The others who have replied have adequately pointed out why you're wrong. I'd like to additionally mention that you've had this pointed out to you before. Therefore, you're not merely wrong, you're what is technically known as a "fucking idiot".
You're being bitch-slapped by microsoft, with the same type if restrictions, and you have to bitch and moan about it.
Telling me 5 times doesn't make it the truth.
you're what is techically know as a slashdot zealout, too blinded to see the truth....
Now, MS doesn't want to play _our_ game by _our_ rules. Instead all they want is to take, profit
I read an article somewhere on the internet, written by a former Microsoft Employee. I can't remember what he was working on, but no only did their team complete the needed project, but an entire compiler to build the project.
Do you actually think microsoft gives a shit or will ever use open source software? I sure don't.
They have teams and teams of highly skilled programmers that get paid tons of money. Using Open Source Software would not be in their best interest (time is money. It would take just as long to implement someone else's code, as it would to create your own).
also, what do you expect? It's like the US openly giving out nuclear secrets, and saying its UNFAIR when the chinese use them to create a bomb.
This would be exactly parallel to a clothing manufacturer telling people that they have established a pattern for shirts with two sleeves, and you are therefore not allowed to make shirts with two sleeves unless you promise not to donate your old shirts to the poor.
Then would an equivalent analogy for the GPL license be that im not allowed to sell old shirts to the rich?
The GPL, is just as controlling as this microsoft license. If I take someone's GPLd code, and use it in a commerical application, I am FORCED (under the license of course) to give out my source code with its distibution.
Granted, I could just invent the sourcecode myself to get around this problem, but so can you.
This isn't about whether or not they have the right to do it, it's about Microsoft being a bunch of greedy money grubbing jerkoffs. Yes, they CAN do that if they want to. SHOULD they? Probably not.
Microsoft does it for the same reason the GPL license locks proprietary code out of its license. (SourceCode must be re-released).
the X architecture is better than anything else out there
I think the X architecture is part of the *nix problem. Using unix domain sockets for all forms of internal communication is not my definition of something that's "better".
Most Flash sites on the web use it for absolutely no reason at all, other than to look cool.
Exactly. It's to draw a crowd to your site. For any site wanting to make any kind of money, it's a must.
Why doesn't KDE or GNOME look like the orginal X-windows? Because it doesn't look cool! Looking cool does matter.
This is why there's no opensource flash tools
No, the reason there is no open-source flash, is because anyone with the experience to make such a fantastic piece of software is working for a commercialized company. (IE: Proprietary)
Typical ignorance of basics by Flash designers. For *** sake take your eyes off the neon lights and try reading the text. It's virtually illegible. There's no colour contrast and the font size is ridiculous.
I think the general opinions on flash around here is merely because it's a commericalized application. If flash was all open source (let's say PHP), Whould you feel the same way?
Music these days just plain sucks, first of all, most of the new bands blow, and then the audio engineers master the sound so god damn loud that it loses all it's presense. I don't know about you guys but I don't plan on buying any cds untill I see something actually worth buying.
the millions of people pirating that music would have to disagree..
There is a diffrence between Monolithic and bloated. M$ puts everything in the windows kernel, including the GUI. I fear the day when someone tries to put X in the Linux kernel.
I still would have that, rather than a gui that still uses unix domain sockets for all forms of internal communication..
I replied this to someone else who I thought was you: "Hey man, I fell into a trap by answering your post last night. Not this time bud. Have fun and flame elsewhere!"
If you side with RIAA realize that you are siding with an empire that has STOLEN individual artists rights to their own art, work, creation, or whatever you want to call it.
really? did that happen between the legal contract that was signed with the artists and the music that is recorded, produced, and promoted through their studios?
In regards to the greedy part, glad you feel that way, however I am most glad that you have taken the time to measure how much greedier I am. What are you a five years old? Does your mom know that you are on this late at night?
great way to defend your statement. Insults will get you nowhere.
Side with the record company and no one wins
Are the record companies breaking the law? yes Are they passing Unfair laws to which I am against? yes Do I feel they should have their intellectual property rights taken away? no.
agree mostly, but who wants to pay the same amount of money for a cd you make yourself? I want the literature, the artwork, and all that kool stuff (that is assuming we would pay the same price)
Doesn't this prove the point of the RIAA. IE: pirates only wanting something for free.
You don't "create" the music at all, you are merely copying it from someone who put their hard earned money into producing it: artists and or record labels.
To restate what I said before, it is just trying to squeeze some of my hard (LOL) earned money out of me for the sake of a record company and in return I get useless goods
really? useless goods? Then why download it for free if it's so useless.? because you're greedy. 1000 times more than any record company. At least they aren't coming to your house and directly taking money out of your pockets by force.
RMS needs to be radical. 1st because that's what makes it newsworthy 2nd as a counter to the corporate control culture 3rd because he truly believes in his purpose. Going about it half seriously would be worse then appearing sincere but misguided.
Like it or not, we have too few spokespeople for free (as in liberity) software, and I'll take them all. Even if some of their views differ from mine. As long as the general thrust of the argument is the same. (Actually, I've come around to RMS's view, because I've realized that the alternative is worse!)
really, what is richard stallman fighting for?
It seems to me he is fighting for the right to take away IP from companies and programmers, rather than free software....
The flipside of that argument is that people are stupid about computers and computing options because of this one platform's pervasiveness. Think about it... many computer-illiterates are very, very intelligent people, who can do things like build car engines and the like... they can read and write and think critically. Then you ask "Why are these people intelligent but can't manage to use a computer properly?" And the answer is "Because they've never had to." Maybe if these people had to do research into the OS they'd be buying with their computer and heck, even the hardware that goes into it, they would start to be able to decide for themselves what they liked about different things and, in the process, because a knowledgable and competent user. Just throwing out something and saying "A blind lame inbred camel could use this!" is going to entice everyone to use that product as a blind, lame camel would.
Your flipside argument is flawed.
The people that don't know how to use their computers don't want to. Microsoft never stopped them. (after all linux is freely available). If they were truly interested, like everyone else, they would pursue that interest.
People enjoy being able to just "point and click" their way through their computer.
Answer: They won't. In the future programming won't be a job, it'll be a hobby. People will do some other job during the day and code in their spare time, like me. I, like most people (well, most people I know) started coding because I liked it, *I enjoy coding* thats why people go in to open source, because they like coding, not because they want to make millions. Therefore, eventually coding will cease to be a profession.
Unless a law is passed that forbids me to write closed source apps, it will NEVER happen. If I can come out with a "killer app" that's better than its open source equivalent, someone will still buy it, and i can still make money.
I think it is because the Microsoft propaganda machine keeps saying how great they are, and we know better. Basically they overpaid for their preinstalled ("free?") OS and have to convince themselves they haven't been taken.
and what is the alternative? using linux? yeah..right. For starters, the hardwars support is less than desirable. If I want a network card that works without having to recompile the kernel, It has to be a 3com. With windows, every card on the market works. I have had similar experiences with sound, video, and other devices, trying just about every distro I could get my hands on.
Right now, there is not good alternative to windows (as a desktop machine). As a server, linux crushes windows hands down...but in my opinion, not as well as BSD.
Since Microsoft can't innovate (without undermining their monopoly), they market with FUD. And use the legal system or other things - per cpu licenses, "naked pc" horror stories, etc. Why should Microsoft care? Because they are trying to sell bottled tap water claiming a trademark on water. We are just responding.
I will admit, Microsoft has violated laws to get their OS in a long-standing position, but saying linux is a better OS doesn't make it true (no matter how many times). It must be shown with actions. (a better supported and working product), rather than a bitch fest about what microsoft has done.
Frankly, I would rather live with mom and dad than trust my professional future to the performance and reliability of Microsoft products.
I would rather not take the heat for Bill's mediocrity.
OTOH, I would gladly have put up with the arcana of VMS if the market had let it live.
We don't hate everything, just the crap.
you must be still living with mom or dad. Most people, at least past 16 years old (or mentally so), see the need for making a living, even if it means bending your ideals a bit. (especially if it's something you enjoy. I would rather get a job administrating a network of windows 2000 machines, than a Mc donalds job flippig burgers)
Alright, if this is the case, show me a server on linux that can handle large numbers of connections (>10K), and which method of server infrastrucuture they used.
1) 1 thread or process per socket 2) select() or poll() 3) signal based 4) nonblocking IO
Discourage people from taking the courses and naturally do preferential hiring for real CS types [even if they have less shinny resumes] over IT people.
IT people are not real computer scientists. They just want to learn enough to point and click and then think they are experts.
No. they just relize that the current market place is looking for more windows admins than linux/unix ones, and they don't want to live with mom and dad till their 40, over a couple of silly ideals.
Slashdot Mirror
It's not *your* SourceCode, its still copyrighted by the original author.
Now we're getting somewhere. Take this to heart when you are bitching about microsoft taking away *your* rights to *their* sourcecode.
since you might as well not have been able to build it without my contribution.
greedy with money or pride, take your pick.
one is just as bad as the other.
Try this with MS software, or any closed source for that matter. Reinventing the wheel guaranteed!
Microsoft never created software so you could learn from it. (that's what academia is for)
They created software for the masses to use.
Why won't you zealouts get this through your head.
The others who have replied have adequately pointed out why you're wrong. I'd like to additionally mention that you've had this pointed out to you before. Therefore, you're not merely wrong, you're what is technically known as a "fucking idiot".
You're being bitch-slapped by microsoft, with the same type if restrictions, and you have to bitch and moan about it.
Telling me 5 times doesn't make it the truth.
you're what is techically know as a slashdot zealout, too blinded to see the truth....
And USING CAPITAL LETTERS to clarify your point IS GETTING PRETTY OLD TOO!
I know, so is this article. (and this is the first time its ever been posted?!)
there should be no problems with microsoft restricting users of the GPL, with their own source code.
Now, MS doesn't want to play _our_ game by _our_ rules. Instead all they want is to take, profit
I read an article somewhere on the internet, written by a former Microsoft Employee. I can't remember what he was working on, but no only did their team complete the needed project, but an entire compiler to build the project.
Do you actually think microsoft gives a shit or will ever use open source software? I sure don't.
They have teams and teams of highly skilled programmers that get paid tons of money. Using Open Source Software would not be in their best interest (time is money. It would take just as long to implement someone else's code, as it would to create your own).
also, what do you expect? It's like the US openly giving out nuclear secrets, and saying its UNFAIR when the chinese use them to create a bomb.
This would be exactly parallel to a clothing manufacturer telling people that they have established a pattern for shirts with two sleeves, and you are therefore not allowed to make shirts with two sleeves unless you promise not to donate your old shirts to the poor.
Then would an equivalent analogy for the GPL license be that im not allowed to sell old shirts to the rich?
The GPL, is just as controlling as this microsoft license. If I take someone's GPLd code, and use it in a commerical application, I am FORCED (under the license of course) to give out my source code with its distibution.
Granted, I could just invent the sourcecode myself to get around this problem, but so can you.
Where's the freedom in being severely restricted with what you can do with software that you've paid for, or being bullied by a mega-corporation?
where's my freedom, when I am forced to re-release my SourceCode after altering GPLd code??
This isn't about whether or not they have the right to do it, it's about Microsoft being a bunch of greedy money grubbing jerkoffs. Yes, they CAN do that if they want to. SHOULD they? Probably not.
Microsoft does it for the same reason the GPL license locks proprietary code out of its license. (SourceCode must be re-released).
the X architecture is better than anything else out there
I think the X architecture is part of the *nix problem. Using unix domain sockets for all forms of internal communication is not my definition of something that's "better".
Most Flash sites on the web use it for absolutely no reason at all, other than to look cool.
Exactly. It's to draw a crowd to your site. For any site wanting to make any kind of money, it's a must.
Why doesn't KDE or GNOME look like the orginal X-windows? Because it doesn't look cool! Looking cool does matter.
This is why there's no opensource flash tools
No, the reason there is no open-source flash, is because anyone with the experience to make such a fantastic piece of software is working for a commercialized company. (IE: Proprietary)
Typical ignorance of basics by Flash designers. For *** sake take your eyes off the neon lights and try reading the text. It's virtually illegible. There's no colour contrast and the font size is ridiculous.
I think the general opinions on flash around here is merely because it's a commericalized application. If flash was all open source (let's say PHP), Whould you feel the same way?
Music these days just plain sucks, first of all, most of the new bands blow, and then the audio engineers master the sound so god damn loud that it loses all it's presense. I don't know about you guys but I don't plan on buying any cds untill I see something actually worth buying.
the millions of people pirating that music would have to disagree..
There is a diffrence between Monolithic and bloated. M$ puts everything in the windows kernel, including the GUI. I fear the day when someone tries to put X in the Linux kernel.
I still would have that, rather than a gui that still uses unix domain sockets for all forms of internal communication..
I replied this to someone else who I thought was you: "Hey man, I fell into a trap by answering your post last night. Not this time bud. Have fun and flame elsewhere!"
Well, take what is yours!
I know, I saw it.
Does that mean you're admitting im right?
heh.
If you side with RIAA realize that you are siding with an empire that has STOLEN individual artists rights to their own art, work, creation, or whatever you want to call it.
really? did that happen between the legal contract that was signed with the artists and the music that is recorded, produced, and promoted through their studios?
In regards to the greedy part, glad you feel that way, however I am most glad that you have taken the time to measure how much greedier I am. What are you a five years old? Does your mom know that you are on this late at night?
great way to defend your statement. Insults will get you nowhere.
Side with the record company and no one wins
Are the record companies breaking the law? yes
Are they passing Unfair laws to which I am against? yes
Do I feel they should have their intellectual property rights taken away? no.
agree mostly, but who wants to pay the same amount of money for a cd you make yourself? I want the literature, the artwork, and all that kool stuff (that is assuming we would pay the same price)
Doesn't this prove the point of the RIAA. IE: pirates only wanting something for free.
You don't "create" the music at all, you are merely copying it from someone who put their hard earned money into producing it: artists and or record labels.
To restate what I said before, it is just trying to squeeze some of my hard (LOL) earned money out of me for the sake of a record company and in return I get useless goods
really? useless goods? Then why download it for free if it's so useless.? because you're greedy. 1000 times more than any record company. At least they aren't coming to your house and directly taking money out of your pockets by force.
This says more about your mental competency (or lack therof) than it does about RMS.
more like yours.
RMS wants all software to be "free", thus taking away IP from programmers and or companies.
'nuff said.
RMS needs to be radical.
1st because that's what makes it newsworthy
2nd as a counter to the corporate control culture
3rd because he truly believes in his purpose. Going about it half seriously would be worse then appearing sincere but misguided.
Like it or not, we have too few spokespeople for free (as in liberity) software, and I'll take them all. Even if some of their views differ from mine. As long as the general thrust of the argument is the same. (Actually, I've come around to RMS's view, because I've realized that the alternative is worse!)
really, what is richard stallman fighting for?
It seems to me he is fighting for the right to take away IP from companies and programmers, rather than free software....
The flipside of that argument is that people are stupid about computers and computing options because of this one platform's pervasiveness. Think about it... many computer-illiterates are very, very intelligent people, who can do things like build car engines and the like... they can read and write and think critically. Then you ask "Why are these people intelligent but can't manage to use a computer properly?" And the answer is "Because they've never had to." Maybe if these people had to do research into the OS they'd be buying with their computer and heck, even the hardware that goes into it, they would start to be able to decide for themselves what they liked about different things and, in the process, because a knowledgable and competent user. Just throwing out something and saying "A blind lame inbred camel could use this!" is going to entice everyone to use that product as a blind, lame camel would.
Your flipside argument is flawed.
The people that don't know how to use their computers don't want to. Microsoft never stopped them. (after all linux is freely available). If they were truly interested, like everyone else, they would pursue that interest.
People enjoy being able to just "point and click" their way through their computer.
Answer: They won't. In the future programming won't be a job, it'll be a hobby. People will do some other job during the day and code in their spare time, like me. I, like most people (well, most people I know) started coding because I liked it, *I enjoy coding* thats why people go in to open source, because they like coding, not because they want to make millions. Therefore, eventually coding will cease to be a profession.
Unless a law is passed that forbids me to write closed source apps, it will NEVER happen. If I can come out with a "killer app" that's better than its open source equivalent, someone will still buy it, and i can still make money.
I think it is because the Microsoft propaganda machine keeps saying how great they are, and we know better. Basically they overpaid for their preinstalled ("free?") OS and have to convince themselves they haven't been taken.
and what is the alternative? using linux? yeah..right. For starters, the hardwars support is less than desirable. If I want a network card that works without having to recompile the kernel, It has to be a 3com. With windows, every card on the market works. I have had similar experiences with sound, video, and other devices, trying just about every distro I could get my hands on.
Right now, there is not good alternative to windows (as a desktop machine). As a server, linux crushes windows hands down...but in my opinion, not as well as BSD.
Since Microsoft can't innovate (without undermining their monopoly), they market with FUD.
And use the legal system or other things - per cpu licenses, "naked pc" horror stories, etc. Why should Microsoft care? Because they are trying to sell bottled tap water claiming a trademark on water. We are just responding.
I will admit, Microsoft has violated laws to get their OS in a long-standing position, but saying linux is a better OS doesn't make it true (no matter how many times). It must be shown with actions. (a better supported and working product), rather than a bitch fest about what microsoft has done.
Now it's your turn - show me a windows server that can handle the same kind of thing
no windows machine can.
I was actually arguing against different types of *nixes, such as Freebsd.
I also believe Tux uses a server that is built right into the kernel....
Frankly, I would rather live with mom and dad than trust my professional future to the performance and reliability of Microsoft products.
I would rather not take the heat for Bill's mediocrity.
OTOH, I would gladly have put up with the arcana of VMS if the market had let it live.
We don't hate everything, just the crap.
you must be still living with mom or dad. Most people, at least past 16 years old (or mentally so), see the need for making a living, even if it means bending your ideals a bit. (especially if it's something you enjoy. I would rather get a job administrating a network of windows 2000 machines, than a Mc donalds job flippig burgers)
1) Scalability.
2) Flexibility
Alright, if this is the case, show me a server on linux that can handle large numbers of connections (>10K), and which method of server infrastrucuture they used.
1) 1 thread or process per socket
2) select() or poll()
3) signal based
4) nonblocking IO
Discourage people from taking the courses and naturally do preferential hiring for real CS types [even if they have less shinny resumes] over IT people.
IT people are not real computer scientists. They just want to learn enough to point and click and then think they are experts.
No. they just relize that the current market place is looking for more windows admins than linux/unix ones, and they don't want to live with mom and dad till their 40, over a couple of silly ideals.