Every piece of software that I have seen under the GNU license is badly written, un-organized, and almost impossible to add onto. Why is it that each function needs it's own source file???????
also, no "killer" application will be released under the GPL, because it doesn't promote making $$$.
I hate to sound like troll here, but...that is really the only thing going for Open Source, when it comes to corporate america. It's cheap (as in free beer). If you expected companies to embrace it because it's "Free Speech", you need a reality injection.
if all you can do is correct my html/grammar mistakes, you prove my point even further: you really are an idiot. Is taht ALL you can say in linux's defense?
so...why should anyone respect the GPL/GNU either? Hell...me taking someones code (and putting in my closed source software) isn't going to hurt them anyway
This whole "law" is just getting forced to use one person's beliefs over anothers. Everyone who is for this law, is so one-sided. For example: Rememeber awhile back when IBM drew a linux penguin on the sidewalk with chalk? What if it had been some corporate logo?? The article on slashdot would have read: "corporate america ruining our sidewalks". When it comes to software, people should have a choice, not be forced like the FSF wants it.
I think the revenue created by software sales is ludicrous because the vendor can leverage their proprietary knowledge to extort money from people. However, if the software is free or more preferably open source, the can charge what the market is willing to bear
This view is so close-minded and narrow, it could only come from a slashdotter
This is like saying: it's unfair for a basketball team to hide their plays, because they could use their proprietary knowledge to win the game. Here is an example of "open" security: Why not allow ANYONE to get the key for any lock ever invented??
There is one difference between a world of proprietary software and a world of open-source. A world of proprietary software gives you a choice. It's been said time and time again by RMS: "Proprietary and open source software can't co-exist".
Instead of bitching about how no-one is accepting OSS, and trying to get laws passed, why not come out with something BETTER than a closed source equivalent?! isn't that a novel idea!
if there was an operating system that did the following, it would be more popular than microsoft windows (it wouldn't matter if it was open or closed source):
1) driver support
2) nice GUI
3) standards
4) stability
5) ease of use, but included advanced functionality.
This is not a troll, I am just stating my opinion.
actually, if I owned a corporation and thought "since company X,Y,and Z are using it.....", I would only benefit from that fact because I now possess all their source, and can make a better, closed source equivalent.
it is almost like playing a chess game, where the rules require you to tell your opponents all of your moves before you execute them.
Corporations will NEVER use such a license, except to steal from the programmers that use it.
Example: corporation X takes pieces of GPL'd code, changes it enough to make it almost totally different, and plops ot into their closed software, and no-one knows the difference.
On the other hand, linux is also good for corporations...one less expense.
read FREE BEER not FREE SPEECH.
why can't you see that the corporate world is not about "freedom" it's about $$$$
yes i have read his views already, I also see that views like RMS's are altered for "the good of the people". Sounds like a bunch of BULLSHIT.
so, in essence, here is what he believes: copyrights are bad, but not for him or his cause. If you beleve something is wrong, like copyrights, utilizing them is a bit hypocritical.
Sounds familiar...like what the RIAA is doing, but most people are to "wowed" by his involvement in the FSF movement.
Copyright (C) 2000 Richard Stallman
Verbatim copying and distribution of the entire contents of this page contents are permitted in any medium, provided this notice is preserved.
from this URL:
http://www.stallman.org/jokes.html
I thought richard stallman was against copyright?
a little offtopic, but I would really like to get some responses to this. (Your beloved copyleftist has shown his colors)
This is not a troll BTW.
someone should submit the goatsex picture to the chaps at amihotornot.com. Just the fact that the moderators haveto view such an offensive picture amuses me.
I thought open source was all about "free speech" rather than "free beer". This just proves that the leaders have only been with movement for monitary gain. I mean COME ON! If a company sells a piece of open source software, it shouldn't matter. It's "free speech" REMEMBER?
It seems, once again, that the the rules keep getting changed, for the OSS movement gain. After awhile, it makes the whole movement look like a farce.
this whole fiasco reminds me of the hippies in the 70's.(I imagine stallman was one of them). The "Free" people were the ones living in the communes, they didn't want "the man" getting them down.
I wish people would realize, that without things like capitalism, the internet would be nothing.
Why can't people make up their mind. If commericalism is bad, so is having linux advertisements. If copyrights are bad, so are creating them to suit the need of the OSS community. It seems to me,many people are hypocrites, or sway their decision to fit ther needs.
here is something that many people don't seem to understand:
the internet would not even be here if it weren't for commercialization.
if everything were "free", the "internet" would consist of only a handful of computers only at universities.
I, for one, don't care about the ads.
think of it like this, it'd your choice to work as a slave. Why don't you start your own company?
that's your choice too. But, for you it's too easy to just sit on your lazy ass and Bitch.
When slavery is a choice, it's not slavery anymore, it's freedom.
In a capitalist society, I could start my own company if I want. Or work for someone else. Money is not just going to be hand fed to you.
I wish disease was expunged from the earth, and there was world peace.
And a piece of the pie for everyone
what a naive look at things.
Even the freedom to be a slave, if that is what you want. And a piece of the pie for everyone.
And how would you like to divide this "pie". Who divide it?
If you look at the world today, the country that is most free will have the most power. Here in the United States, I have freedom. But like everything, there are consequnces (is that would you want? All actions with no Consequences? Even GOD is against such actions). I have the freedom to kill someone, but...I will go to Prison. I also have the Freedom to start a company, or work for someone, or choose not to work, but I will then be forced to live on the streets.
You're comments are actually pretty comical. Without the Freedoms of the United States, the Internet would not have been invented.
Free market, free determination, free knowledge. What about my freedoms? to
1) Charge $$$ for something
2) withold information (including Knowledge).
What you want is only in the best interest of one person, YOU.
Capitalism isn't perfect, but look at everything we have thus so far......it's amazing how well it actually works. Without the ideals of capitalism, most people would not have the drive to come out with technical advances, quickly.
Im not a slave, you are just bitter at a society you seem to have failed in. Bringing everyone down to your level won't make things any better.
Slashdot Mirror
Every piece of software that I have seen under the GNU license is badly written, un-organized, and almost impossible to add onto. Why is it that each function needs it's own source file???????
also, no "killer" application will be released under the GPL, because it doesn't promote making $$$.
This isn't meant as a troll, just my opinion.
I hate to sound like troll here, but...that is really the only thing going for Open Source, when it comes to corporate america. It's cheap (as in free beer). If you expected companies to embrace it because it's "Free Speech", you need a reality injection.
???
the GPL is just piggybacking on standard laws, until enough morons force it upon the unsuspecting sheep.
if all you can do is correct my html/grammar mistakes, you prove my point even further: you really are an idiot. Is taht ALL you can say in linux's defense?
you're right, but I would take that over garbage
in any mac OS, where is the advanced functionality???
only in MAC OSX, which in my opinion has everything it needs to become the next popular OS, except platform support
so...why should anyone respect the GPL/GNU either? Hell...me taking someones code (and putting in my closed source software) isn't going to hurt them anyway
This whole "law" is just getting forced to use one person's beliefs over anothers. Everyone who is for this law, is so one-sided. For example: Rememeber awhile back when IBM drew a linux penguin on the sidewalk with chalk? What if it had been some corporate logo?? The article on slashdot would have read: "corporate america ruining our sidewalks". When it comes to software, people should have a choice, not be forced like the FSF wants it.
I think the revenue created by software sales is ludicrous because the vendor can leverage their proprietary knowledge to extort money from people. However, if the software is free or more preferably open source, the can charge what the market is willing to bear
This view is so close-minded and narrow, it could only come from a slashdotter
This is like saying: it's unfair for a basketball team to hide their plays, because they could use their proprietary knowledge to win the game. Here is an example of "open" security: Why not allow ANYONE to get the key for any lock ever invented??
There is one difference between a world of proprietary software and a world of open-source. A world of proprietary software gives you a choice. It's been said time and time again by RMS: "Proprietary and open source software can't co-exist".
Instead of bitching about how no-one is accepting OSS, and trying to get laws passed, why not come out with something BETTER than a closed source equivalent?! isn't that a novel idea!
if there was an operating system that did the following, it would be more popular than microsoft windows (it wouldn't matter if it was open or closed source):
1) driver support
2) nice GUI
3) standards
4) stability
5) ease of use, but included advanced functionality.
This is not a troll, I am just stating my opinion.
actually, if I owned a corporation and thought "since company X,Y,and Z are using it.....", I would only benefit from that fact because I now possess all their source, and can make a better, closed source equivalent.
it is almost like playing a chess game, where the rules require you to tell your opponents all of your moves before you execute them.
Corporations will NEVER use such a license, except to steal from the programmers that use it.
Example: corporation X takes pieces of GPL'd code, changes it enough to make it almost totally different, and plops ot into their closed software, and no-one knows the difference.
On the other hand, linux is also good for corporations...one less expense.
read FREE BEER not FREE SPEECH.
why can't you see that the corporate world is not about "freedom" it's about $$$$
ADS will never destroy the internet. You have it all wrong.
no ads = no internet
'nuff said
yes i have read his views already, I also see that views like RMS's are altered for "the good of the people". Sounds like a bunch of BULLSHIT.
so, in essence, here is what he believes: copyrights are bad, but not for him or his cause. If you beleve something is wrong, like copyrights, utilizing them is a bit hypocritical.
Sounds familiar...like what the RIAA is doing, but most people are to "wowed" by his involvement in the FSF movement.
here is the difference:
they gave you permission, it's their music.
Copyright (C) 2000 Richard Stallman Verbatim copying and distribution of the entire contents of this page contents are permitted in any medium, provided this notice is preserved. from this URL: http://www.stallman.org/jokes.html I thought richard stallman was against copyright? a little offtopic, but I would really like to get some responses to this. (Your beloved copyleftist has shown his colors) This is not a troll BTW.
someone should submit the goatsex picture to the chaps at amihotornot.com. Just the fact that the moderators haveto view such an offensive picture amuses me.
www.rateyourcrack.com is better
How long did you have to STARE at that goatsex.se picture, to create such a creative piece of art like that.
I thought open source was all about "free speech" rather than "free beer". This just proves that the leaders have only been with movement for monitary gain. I mean COME ON! If a company sells a piece of open source software, it shouldn't matter. It's "free speech" REMEMBER? It seems, once again, that the the rules keep getting changed, for the OSS movement gain. After awhile, it makes the whole movement look like a farce. this whole fiasco reminds me of the hippies in the 70's.(I imagine stallman was one of them). The "Free" people were the ones living in the communes, they didn't want "the man" getting them down. I wish people would realize, that without things like capitalism, the internet would be nothing.
was the gameboy advnace released somewhere else already?? I found an emulator page for it:
HERE
subject says it all, I think it is the new successor to Napster
Filenavigator
music city has been upgrading their servers since saturday (I think they have about 30-40 total opennap servers now.
Why can't people make up their mind. If commericalism is bad, so is having linux advertisements. If copyrights are bad, so are creating them to suit the need of the OSS community. It seems to me,many people are hypocrites, or sway their decision to fit ther needs.
here is something that many people don't seem to understand: the internet would not even be here if it weren't for commercialization. if everything were "free", the "internet" would consist of only a handful of computers only at universities. I, for one, don't care about the ads.
then don't complain about the ads.
'nuff said
hey hemos, there's someone here who is too much of a pussy to post under a real name!
'Nuff Said
think of it like this, it'd your choice to work as a slave. Why don't you start your own company? that's your choice too. But, for you it's too easy to just sit on your lazy ass and Bitch.
When slavery is a choice, it's not slavery anymore, it's freedom.
In a capitalist society, I could start my own company if I want. Or work for someone else. Money is not just going to be hand fed to you.
I wish disease was expunged from the earth, and there was world peace.
And a piece of the pie for everyone
what a naive look at things.
Even the freedom to be a slave, if that is what you want. And a piece of the pie for everyone.
And how would you like to divide this "pie". Who divide it?
If you look at the world today, the country that is most free will have the most power. Here in the United States, I have freedom. But like everything, there are consequnces (is that would you want? All actions with no Consequences? Even GOD is against such actions). I have the freedom to kill someone, but...I will go to Prison. I also have the Freedom to start a company, or work for someone, or choose not to work, but I will then be forced to live on the streets.
You're comments are actually pretty comical. Without the Freedoms of the United States, the Internet would not have been invented.
Free market, free determination, free knowledge. What about my freedoms? to
1) Charge $$$ for something
2) withold information (including Knowledge).
What you want is only in the best interest of one person, YOU.
Capitalism isn't perfect, but look at everything we have thus so far......it's amazing how well it actually works. Without the ideals of capitalism, most people would not have the drive to come out with technical advances, quickly.
Im not a slave, you are just bitter at a society you seem to have failed in. Bringing everyone down to your level won't make things any better.