Simple. A lot of the core functionality in Windows is based on standard web protocols - like the help system. As is thier future business model -.Net is based on SOAP and XML, don't forget. No integrated browser in thier OSes, no lock on thier.Net software/services.
IOW, if IE goes, likely so would a lot of the executives, since a big chunk o' change would be thrown into the hopper. That tends to make shareholders and Boards of Directors slightly pissed off.
BTW, KDE uses Konquerer for it's help system too, does it not? So, an HTML renderer built into a desktop environment isn't (or shouldn't be) an issue. The issue is that Microsoft had criminal intent when it first bundled it's browser into Windows 95 - "cutting off the air suppy" of Netscape. They need this behaviour remedied, nothing else, IMHO.
The reason that Metallica went all stupid was that "I Disappear" (IIRC) was put on Napster 3 weeks before it was to be made available for radio play. Radio station WRIF in Detroit (amongst others) put that copy on the air, resulting in the first round of "cease and dissist"s. Metallica then relised that they lost control of thier own production, and the rest is history. (remember Google is your friend, people)
No excuse for thier over the top cheeleading of killing Napster, but kinda makes you see where they're coming from.
Do you really believe that Microsoft is "really, really scared" of the GPL? Why would they be?
I think they are. There is a lot of energy being spent on GPLed software, and it's winning mind share to boot. They've seen Linux come from nowhere to thier major compeditor in less that 5 years. That would be enough to scare the bejeezus out of any company.
1) The public image of OSS is, at this point, not good. As long as the zealots (RMS, ESR) are at the front lines, it will always conjure images of the hippies that these guys are.
The software itself is making inroads and showing it has value - which is what any competent business manager looks at. Look at what the hippies have wroght - nice, stable useable software. I'm no fan of the hippies myself, but I resepct them for giving me a choice in what OS/Apps I use.
2) The lucrative desktop market isn't going anywhere and, while I have no stats to back this up, I'm willing to bet that Linux's gains in the server market are more at the expense of Netware and UNIX than Windows.
Currently, I'll give you this one since there's too much spin in the industry to really tell for sure. However, know that I plan to re-deploy my dead AlphaNT machines as SAMBA servers - and they match up nicely with some big Intel based iron running Windows2000. Microsoft would count that as a lost sale, I think.
3) The infighting and fragmentation among several OSS camps (GNOME/KDE and, to a lesser extent, GPL/BSD licencing) can't help but make one wonder if OSS can stay united long enough to make any impact.
Hopefully, it won't. I myself would like the APIs and configurations unified more, but the desktops? Even Windows has it's detractors, like Litestep and Window Blinds. There are arguements, but you think there are nothing but congenial, ass kissing sessions in cloised source design meetings? Sure.
Without turning this into another "OSS is nonviable in the business world" rant, the point I'm trying to make is that Microsoft has very little reason to fear the GPL. Be aware of? Yes. Watch carefully? Yes. Attempt to squash? Yes. Fear? No. Microsoft would have to be full of absolute morons to not spend some time and energy working to discredit GPL before it becomes a problem. Like Microsoft or not, you don't build the world's largest software company from a staff of morons.
Microsoft doesn't have many morons to be sure. They do have a paranoid culture, however. Look at how they've reacted to what used to be thier greatest weakness in regard to Linux - security. I need not say more.
Whenever I hear of Microsoft's alleged GPL fears, it reminds me of the skinny little kid who thinks that, because the schoolyard bully doesn't pick on him as often as others, the bully is afraid. I believe the term is "inconsequential".
Sorry - Linux is no skinny little kid in comparison to Microsoft, exept in perhaps market share. More like the tall kid who just takes the abuse, smiles and waits for his turn...
I mean, come on, when you continue to talk about something, the idea survives, where as if you ignore it, most of the time, it will just go away.
They tried that. It didn't work.
Lots of cool stuff for Linux grew while they were trying to ignore it. Now, they're really, really scared that they will face competition that they can't buy or steal - they will only be able to compete on value and technology.
As well, Microsoft has always had the paranoid delusions of it's creators and officers. If anything or anyone even gives a sideways glance at thier little girl named Windows, they apply a vicious beating so she can't be lead astray.
Don't ever forget that "killing Windows is killing Microsoft"*, so it will fight for it's life whenever threatened. The GPLed OS (Linux, to be pendantic) is the only thing that is able to fight back with thet same weapons - so far, anyway.
Soko
* This is in quotes since it's not given to be true - the only thing that would go away is the huge, controlling behemoth and it's current business model. there's lots of smart people there tat could generate cash in other ways.
You, my friend, need a bit of updating here. Perpare to Rev. up to 1.1 of "Hollywoods Broadband Access Plan"
Hollywood believes that copy protection will spur the use of broadband.
Incorrect. They know that there will be more content available if Copy Proctecion is unavoidable, since they'll be "guaranteed" thier cut. What they're saying is "No copy protection, No movies on Digital media, including broadband."
Why do they think this? With copy protection, downmloading movies would require a purchase, and fee-based online music services are already not doing well.
Some pay services are doing OK, but no where near the level that the RIAA/MPAA need to support thier ludicrace market caps. This is the real reason they are fighting like crazy - a lot of rich people would be reduced to "normal" people in net worth - we can't have that, can we? And downloading movies would only require one or two purchases, until someone cracked the copy protection. (I've heard rumours that there are movies filmed in the theatre with a digital mini-cam that were of acceptable quality being passed about KaaZa - even before the theatre has shown it to one paying patron.) As someone else said, "It's easier making water not wet than to stop bits from being copied". They're trying to perpetuate the status quo with old laws and methods - until they have technology to protect thier old business models. They don't seem to think they can try a new business model, or that they can scale back thier market caps to a level that will be in line with the lower revenues of digital content production. It's like we're trying to bury Godzilla alive here.
I, for one would not base my conversion to broadband on the fact that I could purchase movies.
Good for you - neither did I. Broadband isn't necessary for most of what the 'net offers. It's just real nice to have - especially for Telecommuting. I say respect the law of the land (for now), but not current copyright ideology. It will change one day.
I think you can thank one Vinod Valloppillil for exposing the larcenous behaviour of the Microsoft Marketing Dept. - and thier influence on Microsofts coding practices - for this one. Much news about Microsoft has transpired since then, and most of it very, very bad for them.
/imagine: a half bald, bawling marketdriod with a pile of his own bloddy hair at his feet, more in his fists at the side of his head, shouting "NO! We could of owned it all! NOOOOOOO!". Now smile.:-D/
IMHO, it was the leaking of the Halloween Documents that had the most devestating effects on Microsoft. Those very same documents also give reason to still be guarded with our support.
The timing of this is also suspicious with.Net on the way. From what I've read, most big comanes are telling Microsoft that.Net is OK, but thier keeping all thier data. Ergo, what if Microsoft wants to use Kerberos authentication from your server, whatever it is, to allow.Net services in? It may be needed for thier business model to actually work. Hmmmm.
To paraphrase a famous Trojan : "I fear Microsoft even when they come bearing gifts". I'm pleased, but will still be very wary all the same.
FYI, Windows NT 3.51 and 4.0 on the Alpha were 32 bit still, not 64 bit. It was some sort of backward comaptibility 32 bit hack thing done with the compiler. (Aside: Anyone remeber FX/32 on the Alpha?)
AFAIK: - NT code isn't 64 bit safe. 2000/XP I'm not sure of. - the 64 bit port of NT was developed on the Alpha, initially anyway, and then ported to the Itanium. - Alpha Linux has always been 64 bit. One of the earlier kernels had to be extensively revised to be 64 bit safe in order to run on the Alpha.
Soko
(O/T - The Alphas still killed the Intel machines at the time with MHz as well as memory and I/O bandwidth, which is why we used them. Oh well.)
Whoa there, Mr. Rebublican. Two hops short of Cuba? Don't think so. We are as democratic as they come (well, almost).
This is a Canadian thing, you see. Our country is so big with so little population thay we are forced to be communictaions intensive. Yup, lots of our infrestructure is government mandated, but it needs to be - otherwise, it just wouldn't get done. Private Industry wouldn't do it, and well they shouldn't, since there's not much profit to be made. However, we as a country essentially need top shelf communications like this in order to remain a country, since we wouldn't speak to each other much otherwise. It may sound weird to USAians, but it's good for us - like universal public health care. I for one look forward to conversing with my Albertan comapatriots over High Speed bit-pipes - it brings us closer.
So, at the risk of being a jingoist,
Take off, eh?
Soko
PS - Maybe you're just miffed at the Hockey Gold we won.:^D
HDTV is not really new. It has been around since 1981. But, the studios have restricted the release of digital media until they felt that they could have sufficient control over it, a control that will never be possible.
This control has not nor will it ever "protect" the consumer's interests, only the studios. In fact their implementation of these restrictions will cause major consumer backlash as we all see what has transpired, and how much it has cost us. If anything, the deceit and confusion over DVI and DTCP will only make the adoption of HDTV and HD-DVD harder.
No kidding? Anyone with any technical savy knows that there is virtually nothing that the MPAA nor any other entity can do that can effectively control the dissemination of information at this point in history. Seems this guy is just parroting what is taken to be obvious around here - the traditional content provider business model is dead, or at least mortally wounded. Must be a Katz deciple.
On the plus side, this article may actually inform more people besides the/.'ers about the true reason why better content and content delivery is being stiffled by the people that make it - they would lose control over it, and therfore their consumers. *Puts on TinFoil Hat* Since North American society is fed most of it's culture through the glowing box in the corner, a lot of thier culteral control will go away too.*Takes off TinFoil Hat*.
Your answer is in the letter sent to the bnetd folks, as posted here:
Blizzard Entertainment's, a division of Vivendi Universal Games, Inc. ("VUG"), copyrighted materials.
*Subliminal Guy mode on* VU are the same nice people (blood sucking control freaks) that bring you movies (and prosecute the exchange of ideas like DeCSS), music (and squash P2P music exchange) as well as other forms of entertainment (cultural control). *SubGuy mode off*
Really, why would really want to keep the source code to CP/M in a vault for 99 years
To keep that ugly beast from coming back?!?!?
*shudder*
Ech, CP/M. DEC Rainbow. Bleah.
Soko
Re:Am I the only person who is hesitent about this
on
.NETly News
·
· Score: 2, Flamebait
my god, thank-god you were never a slave or an opressed person at any time in history. you would just go around saying "well thats the way it is, lets just accept it"
bad attitude.
Bullshit. That's not what I'm saying at all - I'm saying that reality must be accepted, and in order to really change things, we need to deal with the fact that Microsoft is a major industry player who won't simply be swept aside. Technologies that they introduce will be deployed, no matter how much you and I know that they involve "Vendor lock-in" and "Embrace and Extend". Remember Spartacus? That's what happens when you try to do battle with an opponent with a superior position (read: marketshare, not technology) on thier terms - you run head long into being crucified.
Not me. I'd rather try to change the nature of the beast, and therefore change the nature of the struggle to terms I can actually deal with.
You can put your tin-foil hat back on now, BTW.
Soko
Re:Am I the only person who is hesitent about this
on
.NETly News
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Take off the tin foil hat for a second, would ya?
How long did it take for Microsoft to dominate the desktop market? They released Windows 1.0 a long time before OS/2 fell off the competitive map.
Microsofts domination kinda snuck up on everyone, since the IT industry assumed that there would allways be a company to compete with Bill&Co in the OS/Office Productivity space. This time, no such assumptions will be made. If they actually get something like this off the ground, there will be lots of people (Miguel) making great things that compete with Microsoft's offerings by the time it gets pervasive enough.
I'd suggest you take this for what it is at a base level - something that could be useful and cool. Remember, it is possible to enter a cage with a dangerous beast, as long as you know what to expect and how to counter it's natural responses.
IMHO, it's time to accept Microsoft as an industry leader. You just have to think of them in the same way that you do a clueless PHB.
"A modified version of GNU is used on millions of computers, but the users often are not aware of this, because the whole system is widely confused with its kernel program, whose name is 'Linux.'"
So, it's no longer GNU/Linux to RMS, just GNU?
RMS is certainly worthy of respect for the things he's done and for his tenacity in sticking to his beliefs, but to me it's Linux. Always will be.
If you hold the "open source" view that allowing others to share and change software is just an expedient, a way to make software powerful and reliable, you may find it hard to resist a university administrator's argument that "we could make it even more powerful and reliable with all the money we can get." This may or may not come true in the end, but it is hard to disprove in advance.
Umm...HUNH? If you're naive enough to allow a University Administrator con you in as easy as that, you have no business in a Institute of Higher Learning. Furthermore, Open Source, in all it's guises, is a better way of allowing for the creation of better software, since ideas can be shared, and if needed, money can be made since there usually has to be some money involved somewhere. From what I've seen so far, the GPL means very little cash coming back.
Sorry Mr. Stallman, but it think you're trying to reverse the tide here, not just bail a boat with a spoon.
Slashdot Mirror
Simple. A lot of the core functionality in Windows is based on standard web protocols - like the help system. As is thier future business model - .Net is based on SOAP and XML, don't forget. No integrated browser in thier OSes, no lock on thier .Net software/services.
IOW, if IE goes, likely so would a lot of the executives, since a big chunk o' change would be thrown into the hopper. That tends to make shareholders and Boards of Directors slightly pissed off.
BTW, KDE uses Konquerer for it's help system too, does it not? So, an HTML renderer built into a desktop environment isn't (or shouldn't be) an issue. The issue is that Microsoft had criminal intent when it first bundled it's browser into Windows 95 - "cutting off the air suppy" of Netscape. They need this behaviour remedied, nothing else, IMHO.
Soko
Bingo.
The reason that Metallica went all stupid was that "I Disappear" (IIRC) was put on Napster 3 weeks before it was to be made available for radio play. Radio station WRIF in Detroit (amongst others) put that copy on the air, resulting in the first round of "cease and dissist"s. Metallica then relised that they lost control of thier own production, and the rest is history. (remember Google is your friend, people)
No excuse for thier over the top cheeleading of killing Napster, but kinda makes you see where they're coming from.
Soko
Good points.
Do you really believe that Microsoft is "really, really scared" of the GPL? Why would they be?
I think they are. There is a lot of energy being spent on GPLed software, and it's winning mind share to boot. They've seen Linux come from nowhere to thier major compeditor in less that 5 years. That would be enough to scare the bejeezus out of any company.
1) The public image of OSS is, at this point, not good. As long as the zealots (RMS, ESR) are at the front lines, it will always conjure images of the hippies that these guys are.
The software itself is making inroads and showing it has value - which is what any competent business manager looks at. Look at what the hippies have wroght - nice, stable useable software. I'm no fan of the hippies myself, but I resepct them for giving me a choice in what OS/Apps I use.
2) The lucrative desktop market isn't going anywhere and, while I have no stats to back this up, I'm willing to bet that Linux's gains in the server market are more at the expense of Netware and UNIX than Windows.
Currently, I'll give you this one since there's too much spin in the industry to really tell for sure. However, know that I plan to re-deploy my dead AlphaNT machines as SAMBA servers - and they match up nicely with some big Intel based iron running Windows2000. Microsoft would count that as a lost sale, I think.
3) The infighting and fragmentation among several OSS camps (GNOME/KDE and, to a lesser extent, GPL/BSD licencing) can't help but make one wonder if OSS can stay united long enough to make any impact.
Hopefully, it won't. I myself would like the APIs and configurations unified more, but the desktops? Even Windows has it's detractors, like Litestep and Window Blinds. There are arguements, but you think there are nothing but congenial, ass kissing sessions in cloised source design meetings? Sure.
Without turning this into another "OSS is nonviable in the business world" rant, the point I'm trying to make is that Microsoft has very little reason to fear the GPL. Be aware of? Yes. Watch carefully? Yes. Attempt to squash? Yes. Fear? No. Microsoft would have to be full of absolute morons to not spend some time and energy working to discredit GPL before it becomes a problem. Like Microsoft or not, you don't build the world's largest software company from a staff of morons.
Microsoft doesn't have many morons to be sure. They do have a paranoid culture, however. Look at how they've reacted to what used to be thier greatest weakness in regard to Linux - security. I need not say more.
Whenever I hear of Microsoft's alleged GPL fears, it reminds me of the skinny little kid who thinks that, because the schoolyard bully doesn't pick on him as often as others, the bully is afraid. I believe the term is "inconsequential".
Sorry - Linux is no skinny little kid in comparison to Microsoft, exept in perhaps market share. More like the tall kid who just takes the abuse, smiles and waits for his turn...
Soko
Linux is the true path to enlightenment
Well... it is .
Does Windows use Enlightemment? Didn't think so...
Soko
I mean, come on, when you continue to talk about something, the idea survives, where as if you ignore it, most of the time, it will just go away.
They tried that. It didn't work.
Lots of cool stuff for Linux grew while they were trying to ignore it. Now, they're really, really scared that they will face competition that they can't buy or steal - they will only be able to compete on value and technology.
As well, Microsoft has always had the paranoid delusions of it's creators and officers. If anything or anyone even gives a sideways glance at thier little girl named Windows, they apply a vicious beating so she can't be lead astray.
Don't ever forget that "killing Windows is killing Microsoft"*, so it will fight for it's life whenever threatened. The GPLed OS (Linux, to be pendantic) is the only thing that is able to fight back with thet same weapons - so far, anyway.
Soko
* This is in quotes since it's not given to be true - the only thing that would go away is the huge, controlling behemoth and it's current business model. there's lots of smart people there tat could generate cash in other ways.
Bingo!- ? Bingo....Hmmmmm....
;-)
Karma Bingo! Yet another revenue stream for OSDN...
Soko
I thought the ultimate goal was to "ask (your girlfriend) to marry you in the most embarassing way possible".
Silly me!
Soko
You, my friend, need a bit of updating here. Perpare to Rev. up to 1.1 of "Hollywoods Broadband Access Plan"
Hollywood believes that copy protection will spur the use of broadband.
Incorrect. They know that there will be more content available if Copy Proctecion is unavoidable, since they'll be "guaranteed" thier cut. What they're saying is "No copy protection, No movies on Digital media, including broadband."
Why do they think this? With copy protection, downmloading movies would require a purchase, and fee-based online music services are already not doing well.
Some pay services are doing OK, but no where near the level that the RIAA/MPAA need to support thier ludicrace market caps. This is the real reason they are fighting like crazy - a lot of rich people would be reduced to "normal" people in net worth - we can't have that, can we?
And downloading movies would only require one or two purchases, until someone cracked the copy protection. (I've heard rumours that there are movies filmed in the theatre with a digital mini-cam that were of acceptable quality being passed about KaaZa - even before the theatre has shown it to one paying patron.) As someone else said, "It's easier making water not wet than to stop bits from being copied". They're trying to perpetuate the status quo with old laws and methods - until they have technology to protect thier old business models. They don't seem to think they can try a new business model, or that they can scale back thier market caps to a level that will be in line with the lower revenues of digital content production. It's like we're trying to bury Godzilla alive here.
I, for one would not base my conversion to broadband on the fact that I could purchase movies.
Good for you - neither did I. Broadband isn't necessary for most of what the 'net offers. It's just real nice to have - especially for Telecommuting. I say respect the law of the land (for now), but not current copyright ideology. It will change one day.
Soko
I think you can thank one Vinod Valloppillil for exposing the larcenous behaviour of the Microsoft Marketing Dept. - and thier influence on Microsofts coding practices - for this one. Much news about Microsoft has transpired since then, and most of it very, very bad for them.
:-D/
.Net on the way. From what I've read, most big comanes are telling Microsoft that .Net is OK, but thier keeping all thier data. Ergo, what if Microsoft wants to use Kerberos authentication from your server, whatever it is, to allow .Net services in? It may be needed for thier business model to actually work. Hmmmm.
/imagine: a half bald, bawling marketdriod with a pile of his own bloddy hair at his feet, more in his fists at the side of his head, shouting "NO! We could of owned it all! NOOOOOOO!". Now smile.
IMHO, it was the leaking of the Halloween Documents that had the most devestating effects on Microsoft. Those very same documents also give reason to still be guarded with our support.
The timing of this is also suspicious with
To paraphrase a famous Trojan :
"I fear Microsoft even when they come bearing gifts".
I'm pleased, but will still be very wary all the same.
Soko
FYI, Windows NT 3.51 and 4.0 on the Alpha were 32 bit still, not 64 bit. It was some sort of backward comaptibility 32 bit hack thing done with the compiler. (Aside: Anyone remeber FX/32 on the Alpha?)
AFAIK:
- NT code isn't 64 bit safe. 2000/XP I'm not sure of.
- the 64 bit port of NT was developed on the Alpha, initially anyway, and then ported to the Itanium.
- Alpha Linux has always been 64 bit. One of the earlier kernels had to be extensively revised to be 64 bit safe in order to run on the Alpha.
Soko
(O/T - The Alphas still killed the Intel machines at the time with MHz as well as memory and I/O bandwidth, which is why we used them. Oh well.)
God, root, what is difference?
So, "sue ID root" is the same as blaming God? O_0
Soko
Nice letter. Now, go away. Let me talk directly to Mr. Spielberg, please.
Thank you.
Kindest regards,
Soko
/me feeds the troll:
:^D
Whoa there, Mr. Rebublican. Two hops short of Cuba? Don't think so. We are as democratic as they come (well, almost).
This is a Canadian thing, you see. Our country is so big with so little population thay we are forced to be communictaions intensive. Yup, lots of our infrestructure is government mandated, but it needs to be - otherwise, it just wouldn't get done. Private Industry wouldn't do it, and well they shouldn't, since there's not much profit to be made. However, we as a country essentially need top shelf communications like this in order to remain a country, since we wouldn't speak to each other much otherwise. It may sound weird to USAians, but it's good for us - like universal public health care. I for one look forward to conversing with my Albertan comapatriots over High Speed bit-pipes - it brings us closer.
So, at the risk of being a jingoist,
Take off, eh?
Soko
PS - Maybe you're just miffed at the Hockey Gold we won.
No kidding? Anyone with any technical savy knows that there is virtually nothing that the MPAA nor any other entity can do that can effectively control the dissemination of information at this point in history. Seems this guy is just parroting what is taken to be obvious around here - the traditional content provider business model is dead, or at least mortally wounded. Must be a Katz deciple.
On the plus side, this article may actually inform more people besides the
Geez - I'm sounding like Katz too. Maybe he's right? Naaaa....
Soko
Ummmm...to pay lawyers and law suit plaintiffs, meybe? Just like a real IT buinsess does these days.
;^D
Soko
*Subliminal Guy mode on* VU are the same nice people (blood sucking control freaks) that bring you movies (and prosecute the exchange of ideas like DeCSS), music (and squash P2P music exchange) as well as other forms of entertainment (cultural control). *SubGuy mode off*
Go figure.
Soko
Really, why would really want to keep the source code to CP/M in a vault for 99 years
To keep that ugly beast from coming back?!?!?
*shudder*
Ech, CP/M. DEC Rainbow. Bleah.
Soko
my god, thank-god you were never a slave or an opressed person at any time in history. you would just go around saying "well thats the way it is, lets just accept it"
bad attitude.
Bullshit. That's not what I'm saying at all - I'm saying that reality must be accepted, and in order to really change things, we need to deal with the fact that Microsoft is a major industry player who won't simply be swept aside. Technologies that they introduce will be deployed, no matter how much you and I know that they involve "Vendor lock-in" and "Embrace and Extend". Remember Spartacus? That's what happens when you try to do battle with an opponent with a superior position (read: marketshare, not technology) on thier terms - you run head long into being crucified.
Not me. I'd rather try to change the nature of the beast, and therefore change the nature of the struggle to terms I can actually deal with.
You can put your tin-foil hat back on now, BTW.
Soko
Take off the tin foil hat for a second, would ya?
How long did it take for Microsoft to dominate the desktop market? They released Windows 1.0 a long time before OS/2 fell off the competitive map.
Microsofts domination kinda snuck up on everyone, since the IT industry assumed that there would allways be a company to compete with Bill&Co in the OS/Office Productivity space. This time, no such assumptions will be made. If they actually get something like this off the ground, there will be lots of people (Miguel) making great things that compete with Microsoft's offerings by the time it gets pervasive enough.
I'd suggest you take this for what it is at a base level - something that could be useful and cool. Remember, it is possible to enter a cage with a dangerous beast, as long as you know what to expect and how to counter it's natural responses.
IMHO, it's time to accept Microsoft as an industry leader. You just have to think of them in the same way that you do a clueless PHB.
Soko
Lesssse, right aboot now it late Shaturday night, ssso my blood would be a *hic* great coolant.
Alcahol.
:#)
Soko
Something like this would be a prime candidate for Embedded Linux running on a smaller, weathertight, dedicated device instead of a full blown PC tho.
The headline remined me of what I used to say to the people (several years ago) in the office when I had to re-boot a NetWare server:
"Everybody out of the memory pool!!"
Soko
Remember, with Open Source, you can re-write the code on anything. Imagine the possibilities.
Soko
Crap! How did this end up on the wrong story?
Oh well, moderate it to oblivion, please!
Soko
"A modified version of GNU is used on millions of computers, but the users often are not aware of this, because the whole system is widely confused with its kernel program, whose name is 'Linux.'"
So, it's no longer GNU/Linux to RMS, just GNU?
RMS is certainly worthy of respect for the things he's done and for his tenacity in sticking to his beliefs, but to me it's Linux. Always will be.
If you hold the "open source" view that allowing others to share and change software is just an expedient, a way to make software powerful and reliable, you may find it hard to resist a university administrator's argument that "we could make it even more powerful and reliable with all the money we can get." This may or may not come true in the end, but it is hard to disprove in advance.
Umm...HUNH? If you're naive enough to allow a University Administrator con you in as easy as that, you have no business in a Institute of Higher Learning. Furthermore, Open Source, in all it's guises, is a better way of allowing for the creation of better software, since ideas can be shared, and if needed, money can be made since there usually has to be some money involved somewhere. From what I've seen so far, the GPL means very little cash coming back.
Sorry Mr. Stallman, but it think you're trying to reverse the tide here, not just bail a boat with a spoon.
Soko
Anything that puts the words "cookbook", "omlette" and "flyingmember" together in the same sentence is...un-appetising, at best.
Soko