Whatever gives you the impression that/.ers, of all people, would go for a quick profit on RHAT? Many, perhaps most, support Linux and what RedHat is doing, and want to hold a part of that and support it, not make a quick buck off it.
Slashdotters are not exactly "the average person".
An idiot, you say? Maybe I should join ADM so I can be a 1337 idiot like you.
I've never actually heard of ADM before (except in/etc/group) and have no reason to assume that they're not also some other group with a different name. My prior post wasn't talking about who they are. I was talking about who they aren't, and calling attention to the humorous AO stuff on the page.
Oh, by the way, even if I am an idiot, that makes you someone who has nothing better to do than talk to idiots.:)
Okay. Now let me put this in perspective with the ACTUAL quote:
--------- RMS said: In the GNU Manifesto, published in 1983 and 1985, I proposed a tax on computer supplies and equipment as one possible way to fund free software development.
At the moment, it seems to me that we do not need to use any special taxes--it seems that the job will get done without them. ----------
>... all the people who just say, "Find a new > job", well, it ain't always just that easy, cuz > you're afraid to loose the things you love > about the job you've got.
Okay, _first_ of all, it's "FIRST POST, D))D!" not "first reply". Sheesh, some people.
Second of all.. afraid is no way to live your life. Go out on a limb now and then. If you do, you might learn something (hopefully not the hard way). If you don't, you're bound to regret it.
I totally understand what you're saying with that. Who I am is made up largely of what I do, and since I'm working full-time, a big portion of that is what I do while I'm at work. So I'm getting paid for it, that's just because it's valuable to someone. I'm not renting myself, I'm exchanging my services for money.
I believe that we should avoid treating work as "something we do outside of who we are". Your influence on the world while at work is often more powerful than when you are not working, so you should live your work even if you just work to live. This means supporting what your company is doing, too.
However.. there are a lot of talented hackers out there who would be more than happy to come up with a better/faster driver given some source code or at least specifications. For consumer items, I'd wager it's better for the company to skip internal development for new platform support/etc. Instead, make the source code free [speech] and give away a couple of their {video cards|sound cards|scanners|etc} to hackers who are willing to develop free drivers because they want experience, fame, or just free [beer] stuff. This potentially costs the company, and hence the consumer, much less.
I am a paid programmer who likes to make money for what I do, but a few college hackers writing drivers in exchange for free hardware isn't going to put me out of a job.;)
You want to provide a URL to reference this so-called FSF software tax reference? IDTS.
Nothing wrong with giving somebody money in exchange for getting something from them. In fact, there's this whole capitalism thing that relies on it. Only difference is, if you buy, say, a software package w/ manual from the FSF or another free software company, you get three things: 1. a product that you could have gotten for free over the Internet 2. a manual that costs some money to print 3. programmers who are now getting paid to write software for you (and a lot of other people, too!)
Ahem. Please read more carefully. The license is **NOT** BSD. It is a modified BSD license which includes the standard rights to distribute with an advertising clause. It **ALSO** includes an addition at the top of the file clearly added by Mr. Cooper which puts additional restrictions on commercial use, you must get his permission and send him lots of money, etc etc etc. So it is not free.
Free software of all kinds is great. Programmers choose licenses based on how they want their work used, and that's great too. My favorite licenses for free software are XFree, GPL and BSD, all great. This program is no longer free and is under a license which essentially prohibits commercial use or commercial distribution of any kind, making it not-so-great.
It looks like the author, Michael Cooper, sold the software to MagniComp (and perhaps works there since his email address is now @MagniComp in recent documentation versions). The license that rdist is distributed under on MagniCorp.com is obviously unfree because of for-profit distribution restrictions and use restrictions.
One thing to consider is that RedHat may have paid MagniComp or Mr. Cooper to recieve rights to distribute rdist under the terms of the BSD license or another nonrestrictive license, instead of MagniComp's regular EULA. However, I can't verify this because my (RedHat binary) copy does not include a copyright or license file in/usr/doc/rdist-6.1.5, just a README which does not contain a license. The man pages don't have licenses either. Grr.
If you download it from MagniComp and read the copyright in the source distribution, it's a standard BSD license with Michael's text at the top saying you can't make any money from distributing or using it, without an agreement in writing from him. According to the changelog, the copyright notice was changed in November of 1998.
I meant to say proprietary SOFTWARE company, and I really should have said 'non-free software company'. My bad. Nothing wrong with turning a profit. But the action of creating a non-free distribution of free software is asymmetrical (they take free software from the community and return it as a non-free conglomeration) which displeases me. It need not displease you and probably will not, espescially if you don't mind shrink wrap agreements.
I found out today that SuSE did make significant contributions to XFree and the kernel which offset that asymmetry to some extent, but do not really make up for it. It does have the effect of making me look like an idiot for calling them leeches, though..
The 'yast' config utility is not GNU free or any kind of free. You can't copy it or any portion of its source code without written permission. Granted, the system does work without yast and can be redistributed as such. But requiring the removal of the GUI setup tool for redistribution is discouraging free distribution.
SuSE makes their money because of the other contributors to GNU, Linux and the many many other apps they sell -- these people encouraged free distribution of their Linux-related works. SuSE does not encourage free distribution of their Linux related work (the distribution). However, SuSE does make contributions to XFree86 (XFree) and Linux (GPL) which we can all benefit from. They are not "bad" but their product is not free in the DFSG sense.
All that said, I apologize again for calling SuSE leeches, which is clearly not true.
I am not trying to tell someone else what they should or should not do. It's just that I will always prefer a free software package over a non-free one. I go approximately along the lines of the DFSG (not GPL free, but a superset of that) to make this decision, and it is a personal ethical decision because I feel that free software does more to advance the field I work in than non-free software.
In particular, I will not purchase a distribution which consists of freely donated software with one program that is not freely donated but instead is licensed in such a way as to discourage free distribution of the composite product. You are free to do as you choose and I support your right to agree to whatever licensing terms you enjoy. You can be Bill Gates' towel boy for 12 months after opening Win2k shrink wrap, for all I care. (see Dilbert archives..)
Umm.. the original BO *IS* a decent remote administration tool. When I used to use Windows95 in the office, I could view text files containing my todo lists and phone numbers and such in a web browser, and telnet to my DOS prompt from the other side of the building. And with (albeit minimal) password protection and encryption, too!
Their software *is* innovative. What program can you run in under 140 K which includes a basic web server, process control, telnet access to text applications, screen shots, password protection and more? For that matter, what Windows application runs in under 140K, period? I think my mouse driver was about 200K.
I don't understand how you think such a monitoring program is destructive or that its writers "should all be shot" for providing it. Who's forcing you to use it? Oh yeah, that's right, you're forced to bend over for CDC because of MS "security" and the strange compulsion to always click on executable email attachments.
can you recommend a better word? If you could (in English, you will find that you cannot), Stallman would probably jump at the chance to not have to explain what freedom is to everyone he meets.
"the whole rest of the [English speaking] world" uses the word free in several contexts as well. He never "lies by omission," that's the whole point of him explaining his terms. If he *didn't* explain the terms, his speeches might be misleading.
(everyone needs to be called a jack ass every now and then)
I didn't mean that they hate free software, but the thing is, they have a CD full of almost all freely copyable software, but I can't copy the CD legally because SuSE has made it non-free. They also rarely mention GNU/GPL/FSF in their advertising literature, although I was unaware the GNU Manifesto was printed in their manual.
All that aside, they are not leeches and have done some great work to advance XFree86 development which I should have looked into before disrespecting the company.
Okay I went a bit off the deep end with this. I still don't like SuSE 'cause they distribute a non-free distribution. But I should not have called them a leech and I apologize for that error.
Even though SuSE doesn't make all of their utilities free, they have (as the above poster pointed out) made significant hardware support contributions to XFree86 and the kernel. I suppose I should have checked that out first before being so harsh, so I'm sorry. (But I'm still not going to pay them for a non-free software package)
I don't have a problem with SuSE attempting to competitively position themselves by trying to lower the value of RedHat's IPO. Ehh. It's a dog eat dog world out there.
What I *do* have a problem with is that they are essentially a proprietary company. They distribute a non-free Linux distribution, and stop just short of entirely refusing to acknowledge GNU and the GPL (not a mention of GNU on the package). More than 90 percent of what they are selling on that CD was contributed for free by the community. But they don't have the decency to contribute their utilities back, such as YAST.
SuSE is not helping Linux by trying to turn it proprietary. RedHat, on the other hand, isn't perfect either. But RH contributes their improvements and so is a member of the community instead of a leech -- like SuSE.
Usually I just ignore these posts. You know, obvious troll, just trying to get a rise out of someone. They kind of annoy me. I don't have anything against JonKatz even tho he's kinda cheesy sometimes. Some of his articles are pretty good, and this one at least isn't too bad.
Nonetheless, this post just made me laugh and laugh. (I think I'd better get back on the medication:^]...)
The nice thing about FreeBSD is that when the docs say it supports some hardware, it really supports it. FreeBSD contains very little or no beta or prerelease code, particularly in the kernel -- unlike most GNU/Linux distributions.
The Linux and FreeBSD development models are significantly different, and neither is really better than the other. FreeBSD values rock solid stability and extensively tested code more than Linux's fast and radical growth and support for peripherals.
Personally, I use Linux because I want my workstation on the "bleeding edge" of technology, so that I know what's going on.. and so that I can use my cheap TV card with my cheap video card. I also think that the dynamic nature of the Linux kernel will assist with advancing new technologies more than the "conservative" FreeBSD. However, it is still important to advance the "old" technologies...
Both operating systems are very stable and fast, and as server OS's they both give the commercial systems a run for their money. Neither have significant stability problems. But FreeBSD is sometimes faster and it never claims to support hardware that is really only half-supported. I have not had a stability problem with either OS, but if reliability and performance were my top priority, I would at least consider FreeBSD.
Re-definition of words is powerful and sometimes problematic, as you said.
But the FSF has never tried to redefine words. The fact remains that no other word in the English language means "free" in the sense that RMS means it except for the word "free" itself, which has other meanings as well. It is completely reasonable for RMS to define how he is using that word since it is not immediately obvious unless you've already heard the speech on it.
It's childish to make fun of RMS for defining his terms. Everyone ought to define what they're talking about if it's not obvious. And due to a particular inadequacy in the English language, RMS must provide an explanation. When I have seen him speak he has been very concise on this point.
> 1) clear policy for submission (e.g. compulsary > 6 month gag period for new subscribers while > they observe the community norms)
How about a 60 second gag period, to give them time to read the article they're responding to, and decide whether or not they want to be anonymous.
Seriously though, a policy such as you suggest would kill slashdot, or at least maim it. And a mischievious minority would start hacking accounts instead of making their own to get around this problem.
As far as the software used, AFAIK SlashDot has already released some (older version) code under the GPL and plans to do the same with future versions. If Rob tries to make money off of licensing the/. code, I won't whine about it. But I won't be back.
I don't want to tell you what to do or anything, but because the stories themselves are (as you said) a focus point of [our] conversation, you are in general obligated to read them if you intend to contribute to the forum. This is so you personally will know what context to take each comment in, so that you can help keep the discussion on topic, answer questions, and righteously post "read the frickin article first you stupidhead" messages to people who ask questions. Oh wait, everything but the last part.
Slashdot Mirror
Whatever gives you the impression that /.ers, of all people, would go for a quick profit on RHAT? Many, perhaps most, support Linux and what RedHat is doing, and want to hold a part of that and support it, not make a quick buck off it.
Slashdotters are not exactly "the average person".
An idiot, you say? Maybe I should join ADM so I can be a 1337 idiot like you.
/etc/group) and have no reason to assume that they're not also some other group with a different name. My prior post wasn't talking about who they are. I was talking about who they aren't, and calling attention to the humorous AO stuff on the page.
:)
I've never actually heard of ADM before (except in
Oh, by the way, even if I am an idiot, that makes you someone who has nothing better to do than talk to idiots.
-=The Comeback King,
and warez D00dz like it, too!
:)
don't think it was antionline, since the crackers did mention ao's "narq-o-matic" and such..
Okay. Now let me put this in perspective with the ACTUAL quote:
--------- RMS said:
In the GNU Manifesto, published in 1983 and 1985, I proposed a tax on computer supplies and equipment as one possible way to fund free software development.
At the moment, it seems to me that we do not need to use any special taxes--it seems that the job will get done without them.
----------
>... all the people who just say, "Find a new
> job", well, it ain't always just that easy, cuz
> you're afraid to loose the things you love
> about the job you've got.
Okay, _first_ of all, it's "FIRST POST, D))D!" not "first reply". Sheesh, some people.
Second of all.. afraid is no way to live your life. Go out on a limb now and then. If you do, you might learn something (hopefully not the hard way). If you don't, you're bound to regret it.
I totally understand what you're saying with that. Who I am is made up largely of what I do, and since I'm working full-time, a big portion of that is what I do while I'm at work. So I'm getting paid for it, that's just because it's valuable to someone. I'm not renting myself, I'm exchanging my services for money.
I believe that we should avoid treating work as "something we do outside of who we are". Your influence on the world while at work is often more powerful than when you are not working, so you should live your work even if you just work to live. This means supporting what your company is doing, too.
Shh! Our managers might be reading.
:-)
However.. there are a lot of talented hackers out there who would be more than happy to come up with a better/faster driver given some source code or at least specifications. For consumer items, I'd wager it's better for the company to skip internal development for new platform support/etc. Instead, make the source code free [speech] and give away a couple of their {video cards|sound cards|scanners|etc} to hackers who are willing to develop free drivers because they want experience, fame, or just free [beer] stuff. This potentially costs the company, and hence the consumer, much less.
;)
I am a paid programmer who likes to make money for what I do, but a few college hackers writing drivers in exchange for free hardware isn't going to put me out of a job.
You want to provide a URL to reference this so-called FSF software tax reference? IDTS.
Nothing wrong with giving somebody money in exchange for getting something from them. In fact, there's this whole capitalism thing that relies on it. Only difference is, if you buy, say, a software package w/ manual from the FSF or another free software company, you get three things:
1. a product that you could have gotten for free over the Internet
2. a manual that costs some money to print
3. programmers who are now getting paid to write software for you (and a lot of other people, too!)
Ahem. Please read more carefully. The license is **NOT** BSD. It is a modified BSD license which includes the standard rights to distribute with an advertising clause. It **ALSO** includes an addition at the top of the file clearly added by Mr. Cooper which puts additional restrictions on commercial use, you must get his permission and send him lots of money, etc etc etc. So it is not free.
Free software of all kinds is great. Programmers choose licenses based on how they want their work used, and that's great too. My favorite licenses for free software are XFree, GPL and BSD, all great. This program is no longer free and is under a license which essentially prohibits commercial use or commercial distribution of any kind, making it not-so-great.
It looks like the author, Michael Cooper, sold the software to MagniComp (and perhaps works there since his email address is now @MagniComp in recent documentation versions). The license that rdist is distributed under on MagniCorp.com is obviously unfree because of for-profit distribution restrictions and use restrictions.
/usr/doc/rdist-6.1.5, just a README which does not contain a license. The man pages don't have licenses either. Grr.
One thing to consider is that RedHat may have paid MagniComp or Mr. Cooper to recieve rights to distribute rdist under the terms of the BSD license or another nonrestrictive license, instead of MagniComp's regular EULA. However, I can't verify this because my (RedHat binary) copy does not include a copyright or license file in
If you download it from MagniComp and read the copyright in the source distribution, it's a standard BSD license with Michael's text at the top saying you can't make any money from distributing or using it, without an agreement in writing from him. According to the changelog, the copyright notice was changed in November of 1998.
I meant to say proprietary SOFTWARE company, and I really should have said 'non-free software company'. My bad. Nothing wrong with turning a profit. But the action of creating a non-free distribution of free software is asymmetrical (they take free software from the community and return it as a non-free conglomeration) which displeases me. It need not displease you and probably will not, espescially if you don't mind shrink wrap agreements.
I found out today that SuSE did make significant contributions to XFree and the kernel which offset that asymmetry to some extent, but do not really make up for it. It does have the effect of making me look like an idiot for calling them leeches, though..
The 'yast' config utility is not GNU free or any kind of free. You can't copy it or any portion of its source code without written permission. Granted, the system does work without yast and can be redistributed as such. But requiring the removal of the GUI setup tool for redistribution is discouraging free distribution.
SuSE makes their money because of the other contributors to GNU, Linux and the many many other apps they sell -- these people encouraged free distribution of their Linux-related works. SuSE does not encourage free distribution of their Linux related work (the distribution). However, SuSE does make contributions to XFree86 (XFree) and Linux (GPL) which we can all benefit from. They are not "bad" but their product is not free in the DFSG sense.
All that said, I apologize again for calling SuSE leeches, which is clearly not true.
(puts on dunce cap)
I am not trying to tell someone else what they should or should not do. It's just that I will always prefer a free software package over a non-free one. I go approximately along the lines of the DFSG (not GPL free, but a superset of that) to make this decision, and it is a personal ethical decision because I feel that free software does more to advance the field I work in than non-free software.
In particular, I will not purchase a distribution which consists of freely donated software with one program that is not freely donated but instead is licensed in such a way as to discourage free distribution of the composite product. You are free to do as you choose and I support your right to agree to whatever licensing terms you enjoy. You can be Bill Gates' towel boy for 12 months after opening Win2k shrink wrap, for all I care. (see Dilbert archives..)
Umm.. the original BO *IS* a decent remote administration tool. When I used to use Windows95 in the office, I could view text files containing my todo lists and phone numbers and such in a web browser, and telnet to my DOS prompt from the other side of the building. And with (albeit minimal) password protection and encryption, too!
Their software *is* innovative. What program can you run in under 140 K which includes a basic web server, process control, telnet access to text applications, screen shots, password protection and more? For that matter, what Windows application runs in under 140K, period? I think my mouse driver was about 200K.
I don't understand how you think such a monitoring program is destructive or that its writers "should all be shot" for providing it. Who's forcing you to use it? Oh yeah, that's right, you're forced to bend over for CDC because of MS "security" and the strange compulsion to always click on executable email attachments.
can you recommend a better word? If you could (in English, you will find that you cannot), Stallman would probably jump at the chance to not have to explain what freedom is to everyone he meets.
"the whole rest of the [English speaking] world" uses the word free in several contexts as well. He never "lies by omission," that's the whole point of him explaining his terms. If he *didn't* explain the terms, his speeches might be misleading.
(everyone needs to be called a jack ass every now and then)
I didn't mean that they hate free software, but the thing is, they have a CD full of almost all freely copyable software, but I can't copy the CD legally because SuSE has made it non-free. They also rarely mention GNU/GPL/FSF in their advertising literature, although I was unaware the GNU Manifesto was printed in their manual.
All that aside, they are not leeches and have done some great work to advance XFree86 development which I should have looked into before disrespecting the company.
-=Ivan
Okay I went a bit off the deep end with this. I still don't like SuSE 'cause they distribute a non-free distribution. But I should not have called them a leech and I apologize for that error.
Even though SuSE doesn't make all of their utilities free, they have (as the above poster pointed out) made significant hardware support contributions to XFree86 and the kernel. I suppose I should have checked that out first before being so harsh, so I'm sorry. (But I'm still not going to pay them for a non-free software package)
I don't have a problem with SuSE attempting to competitively position themselves by trying to lower the value of RedHat's IPO. Ehh. It's a dog eat dog world out there.
What I *do* have a problem with is that they are essentially a proprietary company. They distribute a non-free Linux distribution, and stop just short of entirely refusing to acknowledge GNU and the GPL (not a mention of GNU on the package). More than 90 percent of what they are selling on that CD was contributed for free by the community. But they don't have the decency to contribute their utilities back, such as YAST.
SuSE is not helping Linux by trying to turn it proprietary. RedHat, on the other hand, isn't perfect either. But RH contributes their improvements and so is a member of the community instead of a leech -- like SuSE.
Usually I just ignore these posts. You know, obvious troll, just trying to get a rise out of someone. They kind of annoy me. I don't have anything against JonKatz even tho he's kinda cheesy sometimes. Some of his articles are pretty good, and this one at least isn't too bad.
:^] ...)
Nonetheless, this post just made me laugh and laugh. (I think I'd better get back on the medication
As a hard core Linux user..
The nice thing about FreeBSD is that when the docs say it supports some hardware, it really supports it. FreeBSD contains very little or no beta or prerelease code, particularly in the kernel -- unlike most GNU/Linux distributions.
The Linux and FreeBSD development models are significantly different, and neither is really better than the other. FreeBSD values rock solid stability and extensively tested code more than Linux's fast and radical growth and support for peripherals.
Personally, I use Linux because I want my workstation on the "bleeding edge" of technology, so that I know what's going on.. and so that I can use my cheap TV card with my cheap video card. I also think that the dynamic nature of the Linux kernel will assist with advancing new technologies more than the "conservative" FreeBSD. However, it is still important to advance the "old" technologies...
Both operating systems are very stable and fast, and as server OS's they both give the commercial systems a run for their money. Neither have significant stability problems. But FreeBSD is sometimes faster and it never claims to support hardware that is really only half-supported. I have not had a stability problem with either OS, but if reliability and performance were my top priority, I would at least consider FreeBSD.
Re-definition of words is powerful and sometimes problematic, as you said.
But the FSF has never tried to redefine words. The fact remains that no other word in the English language means "free" in the sense that RMS means it except for the word "free" itself, which has other meanings as well. It is completely reasonable for RMS to define how he is using that word since it is not immediately obvious unless you've already heard the speech on it.
It's childish to make fun of RMS for defining his terms. Everyone ought to define what they're talking about if it's not obvious. And due to a particular inadequacy in the English language, RMS must provide an explanation. When I have seen him speak he has been very concise on this point.
> 1) clear policy for submission (e.g. compulsary
/. code, I won't whine about it. But I won't be back.
> 6 month gag period for new subscribers while
> they observe the community norms)
How about a 60 second gag period, to give them time to read the article they're responding to, and decide whether or not they want to be anonymous.
Seriously though, a policy such as you suggest would kill slashdot, or at least maim it. And a mischievious minority would start hacking accounts instead of making their own to get around this problem.
As far as the software used, AFAIK SlashDot has already released some (older version) code under the GPL and plans to do the same with future versions. If Rob tries to make money off of licensing the
I don't want to tell you what to do or anything, but because the stories themselves are (as you said) a focus point of [our] conversation, you are in general obligated to read them if you intend to contribute to the forum. This is so you personally will know what context to take each comment in, so that you can help keep the discussion on topic, answer questions, and righteously post "read the frickin article first you stupidhead" messages to people who ask questions. Oh wait, everything but the last part.