Even the GNU folks have made exceptions in their stance on the GPL in order to make their product the "standard", i.e. Bison. I think that there is a strong argument for allowing this in device drivers as well. It's one of the exceptions which could strengthen the stance of the kernel as a whole.
It would be foolish to restrict drivers in this way, since well written drivers for newer hardware is still in my opinion one of Linux's weak points.
I havent read the actual comments in question but hedging on whether or not to allow such proprietary code to be distributed would be a sign to me that the whole idea and implementation of the GPL, even as close to home as the Linux kernel, has not really been thought out by its proponents and therfore send up major caution flags.
On a side note i feel that saying that code compiled with gcc should be GPL'd since it created the byte code is moronic and in my opinion a masked attempt to envelop code that would or could otherwise be totally unrelated to GPL code at all.
As with any automation process, there is a side effect of commoditizing the target of the automation, but in nine out of ten instances it makes more sense to not reinvent the wheel in each little facet of a project.
Its almost like saying that we should reinvent calculus every time we need to do a calculation because its putting people who would do those measurements manually out of work...pure nonsense.
This is a classic case of technology be used as a pawn by a societal structure not prepared for the responsibility.
This is something that affects all internet users/developers and I think it would make sense and is perfectly logical to use the internet itself to collect the opinion necessary to make decisions on these matters. We're forced to deal with spam on a daily basis and there are numerous sites whom have no trouble collecting the opinions of its users, how is it that a internet policy governing group such as this or the government itself can't execute in a similar fasion.
If they really we're interested in fairness and representation wouldn't this make more sense?
If this isn't the closest thing to the government telling us what to "think" i dont know what is.
Thats it lets firewall all outside traffic to the US, dont want any "propoganda" getting in from those anti-capitalist nations. And while we're at it lets make it so all software must be downloaded from the government servers or bought at government stores...and you thought the bread line was bad in the former USSR...
Supposing that this legislation did pass, how the hell would you enforce it. Obviously it would push many legitimate programmers "underground" but isn't the underground big enough already?
An whats to stop someone from opening a shell account offshore and building their software on that server. Can they legally restrict telecommunications to such a server? If not maybe I should invest in off shore shell accounts for development...
SQL Server 2000 doesnt even beat the previous version of SQL Server let alone MySQL. You must be joking, have you ever run a benchmark on MySQL before?
Any article that doesnt simple drone out the features of C#/.NET, that shows any opinion positive or negative is biased by definition.If someone knows how to write an article for or against.NET that isn't biased please let me know.
As articles go, this one appears to use real problems based in software design principles. No where did he say he hated Microsoft, actually he made at least three points to the contrary and only critized the technology as it was described by its creators.
It's funny how the same users that say why would I switch from Windows to Linux are the same users who complain about crashes and high pricing of Windows apps.
The licensing schemes for Windows for the home user are the least of peoples problems with cost. Office costs far more to license than Windows itself, as does Adobe Photoshop(over 700$).
We have to remember that Wine although a great project and very interesting, will generate more sales for the same companies that overcharge to the extreme for products that would be considered a minor revision upgrade under Linux
I personally feel securing and improving Linux native applications and breaking the corporate grip on the minds of average computer users (aka "I have to have Office 2010 to get any work done!") is far more important to real independence and change.
With information like this easily accessible to the public, how long will it be until someone becomes legally liable for damage done due to the fact that they used poorly written software, failed to follow a futile patching schedule and ignored common sense in general.
Perhaps then business would begin to follow the technology instead of the other way around.
The reason that this should be treated differently from that of say a Microsoft is because the fact is the code is only a small component of a larger project programmed by many authors in the same spirit that the BSD code came out of. They are not trying to profit from the code nor should the acts of 1 individual adversely affect a large conglomerated project such as Linux.
Well we were really talking about what the federal government was doing correct? The airlines are still private although under regulation, would you suggest we have the fed's take control of the airlines..and if so they will have reached their objective in monitoring us just the same.
I found the article good for a point to ponder on and prepare for in the future but the jab at the president and the actions he has to take were not needed to get the point across.
This rings true when you think that there are democratic senators preparing legislation that is just as offensive as those outlined in RMS's words.
I also feel the government already does alot of monitoring of what we do already, especially in the computing realm. Now they're just asking for permission.
Maybe RMS has a solution in which the normal law abiding citizens of the world can go unchecked while only the deviants and those who need to be watched to protect the basic civil liberty of life for the thousands killed at the WTC can be monitored.
Lots of acronyms and so little time... How will Linux become illegal (to whom it applies) and if it does will they prosecute the New York Stock Exchange? Come on...grow up...
You obviously didn't read the law either. Too bad the NYS stock exchange and AMEX are using Linux now too... All me me me... Try all me me me programming tools that are running the economy for you...thats what it really is...
Monopolistic pigs are the ones chanting me me me... and your sitting there supporting the people from whom youve probably bought the same product fifteen times because they decided to put it in a new box? Who's naive here?
Another thought... the document says that cable and radio stations and personal-use situations are allowed and cannot be disallowed by the "technologies". If i record a song with my FM tuner card am I circumventing any technology to do so. I think not, i am simply recording a stream of data transmitted over the public airwaves, there is no security device in place in this operation. So therefore how would the government identify a copy made legally or at least without infringment of the SSSCA and a copy that does infringe? Pro-bono attornies looking to make a name for themselves would have a fieldday with this piece of crap.
This only cuts RedHat out of the exchange of digital information protected by the "certified technologies" if they dont use them. They probably will use them and the document says that the "certified technology" should not be proprietary or unfair to those who would need to use it. What we should be doing is making sure that we can use this technology and lobbying for a technology that we CAN implement, read the document before you start scaring people...
If you read the entire submission the document states that it is only illegal to transmit,circumvent, etc... digital information that is first protected by this standard..
Therefore if linux users do not adopt the standard and do not transmit,etc.. materials already protected then there is no infraction. This is directly aimed for digital commerce of music and the like, for intellectual property holders who want to use it..
Please clarify what this has to do with Linux/*nix who's intellectual property belongs to the public under the GNU Licensing etc...We don't have to use this if we dont want to...we just cant mess with the stuff of people who do adopt it.
There is only one way to take down a Micro$oft or any other monopolistic corporation. Get people in power in our government that will protect consumers and not sell out at the drop of a pile of money.
Check our candidates like Ralph Nader who not only supports and advocates Linux but uses it to power his web site.
No one sitting, posting and forgetting can complain about anything!
Oh I see they're just protecting us...
on
Mundie Responds
·
· Score: 1
I don't recall voting for Microsoft nor do I know anyone who did either? So why are they trying to dictate or influence policy and manage whats good for the economy.
This is the telltale sign that a software company has lost its way... when making quality software for their users takes the back seat to influencing public opinion and policy to solidify their already massively monopolistic position.
It seems that the fluff has taken the front seat in a world of alternatives. I personally have found that for the average user/sysadmin in the medium to small size shop is better off using the non mainstream distribution. It allows those people to give customized solutions for free. If those users, whom I think are the mainstay of linux in the first place, wanted just another commercial bloatware product to use, why even bother using linux in the first place?
I think that their attempt to patent any kind of theming hard or dynamically coded is absurd. I have heard of plans for GNOME to be taken to a non X-dependant method of implementation. So why would they want to get away from X?
More speed maybe? so what if they decide they want to hardcode in a default theme to improve performance even more. Oh...Apple holds a patent on that huh? Oh, well. They are really innovative, wish I had thought of it first... hardcoding that is...please...
I never cease to be confused over the patents I see pass on my browser. I thought the patent system was developed to protect true innovation and not to protect the latest implementation of a concept (that has been around for years) whenever a megacorporation feels the need to protect its latest bell or whistle.
If this is not a bold-faced attack on the ability of the little people of the world to develop any competing products (or alternatives for that matter) then I don't know what is. I used to think RS of GNU was over the top, I am now starting to realize he just understood the misguided plans of our "friends" at Apple and Microsoft (and others).
Slashdot Mirror
Even the GNU folks have made exceptions in their stance on the GPL in order to make their product the "standard", i.e. Bison. I think that there is a strong argument for allowing this in device drivers as well. It's one of the exceptions which could strengthen the stance of the kernel as a whole.
It would be foolish to restrict drivers in this way, since well written drivers for newer hardware is still in my opinion one of Linux's weak points.
I havent read the actual comments in question but hedging on whether or not to allow such proprietary code to be distributed would be a sign to me that the whole idea and implementation of the GPL, even as close to home as the Linux kernel, has not really been thought out by its proponents and therfore send up major caution flags.
On a side note i feel that saying that code compiled with gcc should be GPL'd since it created the byte code is moronic and in my opinion a masked attempt to envelop code that would or could otherwise be totally unrelated to GPL code at all.
Microsoft should use this thread as a commercial.
As with any automation process, there is a side effect of commoditizing the target of the automation, but in nine out of ten instances it makes more sense to not reinvent the wheel in each little facet of a project.
Its almost like saying that we should reinvent calculus every time we need to do a calculation because its putting people who would do those measurements manually out of work...pure nonsense.
This is a classic case of technology be used as a pawn by a societal structure not prepared for the responsibility.
This is something that affects all internet users/developers and I think it would make sense and is perfectly logical to use the internet itself to collect the opinion necessary to make decisions on these matters. We're forced to deal with spam on a daily basis and there are numerous sites whom have no trouble collecting the opinions of its users, how is it that a internet policy governing group such as this or the government itself can't execute in a similar fasion.
If they really we're interested in fairness and representation wouldn't this make more sense?
If this isn't the closest thing to the government telling us what to "think" i dont know what is.
Thats it lets firewall all outside traffic to the US, dont want any "propoganda" getting in from those anti-capitalist nations. And while we're at it lets make it so all software must be downloaded from the government servers or bought at government stores...and you thought the bread line was bad in the former USSR...
Supposing that this legislation did pass, how the hell would you enforce it. Obviously it would push many legitimate programmers "underground" but isn't the underground big enough already?
An whats to stop someone from opening a shell account offshore and building their software on that server. Can they legally restrict telecommunications to such a server? If not maybe I should invest in off shore shell accounts for development...
SQL Server 2000 doesnt even beat the previous version of SQL Server let alone MySQL. You must be joking, have you ever run a benchmark on MySQL before?
Any article that doesnt simple drone out the features of C#/.NET, that shows any opinion positive or negative is biased by definition.If someone knows how to write an article for or against .NET that isn't biased please let me know.
As articles go, this one appears to use real problems based in software design principles. No where did he say he hated Microsoft, actually he made at least three points to the contrary and only critized the technology as it was described by its creators.
Overall a poor choice for this post.
It's funny how the same users that say why would I switch from Windows to Linux are the same users who complain about crashes and high pricing of Windows apps.
The licensing schemes for Windows for the home user are the least of peoples problems with cost. Office costs far more to license than Windows itself, as does Adobe Photoshop(over 700$).
We have to remember that Wine although a great project and very interesting, will generate more sales for the same companies that overcharge to the extreme for products that would be considered a minor revision upgrade under Linux
I personally feel securing and improving Linux native applications and breaking the corporate grip on the minds of average computer users (aka "I have to have Office 2010 to get any work done!") is far more important to real independence and change.
Who passes this legislation?; it wouldn't be the same folks who are trying to treat us to some new legislation here would it?
Of all the troubles we have had as of late this is the best thing our government can find to legislate?
Perhaps some oversight into the senate's commerce committee is in order.
Like my father always used to tell me, "I don't know what the hell is going on, alls i know is that someones getting paid."
With information like this easily accessible to the public, how long will it be until someone becomes legally liable for damage done due to the fact that they used poorly written software, failed to follow a futile patching schedule and ignored common sense in general.
Perhaps then business would begin to follow the technology instead of the other way around.
The reason that this should be treated differently from that of say a Microsoft is because the fact is the code is only a small component of a larger project programmed by many authors in the same spirit that the BSD code came out of. They are not trying to profit from the code nor should the acts of 1 individual adversely affect a large conglomerated project such as Linux.
Therefore the airlines are not at least currently capable of doing the job without the government butting in. So the solution is?
Well we were really talking about what the federal government was doing correct? The airlines are still private although under regulation, would you suggest we have the fed's take control of the airlines..and if so they will have reached their objective in monitoring us just the same.
I found the article good for a point to ponder on and prepare for in the future but the jab at the president and the actions he has to take were not needed to get the point across.
This rings true when you think that there are democratic senators preparing legislation that is just as offensive as those outlined in RMS's words.
I also feel the government already does alot of monitoring of what we do already, especially in the computing realm. Now they're just asking for permission.
Maybe RMS has a solution in which the normal law abiding citizens of the world can go unchecked while only the deviants and those who need to be watched to protect the basic civil liberty of life for the thousands killed at the WTC can be monitored.
If so I would love to see the code... :)
Lots of acronyms and so little time... How will Linux become illegal (to whom it applies) and if it does will they prosecute the New York Stock Exchange? Come on...grow up...
You obviously didn't read the law either. Too bad the NYS stock exchange and AMEX are using Linux now too... All me me me... Try all me me me programming tools that are running the economy for you...thats what it really is...
Monopolistic pigs are the ones chanting me me me... and your sitting there supporting the people from whom youve probably bought the same product fifteen times because they decided to put it in a new box? Who's naive here?
Another thought... the document says that cable and radio stations and personal-use situations are allowed and cannot be disallowed by the "technologies". If i record a song with my FM tuner card am I circumventing any technology to do so. I think not, i am simply recording a stream of data transmitted over the public airwaves, there is no security device in place in this operation. So therefore how would the government identify a copy made legally or at least without infringment of the SSSCA and a copy that does infringe? Pro-bono attornies looking to make a name for themselves would have a fieldday with this piece of crap.
This only cuts RedHat out of the exchange of digital information protected by the "certified technologies" if they dont use them. They probably will use them and the document says that the "certified technology" should not be proprietary or unfair to those who would need to use it. What we should be doing is making sure that we can use this technology and lobbying for a technology that we CAN implement, read the document before you start scaring people...
If you read the entire submission the document states that it is only illegal to transmit,circumvent, etc... digital information that is first protected by this standard..
Therefore if linux users do not adopt the standard and do not transmit,etc.. materials already protected then there is no infraction. This is directly aimed for digital commerce of music and the like, for intellectual property holders who want to use it..
Please clarify what this has to do with Linux/*nix who's intellectual property belongs to the public under the GNU Licensing etc...We don't have to use this if we dont want to...we just cant mess with the stuff of people who do adopt it.There is only one way to take down a Micro$oft or any other monopolistic corporation. Get people in power in our government that will protect consumers and not sell out at the drop of a pile of money.
Check our candidates like Ralph Nader who not only supports and advocates Linux but uses it to power his web site.
No one sitting, posting and forgetting can complain about anything!
I don't recall voting for Microsoft nor do I know anyone who did either? So why are they trying to dictate or influence policy and manage whats good for the economy.
This is the telltale sign that a software company has lost its way... when making quality software for their users takes the back seat to influencing public opinion and policy to solidify their already massively monopolistic position.
It seems that the fluff has taken the front seat in a world of alternatives. I personally have found that for the average user/sysadmin in the medium to small size shop is better off using the non mainstream distribution. It allows those people to give customized solutions for free. If those users, whom I think are the mainstay of linux in the first place, wanted just another commercial bloatware product to use, why even bother using linux in the first place?
I agree whole heartedly...I hearby dennouce use of all Apple products for life. Lol...
I think that their attempt to patent any kind of theming hard or dynamically coded is absurd. I have heard of plans for GNOME to be taken to a non X-dependant method of implementation. So why would they want to get away from X?
More speed maybe? so what if they decide they want to hardcode in a default theme to improve performance even more. Oh...Apple holds a patent on that huh? Oh, well. They are really innovative, wish I had thought of it first... hardcoding that is...please...
I never cease to be confused over the patents I see pass on my browser. I thought the patent system was developed to protect true innovation and not to protect the latest implementation of a concept (that has been around for years) whenever a megacorporation feels the need to protect its latest bell or whistle.
If this is not a bold-faced attack on the ability of the little people of the world to develop any competing products (or alternatives for that matter) then I don't know what is. I used to think RS of GNU was over the top, I am now starting to realize he just understood the misguided plans of our "friends" at Apple and Microsoft (and others).