Hm........ They chose to buy proprietary software in the first place. If their chose ignorance has as a result people getting harmed, and copyright violations, then their ignorance is responsible. As they chose to be ignorant, they are responsible for that.
If I were a big company, I could always create a phantom company, and buy a proprietary rootkit from them, install it on your machine, and then claim i't not my fault because I didn't know it was a rootkit. Ignorance could be an excuse if it weren't your choice, but they chose to buy this software in the first place, instead of buying sources for example.
That's a ridiculous excuse. Next thing, you could see Coca-Cola adding actual coke derivatives to their beverages, and then claiming they bought them from another company, and they didn't know what it was made of.
Hm........ I just don't get it. People with accessibility problems have foundations that try to take care of them. People who write open source software, and free software developers, do like money, too. They can develop software for hire, too. It doesn't need to only scratch their own itches, and be made for free. It would be easy to take the money they spend on proprietary software, and use it to improve free software, hiring people to do it. It's just more bang for the buck. You get the accesibility features implemented, and you can help form a community that shares those features, and evem developer resources. That kind of community could have much more power to achieve accesibility goals, than the one you achieve as a consumer, but spending the same kind of money.
The principles of OSS are not about making no cost softare for the community. OSS is all about openness, not about cost, and not even about freedom.
Free software is about making software free for the users, so they don't lose freedom when using the software (freedom to share it, to imporve it, and to sahre modifications they make).
Free software advocate developers develop free softwware, because they think that all software should be free, and they do that part. They win themselves, by being part of a community that shares their software.
Free Software and Open Source Software are fundamentally different. There is no philosphy behind OSS. that "FOSS" buzzword means nothing specific.
People who develop free software, or open source software, for that matter, don't do that because they like to work for free. Many of them are paid. The whole idea is that each of them has their reasons to keep ther software open, or free. OSS developers fundamentally like technology to work together, and some companies embrace OS Software. Free sfotware developers free their software, because they want to help build free software platforms, where users have more freedom than with proprietary alternatives. Nobody said they do it for free. Some do. Some don't. It's not about altruism in this case, it's about ideals.
That free consulting thing you were talking about looks like IT charity. I don't think charity works that well. I like actions that fundamentally change stuff, specially regarding the current state of software. Charity is good for keeping static the statu quo, not for changing it. The free software movement is not about people doing charitable work for others, it's about people protecting their freedom, and other people's freedom, too.
They're not stealing code, they're infringing on the author's copyrights by not respecting the license under which the code is be distributed (in exactly the same way people who "share" Sony/BMG music via p2p etc infringe on Sony/BMG's and the the artists' copyrights).
They are not stealing code, you are right. It's copyright infringement. It's not the same, because they are making a profit off it, and doing it on a great scale. It's not the same to infringe copyrights sharing with others as using other peoples copyrighted works and selling them for a profit. It's comparable to making industrial CD copies, and selling them on a store. When you distribute a lonely Lame executable binary amongst your friends, or even if you put it on a website or edonkey, for everyone to enjoy, then that would be comparable t what people do with music. Selling it for a profit is much bigger an issue.
Ok. Post your idle software to Sourceforge, and then an Ask Slashdot like this: "Any good developers that would like to help me with making a free CAD tool? I have already the 5%, I need you to help me with the rest!"
Apart from its misguided sarcasm, why is this marked as a troll? This is the whole point of the free software movement: to rewrite what has been developed and to write what hasn't under an OSS license so that everyone should be able to use the software regardless of their income.
WRONG! The whole point of the free software movement is not monetary, ut ethical. Free software ideals state that proprietary software takes freedom away from users. The freedom to modify it, the freedom to share, and the freedom to share your improvements with a community.
It doesn't say anything about poor people getting software for free. Of course, it's nice that, as the users have the freedom to share with everybody ther software, those who can't afford it, can get it for free. But that's just human nature working, the principles behind free software are more basic.
The task of developing a free software platform, like GNU, and replacing mainstream software is about helping people get rid of proprietary software. It's used to help liberate other sotware, too, because it's easier to develop on top of GNU than to use proprietary software, but that, in many cases, forces the one who do that to release their software as free software. That's the benefit.
Although RMS would tell you that using proprietary software _is_ unethical, I don't think he wants the FSF to fund an AutoCAD replacement. _I_ believe that the ones that should make a replacement are the ones that actually use it, instead of paying for ACAD licenses, they might join and build a good enough replacement.
Many industries have done that kind of thing. Look at moviemakers: cinepaint, several renderers, even blender!
The mission of the FSf is not providing no cost software to the masses, it's more like helping users keep their freedom by getting rid of proprietary software. Not the same thing.
I think the guy is looking at this the other way around, and with some corrections.
Open source doesn't even mean free as in beer. Free software doesn't, either, but from a community POV, make more sense.
The actual question is: why are the benefits of free software overlooked by the CAD community?
3d modeling was arguably niche, and 3d enthusiasts joined together and liberated a great, but not commercially succesful project, Blender. They raised $ 100k , and now the software is free, GPL free, and it's movie-grade right now.
I believe you could do the same. Look for people like you, that are willing to invest their money, join together, and pay someone experienced to do the work for you. Take some incomplete project, or several, and with some money you could get free software for your field.
There is no "open source community" that produces software.
Open source software is mainly produced by foundations, and enterprises. Free software (that also happens to be open source) is produced by that kind of people, plus some enthusiasts. The thing that they share, is that they benefit from the software being free, or at least open.
Seeing that the one who will benefit is the poster of the article, I think the answer is obvious. If he is not willing to invest money/time in free software for his field, well, maybe other people aren't, either. So nobody benefits.
That's the "stripper" part of the weird analogy. I was saying that listening without paying is much the same as looking without paying.
Of course you can say you want people to pay you to look at something or to listen to something. Of course, you can articially limit access to your content, so they can't listen or look without paying. The fact is that if they listen or look ar something without paying, it's just tough luck for you. The only thing that protects you is some government granted monopoly on distribution, but you expectations to sell something, and the lost revenue, compared to your expectations, is not comparable to losing property, because, well, because it's just not. There's no reasoning that leads from one to the other, aside from the "lost revenue" issue. The problem is that property does have a somewhat objective value, and revenue expectations don't, so even that issue does not hold water. The monopoly on distribution is not property, it's a contract. Breaking that monopoly would be something like a breach of contract, not a theft, it's too different from theft to call it like that. It's like saying that when I bake my own bread I am stealing the bakery their expected revenue, even if they had a monopoly on bread making, and I used their recipe, it's not theft, it's just another thing, and what applies to theft, doesn't apply to this.
Re:Uh-oh... bad wording choice there, Mr. AP
on
Grokster Shutting Down?
·
· Score: 4, Informative
It's not stealing, just because it's not stealing.
Suppose you had a girlfriend (just for the sake of the argument). If someone looks at your girlfriend in a weird way, you cant say it's a rapist. You can make all analogies you want, and say that the guy has X-ray goggles, but some guy who looks at your girlfriend is not f**kin your girlfriend. You can even say that you want him to pay, because she is a stripper, and charges for people looking at her tits, and he is causing you lost revenue.
This is much the same. People who copy songs or movies are not doing anything that they could go to jail for. It's a civil issue. They risk being sued. They are not thieves. They are copyright infringers. It's just another thing, and calling one thing with the name of another thing is not healthy, specially for legal stuff. It ends up contaminating the original concepts. The whole idea of copyright infringement not being theft is that copyright is not something sacred, it's just a "temporary" government granted monopoly, and by infringing that monopoly you might or might not hurt the guy that the monopoly was assigned to, so it's his decission to sue you or not.
Hm.... I missed miserabily your nationality, I just took the risk, because it would have been a great hit! Sorry, I'm embarrassed.
I agree with you that other regimes atrocities put them in the same corner with nazis, and don't make nazis any less evil. What I was trying to fight was the rethoric that calls the nazis the evil"est", so nobody can be compared to them, and nobody is like them, and everybody is good compared to them. To clarify, I say: nazis are not _absolute_ evil. I was not implying that they were any less than what you might think. I was trying (and failing, I suppose) to say that the distance needed to become like them is not as long as the "absolute evil" rethoric implies. Aside from that, the whole concept of absolute evil is too religious for my taste, and it helps religious fundamentalists of every kind.
About communism, I agree with you about the results, but I was only discussing the intentions originally.
US people usually use the nazis as some superlative evil enemy. Superlatives are the foundation of totalitarians. What I meant originally is that is does no good to anybody, because that line of reasoning helps some guys say: well, we are bad, but we are not like the , and we need to do this bad stuff to protect you from . I believe it's better to understand that the nazis were people, just like everybody, and that everybody is capable of the stuff they were capable of. So, we need to protect ourselves from everybody, not just , because the enemy can be everywhere, and assigning all evil to some entity only makes you more vulnerable.
You seem to have a spanish background (you said "dictadure", instead of "dictatorship"). So I'm not talking about you, I'm talking about the ones that rule the world.
About the winners of the war being responsible for the current state of affairs, well...
You seem to have a spanish background (you said "dictadure", instead of "dictatorship"). So I'm not talking about you, I'm talking about the ones that rule the world.
Latin american countries (where you seem to have your bacground, although you seem to try to hide it) have lived under the rule of the US, specifically.
In most latin american countries, economic policies are imposed by the US, and dictatorships were supported by the US, and they are responsible of the huge debt we have right now. That is the kind of debt that makes unemployment rates ridiculously high, and takes kids out of the schools, and in the streets, and kills your future.
Africa seems to have lived a similar problem, although you might say it's an older problem.
Middle East current statu quo was fabricated by WWII winners. Israel didn't get their nukes by themselves. Iraq is a US construction as a military power.
And what the US didn't do, the soviets did. Their fight around the golbe is was is causing trouble right now.
And about communism. I was arguing about the whole idea behind communism, Marx didn't like the idea of oppressed masses. You can say that communism failed, that it's too vulnerable to degeneration in practice (and you would be right), but you can't say it's not based on an ideal of equality. And that was what I was responding to.
As any specialist in ergonomics would tell you, what you propose is impossible for most specimens of the human species. In general, most men either don't have the required length, or at least they can't twist their penises (while erect) enough to perform that action in conformance to regular standards.
Hm....... I don't know about nazis being socialists, but communism in Russia _was_ about a more equitable world.
The guys were freed from a despotic monarchy, and tried to build a better place for everybody. The fact that it didn't work, and they were very fragile to despots says nothing about what they wanted originally, and what they fought for.
About the nazis, well, they had twisted minds, of course. They were not the first genocids in history, though, not even in recent history. I don't think they were any superlative, as people usually imply, here. Many countries committed awful crimes against humanity, too.
If you look at the new world built by the winners, I think you should have a hard time saying they were good to the world.
Now, when you see people dying or living like shit everywhere in the third world because of only economical reasons, you don't stop to think that it's WWII winners who made the world what it is now. I wouldn't call it non-evil.
Re:I've got news for them...
on
Yahoo's Geek Statue
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
You suspect. They research. Most Human Interfaces specialists will tell you why "archive" is better than "delete". All actions should be reversible when possible. "Delete" is not reversible. That is a usability nightmare. getting rid of that function for good would even be nice. If you look at standalone mail programs, they don't delete the mail, they send it to a "Trash" folder. That way, you can undo that action easily. When you need space, you have to explicitly empty that folder. The problem is that now you lose that "undelete" operation. You might say you don't need it, but the reason that they have it is that people use it. The problem with common approaches to the trash bin, in my opinion, is that it's not clear for the user _when_ you actually lose the "undelete" option, specially if you have filters that delete messages older than _X_ days. With a new name for the trash folder ("archived"), Google keeps the functionality (one-button move-to-trash) but fixes it a bit (naming it "archive" helps understanding the importance of apparently unimportant mail.
First they came for the communists, I did not speak out because I was not a communist.
When they came for the social democrats, I did not speak out because I was not a social democrat.
When they came for the trade unionists I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist.
When they came for the Jews I did not speak out because I was not a Jew;
And when they came for me, there was no one left to speak out.
----------
I don't watch a lot of TV, either, but these guys are restricting your freedom to do lots of other things, to protect their TV stuff. While you are not watching TV, you might lose more than you think.
Try not to promote endless offtopic discussions. This thread is about respect, not commercial success. Even the article is about respect. The guy wants to know why he doesn't get respect from the "open source zealots". I chose to give my view to help understand the issue. I don't think "open source zealots", whatever that means, should care about where he runs his software. Open source is a technical thing. On the other hand, his project _does_ go against free software ideals, so free software "zealots" will give him no respect, specially because they (or we) see it as an ethical issue. It seems the guy wanted to know why that happens, and I was trying to help. You are just trolling. I don't mind how much of a commercial success they are. I am not talking about that. The original article wasn't about that either.
Even Linux was heavily dependant on GNU, which pre-existed it.
Linux as a kernel is not dependant on GNU. "Linux distros" are actually GNU distributions + a Linux kernel, so of course they use GNU, but GNU/Linux is a combination of GNU and another thing, not a post-mortem derivative of GNU.
Free as in "free software", "software libre", "GPL", means free not just in cost, but also free from restrictions.
Of course, DNN might be free, but it promotes using propriteary software, and that is bad thing for free software, so that's why it wouldn't get _my_ respect, even if I knew what it does.
People who care about free software, don't give any respect to people who don't. Period. that is because it's not a technical issue, it's an ethical issue. Of course, when someone doesn't share your ethics, it's usual that they don't live up to them. So it's usual that they don't get respect from you.
First, he was stating the difference between open source and free software. He was stating the goal of a free software advocate, not everyone's.
Free software is not just about free _developers_. It's about free _users_.
I want software to be free. I agree to take some freedom away from _distributors_ (not developer), and give it to the _users_, no matter whether they are developers or not.
The GPL assures that no _distributor_ takes freedom away from users or developers.
The whole idea of the GPL is promoting the spread of free software, by forcing distributors to refrain from restricting users and developers freedom.
Of course, someone does lose freedom. Distributors. Developers and users are protected. Free software is not about protecting distributors. It's about protecting users freedom. Not hypocritical.
You missed one. It's not "pirates". Pirates kill people.
People who copy stuff, many times, do it to benefit themselves, and other people, and nobody else gets hurt. Some times, like in this example, they are reaping other peoples benefits. Of course, it's a very heterogeneous group of people. So "pirate" does not define "people who copy stuff". It's very rare that a person kills people in order to copy a movie, although it might happen. So that word "pirate" is no good.
The problem is that if you call people who copy and distribute movies before their release, "pirates", you might have a strong analogy. When you use it then to name people who use Napster, that word, "pirate", you are losing all credit.
Getting unauthorized copies and distributing them, in direct competition with the original distributor is not the same thing as copying some of your friends mp3, or saving your Tivo content to your computer, or even sharing it.
Re:How much difference between Java and C++?
on
OpenOffice Bloated?
·
· Score: 1
I have the oddest suspicion that if they wrote the whole thing in the most appropriate single language, it would be faster. I *know* that MS-XML filter would be faster had they written it in C++ instead of Java.
Java is great for parsers. Debugging them is easier. When they fail, they throw an exception. When C++ programs fail, they can make vulnerabilities, sometimes. It's much easier to have a robust parser in Java. A good parser, a fast parser, maybe it would take more work, but robustness is key.
It's not nonsense. It can be modeled by a second (or bigger, of course) order differential equation, and you are messing with it in a boundary of the domain.
That's where you mess with stuff you want to tinker with it, on its boundaries. On most complex systems, there are sweet spots that can control unproportionally greater areas.
And cities are pretty small, and they have huge benefits.
Trees are in fact part of the weather, of course. Think Amazonas. Amazonas does stuff to the weather, of course, although it's not specifically about the wind.
That's what I meant, that a wind farm, or planting lots of huge trees in an unusual area, might bring local, or not so local consequences to the weather in that region, or it might have big consequences, if it messes with some unstable system.
One of my favorite features is the form of auto-completion and showing function prototypes.
I tell him that I don't need it, because I have al lthat, and more. I don't care if Visual Studio has more stuff, or not. I really don't care. I was just saying why I don't need to use it. For that, I said why I did have to use it before. I used it to make standalone EXE apps. I used it for syntax highlighting and intellisense. Now I don't need it, so I have no reason to use it, period. Those things were great for me, ten years ago. Eclipse has the set of features I thing are great right now, for me. That is the comparison.
About black/white and grey. Microsoft makes proprietary software. That's black. I don't trust them. that's black, too. VS might have lots of features, but I'm not in need of any new features, because I like Eclipse. I didn't say VS is a bad choice, although I do think it is, for non just technical reasons, at least.
There's no grey regarding this issue. There are two big platforms for the mid-future..NET and Java. Java is way better in lots of non strictly technical issues, licenses, patents, source code, community. Only if.NET had great technical advantages over Java, it would be worth to even look at it, so I could work in narrowing the gap. And it doesn't seem to, at least by what my.NET developer friends tell me (I don't want better advice, thank you very much).
Slashdot Mirror
Hm........
They chose to buy proprietary software in the first place.
If their chose ignorance has as a result people getting harmed, and copyright violations, then their ignorance is responsible. As they chose to be ignorant, they are responsible for that.
If I were a big company, I could always create a phantom company, and buy a proprietary rootkit from them, install it on your machine, and then claim i't not my fault because I didn't know it was a rootkit.
Ignorance could be an excuse if it weren't your choice, but they chose to buy this software in the first place, instead of buying sources for example.
That's a ridiculous excuse. Next thing, you could see Coca-Cola adding actual coke derivatives to their beverages, and then claiming they bought them from another company, and they didn't know what it was made of.
Hm........
I just don't get it.
People with accessibility problems have foundations that try to take care of them.
People who write open source software, and free software developers, do like money, too.
They can develop software for hire, too. It doesn't need to only scratch their own itches, and be made for free.
It would be easy to take the money they spend on proprietary software, and use it to improve free software, hiring people to do it.
It's just more bang for the buck. You get the accesibility features implemented, and you can help form a community that shares those features, and evem developer resources.
That kind of community could have much more power to achieve accesibility goals, than the one you achieve as a consumer, but spending the same kind of money.
The principles of OSS are not about making no cost softare for the community.
OSS is all about openness, not about cost, and not even about freedom.
Free software is about making software free for the users, so they don't lose freedom when using the software (freedom to share it, to imporve it, and to sahre modifications they make).
Free software advocate developers develop free softwware, because they think that all software should be free, and they do that part. They win themselves, by being part of a community that shares their software.
Free Software and Open Source Software are fundamentally different. There is no philosphy behind OSS. that "FOSS" buzzword means nothing specific.
People who develop free software, or open source software, for that matter, don't do that because they like to work for free. Many of them are paid. The whole idea is that each of them has their reasons to keep ther software open, or free.
OSS developers fundamentally like technology to work together, and some companies embrace OS Software.
Free sfotware developers free their software, because they want to help build free software platforms, where users have more freedom than with proprietary alternatives. Nobody said they do it for free. Some do. Some don't. It's not about altruism in this case, it's about ideals.
That free consulting thing you were talking about looks like IT charity. I don't think charity works that well. I like actions that fundamentally change stuff, specially regarding the current state of software. Charity is good for keeping static the statu quo, not for changing it. The free software movement is not about people doing charitable work for others, it's about people protecting their freedom, and other people's freedom, too.
They're not stealing code, they're infringing on the author's copyrights by not respecting the license under which the code is be distributed (in exactly the same way people who "share" Sony/BMG music via p2p etc infringe on Sony/BMG's and the the artists' copyrights).
They are not stealing code, you are right. It's copyright infringement.
It's not the same, because they are making a profit off it, and doing it on a great scale. It's not the same to infringe copyrights sharing with others as using other peoples copyrighted works and selling them for a profit.
It's comparable to making industrial CD copies, and selling them on a store.
When you distribute a lonely Lame executable binary amongst your friends, or even if you put it on a website or edonkey, for everyone to enjoy, then that would be comparable t what people do with music. Selling it for a profit is much bigger an issue.
Ok.
Post your idle software to Sourceforge, and then an Ask Slashdot like this:
"Any good developers that would like to help me with making a free CAD tool? I have already the 5%, I need you to help me with the rest!"
Apart from its misguided sarcasm, why is this marked as a troll? This is the whole point of the free software movement: to rewrite what has been developed and to write what hasn't under an OSS license so that everyone should be able to use the software regardless of their income.
WRONG!
The whole point of the free software movement is not monetary, ut ethical.
Free software ideals state that proprietary software takes freedom away from users.
The freedom to modify it, the freedom to share, and the freedom to share your improvements with a community.
It doesn't say anything about poor people getting software for free. Of course, it's nice that, as the users have the freedom to share with everybody ther software, those who can't afford it, can get it for free. But that's just human nature working, the principles behind free software are more basic.
The task of developing a free software platform, like GNU, and replacing mainstream software is about helping people get rid of proprietary software. It's used to help liberate other sotware, too, because it's easier to develop on top of GNU than to use proprietary software, but that, in many cases, forces the one who do that to release their software as free software. That's the benefit.
Although RMS would tell you that using proprietary software _is_ unethical, I don't think he wants the FSF to fund an AutoCAD replacement. _I_ believe that the ones that should make a replacement are the ones that actually use it, instead of paying for ACAD licenses, they might join and build a good enough replacement.
Many industries have done that kind of thing. Look at moviemakers: cinepaint, several renderers, even blender!
The mission of the FSf is not providing no cost software to the masses, it's more like helping users keep their freedom by getting rid of proprietary software. Not the same thing.
I think the guy is looking at this the other way around, and with some corrections.
Open source doesn't even mean free as in beer.
Free software doesn't, either, but from a community POV, make more sense.
The actual question is: why are the benefits of free software overlooked by the CAD community?
3d modeling was arguably niche, and 3d enthusiasts joined together and liberated a great, but not commercially succesful project, Blender. They raised $ 100k , and now the software is free, GPL free, and it's movie-grade right now.
I believe you could do the same. Look for people like you, that are willing to invest their money, join together, and pay someone experienced to do the work for you. Take some incomplete project, or several, and with some money you could get free software for your field.
There is no "open source community" that produces software.
Open source software is mainly produced by foundations, and enterprises.
Free software (that also happens to be open source) is produced by that kind of people, plus some enthusiasts.
The thing that they share, is that they benefit from the software being free, or at least open.
Seeing that the one who will benefit is the poster of the article, I think the answer is obvious. If he is not willing to invest money/time in free software for his field, well, maybe other people aren't, either. So nobody benefits.
That's the "stripper" part of the weird analogy.
I was saying that listening without paying is much the same as looking without paying.
Of course you can say you want people to pay you to look at something or to listen to something. Of course, you can articially limit access to your content, so they can't listen or look without paying.
The fact is that if they listen or look ar something without paying, it's just tough luck for you. The only thing that protects you is some government granted monopoly on distribution, but you expectations to sell something, and the lost revenue, compared to your expectations, is not comparable to losing property, because, well, because it's just not. There's no reasoning that leads from one to the other, aside from the "lost revenue" issue. The problem is that property does have a somewhat objective value, and revenue expectations don't, so even that issue does not hold water. The monopoly on distribution is not property, it's a contract. Breaking that monopoly would be something like a breach of contract, not a theft, it's too different from theft to call it like that.
It's like saying that when I bake my own bread I am stealing the bakery their expected revenue, even if they had a monopoly on bread making, and I used their recipe, it's not theft, it's just another thing, and what applies to theft, doesn't apply to this.
It's not stealing, just because it's not stealing.
Suppose you had a girlfriend (just for the sake of the argument). If someone looks at your girlfriend in a weird way, you cant say it's a rapist. You can make all analogies you want, and say that the guy has X-ray goggles, but some guy who looks at your girlfriend is not f**kin your girlfriend. You can even say that you want him to pay, because she is a stripper, and charges for people looking at her tits, and he is causing you lost revenue.
This is much the same. People who copy songs or movies are not doing anything that they could go to jail for. It's a civil issue. They risk being sued. They are not thieves. They are copyright infringers. It's just another thing, and calling one thing with the name of another thing is not healthy, specially for legal stuff. It ends up contaminating the original concepts. The whole idea of copyright infringement not being theft is that copyright is not something sacred, it's just a "temporary" government granted monopoly, and by infringing that monopoly you might or might not hurt the guy that the monopoly was assigned to, so it's his decission to sue you or not.
Hm.... I missed miserabily your nationality, I just took the risk, because it would have been a great hit! Sorry, I'm embarrassed.
I agree with you that other regimes atrocities put them in the same corner with nazis, and don't make nazis any less evil. What I was trying to fight was the rethoric that calls the nazis the evil"est", so nobody can be compared to them, and nobody is like them, and everybody is good compared to them.
To clarify, I say: nazis are not _absolute_ evil. I was not implying that they were any less than what you might think. I was trying (and failing, I suppose) to say that the distance needed to become like them is not as long as the "absolute evil" rethoric implies.
Aside from that, the whole concept of absolute evil is too religious for my taste, and it helps religious fundamentalists of every kind.
About communism, I agree with you about the results, but I was only discussing the intentions originally.
I used the completely opposite logic.
US people usually use the nazis as some superlative evil enemy. Superlatives are the foundation of totalitarians.
What I meant originally is that is does no good to anybody, because that line of reasoning helps some guys say: well, we are bad, but we are not like the , and we need to do this bad stuff to protect you from .
I believe it's better to understand that the nazis were people, just like everybody, and that everybody is capable of the stuff they were capable of. So, we need to protect ourselves from everybody, not just , because the enemy can be everywhere, and assigning all evil to some entity only makes you more vulnerable.
You seem to have a spanish background (you said "dictadure", instead of "dictatorship").
So I'm not talking about you, I'm talking about the ones that rule the world.
About the winners of the war being responsible for the current state of affairs, well...
You seem to have a spanish background (you said "dictadure", instead of "dictatorship").
So I'm not talking about you, I'm talking about the ones that rule the world.
Latin american countries (where you seem to have your bacground, although you seem to try to hide it) have lived under the rule of the US, specifically.
In most latin american countries, economic policies are imposed by the US, and dictatorships were supported by the US, and they are responsible of the huge debt we have right now. That is the kind of debt that makes unemployment rates ridiculously high, and takes kids out of the schools, and in the streets, and kills your future.
Africa seems to have lived a similar problem, although you might say it's an older problem.
Middle East current statu quo was fabricated by WWII winners. Israel didn't get their nukes by themselves. Iraq is a US construction as a military power.
And what the US didn't do, the soviets did. Their fight around the golbe is was is causing trouble right now.
And about communism. I was arguing about the whole idea behind communism, Marx didn't like the idea of oppressed masses. You can say that communism failed, that it's too vulnerable to degeneration in practice (and you would be right), but you can't say it's not based on an ideal of equality. And that was what I was responding to.
As any specialist in ergonomics would tell you, what you propose is impossible for most specimens of the human species.
In general, most men either don't have the required length, or at least they can't twist their penises (while erect) enough to perform that action in conformance to regular standards.
Hm....... I don't know about nazis being socialists, but communism in Russia _was_ about a more equitable world.
The guys were freed from a despotic monarchy, and tried to build a better place for everybody. The fact that it didn't work, and they were very fragile to despots says nothing about what they wanted originally, and what they fought for.
About the nazis, well, they had twisted minds, of course. They were not the first genocids in history, though, not even in recent history. I don't think they were any superlative, as people usually imply, here. Many countries committed awful crimes against humanity, too.
If you look at the new world built by the winners, I think you should have a hard time saying they were good to the world.
Now, when you see people dying or living like shit everywhere in the third world because of only economical reasons, you don't stop to think that it's WWII winners who made the world what it is now. I wouldn't call it non-evil.
You suspect.
They research.
Most Human Interfaces specialists will tell you why "archive" is better than "delete".
All actions should be reversible when possible. "Delete" is not reversible. That is a usability nightmare. getting rid of that function for good would even be nice.
If you look at standalone mail programs, they don't delete the mail, they send it to a "Trash" folder. That way, you can undo that action easily. When you need space, you have to explicitly empty that folder. The problem is that now you lose that "undelete" operation. You might say you don't need it, but the reason that they have it is that people use it. The problem with common approaches to the trash bin, in my opinion, is that it's not clear for the user _when_ you actually lose the "undelete" option, specially if you have filters that delete messages older than _X_ days.
With a new name for the trash folder ("archived"), Google keeps the functionality (one-button move-to-trash) but fixes it a bit (naming it "archive" helps understanding the importance of apparently unimportant mail.
First they came for the communists,
I did not speak out
because I was not a communist.
When they came for the social democrats,
I did not speak out
because I was not a social democrat.
When they came for the trade unionists
I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
When they came for the Jews
I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew;
And when they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.
----------
I don't watch a lot of TV, either, but these guys are restricting your freedom to do lots of other things, to protect their TV stuff. While you are not watching TV, you might lose more than you think.
Try not to promote endless offtopic discussions.
This thread is about respect, not commercial success. Even the article is about respect.
The guy wants to know why he doesn't get respect from the "open source zealots".
I chose to give my view to help understand the issue.
I don't think "open source zealots", whatever that means, should care about where he runs his software. Open source is a technical thing.
On the other hand, his project _does_ go against free software ideals, so free software "zealots" will give him no respect, specially because they (or we) see it as an ethical issue.
It seems the guy wanted to know why that happens, and I was trying to help.
You are just trolling. I don't mind how much of a commercial success they are. I am not talking about that. The original article wasn't about that either.
Even Linux was heavily dependant on GNU, which pre-existed it.
Linux as a kernel is not dependant on GNU.
"Linux distros" are actually GNU distributions + a Linux kernel, so of course they use GNU, but GNU/Linux is a combination of GNU and another thing, not a post-mortem derivative of GNU.
Free as in "free software", "software libre", "GPL", means free not just in cost, but also free from restrictions.
Of course, DNN might be free, but it promotes using propriteary software, and that is bad thing for free software, so that's why it wouldn't get _my_ respect, even if I knew what it does.
People who care about free software, don't give any respect to people who don't. Period. that is because it's not a technical issue, it's an ethical issue. Of course, when someone doesn't share your ethics, it's usual that they don't live up to them. So it's usual that they don't get respect from you.
First, he was stating the difference between open source and free software. He was stating the goal of a free software advocate, not everyone's.
Free software is not just about free _developers_. It's about free _users_.
I want software to be free. I agree to take some freedom away from _distributors_ (not developer), and give it to the _users_, no matter whether they are developers or not.
The GPL assures that no _distributor_ takes freedom away from users or developers.
The whole idea of the GPL is promoting the spread of free software, by forcing distributors to refrain from restricting users and developers freedom.
Of course, someone does lose freedom. Distributors. Developers and users are protected. Free software is not about protecting distributors. It's about protecting users freedom. Not hypocritical.
for( int i = 0; i someValue; i++ ) {
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
for( int i = someValue-1; i !=0; i-- ) {
You defend yourself agains SCO and, and you might even end up with fewer ASM instructions.
Buy the CDs. They _are_ for sale.
But they are for download, too.
You missed one.
It's not "pirates".
Pirates kill people.
People who copy stuff, many times, do it to benefit themselves, and other people, and nobody else gets hurt. Some times, like in this example, they are reaping other peoples benefits. Of course, it's a very heterogeneous group of people. So "pirate" does not define "people who copy stuff". It's very rare that a person kills people in order to copy a movie, although it might happen. So that word "pirate" is no good.
The problem is that if you call people who copy and distribute movies before their release, "pirates", you might have a strong analogy. When you use it then to name people who use Napster, that word, "pirate", you are losing all credit.
Getting unauthorized copies and distributing them, in direct competition with the original distributor is not the same thing as copying some of your friends mp3, or saving your Tivo content to your computer, or even sharing it.
I have the oddest suspicion that if they wrote the whole thing in the most appropriate single language, it would be faster. I *know* that MS-XML filter would be faster had they written it in C++ instead of Java.
Java is great for parsers. Debugging them is easier. When they fail, they throw an exception. When C++ programs fail, they can make vulnerabilities, sometimes.
It's much easier to have a robust parser in Java. A good parser, a fast parser, maybe it would take more work, but robustness is key.
It's not nonsense.
It can be modeled by a second (or bigger, of course) order differential equation, and you are messing with it in a boundary of the domain.
That's where you mess with stuff you want to tinker with it, on its boundaries. On most complex systems, there are sweet spots that can control unproportionally greater areas.
And cities are pretty small, and they have huge benefits.
Trees are in fact part of the weather, of course. Think Amazonas. Amazonas does stuff to the weather, of course, although it's not specifically about the wind.
That's what I meant, that a wind farm, or planting lots of huge trees in an unusual area, might bring local, or not so local consequences to the weather in that region, or it might have big consequences, if it messes with some unstable system.
Read context.
.NET and Java. Java is way better in lots of non strictly technical issues, licenses, patents, source code, community. .NET had great technical advantages over Java, it would be worth to even look at it, so I could work in narrowing the gap. And it doesn't seem to, at least by what my .NET developer friends tell me (I don't want better advice, thank you very much).
Some guy said that VS is great because it has:
Code/syntax highlighting
Structure/layout
Designing graphical aspects (forms, window layouts, etc.)
And others
One of my favorite features is the form of auto-completion and showing function prototypes.
I tell him that I don't need it, because I have al lthat, and more.
I don't care if Visual Studio has more stuff, or not. I really don't care.
I was just saying why I don't need to use it.
For that, I said why I did have to use it before.
I used it to make standalone EXE apps.
I used it for syntax highlighting and intellisense.
Now I don't need it, so I have no reason to use it, period.
Those things were great for me, ten years ago.
Eclipse has the set of features I thing are great right now, for me. That is the comparison.
About black/white and grey.
Microsoft makes proprietary software. That's black.
I don't trust them. that's black, too.
VS might have lots of features, but I'm not in need of any new features, because I like Eclipse. I didn't say VS is a bad choice, although I do think it is, for non just technical reasons, at least.
There's no grey regarding this issue.
There are two big platforms for the mid-future.
Only if