But tribal behavior is pretty well baked into us, genetically, and certainly manifests itself in large groups whether they're fourth cousins twice removed or just plain people who were raised the same way or like the same things.
Exactly! That's the idea of a nation. To create the affinity bonds that exist within tribes, or something close, within a much larger group. So yes. We aren't disagreeing.
Tribal-style behavior can exist in groups much larger than kin without that group happening to be a nation-state.
True. But the converse is not true. A nation-state needs this tribal type behavior.
Except, lots of Sunnis consider those asshats to be unspeakably un-Sunni-like, and a scourge.
Most Americans didn't like our founding fathers, they had about 1/3rd support no higher than the loyalists. Lacking support is fine. They are creating common interests and defining in-group out group and also defining the territory / geography.
You're confusing religious affiliation with the foundation of nation building. That's not "important," it's exactly what's wrong with the entire Middle East.
I'm not confusing it. Look at your comment the other way. If states keep failing because they lack religious affiliation then maybe it is time to base states on religious affiliation and just change borders to match the religious affiliation of the various parties.
Because it WAS an attack on themselves. It was intended to be damaging to everyone in the country or who has a vested interest in the health and well being of the US economy.
Why did they perceive it as an attack on themselves? Why do they view themselves as having a vested interest in the USA economy? Etc... You are begging the question.
Anyway, FreeNAS still exists because a commercial company picked it up. A lot of big companies use BSD for some things because it doesn't have the limitations of GPLv3.
Certainly. And that's not uncommon either. It happens. But at this point we have a track record. GPLed products get longer term support than BSD products. And not only that companies on average are more willing to contribute to GPLed products because their competitors or potential competitors are similarly limited.
I think I was pretty specific in the original that this was the problem. Having an original which is available and functionally useless is not a desirable state. It might as well be closed. The versions in use have to be open not the original.
I specifically indicated it was the latter issue he was worried about. The original for BSD licensed software can be available but functionally useless.
Actually no. Most of the successful open source business models are not ones in which the open source product is, for the entity writing the code, just an expense not a revenue source and broad participation help reduce that expense. The assumption had been that ancillary services would be the primary, and certainly there are plenty of those but that has not been the dominant class.
You are right, that was a typo in my post (not confusion) but a bad typo when correct someone else's numbers. Anyway 400km and 4km are drastically different things. The average farm (median not mean!) is over 1100 acres. We are talking one farm's worth here.
The point of his post was that the USA has bad information about Israel / Palestine and that's nonsense. Having seen the European media (especially the Catholic countries to which the USA media is often unfavorably compared) it seems to be less informational, equally biased and frankly more emotion driven just in the other direction.
He'd be fine with everything being BSD licensed forever (FreeBSD is a BSD distribution / OS not a license). But he's smart enough to know that BSD licensed software doesn't stay that way in the real world. There is a long proven track record of BSD software getting embedded in commercial software and becoming effectively or actually closed.
a) Avoid at all costs embedding not free into free (i.e. what happened with commercial X11) b) More free is preferable to less free, do the best you can. c) For (b) the best you can is defined not by "this would be slightly annoying".
That's what the FSF recommends. Use the AGPL on SaaS applications.
Incidentally though just to prove the services model their are successful commercial companies using free software SaaS models and selling services like hardware management and monitoring.
Its been 20 years. We've seen lots of successful open source business models by this point. Mostly people don't contribute when they get nothing in return rather:
B takes code written by A whom could care less about advancing B's purpose and as a result of the license ends up contributing to C for a purpose B could care less about.
Well we are in the process of shifting an area much larger of that to Canada. You don't know about it because it is such a not big deal. People make obvious border adjustments in a spirit of goodwill all the time.
A tribe is defined by blood. A nation is defined by things like: language, culture, ethnicity (broader) and history. That's a much larger group than a tribe. A nation is large enough to allow for complex economics, a tribe is not large enough. That's why nation-states are viable but tribal territories are not. Certainly the idea is to replicate some of the affinity one has in a tribe in the nation. For example many of the Americans traumatized and angered 9/11 didn't have anyone related to them that died in 9/11 or close friends that died in 9/11. But they still saw it as an attack on themselves.
What ISIS is doing is forming a Sunni nation state. I don't like their politics but I do believe that this formation of a nation state is a really important step forward for the middle east in achieving good government. That may not happen during our lifetimes, but the emergence of nation states makes it more likely to happen.
What they are doing is over the long term embracing democracy. Those countries have insane borders designed by the French and British as part of the Sykes–Picot Agreement. What's happening now is genuine nation-states are forming where the borders are likely to be people who view themselves as share a common interest. That is forming nation-states. That makes good government possible and thus democracy possible. It is the same process Europe went through.
If Saddam was still in power, he would be major american ally in "fighting terrorists".
Saddam was sending money to the families of suicide bombers encouraging terrorism prior to his death. No he did not help the USA in fighting terrorism.
Iraq had a majoritarian government not a democratic government. Democratic governments represent the public interest. Iraq's government represented a sects interests. And not shockingly another sect is now rejecting that government.
Being able to opt out of a union is called right-to-work. It is not true in all states, essentially red states have right-to-work and blue states if the union wins the election they represent all the workers and collect fees from everyone. In particular it is not true in California. If there was a tech union every employee in the unionized companies would have to be part of it.
why would you even need a typesetter (like QuarkXpress) or design program to produce a single stream of text (i.e. a novel?).
You should get an account. The reason is that Word isn't designed for publishing. Word is just beginning to handle ligatures in English, it is far from handling them in complex languages like Arabic or Hindi. Office 2010 and 2013 have made huge strides in this regard. Word doesn't handle spacing between lines, letters and words entirely properly for readability. Certainly, kerning, tracking and spacing are screwed up. Here is a classic text only image of Word (left) vs. InDesign(right) http://www.thebookdesigner.com... Take a look at the 3rd paragraph spacing. That's what's wrong with Word for text.
Certainly I agree enterprise software vendors will go after non-fits. And the better ones absolutely try and develop relationships outside IT. I'm not sure that's quite as unfair or unethical as you make it out to be. IT's interests are quite often different and sometimes opposite of the strategic interests of the company. IT management can often be interested in maintaining expensive legacy systems with lots of embedded business knowledge because it helps them maintain headcount. People like the CFO not uncommonly just want to outsource the entire business process and thus standardize it. They are willing to accept trauma.
Another area of conflict is that IT departments tend to be more risk adverse than the board. Catastrophic failure is simply inconceivable and they are perfectly willing to damage profits tremendously to avoid it. Ownership can be of the opinion that these measures aren't worth it. 300 basis points of profit lost to compliances pulls out 1/2 the return over 20 years i.e. removing just 3% of what the dividends / growth would be annually cuts the value of the stock in 1/2. Getting IT to be responsible but not seeing a business as anything more than a cash machine for ownership can be quite difficult.
Etc... So I don't agree with you that bypassing IT is necessarily unethical. I'm not sure why you are protecting the software company if you consider their behavior unethical in your story. Ultimately companies need to have checks to make sure that contracts can't go to final signature without buyin from various groups if the problem is ignorance in purchasing. It is their obligation to have a good purchasing process.
No you aren't wrong. Used to be much worse before Base existed. Access is a very good product that is under appreciated. Though it has been going out of fashion now for almost two decades. The Linux community always had access to server class databases so the culture around desktop databases never developed.
One more OS alternative I'll throw out there you didn't mention: http://www.glom.org/
If I were in charge of something like the city of Munich I would put out a memo that says, "If you talk to a large software vendor then your continued employment is unlikely."
The people who actually are in charge have to do due diligence. You want to bring in an open source solution that competes with a $2.5m proprietary system you better know the advantages of the proprietary system and have a business case that makes it clear why those advantages aren't worth the $2.5m or have clear advantages for the open system. And that means talking to sales people. You want to insulate you IT staff from sales the way you do that is make purchasing department involvement mandatory and have a formal bidding process. You have an internal group represent the open solution. That drives your bid complexity way up.
And of course sales commissions are well in excess of 1%. Most channel partners won't even suggest a product under 10% and 30% isn't uncommon in the bidding war. It costs a lot of money to get people to buy things. That money goes for support, professional services, configuration...
Well first off the manufacturer works with Microsoft to make Windows work on it as best as they can. I get that Apple isn't following Windows standards. But the Linux community has prided itself on support Mac. Back when Mac's used different CPUs: YellowDog Linux, Gentoo and for time RedHat all had distributions which ran on it and that was certainly a much bigger challenge. Most of the pieces to get it to work are present. Individuals have been able to get various things fixed. This is doable this is just Linux not support the #1 selling high end laptop.
Anyway. Your claim was that there were no problems. I'm definitely having one. 28 months into a new laptop I shouldn't be having problems getting a Linux to boot up everything.
I understand Gnome is a UI. But Debian can't not support Gnome for all the distributions that depend on it. I get you may like XFCE but you liking it and Debian mandating it are worlds apart. Mandating systemd is one thing. Mandating Gnome sunk projects like Progeny and UserLinux. I have to assume that mandating XFCE would be far more controversial for something like Debian. It is simply beyond the realm of possibility.
Slashdot Mirror
Exactly! That's the idea of a nation. To create the affinity bonds that exist within tribes, or something close, within a much larger group. So yes. We aren't disagreeing.
True. But the converse is not true. A nation-state needs this tribal type behavior.
Most Americans didn't like our founding fathers, they had about 1/3rd support no higher than the loyalists. Lacking support is fine. They are creating common interests and defining in-group out group and also defining the territory / geography.
I'm not confusing it. Look at your comment the other way. If states keep failing because they lack religious affiliation then maybe it is time to base states on religious affiliation and just change borders to match the religious affiliation of the various parties.
Why did they perceive it as an attack on themselves? Why do they view themselves as having a vested interest in the USA economy? Etc... You are begging the question.
Certainly. And that's not uncommon either. It happens. But at this point we have a track record. GPLed products get longer term support than BSD products. And not only that companies on average are more willing to contribute to GPLed products because their competitors or potential competitors are similarly limited.
I think I was pretty specific in the original that this was the problem. Having an original which is available and functionally useless is not a desirable state. It might as well be closed. The versions in use have to be open not the original.
I specifically indicated it was the latter issue he was worried about. The original for BSD licensed software can be available but functionally useless.
Actually no. Most of the successful open source business models are not ones in which the open source product is, for the entity writing the code, just an expense not a revenue source and broad participation help reduce that expense. The assumption had been that ancillary services would be the primary, and certainly there are plenty of those but that has not been the dominant class.
You are right, that was a typo in my post (not confusion) but a bad typo when correct someone else's numbers. Anyway 400km and 4km are drastically different things. The average farm (median not mean!) is over 1100 acres. We are talking one farm's worth here.
The point of his post was that the USA has bad information about Israel / Palestine and that's nonsense. Having seen the European media (especially the Catholic countries to which the USA media is often unfavorably compared) it seems to be less informational, equally biased and frankly more emotion driven just in the other direction.
He'd be fine with everything being BSD licensed forever (FreeBSD is a BSD distribution / OS not a license). But he's smart enough to know that BSD licensed software doesn't stay that way in the real world. There is a long proven track record of BSD software getting embedded in commercial software and becoming effectively or actually closed.
His position on platforms is:
a) Avoid at all costs embedding not free into free (i.e. what happened with commercial X11)
b) More free is preferable to less free, do the best you can.
c) For (b) the best you can is defined not by "this would be slightly annoying".
That's what the FSF recommends. Use the AGPL on SaaS applications.
Incidentally though just to prove the services model their are successful commercial companies using free software SaaS models and selling services like hardware management and monitoring.
Its been 20 years. We've seen lots of successful open source business models by this point. Mostly people don't contribute when they get nothing in return rather:
B takes code written by A whom could care less about advancing B's purpose and as a result of the license ends up contributing to C for a purpose B could care less about.
Well we are in the process of shifting an area much larger of that to Canada. You don't know about it because it is such a not big deal. People make obvious border adjustments in a spirit of goodwill all the time.
Well said AC.
A tribe is defined by blood. A nation is defined by things like: language, culture, ethnicity (broader) and history. That's a much larger group than a tribe. A nation is large enough to allow for complex economics, a tribe is not large enough. That's why nation-states are viable but tribal territories are not. Certainly the idea is to replicate some of the affinity one has in a tribe in the nation. For example many of the Americans traumatized and angered 9/11 didn't have anyone related to them that died in 9/11 or close friends that died in 9/11. But they still saw it as an attack on themselves.
What ISIS is doing is forming a Sunni nation state. I don't like their politics but I do believe that this formation of a nation state is a really important step forward for the middle east in achieving good government. That may not happen during our lifetimes, but the emergence of nation states makes it more likely to happen.
What they are doing is over the long term embracing democracy. Those countries have insane borders designed by the French and British as part of the Sykes–Picot Agreement. What's happening now is genuine nation-states are forming where the borders are likely to be people who view themselves as share a common interest. That is forming nation-states. That makes good government possible and thus democracy possible. It is the same process Europe went through.
Saddam was sending money to the families of suicide bombers encouraging terrorism prior to his death. No he did not help the USA in fighting terrorism.
Iraq had a majoritarian government not a democratic government. Democratic governments represent the public interest. Iraq's government represented a sects interests. And not shockingly another sect is now rejecting that government.
They annexed slightly under 100 acred or 4 sq km. Nothing remotely like 400. Seems your not one-sided news is not so good after all.
Being able to opt out of a union is called right-to-work. It is not true in all states, essentially red states have right-to-work and blue states if the union wins the election they represent all the workers and collect fees from everyone. In particular it is not true in California. If there was a tech union every employee in the unionized companies would have to be part of it.
You should get an account. The reason is that Word isn't designed for publishing. Word is just beginning to handle ligatures in English, it is far from handling them in complex languages like Arabic or Hindi. Office 2010 and 2013 have made huge strides in this regard. Word doesn't handle spacing between lines, letters and words entirely properly for readability. Certainly, kerning, tracking and spacing are screwed up. Here is a classic text only image of Word (left) vs. InDesign(right) http://www.thebookdesigner.com...
Take a look at the 3rd paragraph spacing. That's what's wrong with Word for text.
Certainly I agree enterprise software vendors will go after non-fits. And the better ones absolutely try and develop relationships outside IT. I'm not sure that's quite as unfair or unethical as you make it out to be. IT's interests are quite often different and sometimes opposite of the strategic interests of the company. IT management can often be interested in maintaining expensive legacy systems with lots of embedded business knowledge because it helps them maintain headcount. People like the CFO not uncommonly just want to outsource the entire business process and thus standardize it. They are willing to accept trauma.
Another area of conflict is that IT departments tend to be more risk adverse than the board. Catastrophic failure is simply inconceivable and they are perfectly willing to damage profits tremendously to avoid it. Ownership can be of the opinion that these measures aren't worth it. 300 basis points of profit lost to compliances pulls out 1/2 the return over 20 years i.e. removing just 3% of what the dividends / growth would be annually cuts the value of the stock in 1/2. Getting IT to be responsible but not seeing a business as anything more than a cash machine for ownership can be quite difficult.
Etc... So I don't agree with you that bypassing IT is necessarily unethical. I'm not sure why you are protecting the software company if you consider their behavior unethical in your story. Ultimately companies need to have checks to make sure that contracts can't go to final signature without buyin from various groups if the problem is ignorance in purchasing. It is their obligation to have a good purchasing process.
No you aren't wrong. Used to be much worse before Base existed. Access is a very good product that is under appreciated. Though it has been going out of fashion now for almost two decades. The Linux community always had access to server class databases so the culture around desktop databases never developed.
One more OS alternative I'll throw out there you didn't mention: http://www.glom.org/
The people who actually are in charge have to do due diligence. You want to bring in an open source solution that competes with a $2.5m proprietary system you better know the advantages of the proprietary system and have a business case that makes it clear why those advantages aren't worth the $2.5m or have clear advantages for the open system. And that means talking to sales people. You want to insulate you IT staff from sales the way you do that is make purchasing department involvement mandatory and have a formal bidding process. You have an internal group represent the open solution. That drives your bid complexity way up.
And of course sales commissions are well in excess of 1%. Most channel partners won't even suggest a product under 10% and 30% isn't uncommon in the bidding war. It costs a lot of money to get people to buy things. That money goes for support, professional services, configuration...
What kind of publishing house uses a word processor rather than a typesetting or design program for output at all?
Well first off the manufacturer works with Microsoft to make Windows work on it as best as they can. I get that Apple isn't following Windows standards. But the Linux community has prided itself on support Mac. Back when Mac's used different CPUs: YellowDog Linux, Gentoo and for time RedHat all had distributions which ran on it and that was certainly a much bigger challenge. Most of the pieces to get it to work are present. Individuals have been able to get various things fixed. This is doable this is just Linux not support the #1 selling high end laptop.
Anyway. Your claim was that there were no problems. I'm definitely having one. 28 months into a new laptop I shouldn't be having problems getting a Linux to boot up everything.
I understand Gnome is a UI. But Debian can't not support Gnome for all the distributions that depend on it. I get you may like XFCE but you liking it and Debian mandating it are worlds apart. Mandating systemd is one thing. Mandating Gnome sunk projects like Progeny and UserLinux. I have to assume that mandating XFCE would be far more controversial for something like Debian. It is simply beyond the realm of possibility.