Dell is saying they are stopping selling Linux pre-installed on laptops.
Your parent post is saying that prior to this, Dell refused to sell him a laptop with Linux pre-installed.
This would suggest to me that they were never really interested in measuring the demand. They pretended to sell something, then announced they were stopping.
So why are you wittering on about establishing datums on curves? And what morons modded you to +5?
I am an ardent (some might say bigoted:-o ) supporter of Free (as in speech) Software.
However, I take exception to your suggestion that it is the responsibility of the users of free software to ensure that companies which intend to profit by it do so. It is solely the responsibility of the company.
Yes, it is good when companies find Free Software business models which work. But that's what a market and competition are all about. If 'consumers' artificially support business models, then it does no good. The models need to evolve, which means some need to die.
Code red... hehe! We run Apache here. My colleagues are all thick as mince, so one of them says to me, "This email virus, Code Red, I wonder how long it will be till it affects us! Scary!"
Now, this guy is a Unix admin.
Hello?
Sorry, I just felt the need to tell somebody! I work with fucking imbeciles. Please, someone somewhere give me a different job!!!
For those who don't already know, Galeon can:
1. Disable pop-unders and pop-overs. 3. Open n related pages in one split window. (I presume this is the same as Galeon's "tabbed browsing" feature - perhaps it's not, but tabbed browsing is still very cool
4. Add bookmarks to specific folders/submenus. 5. Enjoy browsing the Web.
Galeon runs Mozillas rendering engine, Gecko, so the web looks just as good as it does in Mozilla, and all the netscape plugins work (although sometimes this can be an uphill struggle)
Funny, they called you troll but I thought you had a good point.
Say anything pro-free software these days and you're guaranteed to be moderated down. I thought the moderation system was meant to be impartial. Just like women's lib, it's swung too far the wrong way. Shit, there goes my karma...
Sheeple... indeed! I've watched one of these hybrids, someone who is otherwise technically competent (I'm thinking about one particular skilled, knowledgable network engineer of my aquaintenance), actively pursue "Win Big Bucks!" links on his free webmail service.
It saddened me, and when I pointed out his lemming-like behaviour, he just said "But look! Big bucks!"
Hehe.. I use lynx at work (so it looks like I'm really working) and I like take a new line when I get to the end of the input fields, otherwise they scroll horizontally rather than wrapping to the end of the line, and I forget what I just typed.
Sure, but how do you distribute the information about changes in node addresses when your changing port numbers in order to disguise the traffic? Part of the requirements for running freenet is to have a fairly static IP address, so the central address table does not rapidly go out of date. In order to disguise the traffic by changing port numbers you are going to have to change quite frequently. This adds a real administrative overhead to the system.
Good idea, but ISPs could still identify the direction of the connection and block it if it was from one subscribers machine to another. Of course, this would go hand in hand with stopping people running webservers from home, but I get the impression ISPs don't like that anyway. My ISP, Blue Yonder, allows only 10 concurrent connections to my IP address. Other ISPs say "No servers". These are all part of this totalitarian regime slowly descending upon us.
Ports can be changed, but then how do I know which port to connect to on the next freenet node? OK, I could scan all the next nodes ports, but efficiency would drop way way down. Any freenet experts have any ideas?
Interesting point. How do you disguise freenet traffic without breaking the system? Perhaps eventually ISPs will block all ports except port 80, and will allow connections in one direction only - from their subscribers to machines hosted at ISPs. On the other hand, market forces should conspire to reward the less censorious ISPs with more customers. On the third hand, perhaps we'll see a return to BBSs.
to ISPs being forced by various powerful third parties (government, big business) to monitor how we use the internet will be widespread adoption of systems like Freenet. Let's hope they can make it more friendly for end-users, because at the moment their support mailing list is like one of those "Tech Support Funnies" email circulars...
Please note that rms states quite specifically that the Vorbis license is a special case as the main threat to freedom is from the widespread use of the proprietary MP3 audio format.
In general, is it not possible that GPL'd 'reference implementations' could simply be referred to rather than embraced and extended by those who have license issues?
Why does this article, and others like it, not appear on the main Slashdot page? I can find no user preference for this. I want to see all the news for nerds before I decide what stuff matters.
Your first error is in applying the service and support revenue model to a proprietary development model. You should be applying it to a distributed development model where the development overheads are shared between a number of parties: end-users and other service and support companies. Your second error is in assessing the market for service and support as small. I work for a medium sized company (2000 staff). My employer spends over 1.5 million USD on software maintenance (i.e. service and support) every year. Granted, this is spread across a number of suppliers, but even given this, it is not a small sum of money. Your third error is in the shallowness of your argument. You make sweeping statements like "they are simply wrong" and you dismiss the service and support market as "way too small" without any sort of logic or evidence to back the statement up. Your fourth and final error is in your lack of imagination. You seem enthralled to the status quo; you fail to understand that change is normal and markets are dynamic.
The relevance of zero copy cost is that it makes distributed development efficient. Furthermore
Of course a great deal of the cost associated with software is in the development. That's a good reason why sharing development effort, and promoting the re-use of code, is a good thing for community as a whole. This is something that copyleft vigorously encourages.
I would further contend that the remainder of the cost (probably the major part) is in maintenance and support. Here's a big space for flourishing of businesses based on Free Software.
Please read and understand, then post if necessary; those first two steps are the most important!
You may have experience, but your user name and your attitude betray that it's in a different field than the one I am talking about.
If you contend otherwise, then all I can say is that your failure does not necessarily extend to others. The Free Software community is not putting all its eggs in your particular basket.
Whose definition of Free Software are you using...?
The FSF's definition. This is not the same as copyleft. I support copyleft with more vigour than non-copyleft Free Software because it promotes more vigorously the growth of the pool of Free Software, and fights against the growth of proprietary software.
Correct me if I'm mistaken, but are you not saying that while it's okay to make money off support, services, etc, it is somehow less moral to make money off actual software code, or in this case, closed source binaries?
Yes, I think it's less moral to make money off closed source binaries.
That's because there is more to be gained for society as a whole by the distribution of 'open source', Free Software.
As far as I can tell, that's what morals are all about - the benefit of society (or perhaps "life", or "intelligence", or "sentience"; some might say "the universe" - here's where I think the worthwhile argument is) as a whole.
I'm glad that you promote the use of Linux in companies, however I fail to see why you are so opposed to this.
I like Linux a lot. I think it's great that the community can be so close to the development of serious software and I get excited watching the pace of development. I also think most of the people in the community which has grown up around it are intelligent, interesting people. However, I wouldn't be so passionate if the licensing was different, and neither do I think it would have taken the geek community by storm in quite the way it has.
I am opposed to the increasing introduction of proprietary software into Linux because it diverts attention from what I see as the goal in hand - the growth of the Free Software community.
I hope you understand where I am coming from, even if you don't agree with me. Perhaps I am mistaken in trying to persuade people who just won't be convinced (at least for the time being...). However, I hope people won't blame me for standing up for something I believe in.
Slashdot Mirror
"its" does not require apostrophes in any of its incarnations, possessive or abbreviative.
Check a grammar reference.
Well, you missed the point!
Dell is saying they are stopping selling Linux pre-installed on laptops.
Your parent post is saying that prior to this, Dell refused to sell him a laptop with Linux pre-installed.
This would suggest to me that they were never really interested in measuring the demand. They pretended to sell something, then announced they were stopping.
So why are you wittering on about establishing datums on curves? And what morons modded you to +5?
I do like your sig though.
I am an ardent (some might say bigoted :-o ) supporter of Free (as in speech) Software.
However, I take exception to your suggestion that it is the responsibility of the users of free software to ensure that companies which intend to profit by it do so. It is solely the responsibility of the company.
Yes, it is good when companies find Free Software business models which work. But that's what a market and competition are all about. If 'consumers' artificially support business models, then it does no good. The models need to evolve, which means some need to die.
Now, this guy is a Unix admin.
Hello?
Sorry, I just felt the need to tell somebody! I work with fucking imbeciles. Please, someone somewhere give me a different job!!!
RTFG (Read The Friendly Google).
For those who don't already know, Galeon can:
1. Disable pop-unders and pop-overs.
3. Open n related pages in one split window. (I presume this is the same as Galeon's "tabbed browsing" feature - perhaps it's not, but tabbed browsing is still very cool
4. Add bookmarks to specific folders/submenus.
5. Enjoy browsing the Web.
Galeon runs Mozillas rendering engine, Gecko, so the web looks just as good as it does in Mozilla, and all the netscape plugins work (although sometimes this can be an uphill struggle)
It's only double the irritation if you say yes :-)
Funny, they called you troll but I thought you had a good point.
Say anything pro-free software these days and you're guaranteed to be moderated down. I thought the moderation system was meant to be impartial. Just like women's lib, it's swung too far the wrong way. Shit, there goes my karma...
It saddened me, and when I pointed out his lemming-like behaviour, he just said "But look! Big bucks!"
I ask you....
Troll? Not me...
They would become __Web Service Provers__[sic]
If you read between the lines, you might have noticed that that was the point I was making.
Most people don't differentiate between the Internet and the Web/Email.
Hehe.. I use lynx at work (so it looks like I'm really working) and I like take a new line when I get to the end of the input fields, otherwise they scroll horizontally rather than wrapping to the end of the line, and I forget what I just typed.
Sure, but how do you distribute the information
about changes in node addresses when your changing
port numbers in order to disguise the traffic?
Part of the requirements for running freenet
is to have a fairly static IP address, so the
central address table does not rapidly go out of
date. In order to disguise the traffic by changing
port numbers you are going to have to change quite
frequently. This adds a real administrative
overhead to the system.
Good idea, but ISPs could still identify the
direction of the connection and block it if it
was from one subscribers machine to another.
Of course, this would go hand in hand with
stopping people running webservers from home, but
I get the impression ISPs don't like that anyway.
My ISP, Blue Yonder, allows only 10 concurrent
connections to my IP address. Other ISPs say
"No servers". These are all part of this
totalitarian regime slowly descending upon us.
Ports can be changed, but then how do I know which
port to connect to on the next freenet node?
OK, I could scan all the next nodes ports, but
efficiency would drop way way down. Any freenet
experts have any ideas?
Interesting point. How do you disguise freenet
traffic without breaking the system?
Perhaps eventually ISPs will block all ports
except port 80, and will allow connections
in one direction only - from their subscribers to
machines hosted at ISPs. On the other hand, market forces
should conspire to reward the less censorious ISPs
with more customers. On the third hand, perhaps
we'll see a return to BBSs.
to ISPs being forced by various powerful third
parties (government, big business) to monitor
how we use the internet will be widespread
adoption of systems like Freenet. Let's hope they
can make it more friendly for end-users, because
at the moment their support mailing list is like
one of those "Tech Support Funnies" email
circulars...
In general, is it not possible that GPL'd 'reference implementations' could simply be referred to rather than embraced and extended by those who have license issues?
Many thanks for taking the time to provide that reference!
Woops, I've now read the FAQ...
Why does this article, and others like it, not appear on the main Slashdot page? I can find no user preference for this. I want to see all the news for nerds before I decide what stuff matters.
...yes, Virgina...
So what does this mean, to an ignorant non-seppy such as myself?
Your first error is in applying the service and support revenue model to a proprietary development model.
You should be applying it to a distributed development model where the development overheads are shared between a number of parties: end-users and other service and support companies.
Your second error is in assessing the market for service and support as small.
I work for a medium sized company (2000 staff). My employer spends over 1.5 million USD on software maintenance (i.e. service and support) every year. Granted, this is spread across a number of suppliers, but even given this, it is not a small sum of money.
Your third error is in the shallowness of your argument.
You make sweeping statements like "they are simply wrong" and you dismiss the service and support market as "way too small" without any sort of logic or evidence to back the statement up.
Your fourth and final error is in your lack of imagination.
You seem enthralled to the status quo; you fail to understand that change is normal and markets are dynamic.
The relevance of zero copy cost is that it makes distributed development efficient. Furthermore
Of course a great deal of the cost associated with software is in the development. That's a good reason why sharing development effort, and promoting the re-use of code, is a good thing for community as a whole. This is something that copyleft vigorously encourages.
I would further contend that the remainder of the cost (probably the major part) is in maintenance and support. Here's a big space for flourishing of businesses based on Free Software.
Please read and understand, then post if necessary; those first two steps are the most important!
You may have experience, but your user name and your attitude betray that it's in a different field than the one I am talking about.
If you contend otherwise, then all I can say is that your failure does not necessarily extend to others. The Free Software community is not putting all its eggs in your particular basket.
The FSF's definition. This is not the same as copyleft. I support copyleft with more vigour than non-copyleft Free Software because it promotes more vigorously the growth of the pool of Free Software, and fights against the growth of proprietary software.
Correct me if I'm mistaken, but are you not saying that while it's okay to make money off support, services, etc, it is somehow less moral to make money off actual software code, or in this case, closed source binaries?
Yes, I think it's less moral to make money off closed source binaries.
That's because there is more to be gained for society as a whole by the distribution of 'open source', Free Software.
As far as I can tell, that's what morals are all about - the benefit of society (or perhaps "life", or "intelligence", or "sentience"; some might say "the universe" - here's where I think the worthwhile argument is) as a whole.
I'm glad that you promote the use of Linux in companies, however I fail to see why you are so opposed to this.
I like Linux a lot. I think it's great that the community can be so close to the development of serious software and I get excited watching the pace of development. I also think most of the people in the community which has grown up around it are intelligent, interesting people. However, I wouldn't be so passionate if the licensing was different, and neither do I think it would have taken the geek community by storm in quite the way it has.
I am opposed to the increasing introduction of proprietary software into Linux because it diverts attention from what I see as the goal in hand - the growth of the Free Software community.
I hope you understand where I am coming from, even if you don't agree with me. Perhaps I am mistaken in trying to persuade people who just won't be convinced (at least for the time being...). However, I hope people won't blame me for standing up for something I believe in.