With open source you didn't pay and its a matter of trust between the user and developer that the program is secure... and if you're really worried about it you have access to the source
if Open Source developers have no liability as you say, the business world will have a very difficult embracing it.
Those who yell and scream that Microsoft should be held liable should be careful what they wish for...liability laws would kill off most all of OSS/FS faster than they would kill Microsoft
A perfect example is the filesystem bug in one of the recent linux kernal releases. Although corruption was a rare occurence, if I had important data, I might get a little pissed if it was gone. Who Should I blame? Linus? or how about Richard Stallman?
I guess that's on of the many beauties of open source. Noone to blame.
Boy that was an ignorant statement. Any OS's security is as good as the person setting it up. The difference is, if you setup unix security, you can let the box run. Forever. Indefinitely
until you get rooted within 15 minutes (unpatched). see redhat
All operating systems OPEN or CLOSED are still going to have to be patched once in awile.
IIS can never hope to compare to Apache unless Microsoft actually spends some time and money making the webserver a bit more stable. Right now its horrid.
IIS is bad (I will agree with you there), but Apache still has its problems. How about a fix for a SYN attack. ALL the patches in the world didn't stop my company's webserver (debian linux with apache) from being SYN attacked every few days.
Ok your an idiot. I never said that. I see why you are at 0.
you should talk. You don't even have an account..
I said he was using his OS monopoly to help establish his game console venture and Directx is common to both platforms and many pc games are being ported, so I am correct in this
You, like many others on slashdot, are led to believe that because he has a monopoly in market X, money shouldn't be able to be used to build their name in market Y.
You should take a look at the real world sometime.
Oh come on Bill Gates took one risk now he is rich and he supervises the work of others
I hope you are being sarcastic. Otherwise you have a very naive outlook on the world. People that make lots of money don't make "one risk". You only see one risk. The 100's of times they failed are quickly forgotten.
His Xbox complements nicely his computer games monopoly and Directx
microsoft was never a monopoly in the gaming market. If the Xbox becomes more popular than the playstation 2, or the gamecube, it is only because it's better.
Yes, that would be one approach, and is (apparantly ) the one discussed in the article. For example, it might say that, henceforth, all provisions, express and implied, of licenses on software released after such-and-such a date that contradict a certain list of provisions (basically the GPL's requirements for derivative works) would be null and void. (Implied provisions would be things like whether source code is distriuted, whether changes are marked, etc.)
Another possibility, though, and one I thought at several points the article was going to address, was giving legal status to the GPL, as is. Basically, ammend copyright law, as before, but this time say that a work's copyright holder or originator is allowed to `copyleft' his work. The law would require that copylefted software be distributed under the terms the GPL gives for derivative works, and all derivative works would have to be copylefted. However---and here's the difference with the GPL as it stands---the concept of `copyleft holder' would not exist. Instead, if you receive a piece of software you can prove, legally, is a derivative work of copylefted software, you can sue for the source code. Then, if the FSF wants to shut down a pirated version of copylefted code, all they have to do is buy a copy and sue for the source. *poof* - no more copyright assignment forms!
Of course, that would make things way too easy to ever be implemented!
How is a "GPL by law" freedom?
Under our current laws, a person can release their sourcecode under a proprietary license, or a GPL license. Under this proposed new "law", Code can only be released under the GPL.
What you have to argue it is a human nature, some kind of natural law that is self evident?
Haha. I win then
sorry, you don't. What part of my argument didn't you understand.
I am not jealous of rich men, I just feel that no man should be able to profit off the work of thousands of others. That is the crux of my argument.
so is richard stallman evil too? He "profits" off of hundreds of programmers in the linux community, through the name GNU.
They do all the work, he takes credit throgh the name.
also, those thousands of others chose to become part of microsoft. They also get a "piece of the pie" so to speak, through stock.
The reason bill gates deserves more, is because he started the company, took all the risks, and made all the investments (time and money). The others' just need to come into wotk every day, do their job, and leave.
I feel that it's unfair to make everyone un-necessarily equal. Everyone is not equal, because as society shows us, some people work Harder than others.
Linux supports every kind of hardware, there is a linux hardware compatiblilty list with this very information.
If you want a wireless network for your Linux box, check the list, find one of a dozen that you can use, pick one, buy it, use it.
I would rather use windows, in this respect. I can buy any brand of hardware I like, instead of settling for "what works".
how about the ability to easily install a driver for a piece of hardware AFTER linux has already been installed.
Try that in windows
I don't need to preselect resoutions, I can just change them dynamically as I see fit.
I would rather concentrate on remembering things that are a little more productive...rather than all the keystroke combinations, which are vaguely documented.
It's about as helpful as those help menus they have in Windows.
first off, the reason microsoft tech. support is so shitty, is because they have to contend with 99% of the worlds computer users. (if linus had to contend with everyone that needed kernal support, you would see the same thing happening)
second, linux tech. support is non-existant. (a "feature" of OSS).
This somewhat works, but not for the average user. Why can't there be some kind of setting, within the gui itself (hint: settings->control panel->display).
And now, just what hardware are you having issues with?
any network card besides 3com,ne2000, or realtek. I normally have to "specially" buy a network card for a linux machine.
I may not be rich, but what I have, I am happy with. How many rich men with their avarice can say that?
good, bill gates never told you about what you do and do not deserve.
I pity Bill Gates. The man has over 80 billion and that is not enough for him. What he has is never gonna be enough for him. These kind of rapacious men always want more, no matter how much they may have.
Bill gates has 80 billion!
If he wants to be the worlds first trillionaire, so be it. It's called greed. It's a part of human nature. Without it, technology would probably move at a much slower pace.
Also jealousy has nothing to do with my arguments, you are creating a straw man.
If you really weren't jealous, to a degree, you wouldn't have posted anything in the first place.
Besides, the point of free software is not to empower big capitalist firms but flesh and blood producers, i.e. software writers, consultants, sysadmins, etc. People who use software to produce, not people who sell software other people produce. Just because some business idea failed does nothing to undermine the success of free software.
So what consitutes a "big capitalist firm". If I own a small company, start selling software for linux (closed source I might add), and I start making hundreds of thousands of dollars, would I still be be considered a "flesh and blood producer"?.
Those who argue that Linux is not ready for the desktop must finally face the fact that the cash strapped *desktop* IS ready for Linux
Just because linux is "free", does NOT make it better than windows. I use linux on a regular basis (as a Server), but I feel to become popular as a desktop OS, it needs the following:
1) driver support (this includes all types of hardware)
2) the ability to change the resolution/video card/monitor/refresh rate without having to drop down to the command line.
If the RIAA and MPAA would spend more time creating digital distribution channels and less time fighting progress, perhaps they wouldn't find themselves in this predicament.
If the MPAA associated companies put up a website tommorow with AC-3 DIVX versions of every movie ever made, I'd easily pay 5 or 10 bucks to own a movie. But instead they'd rather spend the 'hard earned artists' dollars' on litigation.
They won't stop progress. History will show that in the end the consumers won out, perhaps at the expense of repressive corporate movie and music publishers
Because the MPAA and RIAA know the consumers more than anyone. "Give someone an inch, and they will take a mile". If they offered any or all of their divx movies for even a dollar, you would still see them "pirated" across the internet. In 90% of the consumers eyes, FREE is better than having to pay money, and when it becomes very easy for the average joe user to get music they would otherwise have to pay for, for free, the RIAA and MPAA start suing.
Broadcast television. Video tapes that you make yourself are easy to copy.
Every stereo system in the world can copy records/CDs onto tape. A computer here, BTW, looks just like a tape deck.
Ditto FM radio
All the methods you described use an advertisement based revenue model. If this wasn't the case, you would be paying per month for all television/radio stations.
CD's can't exactly have ads wevery 3 minutes, now can they?
wow, and let me tell you, after reading that site, I now believe that bill gates doesn't deserve his money.
....and neither does anyone else. After Investing my time, effort, and energy into a company, and pulling all-nighters day in and day out to meet deadlines, I should just give my money to someone lesss fortunate than me.
If you havn't already figured it out, I was being sarcastic. That link you gave me was filled with more BullShit that your posts.
Let's try explaining this to you in simple words. He was pointing out that you post at 0 because your posts are absolute bullshit. You completely fail to provide logical support for your arguments, you provide no evidence whatsoever for your claims, you constantly spout the same inflammatory bullshit no matter how many times you're proved utterly wrong, and you selectively quote the most incendiary parts of other people's posts as though that's all you need to respond to.
You are, in short, either both an asshole and an imbecile, or a troll. But I repeat myself.
let's try to explain this to you: I explained my points perfectly. If it doesn't fall under your socialist point of view, im sorry. It deserves neither a troll, nor a -1 moderation.
So you want control and Stallman takes it away from you. Well you contradicted yourself and I stand streight here. I will not coment on your phylosophical slogans but they do sound quite non dimensional. There is more to it, trust me.
No, here is what I am saying: The gnu will can only last if it is enforced. Otherwise, what would stop me from taking any GNU software that I wish, altering it, and re-releasing under my own closed-source license.
Slashdot Mirror
With open source you didn't pay and its a matter of trust between the user and developer that the program is secure... and if you're really worried about it you have access to the source
if Open Source developers have no liability as you say, the business world will have a very difficult embracing it.
What will this mean for open source? OSS companies/programmers will be just as liable as closed source ones.
Those who yell and scream that Microsoft should be held liable should be careful what they wish for...liability laws would kill off most all of OSS/FS faster than they would kill Microsoft
A perfect example is the filesystem bug in one of the recent linux kernal releases. Although corruption was a rare occurence, if I had important data, I might get a little pissed if it was gone. Who Should I blame? Linus? or how about Richard Stallman?
I guess that's on of the many beauties of open source. Noone to blame.
Boy that was an ignorant statement. Any OS's security is as good as the person setting it up. The difference is, if you setup unix security, you can let the box run. Forever. Indefinitely
until you get rooted within 15 minutes (unpatched). see redhat
All operating systems OPEN or CLOSED are still going to have to be patched once in awile.
IIS can never hope to compare to Apache unless Microsoft actually spends some time and money making the webserver a bit more stable. Right now its horrid.
IIS is bad (I will agree with you there), but Apache still has its problems. How about a fix for a SYN attack. ALL the patches in the world didn't stop my company's webserver (debian linux with apache) from being SYN attacked every few days.
See this is why you are at 0. You like to put words in other people's mouths.
The word "anonymous coward" comes to mind.........
Ok your an idiot. I never said that. I see why you are at 0.
you should talk. You don't even have an account..
I said he was using his OS monopoly to help establish his game console venture and Directx is common to both platforms and many pc games are being ported, so I am correct in this
You, like many others on slashdot, are led to believe that because he has a monopoly in market X, money shouldn't be able to be used to build their name in market Y.
You should take a look at the real world sometime.
Oh come on Bill Gates took one risk now he is rich and he supervises the work of others
I hope you are being sarcastic. Otherwise you have a very naive outlook on the world. People that make lots of money don't make "one risk". You only see one risk. The 100's of times they failed are quickly forgotten.
His Xbox complements nicely his computer games monopoly and Directx
microsoft was never a monopoly in the gaming market. If the Xbox becomes more popular than the playstation 2, or the gamecube, it is only because it's better.
Yes, that would be one approach, and is (apparantly ) the one discussed in the article. For example, it might say that, henceforth, all provisions, express and implied, of licenses on software released after such-and-such a date that contradict a certain list of provisions (basically the GPL's requirements for derivative works) would be null and void. (Implied provisions would be things like whether source code is distriuted, whether changes are marked, etc.)
Another possibility, though, and one I thought at several points the article was going to address, was giving legal status to the GPL, as is. Basically, ammend copyright law, as before, but this time say that a work's copyright holder or originator is allowed to `copyleft' his work. The law would require that copylefted software be distributed under the terms the GPL gives for derivative works, and all derivative works would have to be copylefted. However---and here's the difference with the GPL as it stands---the concept of `copyleft holder' would not exist. Instead, if you receive a piece of software you can prove, legally, is a derivative work of copylefted software, you can sue for the source code. Then, if the FSF wants to shut down a pirated version of copylefted code, all they have to do is buy a copy and sue for the source. *poof* - no more copyright assignment forms!
Of course, that would make things way too easy to ever be implemented!
How is a "GPL by law" freedom?
Under our current laws, a person can release their sourcecode under a proprietary license, or a GPL license. Under this proposed new "law", Code can only be released under the GPL.
I call this a removal of my freedoms.
What you have to argue it is a human nature, some kind of natural law that is self evident?
Haha. I win then
sorry, you don't. What part of my argument didn't you understand.
I am not jealous of rich men, I just feel that no man should be able to profit off the work of thousands of others. That is the crux of my argument.
so is richard stallman evil too? He "profits" off of hundreds of programmers in the linux community, through the name GNU.
They do all the work, he takes credit throgh the name.
also, those thousands of others chose to become part of microsoft. They also get a "piece of the pie" so to speak, through stock.
The reason bill gates deserves more, is because he started the company, took all the risks, and made all the investments (time and money). The others' just need to come into wotk every day, do their job, and leave.
I feel that it's unfair to make everyone un-necessarily equal. Everyone is not equal, because as society shows us, some people work Harder than others.
Linux supports every kind of hardware, there is a linux hardware compatiblilty list with this very information.
If you want a wireless network for your Linux box, check the list, find one of a dozen that you can use, pick one, buy it, use it.
I would rather use windows, in this respect. I can buy any brand of hardware I like, instead of settling for "what works".
how about the ability to easily install a driver for a piece of hardware AFTER linux has already been installed.
Try that in windows
I don't need to preselect resoutions, I can just change them dynamically as I see fit.
I would rather concentrate on remembering things that are a little more productive...rather than all the keystroke combinations, which are vaguely documented.
Have you ever tried to call MS support?
It's about as helpful as those help menus they have in Windows.
first off, the reason microsoft tech. support is so shitty, is because they have to contend with 99% of the worlds computer users. (if linus had to contend with everyone that needed kernal support, you would see the same thing happening)
second, linux tech. support is non-existant. (a "feature" of OSS).
Try Ctrl-Alt-[KEYPAD +] and Ctrl-Alt-[KEYPAD -]
This somewhat works, but not for the average user. Why can't there be some kind of setting, within the gui itself (hint: settings->control panel->display).
And now, just what hardware are you having issues with?
any network card besides 3com,ne2000, or realtek. I normally have to "specially" buy a network card for a linux machine.
any sound card, besides a creative labs variant.
I may not be rich, but what I have, I am happy with. How many rich men with their avarice can say that?
good, bill gates never told you about what you do and do not deserve.
I pity Bill Gates. The man has over 80 billion and that is not enough for him. What he has is never gonna be enough for him. These kind of rapacious men always want more, no matter how much they may have.
Bill gates has 80 billion!
If he wants to be the worlds first trillionaire, so be it. It's called greed. It's a part of human nature. Without it, technology would probably move at a much slower pace.
Also jealousy has nothing to do with my arguments, you are creating a straw man.
If you really weren't jealous, to a degree, you wouldn't have posted anything in the first place.
Besides, the point of free software is not to empower big capitalist firms but flesh and blood producers, i.e. software writers, consultants, sysadmins, etc. People who use software to produce, not people who sell software other people produce. Just because some business idea failed does nothing to undermine the success of free software.
So what consitutes a "big capitalist firm". If I own a small company, start selling software for linux (closed source I might add), and I start making hundreds of thousands of dollars, would I still be be considered a "flesh and blood producer"?.
Those who argue that Linux is not ready for the desktop must finally face the fact that the cash strapped *desktop* IS ready for Linux
Just because linux is "free", does NOT make it better than windows. I use linux on a regular basis (as a Server), but I feel to become popular as a desktop OS, it needs the following:
1) driver support (this includes all types of hardware)
2) the ability to change the resolution/video card/monitor/refresh rate without having to drop down to the command line.
If they're not too far to the right, you can paint linux as being a move away from capitalism, leading us to a less money-driven culture
You are correct. You can direct them here
we might not so many "ads we loathe", if people gave their demographic information. But then that would be a "violation of our privacy".
You will have one or the other, not both.
I don't think you read the page, because I don't think you are able to read
All I found was a bunch of whining, bitching, geeks, jealous of bill gates's money.
BTW. The guy comparing gates to hitler was hilarious.
If the RIAA and MPAA would spend more time creating digital distribution channels and less time fighting progress, perhaps they wouldn't find themselves in this predicament.
If the MPAA associated companies put up a website tommorow with AC-3 DIVX versions of every movie ever made, I'd easily pay 5 or 10 bucks to own a movie. But instead they'd rather spend the 'hard earned artists' dollars' on litigation.
They won't stop progress. History will show that in the end the consumers won out, perhaps at the expense of repressive corporate movie and music publishers
Because the MPAA and RIAA know the consumers more than anyone. "Give someone an inch, and they will take a mile". If they offered any or all of their divx movies for even a dollar, you would still see them "pirated" across the internet. In 90% of the consumers eyes, FREE is better than having to pay money, and when it becomes very easy for the average joe user to get music they would otherwise have to pay for, for free, the RIAA and MPAA start suing.
Broadcast television. Video tapes that you make yourself are easy to copy.
Every stereo system in the world can copy records/CDs onto tape. A computer here, BTW, looks just like a tape deck.
Ditto FM radio
All the methods you described use an advertisement based revenue model. If this wasn't the case, you would be paying per month for all television/radio stations.
CD's can't exactly have ads wevery 3 minutes, now can they?
Please read this
wow, and let me tell you, after reading that site, I now believe that bill gates doesn't deserve his money.
....and neither does anyone else. After Investing my time, effort, and energy into a company, and pulling all-nighters day in and day out to meet deadlines, I should just give my money to someone lesss fortunate than me.
If you havn't already figured it out, I was being sarcastic. That link you gave me was filled with more BullShit that your posts.
If you really think this is true why don't you cash The $5000 Compression Challenge [geocities.com] and of course the Slashdot article [slashdot.org].
if they can't affors a "real" website, how can they afford to pay me $5000?
Let's try explaining this to you in simple words. He was pointing out that you post at 0 because your posts are absolute bullshit. You completely fail to provide logical support for your arguments, you provide no evidence whatsoever for your claims, you constantly spout the same inflammatory bullshit no matter how many times you're proved utterly wrong, and you selectively quote the most incendiary parts of other people's posts as though that's all you need to respond to.
You are, in short, either both an asshole and an imbecile, or a troll. But I repeat myself.
let's try to explain this to you: I explained my points perfectly. If it doesn't fall under your socialist point of view, im sorry. It deserves neither a troll, nor a -1 moderation.
Damn, I should have noticed that you post at 0, now I see why
Damn, I see you have run out of bullshit responses.
So you want control and Stallman takes it away from you. Well you contradicted yourself and I stand streight here. I will not coment on your phylosophical slogans but they do sound quite non dimensional. There is more to it, trust me.
No, here is what I am saying: The gnu will can only last if it is enforced. Otherwise, what would stop me from taking any GNU software that I wish, altering it, and re-releasing under my own closed-source license.