this is a joke. You mean where taxes are the highest around? (ever here of the V.A.T tax?). Thanks but no thanks.
Tell that to the folk who have bombs dropping on them. They feel just like you felt on that day. I'm not comparing the morality of either action
the U.S should have let the people in Iraq suffer and die at the hands of sadaam. They don't deserve our help. But when you are the most powerful and free, people will try to take you down in any way that they can.
No, we'd rather do something OTHER than invading and killing untold thousands and/or start a war with a nuclear power. See how you felt on 9.11? That's how other people feel when you attack them. Iraq was completely predictable, and you want to incite more hatred? The very thing that led to 9.11? Are you fucking insane or something?
sure. the U.S invading Iraq is like 9/11. Give me a fucking break.
That made me smile. Do you think that is in someway special or unique in the world? Are you looking for a medal or something? Wake up my friend, people elsewhere in the west generally have more rights and freedom than you do now
yeah, it is. Go to China, Cuba, or North Korea and try to do the same thing. You probably won't be posting on slashdot anymore.
also, name the country/countries that you seem to think have more freedoms and give me an explanation. You should be the one waking up.
Sound's like what you are promoting is fasism, where those that feel different to you should leave. That's quite un-American, if you don't mind me pointing that out.
I never said they should leave (but a person has the freedom to do so).
Some people need a sense of importance because they can't find it anywhere else in their life.
Propaganda. Textbook example, that's all this is. Next they'll be telling us they mistreat women/children. Hoist the flags, the 'regime change' starts shortly.
right. North Korea is a great country to live in.
Liberals are funny. They would rather have famine than an attempt to save these people. 1,000,000 people could be starving in the hands of a maniacal dictator, but still the U.S shouldn't get involved (in fact, they are the ones that are the dictatorship).
if the U.S was actually that bad, there would be no protestors or people speaking out against the president. They would all be dead. (maybe Iraq is better. They had a vote for president before the war, and Sadaam won by 100%).
The U.S. even allows left-wing propaganda such as farenheit 9/11 to be played in movie theaters across the country. With the considerably low tax rate and more freedoms than almost every other country in the world, I would say that the U.S is a pretty good place to live. It seems most protesters would rather live in the U.S. and bitch about how shitty it is to live here than actually move to a country they seem to think is better (which is probably because they don't know of one).
Amen. My newest project (shameless plug [moviesmademe.com]) is still small in terms of popularity, but I receive numerous "why does this look weird / not work in IE" messages regardless. Trying to explain to people that the site is standards compliant and that IE doesn't properly support standards is somewhere in the range of explaining the laws of physics in terms of how much people grasp the concept.
that's kind of like someone wondering if your movie is in DVD and telling them they need to get a laserdisc player because it's the standard.
changes don't happen overnight. Right now, most people are using Internet Explorer whether you like it or not, so it is the de facto standard.
If you actually wanted a lot of people to come to your site, you would tailor it to IE first and make it for firefox and the rest of the browsers after.
so in actuality, you should be blamed for a person's web experience to your website, because you are not following the de facto standard.
mysql - gained commercial support years after is was extremely popular. The project was successful, and then commercial interest started, not the other way around.
php - Rasmus was unemployed for a long time when making php4. That didn't make php any less succesful. After the success, maybe some bussinesses might be contributing, but they didn't contribute to success.
linux - Well, I wouldn't know where to start.
blender, the 3d modeling package, ailed as a commercial entity. The community saved it, by getting together and buying the sources, and making a free project. After that, there are some commercial entities that contribute money.
that was my point. Open source applications usually stop being developed after a certain point, mainly because the original creator lost interest or doesn't have the time to work on it anymore. I was just trying to point out that there aren't any popular/large open source projects that have no commerical support.
Anyone who still has that expectation must've been asleep for the past few decades. Have they never heard of Kazaa? Napster? Scour? CD burning? Home taping?
it's funny that you are so against copyright. Without copyright, you would be out of a job. The people that are paying you to code would no longer need you.
I'm sure they want everyone who listens to their music in digital form to pay for it, but they're fools if they seriously expect it to happen.
kind of like a bank expecting people not to rob them when they are inside? Or a grocery store not to expect people to leave without paying?
You are giving the same excuse I have heard since the days of napster from all the file leechers who think it's somehow their right to get someone else's work for free. You obviously haven't written anything worth paying for.
If you want to convice the world to stop enforcing the copyright laws, you aren't doing a very good job.
Copyright laws have been around for at least 100 years, although I don't agree with what the MPAA and RIAA are doing, I still think they need to be in place.
As for the people who download, they're not bound by any agreement just because the artist has a wish or expectation to get paid.
ignorance is no excuse. If I buy something that is stolen, I can still get in trouble with the law.
Except there isn't. When Britney Spears puts out a new CD, she doesn't ask me first if I want to pay for it. She might hope that I will, but surely she knew many people listen to music without paying for it, and she decided to make it anyway. There's no agreement between an artist and the public like there is between an account holder and a bank.
too bad Britney Spears doesn't own her own music either. Her record company does.
If her music is played on the radio, or you overhear it, there is no obligation to pay for it. The actual CD (this includes digital form), however, is expected to be paid for.
if you do not like this, don't download or buy her CD.
For the record. The FSF doen't say information is property. It says that as long as there is a copyright law, it shouldn't be used against users of free software. If you "close" GPLed software, you are taking freedom away from the users. The guys are using copyrights to fight copyrights, not in order to get some rent on their made up "property". In some cases, you need to use the tools of a system that you don't like, but that doesn't mean you agree.
someone who uses the tools of a system that they don't agree with is called a hypocrite.
you do not take any freedoms away from the users. If you "close" GPL software, the GPL software is still available for you to download and use. It's not physical property.
software that is truly free has no restrictions.
The actions of the FSF are going to taint free software in the eyes of any business thinking about using it. It's all about weighing liability and risk with cost.
Of course I do.. I owned the money before I deposited it, and I deposited it in the bank with the mutual understanding that it would be paid back to me upon request. That obligation from the bank to me is part of my net worth.
well, then so is software, music, and movies. When they are released, there is a mutual understanding they will be paid for (if they are commerical of course).
Devaluing the work, however, doesn't harm the creator. He doesn't own it, because no one can own information, so his net worth hasn't actually dropped (and even if it had, there are plenty of other situations where someone's property value drops but we don't consider it an actionable harm).
Do you really own the money in your bank account? it's just 1's and 0's stored on a database somewhere. If I transfer all your money (which is just data) to my account, would you consider that an actionable harm?
Nope. If they were fighting companies for "theft", then they'd be saying it is property. But instead when they fight against "violations", they are merely asserting that they have "rights".
if you look at the cases involving the RIAA and MPAA, tey are fighting against "violations" too.
Organizations on "our side" can be just as misguided in their support of copyright law as anyone else. That said, however, they're using the current laws of society to pursue a goal (free software) as best they can. Changing copyright law might help us all reach that goal more quickly, but they have to work within today's legal framework if they want to get results today
large changes to a system that has been in place for at least 100 years take time. It seems the FSF, although humourous at times is starting to get just as bad as the MPAA.
If you think that's incorrect, go ahead and explain why. How exactly does having a copy of a song on your hard drive harm anyone any more than not having that copy on your hard drive, given that you aren't paying any money whether it's there or not
well, if it's a copyrighted song, program, or movie, it hurts the original creator. Sharing commerical works devalues that work over time. (think of what happens to the value of the dollar if it is well known that 99% of all money used is counterfeit). Just because something can be copied easily doesn't mean its value is 0.
It's just human nature. If someone has a choice between something that's free and something that costs money, they will choose free.
I could say the same thing about software under the GNU. Who does it hurt when I use it in a commerical application (without releasing the source?). The original sourcecode is still there to use for free. The free software police thinks differently, however.
Except information isn't property, and we all know it.
yet we still have people like the FSF saying that it is by fighting big companies for violations.
OK. I'm going to walk down your street, and I want you to pay me $5 every time you look at me. Some people think I'm good looking, so I'm gonna try to cash in on it. If you don't want to pay, just don't look - if you don't want to pay for something, you shouldn't take it anyway, for free, right?
this is a bad comparison. Looking at someone is involuntary. Downloading music, files, and movies is not.
All right then, how about this. I'm going to play my guitar outside your window, and I want you to pay me for it. If you don't want to pay, just don't listen. Put cotton in your ears, turn up your TV, whatever. Just don't take it for free without paying.
people aren't putting music, movies, and programs onto your harddrive without your consent.
That's because there's nothing inherently wrong with enjoying something without paying for it, and we all know that too. Obviously the analogy isn't perfect, but the core principle remains: if you aren't going to pay for something (whether it's a song, a movie, or my shoddy guitar playing), it doesn't matter whether you enjoy it or forgo it - listening without paying is no more harmful to anyone than not listening without paying.
right, listening. This does not include downloading, which is something completly different.
hence the term "commerical support". I think you made my point quite clear. Im not sure why you seem to think commerical = commericals (like ads on TV)...maybe just a lack of experience?
So let me be one of a long line of people telling you that you're full of crap and have no sense of perspective and have zero sense of history.
actually, I am one of the people that lived through the early days of the Internet (and before when I would dial-up to my local neighborhood BBS). I also know that like almost any technology, without support from commercial entities it will stay small.
look at free software as an example too. The only successful and well updated projects are the ones with commerical support (mysql,php,apache, and even linux).
Commerical interests have no "this isn't how it should be" claim to stake. They're the Jonnys-come-lately online, and they *still* have to learn how to adjust.
Companies made the Internet the way it is today. Without commerical support, we would all be using a 14.4K modem dialed up to a university. They also have the right to protect their property. If people don't want to pay for something, they shouldn't take it anyway, for free.
Indeed, the GPL uses copyright to limit what people can do with code. But those limits are only necessary to ensure that derived works can be freely used. Without copyright, those limits would be unnecessary because everything could be freely used
it may make it so everyting was freelyavailable, but the source code could still be closed.
Even if this did happen, companies would just start creating service based applications (like turbo tax did). Then there would be no open/closed source issues.
Sorry, but "moral rights" are bunk. No one has a right to prevent anyone else from using or reproducing an idea, and that's exactly what copyrightable material is.
well, that pretty much rules out the GPL too. The GPL controls how I use a piece of source code.
At the same time it isn't as bad as you seem to think . Why would a car company give their car away for free? The only reason "Free Software" does is because it is sooooo damn easy to copy AND the GPL almost makes it a requirement.
just because it's easy to copy, doesn't mean it makes it right (or makes it worth any less). Credit card numbers/pin codes are damn easy to copy too.
It is still fairly difficult to create a large, working piece of software (which would not be there without the original author).
In reality many people sell "Free" software(Redhat being just one company), more importantly they sell the packaging of free software.
they make most of their money on support. Linux distros are so easy to get (through bittorrent or other means). Documentation can even be found online. I have never bought a linux distribution (and everyone I know that uses linux downloads it for free). The same goes for every other OSS project. When it's advertised to the masses as better and free, it's difficult to get someone to actually pay for it.
Similarly car companies sell you the package that is a car, technically you could simply go out and build your own, I have a fairly good friend who could "easily" do this(easy for him not for the rest of us).
still not a very good comparison. Software is not something that is physical. Physical things cost actual money for the supplies. Even if I wanted to build a car myself, it would cost me large amounts of money for the parts. Car companies allow you to open up your hood because they know that you won't clone your car and give it away for free to 1000s of people around the world. If the fact that you could open your hood allowed someone to do that, you can be sure we would be seeing cars with the hoods welded shut (or very difficult to access).
the problem with allowing a person to "service" their own software is that it makes the software basically worthless. Anyone releasing their software under the GNU license cannot sell it and expect to make any kind of profit. Popularity will work against you, which as a company, is something you don't want. The more popular your product is, the more likely someone will re-compile and release the binaries for free (you will have to compete with your exact product, for $0). It's not a very good business model.
Oh and Stallman's premise isn't that Free Software promotes sharing, it's that Free Software removes you from vendor/proprietary lock-in. The standard example is with cars. The comparison being, if cars were like proprietary software you wouldn't be able to work on your own car and you would HAVE to take it back to the manufacturer to get ANY service. Thank god they aren't this way although car manufacturers have tried their best to make it so. The fact that you don't understand that this is Stallman's underlying position says more about your own bias than Stallman's.
This is a terrible comparison. Car companies can still make money on a car, even though you are able to open the hood.
Using your comparison, free software would be like a car company giving a car away for free, and not requiring the person receiving the car to buy support from them, ruining any chance of making a profit.
And Stallman is most definitely sane, and exceptionally clear in his analysis. If you do not understand him, that's OK. It's a bit intellectual. But kindly don't insult one of the visionaries of our age... it just makes you look silly.
a little condescending are we?
Stallman is not one of the "visionaries of our age". He is a zealout that will stop at nothing to get his point across. Just look at the fact that he calls linux GNU/linux (and many times has stated he wanted the name changed).
if anything, Stallman is hurting the free software community with his agressive tactics.
Linux does not depend on the GNU licenese to be there. If it wasn't, some other licenese would have been used (such as a varaint of the public domain license).
from the article:
Since then, various other companies have been exploring how little they can give to the free software community and still pose as our supporters.
Stallman should be happy companies are even bothering to support the free software community at all. If you look at any of the large free software projects (Mysql,apache,php, and open office come to mind), they are backed by large companies.
Now lets take a peep at Linux. There are 200+ distros. The majority of distros apply custom patch-sets to their kernels. Heck, people are always whining about the fact that software packaged for one distro won't work on the others! And then there are the dozens of Desktop Enviroments and common library versions that people will have. In short, Linux installs tend to be greatly more heterogenous than the bland armies of XP clones
there may be 200+ distros, but they all use the same kernal. Most also use the same guis (gnome/kde), and since most OSS is freely available, many different distros have the same software installed by default.
different distros of linux are basically the same OS with a different name attached.
im not saying microsoft isn't a monoculture, just that linux is.
In short - I doubt Linux will ever be the "monoculture" than Windows is
if the people behind the linux movement ever want it to be as popular as windows, it will have to be.
Of course any Microsoft apologist would still blame the hardware (or sometimes the user, thus indirectly claiming that MS software is not userfriendly enough).
and any OSS apologist would still blame it on a microsoft apologist, when in reality, it's a hardware problem.
Slashdot Mirror
How about just about anywhere in Europe?
this is a joke. You mean where taxes are the highest around? (ever here of the V.A.T tax?). Thanks but no thanks.
Tell that to the folk who have bombs dropping on them. They feel just like you felt on that day. I'm not comparing the morality of either action
the U.S should have let the people in Iraq suffer and die at the hands of sadaam. They don't deserve our help. But when you are the most powerful and free, people will try to take you down in any way that they can.
No, we'd rather do something OTHER than invading and killing untold thousands and/or start a war with a nuclear power. See how you felt on 9.11? That's how other people feel when you attack them. Iraq was completely predictable, and you want to incite more hatred? The very thing that led to 9.11? Are you fucking insane or something?
sure. the U.S invading Iraq is like 9/11. Give me a fucking break.
That made me smile. Do you think that is in someway special or unique in the world? Are you looking for a medal or something? Wake up my friend, people elsewhere in the west generally have more rights and freedom than you do now
yeah, it is. Go to China, Cuba, or North Korea and try to do the same thing. You probably won't be posting on slashdot anymore.
also, name the country/countries that you seem to think have more freedoms and give me an explanation. You should be the one waking up.
Sound's like what you are promoting is fasism, where those that feel different to you should leave. That's quite un-American, if you don't mind me pointing that out.
I never said they should leave (but a person has the freedom to do so).
Some people need a sense of importance because they can't find it anywhere else in their life.
Propaganda. Textbook example, that's all this is. Next they'll be telling us they mistreat women/children. Hoist the flags, the 'regime change' starts shortly.
right. North Korea is a great country to live in.
Liberals are funny. They would rather have famine than an attempt to save these people. 1,000,000 people could be starving in the hands of a maniacal dictator, but still the U.S shouldn't get involved (in fact, they are the ones that are the dictatorship).
if the U.S was actually that bad, there would be no protestors or people speaking out against the president. They would all be dead. (maybe Iraq is better. They had a vote for president before the war, and Sadaam won by 100%).
The U.S. even allows left-wing propaganda such as farenheit 9/11 to be played in movie theaters across the country. With the considerably low tax rate and more freedoms than almost every other country in the world, I would say that the U.S is a pretty good place to live. It seems most protesters would rather live in the U.S. and bitch about how shitty it is to live here than actually move to a country they seem to think is better (which is probably because they don't know of one).
Amen. My newest project (shameless plug [moviesmademe.com]) is still small in terms of popularity, but I receive numerous "why does this look weird / not work in IE" messages regardless. Trying to explain to people that the site is standards compliant and that IE doesn't properly support standards is somewhere in the range of explaining the laws of physics in terms of how much people grasp the concept.
that's kind of like someone wondering if your movie is in DVD and telling them they need to get a laserdisc player because it's the standard.
changes don't happen overnight. Right now, most people are using Internet Explorer whether you like it or not, so it is the de facto standard.
If you actually wanted a lot of people to come to your site, you would tailor it to IE first and make it for firefox and the rest of the browsers after.
so in actuality, you should be blamed for a person's web experience to your website, because you are not following the de facto standard.
mysql - gained commercial support years after is was extremely popular. The project was successful, and then commercial interest started, not the other way around.
php - Rasmus was unemployed for a long time when making php4. That didn't make php any less succesful. After the success, maybe some bussinesses might be contributing, but they didn't contribute to success.
linux - Well, I wouldn't know where to start.
blender, the 3d modeling package, ailed as a commercial entity. The community saved it, by getting together and buying the sources, and making a free project. After that, there are some commercial entities that contribute money.
that was my point. Open source applications usually stop being developed after a certain point, mainly because the original creator lost interest or doesn't have the time to work on it anymore. I was just trying to point out that there aren't any popular/large open source projects that have no commerical support.
Anyone who still has that expectation must've been asleep for the past few decades. Have they never heard of Kazaa? Napster? Scour? CD burning? Home taping?
it's funny that you are so against copyright. Without copyright, you would be out of a job. The people that are paying you to code would no longer need you.
I'm sure they want everyone who listens to their music in digital form to pay for it, but they're fools if they seriously expect it to happen.
kind of like a bank expecting people not to rob them when they are inside? Or a grocery store not to expect people to leave without paying?
You are giving the same excuse I have heard since the days of napster from all the file leechers who think it's somehow their right to get someone else's work for free. You obviously haven't written anything worth paying for.
If you want to convice the world to stop enforcing the copyright laws, you aren't doing a very good job.
Copyright laws have been around for at least 100 years, although I don't agree with what the MPAA and RIAA are doing, I still think they need to be in place.
As for the people who download, they're not bound by any agreement just because the artist has a wish or expectation to get paid.
ignorance is no excuse. If I buy something that is stolen, I can still get in trouble with the law.
Except there isn't. When Britney Spears puts out a new CD, she doesn't ask me first if I want to pay for it. She might hope that I will, but surely she knew many people listen to music without paying for it, and she decided to make it anyway. There's no agreement between an artist and the public like there is between an account holder and a bank.
too bad Britney Spears doesn't own her own music either. Her record company does.
If her music is played on the radio, or you overhear it, there is no obligation to pay for it. The actual CD (this includes digital form), however, is expected to be paid for.
if you do not like this, don't download or buy her CD.
For the record. The FSF doen't say information is property.
It says that as long as there is a copyright law, it shouldn't be used against users of free software.
If you "close" GPLed software, you are taking freedom away from the users.
The guys are using copyrights to fight copyrights, not in order to get some rent on their made up "property". In some cases, you need to use the tools of a system that you don't like, but that doesn't mean you agree.
someone who uses the tools of a system that they don't agree with is called a hypocrite.
you do not take any freedoms away from the users. If you "close" GPL software, the GPL software is still available for you to download and use. It's not physical property.
software that is truly free has no restrictions.
The actions of the FSF are going to taint free software in the eyes of any business thinking about using it. It's all about weighing liability and risk with cost.
Of course I do.. I owned the money before I deposited it, and I deposited it in the bank with the mutual understanding that it would be paid back to me upon request. That obligation from the bank to me is part of my net worth.
well, then so is software, music, and movies. When they are released, there is a mutual understanding they will be paid for (if they are commerical of course).
Devaluing the work, however, doesn't harm the creator. He doesn't own it, because no one can own information, so his net worth hasn't actually dropped (and even if it had, there are plenty of other situations where someone's property value drops but we don't consider it an actionable harm).
Do you really own the money in your bank account? it's just 1's and 0's stored on a database somewhere. If I transfer all your money (which is just data) to my account, would you consider that an actionable harm?
Nope. If they were fighting companies for "theft", then they'd be saying it is property. But instead when they fight against "violations", they are merely asserting that they have "rights".
if you look at the cases involving the RIAA and MPAA, tey are fighting against "violations" too.
Organizations on "our side" can be just as misguided in their support of copyright law as anyone else. That said, however, they're using the current laws of society to pursue a goal (free software) as best they can. Changing copyright law might help us all reach that goal more quickly, but they have to work within today's legal framework if they want to get results today
large changes to a system that has been in place for at least 100 years take time. It seems the FSF, although humourous at times is starting to get just as bad as the MPAA.
If you think that's incorrect, go ahead and explain why. How exactly does having a copy of a song on your hard drive harm anyone any more than not having that copy on your hard drive, given that you aren't paying any money whether it's there or not
well, if it's a copyrighted song, program, or movie, it hurts the original creator. Sharing commerical works devalues that work over time. (think of what happens to the value of the dollar if it is well known that 99% of all money used is counterfeit). Just because something can be copied easily doesn't mean its value is 0.
It's just human nature. If someone has a choice between something that's free and something that costs money, they will choose free.
I could say the same thing about software under the GNU. Who does it hurt when I use it in a commerical application (without releasing the source?). The original sourcecode is still there to use for free. The free software police thinks differently, however.
Except information isn't property, and we all know it.
yet we still have people like the FSF saying that it is by fighting big companies for violations.
OK. I'm going to walk down your street, and I want you to pay me $5 every time you look at me. Some people think I'm good looking, so I'm gonna try to cash in on it. If you don't want to pay, just don't look - if you don't want to pay for something, you shouldn't take it anyway, for free, right?
this is a bad comparison. Looking at someone is involuntary. Downloading music, files, and movies is not.
All right then, how about this. I'm going to play my guitar outside your window, and I want you to pay me for it. If you don't want to pay, just don't listen. Put cotton in your ears, turn up your TV, whatever. Just don't take it for free without paying.
people aren't putting music, movies, and programs onto your harddrive without your consent.
That's because there's nothing inherently wrong with enjoying something without paying for it, and we all know that too. Obviously the analogy isn't perfect, but the core principle remains: if you aren't going to pay for something (whether it's a song, a movie, or my shoddy guitar playing), it doesn't matter whether you enjoy it or forgo it - listening without paying is no more harmful to anyone than not listening without paying.
right, listening. This does not include downloading, which is something completly different.
a commercial ISP back in 1992.
hence the term "commerical support". I think you made my point quite clear. Im not sure why you seem to think commerical = commericals (like ads on TV)...maybe just a lack of experience?
So let me be one of a long line of people telling you that you're full of crap and have no sense of perspective and have zero sense of history.
actually, I am one of the people that lived through the early days of the Internet (and before when I would dial-up to my local neighborhood BBS). I also know that like almost any technology, without support from commercial entities it will stay small.
look at free software as an example too. The only successful and well updated projects are the ones with commerical support (mysql,php,apache, and even linux).
Commerical interests have no "this isn't how it should be" claim to stake. They're the Jonnys-come-lately online, and they *still* have to learn how to adjust.
Companies made the Internet the way it is today. Without commerical support, we would all be using a 14.4K modem dialed up to a university. They also have the right to protect their property. If people don't want to pay for something, they shouldn't take it anyway, for free.
Indeed, the GPL uses copyright to limit what people can do with code. But those limits are only necessary to ensure that derived works can be freely used. Without copyright, those limits would be unnecessary because everything could be freely used
it may make it so everyting was freelyavailable, but the source code could still be closed.
Even if this did happen, companies would just start creating service based applications (like turbo tax did). Then there would be no open/closed source issues.
Sorry, but "moral rights" are bunk. No one has a right to prevent anyone else from using or reproducing an idea, and that's exactly what copyrightable material is.
well, that pretty much rules out the GPL too. The GPL controls how I use a piece of source code.
At the same time it isn't as bad as you seem to think . Why would a car company give their car away for free? The only reason "Free Software" does is because it is sooooo damn easy to copy AND the GPL almost makes it a requirement.
just because it's easy to copy, doesn't mean it makes it right (or makes it worth any less). Credit card numbers/pin codes are damn easy to copy too.
It is still fairly difficult to create a large, working piece of software (which would not be there without the original author).
In reality many people sell "Free" software(Redhat being just one company), more importantly they sell the packaging of free software.
they make most of their money on support. Linux distros are so easy to get (through bittorrent or other means). Documentation can even be found online. I have never bought a linux distribution (and everyone I know that uses linux downloads it for free). The same goes for every other OSS project. When it's advertised to the masses as better and free, it's difficult to get someone to actually pay for it.
Similarly car companies sell you the package that is a car, technically you could simply go out and build your own, I have a fairly good friend who could "easily" do this(easy for him not for the rest of us).
still not a very good comparison. Software is not something that is physical. Physical things cost actual money for the supplies. Even if I wanted to build a car myself, it would cost me large amounts of money for the parts. Car companies allow you to open up your hood because they know that you won't clone your car and give it away for free to 1000s of people around the world. If the fact that you could open your hood allowed someone to do that, you can be sure we would be seeing cars with the hoods welded shut (or very difficult to access).
the problem with allowing a person to "service" their own software is that it makes the software basically worthless. Anyone releasing their software under the GNU license cannot sell it and expect to make any kind of profit. Popularity will work against you, which as a company, is something you don't want. The more popular your product is, the more likely someone will re-compile and release the binaries for free (you will have to compete with your exact product, for $0). It's not a very good business model.
Oh and Stallman's premise isn't that Free Software promotes sharing, it's that Free Software removes you from vendor/proprietary lock-in. The standard example is with cars. The comparison being, if cars were like proprietary software you wouldn't be able to work on your own car and you would HAVE to take it back to the manufacturer to get ANY service. Thank god they aren't this way although car manufacturers have tried their best to make it so. The fact that you don't understand that this is Stallman's underlying position says more about your own bias than Stallman's.
This is a terrible comparison. Car companies can still make money on a car, even though you are able to open the hood.
Using your comparison, free software would be like a car company giving a car away for free, and not requiring the person receiving the car to buy support from them, ruining any chance of making a profit.
And Stallman is most definitely sane, and exceptionally clear in his analysis. If you do not understand him, that's OK. It's a bit intellectual. But kindly don't insult one of the visionaries of our age... it just makes you look silly.
a little condescending are we?
Stallman is not one of the "visionaries of our age". He is a zealout that will stop at nothing to get his point across. Just look at the fact that he calls linux GNU/linux (and many times has stated he wanted the name changed).
if anything, Stallman is hurting the free software community with his agressive tactics.
Linux does not depend on the GNU licenese to be there. If it wasn't, some other licenese would have been used (such as a varaint of the public domain license).
from the article:
Since then, various other companies have been exploring how little they can give to the free software community and still pose as our supporters.
Stallman should be happy companies are even bothering to support the free software community at all. If you look at any of the large free software projects (Mysql,apache,php, and open office come to mind), they are backed by large companies.
Now lets take a peep at Linux. There are 200+ distros. The majority of distros apply custom patch-sets to their kernels. Heck, people are always whining about the fact that software packaged for one distro won't work on the others! And then there are the dozens of Desktop Enviroments and common library versions that people will have. In short, Linux installs tend to be greatly more heterogenous than the bland armies of XP clones
there may be 200+ distros, but they all use the same kernal. Most also use the same guis (gnome/kde), and since most OSS is freely available, many different distros have the same software installed by default.
different distros of linux are basically the same OS with a different name attached.
im not saying microsoft isn't a monoculture, just that linux is.
In short - I doubt Linux will ever be the "monoculture" than Windows is
if the people behind the linux movement ever want it to be as popular as windows, it will have to be.
Ok... the conclusion is simple then: Monoculture is bad
this is true, but linux is a monoculture as well.
Water is wet ... Short of a static html type browser, nothing will be safe until we all agree upon some standards. Listening Microsoft?
since they are the most popular right now, they pretty much set the standards.
Windows is not a target because of its popularity, but because it is poorly designed
this is not true. What incentive would a cracker have to create a virus that only infects linux machines?
none, because it would only effect about 5% of the internet
Of course any Microsoft apologist would still blame the hardware (or sometimes the user, thus indirectly claiming that MS software is not userfriendly enough).
and any OSS apologist would still blame it on a microsoft apologist, when in reality, it's a hardware problem.