application.
Closed source ultimately hurts the public at large.
My Canon BJC620 was recognized and installed during installation of SuSE 8.0 and also of SuSE7.1. Installation of it under Red Hat (on another machine) took a grand total of 5 minutes including the tuning I did to make the printout look just-so.
GPL code will remain free and will thus *always* be in the public domain. BSD code lacks this protection. The fundamental thing which most people fail to understand is that the GPL is meant to keep the *C O D E* free, not preserve your freedoms. It does this by restricting your freedom to make the code proprietary and in doing so guarantees to you and the rest of humanity at large that the code, in all it's forms, will always remain free.
Free as in freedom, not cost. BSD code is not free, it's simply open-source. There's a fundamental difference.
It was drafted by me, with help from RMS and Bruce Perens. The arguments it presents are, I believe, representative of the problems with the patent system in the US today.
Slashdot Mirror
This idea has been floating around for a while. It's a simple issue of control. An "I want you to come into work with a suit and tie because I'm the boss and I say so" type deal. Most companies I have worked for still have the same dress code they always had.
There is absolutely no scientific proof to show that "dressing up" at work helps productivity. Speaking for myself, I find that the more comfortable I am, the more focused I am. Being more comfortable usually means a decent polo shirt and a pair of jeans.
GJC
Then you submit to the will and control of others by doing so. GJC
"Intruder alert" running "whoami" on an old OPENSTEP4.2/Mach (Mac OS X predecessor) box when a users information fails to get registered in wtmp. :)
GJC
If you can live with being controlled under the terms of the license then, by all means, use "free" BitKeeper. This is a free country. I personally will never use BitKeeper (free, pay or otherwise) after this, even if Larry McVoy changes the license back.
While CVS and Subversions may not have some of the features that the BitKeeper has. If the team were to use Subversions, they could easily make suggestions for features which are needed. This is how software in general evolves. Additionally, using the "free" version of BitKeeper endangers Free Software and Open Source software development in general.
The change in licensing is a typical tactic for proprietary software companies. Be mindful as well that this could portent a change in the for-pay BitKeeper as well. So radical a change in the free license might lead to changes in the for-pay license in a similar fashion if it's percieved that the change was accepted by the community.
GJC
and also very elegant once you get used to them. Cocoa, Apple has stated, is the preferred programming API on Mac OS X. Objective-C is the best way to use it. As a former NeXTSTEP/OPENSTEP programmer and a current GNUstep contributor, my advice is to try it. :)
For more information about GNUstep, go to:
http://www.gnustep.org
The site also contains a plethora of information about Objective-C, OpenStep, and Cocoa.
Later, GJC
When swinging on a swing can be patented or when entertaining your house cat with a laser pointer can be patented, it is most certainly broken.
See the URL below...
Copyright is good only when it isn't abused, just like patents. Recently some very large corporate interests (read Disney) have been lobbying hard to extend copyright so that certain works would not make it into the public domain. These companies convinced congress in 1998 to extend copyright another 20 years (The Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act of 1998).
Copyrights and patents were originally put in place to spur innovation since the idea was to confer onto the artist (in the case of copyright) or the inventor (in the case of patents) a monopoly on the work for a limited time only. After this limited time, the work would pass into the public domain for anyone to use w/o paying a royalty.
Recently, however, these systems have become twisted and perverted to the liking of huge corporate interests which have no desire to allow the little guy to compete. Think of how Disney has made billions off of public domain characters such as Snow White, Alice in Wonderland, Beauty and the Beast. All of these were fairy tales 100 years before Disney "created" them. Now that early renditions of some of Disney's work is was about to pass into the public domain Disney lobbied hard to extend copyright.
The idea of the work passing into the public domain was so that other artists can create new works based on it w/o a royalty. Disney and others, have chosen to rob the masses of what the founding fathers guaranteed.
- The difference between patent and copyright
A patent secures the rights to a given invention. More specifically it gives the patent holder the ability to prevent others from using the invention for a term of 20 years from the date the patent is issued or 17 years from the date it was filed.
The idea here was to allow the inventor time to build market and sell his invention without anyone being able to copy it.
Patent differs from copyright in the sense that, with a patent a set of ideas or "claims" are covered whereas copyright covers an entire work, such as a book or a piece of music.
- Infringement
Patent infringement is VERY easy. As stated above a patent consists of a number of claims. A good patent lawyer will try to make the claims as broad as possible to widen the coverage of the patent. In order to infringe a patent all you need to do is implement an invention which contains a significant portion of *1* claim from the patent and you can be sued.
Copyright infringement is little harder For copyright you must copy a considerable portion of the work to infringe. This is why quoting a book in a paper for college doesn't constitute infringement.
DISCLAIMER: I am not a copyright or patent attorney. The above should not be taken as legal advice.
Later, GJC
P.S. Please see the links in below for more info on how patents on software are harmful.
Who's the bigger moron? The person who makes his point with insults and beratement (like you obviously like to do) or the person who makes his point through facts?
.. :) Perhaps a person who leaps into an immediate emotional diatribe, as you just did, should reconsider working on software as you can count on decisions being made on an emotional basis, not a factual one.
Leaving aside the fact the you posted anonymously.
My point, in the previous post, was to indicate that a sudden change in licensing on the free version is an unwise manuever for BitMover, Inc. It encourages any software development done using the free version of BitKeeper, *especially* Free and Open Source software given the overly broad terms of the license (as detailed in other posts) to move away from them, potentially costing them customers.
The fact that there are developers here who are disappointed/concerned w/ the change in licensing also speaks to my point.
Even someone who simply wants to vent his/her anger as you seem to want to do should be able to understand that.
GJC
Just see if I or anyone else in the Free Software/Open Source community, other than Linus, uses BitKeeper for anything now. I know I won't. Then again having experience with superior Free Software technologies such as Subversions and CVS, I cannot understand why anyone would want to use BitKeeper in the first place, when a comparable *free* alternative exists.
:) ) have this clause in the agreement (last I checked, at least). So using the universal excuse "We're a business" just doesn't cut it.
:)
Not even the really large proprietary vendors such as Rational (who makes Clearcase, which I am an expert in, BTW
Have a nice life, Larry. You just insulted your own target market.
GJC
I see. So you post at 2 because of the obvious quality of your uninformed opinions. Go to www.gnu.org to learn the difference between Free Software and Freeware.
Again, you show your lack of knowledge by not being able to distinguish between the two. And I shall not waste time explaining this one to you.
GJC
First off, whoever modded this up to a 2 deserves to be shot. Second, RMS *IS NOT* the spokesman for the Open Source movement but the *INITIATOR* of the *FREE SOFTWARE* movement which is fundamentally different.
:)
Open Source is a methodology of software development. Free Software is an idealogy concerning your rights regarding software. The two share some common traits, but are totally different underneath.
Third, show some respect, dude! People like you who denegrate others without knowing all of the facts should take the time to at least learn about things *before* making a comment.
GJC
Without the tools and utilities and system level things GNU has created, you couldn't even build the Linux kernel.
They are interdependent to the point that they should *really* be considered ONE. GJC
Essential to the actual operation of the OS. Essential in the manner that without them the OS cannot boot.
GJC
No, because Word, Excel, and etc are not essential parts of the OS. The portions of GNU which are used in GNU/Linux *are* essential. GJC
Because MS is a monopoly, Apple is not. Also, MS has a habit of not playing nice w/ anyone so you can kiss all new Rare titles on other platforms goodbye going forward. GJC
Subject says it...
especially about the origin of the universe or about evolution, do throngs of religious nuts come out of the woodwork to give their crackpot, factless reasons why it can't be so?
Are religious people so insecure in their beliefs that they must attack every scientific fact that in any way refutes what they believe and call it B.S.? I suppose they feel compelled to do this to keep the delusion going.
GJC
to Solaris. I have worked extensively with both and personal experience has shown me that Linux is a much better OS.
Sun is kidding themselves into thinking that Solaris is better and trying to brainwash the masses into thinking it too w/ their very public very sensational announcement.
GJC
Corporate games...
Well, then given the fact that there have been many many more destructive worms, viruses and script based exploits for Windows and Windows based software than for Linux and Linux based software, there must be an awful LOT of a lazy Windows Sysadmins out there.
After a while, you begin to grasp the idea that the sysadmins are doing everything they can to stop the influx of attacks, but can do little in the face of MS's shoddy security standards.
GJC
So am I. I've been doing free software for about 6 years now. :D
"Public domain" code can be stolen and made proprietary. By using the FSF as a holding company, it guarantees that the code will always be free. I should have said "free" instead of "public domain" in my previous message.
The BSD license does not guarantee that all things derived from the code shall be free, and is therefore *not* a free software license, only an open source license.
Again... the freedom is only partially about YOU having freedom, it's about the code as well. It's wrong for you to be able to take code which is free and developed by someone else and use it in a closed source application.
Closed source ultimately hurts the public at large.
GJC
My Canon BJC620 was recognized and installed during installation of SuSE 8.0 and also of SuSE7.1. Installation of it under Red Hat (on another machine) took a grand total of 5 minutes including the tuning I did to make the printout look just-so.
;)
You must be doing something wrong.
GJC
GPL code will remain free and will thus *always* be in the public domain. BSD code lacks this protection. The fundamental thing which most people fail to understand is that the GPL is meant to keep the *C O D E* free, not preserve your freedoms. It does this by restricting your freedom to make the code proprietary and in doing so guarantees to you and the rest of humanity at large that the code, in all it's forms, will always remain free.
Free as in freedom, not cost. BSD code is not free, it's simply open-source. There's a fundamental difference.
GJC
which says that just because a normal, everyday, commonplace, process is implemented on a computer that does *not* make it patentable.
GJC
It was drafted by me, with help from RMS and Bruce Perens. The arguments it presents are, I believe, representative of the problems with the patent system in the US today.
See my sig below...
GJC