In terms of USA law the law enforcement agencies are using established international channels and legal orders. They aren't doing anything different from what they've done for decades. Microsoft is asking to do something different because the frequency and quantity as opposed to the previous situations with paper records is skyrocketing.
Also it is important to understand that between WWI and the 1970s we lived in a world where governments were mostly mildly hostile to international trade. Governments were perfectly comfortable with lower levels of international trade and laws that mildly discouraged trade. You really have to look at the colonial age 1812-1914 to really have a period comparable to today where governments were strongly pro-trade.
The scope of jurisdiction in the ruling is clear cut. Physical presence on the USA. BTW there is no law. This has been existing law for two centuries. It is just being applied to computer data the same way it was to objects and paper historically. The difference is that law enforcement agencies didn't ask for multiple shipping containers full of paper documents but with big data search tools are perfectly comfortable asking for those kinds of quantities of electronic data.
The ruling applies to anyone doing business in the United States. So it would apply to European companies having a cloud that included the USA as well. What it will mean is either:
a) Europe and the USA create a treaty covering this so there is black letter law b) There are not global clouds c) There is de-facto situation where the USA rules governing warrants are enforceable for most everyone and anyone not wanting to be subject to USA warrants needs to stay on Europe only cloud services.
Microsoft has already hedged themselves in Europe by informing their customers that using Azure is agreeing to export and to not upload any data for which would be illegal to export. So legally they should be fine in Europe. I think they are very worried about (b) becoming the outcome. I just don't see it though. Apple, Google, IBM, Amazon... all face the same issue. Corporations want global clouds. They are probably on balance hostile to European privacy laws. The pressure is going to be applied to European governments to go towards (a) or (c).
Yes to try to prevent the failure of the free software crew, that's why they invented it, to try to force everybody into their ideology.
The GPL doesn't force people to change their ideology it does however create incentives for people to engage in socially useful behaviors. SGI when they were working on Linux support for XFS was no different than the SGI that was not helping on X11. The difference was the GPL required that if they offer XFS under Linux to anyone that in a practical sense they had to open source it for everyone. The GPL forced them into all or nothing. But they were able to freely pick between those options when they choose to give XFS away.
well I'm afraid you can't force people to do what you want and eliminate choice just because you say so.
Again I don't like your phrasing but the GPL has a track record of doing exactly that.
Also if it did nothing but stimulate proprietary closed source applications then it wouldn't have been used by the free software crew now would it?
The free software crew at that point had to deal with issues like POSIX. So yes they would have had to emulate Unix's commercial X11 implementation the same way they had to emulate Unix's commercial kernels, emulate Unix's commercial compilers, emulate Unix's commercial schedulers. There was only a limited difference at that point between having the MIT code and X11 having been closed source all along.
Yes, eventually they copied the proprietary Unixes and got something decent but you're still complaining that they didn't do it earlier and that's their fault, stop trying to excuse them and blame everybody else for their failing.
I think I've explained pretty clearly why it wasn't their failing. 10 years later we had a similarly popular piece of software in the Linux kernel. But this time it was under GPL. And this time the commercial vendors had no choice but to cooperate with the free software community. As new features came out for their specific kernels they were immediately incorporated into the kernel proper. So in the early 1990s when Caldera spent a fortune getting the SCO software's API's to run against the Linux kernel that was free for all to use whether you bought Caldera or RedHat or Yellow Dog. The result of being free software is the Linux kernel is the all around best kernel which has supplant almost every other non specialized kernel. And is arguably the most complex / feature rich piece of software ever constructed. All available free.
Same open source crew. Same vendors. The difference was GPL vs. BSD. You can try it to the open source crew's failures. But that same open source crew succeeded in another place and your version of history doesn't explain why they did so.
What you are calling a failure of the free software crew is what the GPL is designed to prevent. The MIT code was worthless to end users as you admit since it clearly required substantial work to get it to be functional. I don't know what more there is to say. You are basically saying you have no problem with open source software existing in a worthless form that does nothing but stimulate proprietary closed source applications.
And of course the free software crew did add something of value. Eventually they overtook all the proprietary Unixes. And the Linux guys overtook the BSD licensed free systems as well.
Absolutely true. But we don't have good sales data on small vs. big for iPhone because Apple has limited product lines. We know that sales went up when Apple went from 3.5 to 4 inches but it is hard to read much into that since sales went up be similar amounts when they didn't increase size. For Android and to some extent Windows Mobile the big and small have been going head to head for years and consumers do vote. In theory there is no reason that people should need to switch to iPhone to escape big.
Actually that's not true. With the exception of LG's model that used a tablet processor the iPhone 5S's processor was the fastest out there when it came out and for quite a while thereafter. The A8 is likely even more advanced. When it comes to CPU Apple is now way ahead.
What lot of people is that? Anyway the people that made Rosetta for Apple was Transitive Corporation which was acquired by IBM. The product doesn't exist anymore. Talk to IBM if there are a lot of people willing to pay for PPC applications.
Also, while I'm ranting, I'm sore displeased that both iPhone options are bigger. It's fine to have the big one, I get why people like that. But have the smaller one be truly smaller. Heck, I think the iPhone 5 is too big.
The iPhone 5S is smaller than the HTC One mini, the Galaxy mini, the Experia compact... People have voted with their dollars they want bigger. It would be nice if the feature phones stepped up with some smaller form factors.
Pictures are uploaded to iCloud. That's how the hack worked. The celebrities used bad security questions and so the hackers were able to "restore" from iCloud and then from there "restore" old pictures. The payment so far is not, though I imagine an iOS update will allow you to backup your payment information to iCloud at a later date.
You mentioned Webkit twice. Webkit is open source because the rendering engine for Webkit is KHTML which was GPLed software. Webkit isn't proof of the success of BSD code it is proof of the success of the GPL. Apple had to GPL Webcore (KHTML) and Javascript Core (KDE's KJS) and then write the rest in a GPL compatible license. Webkit remained open after Google forked it to Blink because of the GPL.
Right, so nothing was lost, in fact it was a net gain for open source yet you're trying to paint it as a "disaster". Nothing about it is disastrous except the Linux crew's (not the kernel team) fumbling.
XFree86 was BSD386 people mainly and Windows X11 vendors like Hummingbird, not "the Linux crew" for many years. The Linux team didn't fumble they just had to start 10 years behind once they finally got there. That mistake in creating a codebase that ended up closed source was the result of MIT. They hadn't gotten involved yet. Blaming the Linux team for problems that existed prior to the existence of Linux is ridiculous. This was MIT's screw up.
The goal of open source is to have open source software. MIT resulted in closed source software.
You forget or ignore that we also have a track record of many things being available via GPL but not used and proprietary versions created instead - like SGI's closed-source IRIX operating system
IRIX predates almost all GPL software. It BTW contains huge chunks of BSD code. So IRIX is another example of the BSD original existing but being worthless while the commercial version is closed. A disaster for open source given all the technologies in IRIX that could have been in the LInuxes and BSDs of the 1990s.
SGI also open sourced its OpenGL implementation and performer API even though they weren't forced to.
SGI didn't start that until 1998. That was 15 years after they had it when they were abandoning IRIX and moving to Linux. By then they were forced to, become open source because they couldn't sell their workstations, at least on the low end because x86 had beaten MIPS.
It's to make sure that all derivatives are restricted to be licensed under the same terms. This makes it unusable in many applications
Yep. That's right. It makes it unusable for closed source unless they go to the copyright holder and get a proprietary license by writing a check and thus helping to fund the development.
Remember this started with your claim about "functionally useless". Clearly the MIT code which didn't even run on the systems of the 1990s was functionally useless, while the proprietary Unix vendor's X11's were much more advanced.
. It's disingenuous to suggest that had it been GPL these Unix vendors would have still used it and released all their code for the Linux crew to take a free ride on.
We have a track record here. Those very same Unix vendors on GPLed code did precisely this most particularly on the Linux kernel. Instead of writing a bunch of proprietary extensions they ended up collaborating. Even earlier AT&T extended Emacs to X-Emacs and while this was a fork for years nothing was closed so eventually the ideas and code merged into a new unified editor. SGI (who was the furthest ahead) released their core code under GPL with things like XFS. Apple did huge enhancements to GCC which they had to contribute back.
So I don't think it is disingenuous. I think we have multiple cases of clear experimental evidence. No one had hardware like SGI's in the late 1980s and early 1990s they could have contributed back. And once that hardware wasn't $20k but rather $200 it would have formed the basis for Linux enhancements. Features like postscript rendering, which still aren't part of X11 would be if Sun had open source, or at least the core ideas would be open source and so something like an enhanced.dvi could be used in its place.
You can't just say you want their code and you also want them to subscribe to your ideology and only offer it on terms that restrict what others can do with it. Fair enough if it is your code but it isn't.
The idea of the GPL is to make sure it is always common code forever. We have a track record of that working.
Well the original is hardly going to be "functionally useless", if somebody creates a proprietary fork the original doesn't suddenly become useless and nothing stops anybody from keeping the original going.
This is precisely what did happen with X-Windows. MIT wrote X-Windows and maintained an MIT licensed version which Unix hardware manufacturers then used as a base for about 60% of the code for their proprietary windowing systems on their OSes. The MIT variant open source variant mostly didn't run at all on actual used hardware and certainly was way way behind the commercial X11s. Hence the XFree86 project took from 1991-1994 till it could get something that would realistic run an X11 at all. It took another 2 years till your average Unix user could get a piss-poor X11 to run on their x86 hardware. It took another 4 years from that until it had caught up to the commercial environments. And still 23 years later Linux X11s are still way way behind OSX and Windows display technologies in terms of performance. Commercial Unix vendors were about 13 years ahead of Windows in 1982-1995. So if you say that Linux is say 5 years behind (which may be an underestimate) that's almost 18 years of lost productivity due to a BSD style license.
That is a disaster for open source.
However on that point all the versions of the GPL up until v3 fail too, having the code for Tivo available but functionally useless means it might as well be closed.
Well not quite. Having the Tivo code does mean someone can make a Tivo like device. It doesn't do them any good in reprogramming their Tivo. So I'd say GPLv2 gets you 80% of what GPLv3 would get you even for Tivo. Besides Tivo couldn't exist if it were reprogrammable the content creators would never permit it.
Well personally I don't think there is one with that model, but have a browse through the comments here sometime and you'll see all manner of people advocating for adblockers and HOSTS files with the "rah rah you have no right to use my bandwidth to show me ads!" mantra.
Very true. A lot of the people here like the something for nothing type position. But as long as ad avoidance isn't widespread it doesn't damage the revenue model too much. Once it becomes widespread well then ads have to get more obtrusive or cost of production has to drop.
Yep, that's why FOSS is so successful in custom setups that deliver services.
I think this merger makes some sense. Century Link plays larger than most RackSpace customers with their private cloud. Rack Space doesn't have a super close relationship with any of the networking companies. I can see some nice synergy. As a Century Link channel partner, I'm hoping this goes through.
Most don't. For example the MEK are being applauded by congress. The IRA has tons of popular support in the USA. Hezbollah is very popular internationally. The USA is talking about funding the FSA.
Certainly there are people who deplore all violence and see the world in a global terms. But those people in some sense really do support something like global government. For them individual states don't mean much other than administrative units. Those are people who in some sense reject the notion of the nation state entirely. You may be one of those.
Arguably what you are pushing for is something very close to what existed before nation-states: Christendom. A universal set of norms and universal government with local administrative units. Where people accepted that all of humanity (or at least a huge chunk) were one big family. I think if we want to evaluate this fairly you need to start talking about empire vs. nation-state in a realistic way. In exchange for less violent war you have:
a) A much deeper exclusion of those outside the fold. b) Much less representative government. Much less self determination. And thus a much more entrenched aristocracy that is even less accountable. c) Much more violence (state terror) needing to be used against those in the fold who object to (b).
Everyone participates in that vague sense in the global economy. They don't perceive things like terrorist attacks against Saudi Arabia as attacks on themselves even when Saudi Arabia was the largest non-domestic source of US oil. So obviously that isn't all of it.
Chrome and Firefox are supported by Google's Ad revenues so yes the end user needs are met in order to drive advertising profit.
What's the problem? There has to be some sort of business model to support open source. If it revenue doesn't come from selling software it has to come from selling something. When we talk about consumer software either consumers are going to pay for the software with money, they are going to pay for the software indirectly by buying hardware (like Android) or they are going to pay for the software via. advertising of some sort. There aren't really any other models. Many of the activities required to support general consumers aren't fun, and IT people won't do them unless they are compensated.
Agreed, sometimes they do though often they do not so that is why I don't think free software will ever fully supplant proprietary software.
I agree with that. I was saying it can partially supplant proprietary software.
The most common form of software is one off individual development for a single company. I could see open source owning a huge percentage of that since development costs are almost entirely a pure expense and companies collaborating will often make sense. OTOH that software has lots of proprietary knowledge as well. So some of it is going to have to be closed.
The next most common is niche vertical software. That's likely to stay proprietary as even when it is mostly a vehicle to sell consulting services (like IBM) they don't want their consulting competitors to have access.
The claim was the border shift in and of itself was something beyond the pale.
I hate terms like "stealing land". Things that other countries do are considered to be criminal when Israel does them, and frankly it is rhetoric like that IMHO disqualifies the anti-Israel movement from being sensible. Governments don't steal land internal to their territory, they reallocate resources. I live in New Jersey, the government of the countries and the state all the time takes private lands over by matter of law, pays the owners and then uses them for something other than residential. People from all over the world don't object to this. Heck I voted for 2 people in my township that want to eminent domain my house to knock it down attach it to another development (or in racist UN speak attack my indigenous home to a settlement). Were the Palestinians willing to cooperate with the governments and file for compensation it would simply be eminent domain. Or maybe it would just be happening between the developers and the population and not involve the government at all.
Israel has de-jure annexed Area-C. It is time the world just acknowledges that the Israeli government is the government over that territory.
Yes, but not heavily. OTOH we have moved heavily settled territories back and forth before, just not recently. One of the reasons we developed the 60m rule with Canada was so that didn't happen. For example there are rivers that shift that are part of the border. Many tends of thousands of acres change hands as the rivers shift.
That's one of the things about open source producers and contributors not end users drive the software not purchasers. But that's not necessarily terrible. Android is the most successful OS on the planet, its open. Webkit: Firefox and Chrome. Libre / Open Office (about 18% of the office market). I'd say we are seeing success for end users. Certainly changes are driven by corporate needs but corporate needs and end users align sometimes.
We agree on the definition of the the ancillary services and I agree RedHat makes their money that way. I'd say the dominate class would be things like Rackspace which develops (with RedHat) OpenStack but is primarily selling CPU, electricity, network and renting hardware. The management system they use is just an expense. Microsoft / Azure, Amazon / AWS, Verizon's cloud... would all be in the same boat. Or another example would be HP's work which makes its money selling hardware or enterprise packages to run on top of open source OSes.
Slashdot Mirror
In terms of USA law the law enforcement agencies are using established international channels and legal orders. They aren't doing anything different from what they've done for decades. Microsoft is asking to do something different because the frequency and quantity as opposed to the previous situations with paper records is skyrocketing.
Also it is important to understand that between WWI and the 1970s we lived in a world where governments were mostly mildly hostile to international trade. Governments were perfectly comfortable with lower levels of international trade and laws that mildly discouraged trade. You really have to look at the colonial age 1812-1914 to really have a period comparable to today where governments were strongly pro-trade.
The scope of jurisdiction in the ruling is clear cut. Physical presence on the USA. BTW there is no law. This has been existing law for two centuries. It is just being applied to computer data the same way it was to objects and paper historically. The difference is that law enforcement agencies didn't ask for multiple shipping containers full of paper documents but with big data search tools are perfectly comfortable asking for those kinds of quantities of electronic data.
The ruling applies to anyone doing business in the United States. So it would apply to European companies having a cloud that included the USA as well. What it will mean is either:
a) Europe and the USA create a treaty covering this so there is black letter law
b) There are not global clouds
c) There is de-facto situation where the USA rules governing warrants are enforceable for most everyone and anyone not wanting to be subject to USA warrants needs to stay on Europe only cloud services.
Microsoft has already hedged themselves in Europe by informing their customers that using Azure is agreeing to export and to not upload any data for which would be illegal to export. So legally they should be fine in Europe. I think they are very worried about (b) becoming the outcome. I just don't see it though. Apple, Google, IBM, Amazon... all face the same issue. Corporations want global clouds. They are probably on balance hostile to European privacy laws. The pressure is going to be applied to European governments to go towards (a) or (c).
The GPL doesn't force people to change their ideology it does however create incentives for people to engage in socially useful behaviors. SGI when they were working on Linux support for XFS was no different than the SGI that was not helping on X11. The difference was the GPL required that if they offer XFS under Linux to anyone that in a practical sense they had to open source it for everyone. The GPL forced them into all or nothing. But they were able to freely pick between those options when they choose to give XFS away.
Again I don't like your phrasing but the GPL has a track record of doing exactly that.
The free software crew at that point had to deal with issues like POSIX. So yes they would have had to emulate Unix's commercial X11 implementation the same way they had to emulate Unix's commercial kernels, emulate Unix's commercial compilers, emulate Unix's commercial schedulers. There was only a limited difference at that point between having the MIT code and X11 having been closed source all along.
I think I've explained pretty clearly why it wasn't their failing. 10 years later we had a similarly popular piece of software in the Linux kernel. But this time it was under GPL. And this time the commercial vendors had no choice but to cooperate with the free software community. As new features came out for their specific kernels they were immediately incorporated into the kernel proper. So in the early 1990s when Caldera spent a fortune getting the SCO software's API's to run against the Linux kernel that was free for all to use whether you bought Caldera or RedHat or Yellow Dog. The result of being free software is the Linux kernel is the all around best kernel which has supplant almost every other non specialized kernel. And is arguably the most complex / feature rich piece of software ever constructed. All available free.
Same open source crew. Same vendors. The difference was GPL vs. BSD. You can try it to the open source crew's failures. But that same open source crew succeeded in another place and your version of history doesn't explain why they did so.
What you are calling a failure of the free software crew is what the GPL is designed to prevent. The MIT code was worthless to end users as you admit since it clearly required substantial work to get it to be functional. I don't know what more there is to say. You are basically saying you have no problem with open source software existing in a worthless form that does nothing but stimulate proprietary closed source applications.
And of course the free software crew did add something of value. Eventually they overtook all the proprietary Unixes. And the Linux guys overtook the BSD licensed free systems as well.
Absolutely true. But we don't have good sales data on small vs. big for iPhone because Apple has limited product lines. We know that sales went up when Apple went from 3.5 to 4 inches but it is hard to read much into that since sales went up be similar amounts when they didn't increase size. For Android and to some extent Windows Mobile the big and small have been going head to head for years and consumers do vote. In theory there is no reason that people should need to switch to iPhone to escape big.
NFC was a bad technology that has become a standard. Apple lost the battle against USB too.
Actually that's not true. With the exception of LG's model that used a tablet processor the iPhone 5S's processor was the fastest out there when it came out and for quite a while thereafter. The A8 is likely even more advanced. When it comes to CPU Apple is now way ahead.
What lot of people is that? Anyway the people that made Rosetta for Apple was Transitive Corporation which was acquired by IBM. The product doesn't exist anymore. Talk to IBM if there are a lot of people willing to pay for PPC applications.
As far as classic: http://sheepshaver.cebix.net/
The iPhone 5S is smaller than the HTC One mini, the Galaxy mini, the Experia compact... People have voted with their dollars they want bigger. It would be nice if the feature phones stepped up with some smaller form factors.
Pictures are uploaded to iCloud. That's how the hack worked. The celebrities used bad security questions and so the hackers were able to "restore" from iCloud and then from there "restore" old pictures. The payment so far is not, though I imagine an iOS update will allow you to backup your payment information to iCloud at a later date.
You mentioned Webkit twice. Webkit is open source because the rendering engine for Webkit is KHTML which was GPLed software. Webkit isn't proof of the success of BSD code it is proof of the success of the GPL. Apple had to GPL Webcore (KHTML) and Javascript Core (KDE's KJS) and then write the rest in a GPL compatible license. Webkit remained open after Google forked it to Blink because of the GPL.
XFree86 was BSD386 people mainly and Windows X11 vendors like Hummingbird, not "the Linux crew" for many years. The Linux team didn't fumble they just had to start 10 years behind once they finally got there. That mistake in creating a codebase that ended up closed source was the result of MIT. They hadn't gotten involved yet. Blaming the Linux team for problems that existed prior to the existence of Linux is ridiculous. This was MIT's screw up.
The goal of open source is to have open source software. MIT resulted in closed source software.
IRIX predates almost all GPL software. It BTW contains huge chunks of BSD code. So IRIX is another example of the BSD original existing but being worthless while the commercial version is closed. A disaster for open source given all the technologies in IRIX that could have been in the LInuxes and BSDs of the 1990s.
SGI didn't start that until 1998. That was 15 years after they had it when they were abandoning IRIX and moving to Linux. By then they were forced to, become open source because they couldn't sell their workstations, at least on the low end because x86 had beaten MIPS.
Yep. That's right. It makes it unusable for closed source unless they go to the copyright holder and get a proprietary license by writing a check and thus helping to fund the development.
Remember this started with your claim about "functionally useless". Clearly the MIT code which didn't even run on the systems of the 1990s was functionally useless, while the proprietary Unix vendor's X11's were much more advanced.
We have a track record here. Those very same Unix vendors on GPLed code did precisely this most particularly on the Linux kernel. Instead of writing a bunch of proprietary extensions they ended up collaborating. Even earlier AT&T extended Emacs to X-Emacs and while this was a fork for years nothing was closed so eventually the ideas and code merged into a new unified editor. SGI (who was the furthest ahead) released their core code under GPL with things like XFS. Apple did huge enhancements to GCC which they had to contribute back.
So I don't think it is disingenuous. I think we have multiple cases of clear experimental evidence. No one had hardware like SGI's in the late 1980s and early 1990s they could have contributed back. And once that hardware wasn't $20k but rather $200 it would have formed the basis for Linux enhancements. Features like postscript rendering, which still aren't part of X11 would be if Sun had open source, or at least the core ideas would be open source and so something like an enhanced .dvi could be used in its place.
The idea of the GPL is to make sure it is always common code forever. We have a track record of that working.
This is precisely what did happen with X-Windows. MIT wrote X-Windows and maintained an MIT licensed version which Unix hardware manufacturers then used as a base for about 60% of the code for their proprietary windowing systems on their OSes. The MIT variant open source variant mostly didn't run at all on actual used hardware and certainly was way way behind the commercial X11s. Hence the XFree86 project took from 1991-1994 till it could get something that would realistic run an X11 at all. It took another 2 years till your average Unix user could get a piss-poor X11 to run on their x86 hardware. It took another 4 years from that until it had caught up to the commercial environments. And still 23 years later Linux X11s are still way way behind OSX and Windows display technologies in terms of performance. Commercial Unix vendors were about 13 years ahead of Windows in 1982-1995. So if you say that Linux is say 5 years behind (which may be an underestimate) that's almost 18 years of lost productivity due to a BSD style license.
That is a disaster for open source.
Well not quite. Having the Tivo code does mean someone can make a Tivo like device. It doesn't do them any good in reprogramming their Tivo. So I'd say GPLv2 gets you 80% of what GPLv3 would get you even for Tivo. Besides Tivo couldn't exist if it were reprogrammable the content creators would never permit it.
Very true. A lot of the people here like the something for nothing type position. But as long as ad avoidance isn't widespread it doesn't damage the revenue model too much. Once it becomes widespread well then ads have to get more obtrusive or cost of production has to drop.
Sounds like we agree.
I think this merger makes some sense. Century Link plays larger than most RackSpace customers with their private cloud. Rack Space doesn't have a super close relationship with any of the networking companies. I can see some nice synergy. As a Century Link channel partner, I'm hoping this goes through.
They've had that for years. It is fully supported. The issue above is whether to support Gnome or not, no one is arguing for not supporting XFCE.
Most don't. For example the MEK are being applauded by congress. The IRA has tons of popular support in the USA. Hezbollah is very popular internationally. The USA is talking about funding the FSA.
Certainly there are people who deplore all violence and see the world in a global terms. But those people in some sense really do support something like global government. For them individual states don't mean much other than administrative units. Those are people who in some sense reject the notion of the nation state entirely. You may be one of those.
Arguably what you are pushing for is something very close to what existed before nation-states: Christendom. A universal set of norms and universal government with local administrative units. Where people accepted that all of humanity (or at least a huge chunk) were one big family. I think if we want to evaluate this fairly you need to start talking about empire vs. nation-state in a realistic way. In exchange for less violent war you have:
a) A much deeper exclusion of those outside the fold.
b) Much less representative government. Much less self determination. And thus a much more entrenched aristocracy that is even less accountable.
c) Much more violence (state terror) needing to be used against those in the fold who object to (b).
Everyone participates in that vague sense in the global economy. They don't perceive things like terrorist attacks against Saudi Arabia as attacks on themselves even when Saudi Arabia was the largest non-domestic source of US oil. So obviously that isn't all of it.
What's the problem? There has to be some sort of business model to support open source. If it revenue doesn't come from selling software it has to come from selling something. When we talk about consumer software either consumers are going to pay for the software with money, they are going to pay for the software indirectly by buying hardware (like Android) or they are going to pay for the software via. advertising of some sort. There aren't really any other models. Many of the activities required to support general consumers aren't fun, and IT people won't do them unless they are compensated.
I agree with that. I was saying it can partially supplant proprietary software.
The most common form of software is one off individual development for a single company. I could see open source owning a huge percentage of that since development costs are almost entirely a pure expense and companies collaborating will often make sense. OTOH that software has lots of proprietary knowledge as well. So some of it is going to have to be closed.
The next most common is niche vertical software. That's likely to stay proprietary as even when it is mostly a vehicle to sell consulting services (like IBM) they don't want their consulting competitors to have access.
The claim was the border shift in and of itself was something beyond the pale.
I hate terms like "stealing land". Things that other countries do are considered to be criminal when Israel does them, and frankly it is rhetoric like that IMHO disqualifies the anti-Israel movement from being sensible. Governments don't steal land internal to their territory, they reallocate resources. I live in New Jersey, the government of the countries and the state all the time takes private lands over by matter of law, pays the owners and then uses them for something other than residential. People from all over the world don't object to this. Heck I voted for 2 people in my township that want to eminent domain my house to knock it down attach it to another development (or in racist UN speak attack my indigenous home to a settlement). Were the Palestinians willing to cooperate with the governments and file for compensation it would simply be eminent domain. Or maybe it would just be happening between the developers and the population and not involve the government at all.
Israel has de-jure annexed Area-C. It is time the world just acknowledges that the Israeli government is the government over that territory.
Yes, but not heavily. OTOH we have moved heavily settled territories back and forth before, just not recently. One of the reasons we developed the 60m rule with Canada was so that didn't happen. For example there are rivers that shift that are part of the border. Many tends of thousands of acres change hands as the rivers shift.
How does the barbarity of the Merovingian dynasty influence modern France?
That's one of the things about open source producers and contributors not end users drive the software not purchasers. But that's not necessarily terrible. Android is the most successful OS on the planet, its open. Webkit: Firefox and Chrome. Libre / Open Office (about 18% of the office market). I'd say we are seeing success for end users. Certainly changes are driven by corporate needs but corporate needs and end users align sometimes.
We agree on the definition of the the ancillary services and I agree RedHat makes their money that way. I'd say the dominate class would be things like Rackspace which develops (with RedHat) OpenStack but is primarily selling CPU, electricity, network and renting hardware. The management system they use is just an expense. Microsoft / Azure, Amazon / AWS, Verizon's cloud... would all be in the same boat. Or another example would be HP's work which makes its money selling hardware or enterprise packages to run on top of open source OSes.