Now, the theory goes, once the infringing bit is noticed, IBM or Autozone can't be sued as easily anymore
Except that neither IBM nor Autozone have been sued for using alleged "infringing" code in Linux...in fact, no one has.
Seems to me that this kind of "paper trail" will only be useful against a hypothetical litigator that points to a piece of code in Linux and said: "this code here, this infringes on my IP". It's not so useful against a SCO-like "we own it all, so pay up" FUD blitzkrieg.
But with all the thievery of intellectual property, and all the monopolizing tactics of the biggest corporations, maybe this is the protection that the individual/small corporate developers need?
Copyright law already provides authors with protection from their works being stolen. The concept that ideas are ownable (which is what software patents boil down to) is silly and wrong.
I agree that the meaning of this passage in the review was unclear. My take on it was that, if you have *active* users who are contributing feedback, bug reports, even patches, then they are not really "free riders" at all; they are co-developers. In a way, OSS is an economic system that is (partly? mostly?) decoupled from the traditional monetary-compensation paradigm. The code is the currency. Silent users are the "free riders"; those who participate are "paying" for their ride.
Please. Windows comes with barely any software out-of-the-box. The modern multi-CD linux distro comes with basically everything you'll ever need (and a lot more!). So spare us your lame talk about 'bloat'.
Someone throw this guy a nickel so he can go get a {\it real} OS.
I for one have no objection to patents in general, but I do object to overly broad patent claims on software algorithms. Patent law is clear: you can't own an idea, only a specific implementation. Before the information age, this was a clear distinction. But with software, the difference is not clear at all. After all, any software implementation ultimately comes down to a series of ideas, expressed as computer code.
For this reason, I believe it is inappropriate to allow patent claims on software; we should rely on Copyright law alone to protect those who innovate with software. These laws are sufficient to the task, and do not pose the risks of abuse that patent laws do.
What exactly do you think you are right about? Google won an award for building the world's most useful website. This fact is completely independent of the fact that they refuse to take ad money from gun makers. Why should something so irrelevant as their ad choices determine whether or not they are eligible for a Webby?
In short, you have failed to consider the possibility that you were modded troll because your post was a troll. i.e., you used a completely unrelated news item to shout about some random pet peeve of yours. That's a troll, isn't it? If not, it's at least off-topic.
Anyway, it's moot now, since your post is now at +5. Congrats on successfully gaming the system...:)
When we started the Corel LINUX project back in March of 1999, GNOME/GTK was there so we actually reviewed both GNOME and KDE to make sure we used the right desktop environment to start. We had a very short and aggressive cycle and the simplicity of KDE/Qt won again. Looking back, we never regretted about not supporting GNOME at all. Most of us came from OS/2 PM or Windows GUI development or freshly from a new object oriented technology called Java back then. MFC was a big life saver when it came out in Windows in developing GUI apps. Java was even better where everything was simple and made perfect sense. There was no way any of us would like to go back in time and program in something (GNOME/GTK) that was even more awkward than programming in pre-MFC days where we had to deal with the Win32 C API only. KDE/Qt was just like Java where everything (well most of the time anyway) made sense.
We have also seen a lot of poor arguments made on Qt where it cost money if you want to develop a commercial closed source application. Usually people argued that the $500 per developer license fee was just as much as a developer's salary in some third world countries. That may be true but they don't really take into account the months of headaches and development time they will save by using Qt every year. That alone is probably worth the $500. KDE/Qt is simple and is designed for the desktop. We like it and we have no regrets in supporting KDE at all.
I think you're wrong. OSS desktop projects that aren't overly driven by corporate interests evolve in directions that suit the needs of those who program them. So in KDE you see an environment that the KDE devs find comfortable. If it looks too much like another desktop for your tastes, then use something else.
Come on. Scientology has nothing to do with science! It's a wacko cult that believes microscopic aliens control our destinies. Ugh. Did you really think that scientology is the religion for scientists?
I am a scientist, and I know of no scientist whose goal is to "debunk the idea of a creator". Whoever is telling you that is lying.
Science and religion are totally separate endeavors, they have little to do with each other. Now, science *does* from time to time reveal that certain religious beliefs (6000 year-old Earth; Earth at center of the Universe; that all species were created as we see them today) are completely wrong. That some religious people perceive this as a threat is understandable. That they then conclude that scientists are "trying to debunk God" is unfortunate, and untrue.
As a scientist, I can tell you that the Big Bang is not "easy to believe", but if you comprehend the huge mountain of cosmological evidence accumulated over decades, you will accept that the Big Bang theory is the best explanation for all those data. There are parts of the theory that I still have trouble accepting, such as inflation (IANA cosmologist). However, that detail doesn't take away from the evidentiary fact that our Universe *is* expanding, and that it was much, much, *much* smaller/hotter/denser 13.7 billion years ago than it is today.
In fact, it's funny you should mention that it should be easier to accept that God initiated the Big Bang. Because that's the whole point. You can just throw up your hands at any point and say: "well, I don't know. I guess God did it". Yes, it's easier, but it's an intellectual cop-out. People have been doing that for as long as there have been people. Science is a new method of seeking knowledge that says: "well, let's see what happens if we refuse to invoke the 'God of the gaps' cop-out; can we learn anything about the universe by appealing only to rationality and physical evidence?" The answer is yes, we can learn a great deal. Not everything, not yet (perhaps not ever).
I guess my point is, the concept of God *is* completely unscientific, since science is predicated on the assumption that the Universe behaves according to laws that we can understand. An omnipotent being violates this assumption, so whatever "God" does in the universe (such as creating it) necessarily lies outside the realm of science. Many scientists may believe that a Supreme Being initiated the Big Bang, but most of them probably understand that such a belief has nothing to do with science. No value judgement; they are simply separate.
I don't know many (any?) people that "believe" in the big bang theory. There are a lot of people that sort of accept it as a likely consequence of Einstein's theories, but there are competing theories that are becoming more credible as of late.
(0) Scientific theories aren't meant to be "believed"; they represent our best understanding of the present evidence. That science accepts this limitation on what it claims as knowledge is one of its great strengths.
(1) The Big Bang theory stands on its own, it is not a consequence of relativity (special or general) nor of any of Einstein's other theories.
(2) The expansion of the Universe is extremely well established back to when the universe was 0.002 percent its present age, and its mean temperature was equivalent to the surface of a star.
(3) There are no competing theories that are "more credible" than the Big Bang theory at this time. BB theory has evolved a bit, but all the new stuff fits nicely in the big bang/expanding universe paradigm.
(4) The recent WMAP measurement of the Cosmic Microwave Background matched the predictions of Big Bang theory to an exquisite precision not often seen in Science. It's a slam-dunk. In short, if you and the people you know do not accept the Big Bang theory based on current evidence, then I would guess that you have some (religious?) reason to want to "believe" in something else, or you are simply ignorant of the evidence.
Don't forget about IBM's counterclaims, which are the only part of the SCO-IBM case that actually have anything to do with the GPL. I don't think SCO going bankrupt shelters them from IBM's counterclaims, but IANAL.
What people are you talking about? I'm through half the comments, and I've only seen opinions that the sentence should have been longer. FWIW, I agree. Though I must say, they probably could have deduced his speed at impact without the blackbox (although maybe they could not have deduced the fact that he never even used his brakes. That's chilling.)
A menu as such is also pretty easy to miss if you're in a hurry and depending on its modality can reall throw off your chi. If the menu pops up in the bottom left corner of the screen and you've already begun to throw your mouse back towards the right corner you might miss the menu on a busy screen or have to pause to find it again.
There's really no way to miss it. As soon as you release the mouse button the menu appears right where your mouse cursor is (as if you'd right-clicked on that spot). This makes it effortless to consider the menu selection as an integral part of a drag operation. Don't know what you mean by modality, since it isn't a window. You can just press Esc or click outside the menu and it will disappear (but this cancels the drag operation altogether).
I agree that simple interfaces with good defaults are the key to good usability, but I am not convinced that there is a sensible deault action for un-modified drag operations in a file manager. This is why I prefer the popup menu to having the computer assume I meant to move the files.
Anyway, I have enjoyed our conversation. Thanks for your insights.
Slashdot Mirror
Now, the theory goes, once the infringing bit is noticed, IBM or Autozone can't be sued as easily anymore
Except that neither IBM nor Autozone have been sued for using alleged "infringing" code in Linux...in fact, no one has.
Seems to me that this kind of "paper trail" will only be useful against a hypothetical litigator that points to a piece of code in Linux and said: "this code here, this infringes on my IP". It's not so useful against a SCO-like "we own it all, so pay up" FUD blitzkrieg.
But with all the thievery of intellectual property, and all the monopolizing tactics of the biggest corporations, maybe this is the protection that the individual/small corporate developers need?
Copyright law already provides authors with protection from their works being stolen. The concept that ideas are ownable (which is what software patents boil down to) is silly and wrong.
I agree that the meaning of this passage in the review was unclear. My take on it was that, if you have *active* users who are contributing feedback, bug reports, even patches, then they are not really "free riders" at all; they are co-developers. In a way, OSS is an economic system that is (partly? mostly?) decoupled from the traditional monetary-compensation paradigm. The code is the currency. Silent users are the "free riders"; those who participate are "paying" for their ride.
Thanks for posting this.
And people talk about windows bloat...*sheesh*
Please. Windows comes with barely any software out-of-the-box. The modern multi-CD linux distro comes with basically everything you'll ever need (and a lot more!). So spare us your lame talk about 'bloat'.
Someone throw this guy a nickel so he can go get a {\it real} OS.
I for one have no objection to patents in general, but I do object to overly broad patent claims on software algorithms. Patent law is clear: you can't own an idea, only a specific implementation. Before the information age, this was a clear distinction. But with software, the difference is not clear at all. After all, any software implementation ultimately comes down to a series of ideas, expressed as computer code.
For this reason, I believe it is inappropriate to allow patent claims on software; we should rely on Copyright law alone to protect those who innovate with software. These laws are sufficient to the task, and do not pose the risks of abuse that patent laws do.
...or "pot", "kettle", and "black".
because I'm right
:)
What exactly do you think you are right about? Google won an award for building the world's most useful website. This fact is completely independent of the fact that they refuse to take ad money from gun makers. Why should something so irrelevant as their ad choices determine whether or not they are eligible for a Webby?
In short, you have failed to consider the possibility that you were modded troll because your post was a troll. i.e., you used a completely unrelated news item to shout about some random pet peeve of yours. That's a troll, isn't it? If not, it's at least off-topic.
Anyway, it's moot now, since your post is now at +5. Congrats on successfully gaming the system...
Here's some more information for you to ignore:
When we started the Corel LINUX project back in March of 1999, GNOME/GTK was there so we actually reviewed both GNOME and KDE to make sure we used the right desktop environment to start. We had a very short and aggressive cycle and the simplicity of KDE/Qt won again. Looking back, we never regretted about not supporting GNOME at all. Most of us came from OS/2 PM or Windows GUI development or freshly from a new object oriented technology called Java back then. MFC was a big life saver when it came out in Windows in developing GUI apps. Java was even better where everything was simple and made perfect sense. There was no way any of us would like to go back in time and program in something (GNOME/GTK) that was even more awkward than programming in pre-MFC days where we had to deal with the Win32 C API only. KDE/Qt was just like Java where everything (well most of the time anyway) made sense.
We have also seen a lot of poor arguments made on Qt where it cost money if you want to develop a commercial closed source application. Usually people argued that the $500 per developer license fee was just as much as a developer's salary in some third world countries. That may be true but they don't really take into account the months of headaches and development time they will save by using Qt every year. That alone is probably worth the $500. KDE/Qt is simple and is designed for the desktop. We like it and we have no regrets in supporting KDE at all.
the proper usage is "I use the GNU OS, based on a Linux kernel". This may be contracted to "I use GNU/Linux".
I think you're wrong. OSS desktop projects that aren't overly driven by corporate interests evolve in directions that suit the needs of those who program them. So in KDE you see an environment that the KDE devs find comfortable. If it looks too much like another desktop for your tastes, then use something else.
Why not invest the same collective OSS impetus and skill in building a UI?
;)
Heck, while we're dreaming, why not build *two* FOSS desktops?! We could call one "GNOME" and the other "KDE". That would be awesome.
They are female, of course! So is Sojourner.
Did you know that the legal diference between a cult and a religion is whether or not the state defines it as a religion?
No, I didn't know that. I do know the definitions in the Devil's Dictionary:
Cult: A small, unpopular religion.
Religion: A large, popular cult.
I guess that about sums it up.
Come on. Scientology has nothing to do with science! It's a wacko cult that believes microscopic aliens control our destinies. Ugh. Did you really think that scientology is the religion for scientists?
I am a scientist, and I know of no scientist whose goal is to "debunk the idea of a creator". Whoever is telling you that is lying.
Science and religion are totally separate endeavors, they have little to do with each other. Now, science *does* from time to time reveal that certain religious beliefs (6000 year-old Earth; Earth at center of the Universe; that all species were created as we see them today) are completely wrong. That some religious people perceive this as a threat is understandable. That they then conclude that scientists are "trying to debunk God" is unfortunate, and untrue.
As a scientist, I can tell you that the Big Bang is not "easy to believe", but if you comprehend the huge mountain of cosmological evidence accumulated over decades, you will accept that the Big Bang theory is the best explanation for all those data. There are parts of the theory that I still have trouble accepting, such as inflation (IANA cosmologist). However, that detail doesn't take away from the evidentiary fact that our Universe *is* expanding, and that it was much, much, *much* smaller/hotter/denser 13.7 billion years ago than it is today.
In fact, it's funny you should mention that it should be easier to accept that God initiated the Big Bang. Because that's the whole point. You can just throw up your hands at any point and say: "well, I don't know. I guess God did it". Yes, it's easier, but it's an intellectual cop-out. People have been doing that for as long as there have been people. Science is a new method of seeking knowledge that says: "well, let's see what happens if we refuse to invoke the 'God of the gaps' cop-out; can we learn anything about the universe by appealing only to rationality and physical evidence?" The answer is yes, we can learn a great deal. Not everything, not yet (perhaps not ever).
I guess my point is, the concept of God *is* completely unscientific, since science is predicated on the assumption that the Universe behaves according to laws that we can understand. An omnipotent being violates this assumption, so whatever "God" does in the universe (such as creating it) necessarily lies outside the realm of science. Many scientists may believe that a Supreme Being initiated the Big Bang, but most of them probably understand that such a belief has nothing to do with science. No value judgement; they are simply separate.
I don't know many (any?) people that "believe" in the big bang theory. There are a lot of people that sort of accept it as a likely consequence of Einstein's theories, but there are competing theories that are becoming more credible as of late.
(0) Scientific theories aren't meant to be "believed"; they represent our best understanding of the present evidence. That science accepts this limitation on what it claims as knowledge is one of its great strengths.
(1) The Big Bang theory stands on its own, it is not a consequence of relativity (special or general) nor of any of Einstein's other theories.
(2) The expansion of the Universe is extremely well established back to when the universe was 0.002 percent its present age, and its mean temperature was equivalent to the surface of a star.
(3) There are no competing theories that are "more credible" than the Big Bang theory at this time. BB theory has evolved a bit, but all the new stuff fits nicely in the big bang/expanding universe paradigm.
(4) The recent WMAP measurement of the Cosmic Microwave Background matched the predictions of Big Bang theory to an exquisite precision not often seen in Science. It's a slam-dunk. In short, if you and the people you know do not accept the Big Bang theory based on current evidence, then I would guess that you have some (religious?) reason to want to "believe" in something else, or you are simply ignorant of the evidence.
Most [scientists] try to prove there is no God.
Wow. What a profoundly ignorant statement.
Don't forget about IBM's counterclaims, which are the only part of the SCO-IBM case that actually have anything to do with the GPL. I don't think SCO going bankrupt shelters them from IBM's counterclaims, but IANAL.
So I guess Darl won't be "sitting on a beach, earning 20 percent"? Aww yeah.
Yippie kai-yea!
Why game the system when it's working exactly the way we want it to?
Why are people so upset about things like this?
What people are you talking about? I'm through half the comments, and I've only seen opinions that the sentence should have been longer. FWIW, I agree. Though I must say, they probably could have deduced his speed at impact without the blackbox (although maybe they could not have deduced the fact that he never even used his brakes. That's chilling.)
Really, have you tried Qt? It's a pretty fun toolkit in which to code. A beautiful API, IMO.
Suffice to say, I misread the word "pens" in "get their pens ready...". You owe me a keyboard, as mine is now coffee-soaked. ;)
A menu as such is also pretty easy to miss if you're in a hurry and depending on its modality can reall throw off your chi. If the menu pops up in the bottom left corner of the screen and you've already begun to throw your mouse back towards the right corner you might miss the menu on a busy screen or have to pause to find it again.
There's really no way to miss it. As soon as you release the mouse button the menu appears right where your mouse cursor is (as if you'd right-clicked on that spot). This makes it effortless to consider the menu selection as an integral part of a drag operation. Don't know what you mean by modality, since it isn't a window. You can just press Esc or click outside the menu and it will disappear (but this cancels the drag operation altogether).
I agree that simple interfaces with good defaults are the key to good usability, but I am not convinced that there is a sensible deault action for un-modified drag operations in a file manager. This is why I prefer the popup menu to having the computer assume I meant to move the files.
Anyway, I have enjoyed our conversation. Thanks for your insights.