Actually, in this particular case I think that RMS' zealotry actually slowed the process down a bit. Gosling and RMS have a long and storied history dating back to the early days of Emacs and there's little doubt in my mind that this history caused the folks at Sun to miss the many opportunities inherent in a Free version of Java.
Still, it's hard to argue that RMS doesn't get what he wants in the end. Lots of software projects have given in to RMS when it became apparent that cooperation was in order and RMS was not going to bend. Whether you are talking about the BSD-license changes or the license changes for QT and MySQL, or any number of other minor wins, RMS' willingness to rally the GNU folks and write replacement software from scratch if need be over minor licensing points has historically been pretty darn persuasive. In this particular case I don't think it is a coincidence that Sun released Java just as projects like Harmony, gcj, and GNU classpath were starting to show some promise.
Fine then, I'll bite Mr. Anonymous Coward. If Sun wasn't concerned about getting the Free Software community more excited about Java why then did Sun GPL Java?
After all, there are some downsides, for Sun anyway, to a GPLed Java. For example, now that Java is GPLed Sun has lost a considerable amount of control. Sun also had to pay to have Java vetted for release, and it has to pay for the infrastructure and community relations.
So what's in it for Sun?
Or are the executives at Sun full of bullshit as well?
There's no contradiction, although I admit that I could have been more clear. Java was Free enough that a substantial amount of Free Software was created for it. However, the majority of Free Software hackers steered clear, and that has hurt Java quite a bit (for essentially no benefit to Sun).
For example, even Sun-supported Gnome contains more Mono-based C# in it than Java. Free Software hackers generally used (and built) competing web technologies instead of using Java-based tools. You can get web hosting that includes toolkits based on PHP, Perl, or Python from any number of sources, and for ridiculously reasonable prices. You can then use these accounts to host sophisticated Free Software applications. Java should have done much better in this space, but Sun's licensing precluded that.
Free Software hackers used (and built) competing tools for creating desktop applications as well. Heck, one of the most popular Java-based desktop applications is Eclipse, and because it is based on SWT it isn't even pure Java.
When you think of the time and effort that went into the various Java replacement toolsets like gcj, Harmony, GNU classpath, etc. it is pretty clear that Sun wasted a great deal of Free Software effort that could have gone towards making Java that much cooler. It will be interesting to see what happens to Java now that a 100% Free Software version is finally available.
Java would almost certainly be a cooler platform today if Debian (to give an example) would have included it in main years ago, or if the source would have been available for a decent, up-to-date port to the BSDs and other niche platforms. Java was an inferior choice for even the less zealous of the Free Software community simply because you couldn't count on it being available. gcc, as an alternative, is available everywhere. Heck, Python is available everywhere. Java's write once run everywhere promise has been broken for years for people that are interested in platforms outside of Sun's narrow scope.
If it weren't for the Free Software that grew up around Java it would not be a viable platform today, plain and simple, but that doesn't mean that Sun has done a particularly good job encouraging Free Software hackers to use Java. A lot of opportunities have almost certainly been missed.
Thanks for encouraging me to spend some time making my point more clear. I appreciate it.
By the by, reading that first link made my brain hurt. When is GNU going to learn that the language of doom ("shackled," "trap," etc.) is a good way to ensure that you preach only to the choir?
RMS has been talking that way for years. There's essentially no chance of him changing his ways at this point. This is especially true considering the fact that RMS' zealotry has netted him an impressive string of wins including a GPLed version of Java.
The fact of the matter is that the Free Software community has become a rather influential player in the software world. Sun GPLed Java because the executives at Sun finally realized that despite the huge push for Java from the "Enterprise" crowd, the real reason that Java was a competitive platform was because of the large quantity of Free Software that had grown up around Java. Sun needed Free Software hackers, but for the most part Free Software hackers weren't interested in working with Java.
In this particular case, preaching to the choir was precisely what was needed.
These people are paying an extra $50 off of the most expensive versions of Vista so that they can run Windows XP
What I meant to say was that these people are paying an extra $50 "on top of" the most expensive version of Vista. It's possible that this mistake is why you got so worked up. The basic idea is that it doesn't make sense to pay an extra $50 to have Windows XP installed if what you really want to do is run Windows Vista. Especially considering the fact that Dell probably doesn't include Windows Vista installation media with these computers.
Here's your response:
WRONG! When you buy Vista Business or Ultimate (note: Business costs the same as XP Pro), you are entitled to downgrade the system yourself. Dell are offering their "downgrade services" for $50. This is not M$ ripping you off, it's Dell offering you to downgrade for an extra fee. Dell offer to re-configure your computer's Boot Sequence for $5, they offer to remove unwanted applications for a few bucks, and there are probably more customisation things which i cant remember. Dell is probably being forced down the Vista road, but while the downgrade loophole exists, they are cashing in. You can downgrade yourself & save $50.
This has essentially nothing to do with anything I wrote. Sure, it's nice to know that you can purchase Vista Ultimate or Vista Business and downgrade yourself to Windows XP. Of course, you'd have to have a copy of the installation materials (which you wouldn't get from Dell), and you would also be on your own for support.
Please note I never said that Dell was not "ripping you off." Dell is just trying to cover the cost of supporting yet another Microsoft operating system on its hardware. Once again, my point is that if these people wanted Vista they wouldn't be paying extra to have it removed and have Windows XP installed. So the fact that they also have the right to install Vista on the machine can hardly be considered a bonus.
Heck, they have the right to put FreeDOS on the machine as well. Not that anyone cares.
I continued with:
downgrading to Windows XP on most computers of the Vostro line (which ship with Vista Home Basic by default) adds $150 to the price tag.
WRONG AGAIN. "Most computers of the Vostro line" ship with Vista Business. Although there are exceptions, the Vostro line is built for Small Business.
And, you can't "downgrade" from Home Basic. Vista Home Basic = XP Home. XP Home != XP Pro. Hence the price of upgrading to XP/Vista Business.
Actually, you are wrong. I checked Dell's website and of the 6 laptops in the Vostro line and the first 4 include either Vista Home Basic or XP Home in the base price. I didn't check the last two because I started to realize that I was reliving an XKCD.com cartoon.
In short, you are a moron. Buy a copy of Vista Business. It costs the same as XP Pro, and it entitles you to a downgrade to XP Pro. To me, thats 1 copy of XP Pro, until Vista becomes good enough, when I can upgrade to Vista Business for free.
If you honestly think that people are going to pay Dell $50 plus an upgrade to Vista Business from Vista Home Basic (which is what these machines generally ship with by default) so that they can later install Vista Business themselves (probably losing any software support on the computer in the process) then you are clearly delusional. I'm glad you think I am a moron. If someone with your lack of mental capacity agreed with me I would be concerned.
These people are paying an extra $50 off of the most expensive versions of Vista so that they can run Windows XP. People that are willing to pay a premium to run XP are not excited about the fact that they get Vista as well.
Seriously, if these thought that Vista was worth running, they'd save their $50 and run Vista. There is essentially no way to spin this that is good for Microsoft or Vista. Heck, downgrading to Windows XP on most computers of the Vostro line (which ship with Vista Home Basic by default) adds $150 to the price tag.
Of course you can do concept studies and prestudies, and you should, no matter what software you are using. Free Software just makes that easy. What's more, you don't have to worry about ballooning license fees as your project grows.
I suppose that my real point is that if you are evaluating software you need to start somewhere. Why not start with Free Software? There might be a project that is precisely what you are looking for, and if there isn't, you can always get out your checkbook.
Then again, I make a living dealing with Free Software, so I might be biased.
Microsoft, ironically, tends get these sorts of wins as well. After all, everyone has Microsoft software sitting around. It's almost as easy to get rolling on a skunkworks Microsoft project as it is to roll one out with Free Software.
Well done dodging the vendor meltdown bullet, however. In my experience that basically never works. After all, it is pretty rare that a vendor can't point to other customers with successful implementations. Generally speaking when a customer has to flush a large investment down the tubes the guys that chose the tools and then were unable to implement the solution get run as well.
Let's just say I'm not a firm believer in the "throat to choke" theory of choosing software.
My real question for you is why did you move away from the less-expensive, integrated Microsoft solution that worked to something more expensive and less integrated. Nothing personal, but that doesn't sound like the sort of thing that any of the people I've ever worked for would blame on a vendor.
Have you ever actually tried blaming your software vendor when a project you were in charge of cratered? As a strategy it is highly over-rated.
That, in my opinion, is the best thing about Free Software. You can actually set it up and try it out before you pull out your checkbook and commit to paying a vendor. If the Free Software solution doesn't work, you've wasted a bit of time, but you haven't saddled yourself with a vendor that already has your money. Heck, if your problem is interesting enough, it might even get fixed.
You can always break out your checkbook later and pay a commercial vendor if the Free Software solution doesn't fit your needs. If you bet on a commercial solution first, and it doesn't work, then you have to write off your wasted licensing fees.
Micrsoft's sales were down 24% last quarter while computer sales were up 15% for the same period. The reason for this is that most of the growth in the PC industry is coming from the developing world, and those people simply aren't interested in paying money for Windows.
That leaves Acer with two choices if it wants to be a player in this new market place. It can sell hardware without Windows and rely on its customers to steal a copy. This, of course, makes it basically impossible to provide any sort of support, and it puts them in competition with the very lowest end of the product spectrum. Alternatively, it can develop its own software, based on Linux, and build a market for this software.
Partnering with Microsoft really isn't an alternative in this market. Margins are already ridiculously low and the various OEMs can simply not afford to have Microsoft be a part of the picture. Besides, Microsoft moves too slow. It's software is too big and too inflexible, and for many of these devices Windows compatibility simply isn't much of an issue.
Not to mention the fact that the EEE PC has shown everyone that Linux devices can sell, even in the first world.
That's an excellent point. I think that the FSF did a pretty good job with the GPL version 3, but I also think that the DRM stuff could have been left out. I certainly don't blame MySQL AB for removing the "or any later version" from their copyright.
Certainly there's lots of room for something tragic to happen. RMS could decide that he wants to use Free Software to further one of his other agendas, Microsoft could come up with an effective strategy against the GPL, etc.
If you are used to CVS then Subversion is definitely a step up, and it will be very familiar to your users. What's more it is well supported by IDEs and has piles of other tools like Tortoise that makes it easy for non-developers to use. Heck, if push comes to shove it can even be used as a WebDAV share with the advantage that it will automagically version your files.
The downside of Subversion is that it isn't very good at merging. Merging branches in current versions of Subversion is a manual process that is ridiculously painful. This can be mitigated somewhat using the svnmerge Python script, but even with the script merging still isn't as easy as any of the distributed version control systems. For people like Linus Torvalds that's basically a showstopper for Subversion. To them merging is basically the whole point of a version control system.
It's quite possible, however, that you have different needs than the Linux kernel. For example, none of the distributed version control systems deal well with large files. If you want to store multi-media files along with your source then Subversion is basically your only option. Likewise, if you plan on having designers or random office workers use your repository then you can forget about the distributed tools.
I suppose that's possible, but personally, I doubt it. There is just too much useful GPLed software available, and there are too many people that are interested in creating GPLed works.
Most developers don't work for companies where the requirements of the GPL are particularly onerous. The GPL is really only triggered when you distribute software, and most developers don't really do that. They create software for internal use only. Part of the reason that Free Software has accelerated so rapidly in recent years is that a few of these developers are finally starting to realize that sharing minor fixes and changes with the project is actually in their company's best interest. As anyone that has ever tried to maintain a private branch of an active Free Software project can attest it really is better to share unless the changes are extremely strategically important.
Besides, I don't think that it is likely that a court would actually uphold some of the sketchier interpretations of the GPL. The GPL has had a lot of scrutiny, and it is extremely well written. The GPL is also accompanied by an extensive FAQ that clearly shows the intent of the licenses' authors. The vendors that interpret the GPL differently are certainly entitled to their opinion, but their opinion is not likely to be particularly persuasive in court.
This, of course, is fine, as the Free Software vendors aren't really interested in suing their customers. They are simply interested in convincing their customers that a commercial license is in order. The threat of a lawsuit is actually a pretty useful tool. None of the vendors are likely to actually sue, however, because it is quite likely that they would lose and a precedent would be set that would make it impossible to threaten potential customers in the future.
Free Software vendors have a completely different business model than the record companies. It's not in the best interest of Red Hat, Novell, Sun, or TrollTech to actually sue customers. Heck, it is doubtful whether it is in the best interest of the record companies. The Free Software vendors actually want people to use their software. They certainly aren't interested in suing single mothers without a penny to their name.
Once again, if your project is making enough money so that a Free Software vendor is interested in signing you up as a client, then pat yourself on the back. You've made the big time.
Not to mention the fact that companies that release software under Free Software licenses have a much weaker case against people that simply use the software without distributing. In fact, the case is so much weaker that the FSF has this to say about the subject:
If I only make copies of a GPL-covered program and run them, without distributing or conveying them to others, what does the license require of me?
Nothing. The GPL does not place any conditions on this activity.
My friendly advice is that you should worry about ninjas attacking you in your sleep. It's far more likely that you'll get attacked by ninjas than get sued for using Free Software without a license.
The ExtJS example is somewhat special because since it is javascript you clearly distribute their software. That's not the case for your database software, or the software you use to generate your HTML pages. However, even if using ExtJS required that you distributed your code under the GPL that's only problematic if you actually distribute the software that runs your web site.
Basically this sort of thing is pretty old hat in the Free Software community. Lots of companies, including MySQL AB and TrollTech, have proffered interpretations of the GPL that are more stringent than what the FSF has said it believes is defensible in court. The purpose of these interpretations has generally been to encourage people doing proprietary development using the vendor's tools from using the GPL version of the tool.
Personally, I don't have a problem with these tactics. If your project has grown to the point where you are concerned that you might get sued for copyright infringement, you probably can afford a commercial license. Alternatively, you can always use someone else's software.
The point is that just because someone at a Free Software vendor says you need a commercial license doesn't necessarily make it true. It's in their best interest to stretch what the GPL requires. Don't expect the FSF to contradict what the commercial Free Software vendors say either. After all, the folks at the FSF would *love* to wake up and find that a court had ruled in ExtJS's favor. That would give the GPL even more power than it currently has, and it would further their goal of making Free Software ubiquitous.
But it's still compatible with over 80% of the browsers out there;)
Sure, once the end user downloads a plugin.
This new software runs on almost precisely the same number of computers as the old one, but now it has the added advantage that Microsoft can break it every time they rev their browser.
Most of the people making new EEE PC clones seem to believe that Asus' success has come from the fact that the EEE PC was small and not that it was inexpensive. Heck, even Asus' new version seems to make that assumption.
It will be interesting to see how the next generation sells.
I would admit that it is possible that I am breaking the law without knowing it, but I doubt it, as I am very careful about respecting copyrights. First of all, I use only Free Software (with the minor exception that I do load the non-free Flash plugin on my computers). My music all comes from CDs that I have purchased. I rip the tracks to ogg vorbis, and store the CDs in case I need them again. I read a fair amount of ebooks, but I either get works from project gutenberg, or I purchase them in unecrypted formats from baen.com or fictionwise.com. I don't share either my music or copyrighted ebooks with other people. I use a DVR for time shifting television, but I don't even try and watch the shows on another device.
I sometimes quote parts of people's posts on/., but I am pretty sure that's fair use:).
Seriously, I appreciate it. Not that I expect to find myself on the wrong side of copyright law. Still, I appreciate you taking the time to clear up my misconceptions.
Don't run a host yourself. Sign up for a referral program.
You can make well over $50 a signup if you shop around. That's a significant part of a year's hosting fees, and you don't have to do a thing other than get people to click on a link and sign up.
Yes, my post was a bit simplistic. However, it is true that distribution is the bit that triggers the ridiculously high penalties, and as you point out it is also distribution that is the easiest to track and prosecute.
From a practical standpoint distribution of copyrighted materials is clearly the crime to watch out for.
I've been laid off with no notice before, and it sucks. Of course, it was because the startup was closing down. I would have preferred more notice, but I understand why the owners did what they did. I would definitely work with them again.
If a employer lays off people with no notice (and no or very little severance) then people talk and it becomes difficult or impossible for the business to hire talented new people. That's why businesses generally offer severance and try and give some sort of warning. If I quit without giving notice I would expect my employer to do the same to me. I don't know what the market is like where you live, but where I live it is relatively easy to get blacklisted.
Besides, I make it a rule to not act like a jerk just because someone else might act like a jerk. For the most part this has worked out well for me.
You may be careless with your own reputation, but I am very careful with mine. I'm only 36 and yet I have already been recruited by a previous boss on several different occasions.
You apparently have a different history, and a different strategy. That's fine.
You'd be surprised. Sometimes private business can move even more slowly than that. I took a job once that had been vacant for nearly a year. Worse, the lack of a warm body meant that the plant had several downtimes on the factory floor that added up to real money lost.
Of course, as anyone who has ever done any hiring knows finding a good replacement can be hard.
It's up to you how you handle these situations. You can, if you want, simply walk tell your boss that you quit effective immediately. Generally speaking, however, offering two weeks notice is customary. If the roles were reversed and you were getting laid off you'd expect at least that much notice.
Your employer may not accept the offer, and they may have a policy (or decide to adopt a policy) of immediate termination. That's fine. After all, you already have another job.
Generally speaking I am not a huge fan of burning bridges. Then again, I've never worked for someone that I wouldn't work for again under the right circumstances. Your situation might well be different.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, in this particular case I think that RMS' zealotry actually slowed the process down a bit. Gosling and RMS have a long and storied history dating back to the early days of Emacs and there's little doubt in my mind that this history caused the folks at Sun to miss the many opportunities inherent in a Free version of Java.
Still, it's hard to argue that RMS doesn't get what he wants in the end. Lots of software projects have given in to RMS when it became apparent that cooperation was in order and RMS was not going to bend. Whether you are talking about the BSD-license changes or the license changes for QT and MySQL, or any number of other minor wins, RMS' willingness to rally the GNU folks and write replacement software from scratch if need be over minor licensing points has historically been pretty darn persuasive. In this particular case I don't think it is a coincidence that Sun released Java just as projects like Harmony, gcj, and GNU classpath were starting to show some promise.
Fine then, I'll bite Mr. Anonymous Coward. If Sun wasn't concerned about getting the Free Software community more excited about Java why then did Sun GPL Java?
After all, there are some downsides, for Sun anyway, to a GPLed Java. For example, now that Java is GPLed Sun has lost a considerable amount of control. Sun also had to pay to have Java vetted for release, and it has to pay for the infrastructure and community relations.
So what's in it for Sun?
Or are the executives at Sun full of bullshit as well?
There's no contradiction, although I admit that I could have been more clear. Java was Free enough that a substantial amount of Free Software was created for it. However, the majority of Free Software hackers steered clear, and that has hurt Java quite a bit (for essentially no benefit to Sun).
For example, even Sun-supported Gnome contains more Mono-based C# in it than Java. Free Software hackers generally used (and built) competing web technologies instead of using Java-based tools. You can get web hosting that includes toolkits based on PHP, Perl, or Python from any number of sources, and for ridiculously reasonable prices. You can then use these accounts to host sophisticated Free Software applications. Java should have done much better in this space, but Sun's licensing precluded that.
Free Software hackers used (and built) competing tools for creating desktop applications as well. Heck, one of the most popular Java-based desktop applications is Eclipse, and because it is based on SWT it isn't even pure Java.
When you think of the time and effort that went into the various Java replacement toolsets like gcj, Harmony, GNU classpath, etc. it is pretty clear that Sun wasted a great deal of Free Software effort that could have gone towards making Java that much cooler. It will be interesting to see what happens to Java now that a 100% Free Software version is finally available.
Java would almost certainly be a cooler platform today if Debian (to give an example) would have included it in main years ago, or if the source would have been available for a decent, up-to-date port to the BSDs and other niche platforms. Java was an inferior choice for even the less zealous of the Free Software community simply because you couldn't count on it being available. gcc, as an alternative, is available everywhere. Heck, Python is available everywhere. Java's write once run everywhere promise has been broken for years for people that are interested in platforms outside of Sun's narrow scope.
If it weren't for the Free Software that grew up around Java it would not be a viable platform today, plain and simple, but that doesn't mean that Sun has done a particularly good job encouraging Free Software hackers to use Java. A lot of opportunities have almost certainly been missed.
Thanks for encouraging me to spend some time making my point more clear. I appreciate it.
RMS has been talking that way for years. There's essentially no chance of him changing his ways at this point. This is especially true considering the fact that RMS' zealotry has netted him an impressive string of wins including a GPLed version of Java.
The fact of the matter is that the Free Software community has become a rather influential player in the software world. Sun GPLed Java because the executives at Sun finally realized that despite the huge push for Java from the "Enterprise" crowd, the real reason that Java was a competitive platform was because of the large quantity of Free Software that had grown up around Java. Sun needed Free Software hackers, but for the most part Free Software hackers weren't interested in working with Java.
In this particular case, preaching to the choir was precisely what was needed.
I'm crushed. Here's what I said.
These people are paying an extra $50 off of the most expensive versions of Vista so that they can run Windows XPWhat I meant to say was that these people are paying an extra $50 "on top of" the most expensive version of Vista. It's possible that this mistake is why you got so worked up. The basic idea is that it doesn't make sense to pay an extra $50 to have Windows XP installed if what you really want to do is run Windows Vista. Especially considering the fact that Dell probably doesn't include Windows Vista installation media with these computers.
Here's your response:
WRONG! When you buy Vista Business or Ultimate (note: Business costs the same as XP Pro), you are entitled to downgrade the system yourself. Dell are offering their "downgrade services" for $50. This is not M$ ripping you off, it's Dell offering you to downgrade for an extra fee. Dell offer to re-configure your computer's Boot Sequence for $5, they offer to remove unwanted applications for a few bucks, and there are probably more customisation things which i cant remember. Dell is probably being forced down the Vista road, but while the downgrade loophole exists, they are cashing in. You can downgrade yourself & save $50.This has essentially nothing to do with anything I wrote. Sure, it's nice to know that you can purchase Vista Ultimate or Vista Business and downgrade yourself to Windows XP. Of course, you'd have to have a copy of the installation materials (which you wouldn't get from Dell), and you would also be on your own for support.
Please note I never said that Dell was not "ripping you off." Dell is just trying to cover the cost of supporting yet another Microsoft operating system on its hardware. Once again, my point is that if these people wanted Vista they wouldn't be paying extra to have it removed and have Windows XP installed. So the fact that they also have the right to install Vista on the machine can hardly be considered a bonus.
Heck, they have the right to put FreeDOS on the machine as well. Not that anyone cares.
I continued with:
downgrading to Windows XP on most computers of the Vostro line (which ship with Vista Home Basic by default) adds $150 to the price tag. WRONG AGAIN. "Most computers of the Vostro line" ship with Vista Business. Although there are exceptions, the Vostro line is built for Small Business. And, you can't "downgrade" from Home Basic. Vista Home Basic = XP Home. XP Home != XP Pro. Hence the price of upgrading to XP/Vista Business.Actually, you are wrong. I checked Dell's website and of the 6 laptops in the Vostro line and the first 4 include either Vista Home Basic or XP Home in the base price. I didn't check the last two because I started to realize that I was reliving an XKCD.com cartoon.
In short, you are a moron. Buy a copy of Vista Business. It costs the same as XP Pro, and it entitles you to a downgrade to XP Pro. To me, thats 1 copy of XP Pro, until Vista becomes good enough, when I can upgrade to Vista Business for free.If you honestly think that people are going to pay Dell $50 plus an upgrade to Vista Business from Vista Home Basic (which is what these machines generally ship with by default) so that they can later install Vista Business themselves (probably losing any software support on the computer in the process) then you are clearly delusional. I'm glad you think I am a moron. If someone with your lack of mental capacity agreed with me I would be concerned.
These people are paying an extra $50 off of the most expensive versions of Vista so that they can run Windows XP. People that are willing to pay a premium to run XP are not excited about the fact that they get Vista as well.
Seriously, if these thought that Vista was worth running, they'd save their $50 and run Vista. There is essentially no way to spin this that is good for Microsoft or Vista. Heck, downgrading to Windows XP on most computers of the Vostro line (which ship with Vista Home Basic by default) adds $150 to the price tag.
OK, that makes sense. Thanks for the discussion.
Of course you can do concept studies and prestudies, and you should, no matter what software you are using. Free Software just makes that easy. What's more, you don't have to worry about ballooning license fees as your project grows.
I suppose that my real point is that if you are evaluating software you need to start somewhere. Why not start with Free Software? There might be a project that is precisely what you are looking for, and if there isn't, you can always get out your checkbook.
Then again, I make a living dealing with Free Software, so I might be biased.
Microsoft, ironically, tends get these sorts of wins as well. After all, everyone has Microsoft software sitting around. It's almost as easy to get rolling on a skunkworks Microsoft project as it is to roll one out with Free Software.
Well done dodging the vendor meltdown bullet, however. In my experience that basically never works. After all, it is pretty rare that a vendor can't point to other customers with successful implementations. Generally speaking when a customer has to flush a large investment down the tubes the guys that chose the tools and then were unable to implement the solution get run as well.
Let's just say I'm not a firm believer in the "throat to choke" theory of choosing software.
My real question for you is why did you move away from the less-expensive, integrated Microsoft solution that worked to something more expensive and less integrated. Nothing personal, but that doesn't sound like the sort of thing that any of the people I've ever worked for would blame on a vendor.
Have you ever actually tried blaming your software vendor when a project you were in charge of cratered? As a strategy it is highly over-rated.
That, in my opinion, is the best thing about Free Software. You can actually set it up and try it out before you pull out your checkbook and commit to paying a vendor. If the Free Software solution doesn't work, you've wasted a bit of time, but you haven't saddled yourself with a vendor that already has your money. Heck, if your problem is interesting enough, it might even get fixed.
You can always break out your checkbook later and pay a commercial vendor if the Free Software solution doesn't fit your needs. If you bet on a commercial solution first, and it doesn't work, then you have to write off your wasted licensing fees.
Micrsoft's sales were down 24% last quarter while computer sales were up 15% for the same period. The reason for this is that most of the growth in the PC industry is coming from the developing world, and those people simply aren't interested in paying money for Windows.
That leaves Acer with two choices if it wants to be a player in this new market place. It can sell hardware without Windows and rely on its customers to steal a copy. This, of course, makes it basically impossible to provide any sort of support, and it puts them in competition with the very lowest end of the product spectrum. Alternatively, it can develop its own software, based on Linux, and build a market for this software.
Partnering with Microsoft really isn't an alternative in this market. Margins are already ridiculously low and the various OEMs can simply not afford to have Microsoft be a part of the picture. Besides, Microsoft moves too slow. It's software is too big and too inflexible, and for many of these devices Windows compatibility simply isn't much of an issue.
Not to mention the fact that the EEE PC has shown everyone that Linux devices can sell, even in the first world.
That's an excellent point. I think that the FSF did a pretty good job with the GPL version 3, but I also think that the DRM stuff could have been left out. I certainly don't blame MySQL AB for removing the "or any later version" from their copyright.
Certainly there's lots of room for something tragic to happen. RMS could decide that he wants to use Free Software to further one of his other agendas, Microsoft could come up with an effective strategy against the GPL, etc.
If you are used to CVS then Subversion is definitely a step up, and it will be very familiar to your users. What's more it is well supported by IDEs and has piles of other tools like Tortoise that makes it easy for non-developers to use. Heck, if push comes to shove it can even be used as a WebDAV share with the advantage that it will automagically version your files.
The downside of Subversion is that it isn't very good at merging. Merging branches in current versions of Subversion is a manual process that is ridiculously painful. This can be mitigated somewhat using the svnmerge Python script, but even with the script merging still isn't as easy as any of the distributed version control systems. For people like Linus Torvalds that's basically a showstopper for Subversion. To them merging is basically the whole point of a version control system.
It's quite possible, however, that you have different needs than the Linux kernel. For example, none of the distributed version control systems deal well with large files. If you want to store multi-media files along with your source then Subversion is basically your only option. Likewise, if you plan on having designers or random office workers use your repository then you can forget about the distributed tools.
I suppose that's possible, but personally, I doubt it. There is just too much useful GPLed software available, and there are too many people that are interested in creating GPLed works.
Most developers don't work for companies where the requirements of the GPL are particularly onerous. The GPL is really only triggered when you distribute software, and most developers don't really do that. They create software for internal use only. Part of the reason that Free Software has accelerated so rapidly in recent years is that a few of these developers are finally starting to realize that sharing minor fixes and changes with the project is actually in their company's best interest. As anyone that has ever tried to maintain a private branch of an active Free Software project can attest it really is better to share unless the changes are extremely strategically important.
Besides, I don't think that it is likely that a court would actually uphold some of the sketchier interpretations of the GPL. The GPL has had a lot of scrutiny, and it is extremely well written. The GPL is also accompanied by an extensive FAQ that clearly shows the intent of the licenses' authors. The vendors that interpret the GPL differently are certainly entitled to their opinion, but their opinion is not likely to be particularly persuasive in court.
This, of course, is fine, as the Free Software vendors aren't really interested in suing their customers. They are simply interested in convincing their customers that a commercial license is in order. The threat of a lawsuit is actually a pretty useful tool. None of the vendors are likely to actually sue, however, because it is quite likely that they would lose and a precedent would be set that would make it impossible to threaten potential customers in the future.
Free Software vendors have a completely different business model than the record companies. It's not in the best interest of Red Hat, Novell, Sun, or TrollTech to actually sue customers. Heck, it is doubtful whether it is in the best interest of the record companies. The Free Software vendors actually want people to use their software. They certainly aren't interested in suing single mothers without a penny to their name.
Once again, if your project is making enough money so that a Free Software vendor is interested in signing you up as a client, then pat yourself on the back. You've made the big time.
Not to mention the fact that companies that release software under Free Software licenses have a much weaker case against people that simply use the software without distributing. In fact, the case is so much weaker that the FSF has this to say about the subject:
If I only make copies of a GPL-covered program and run them, without distributing or conveying them to others, what does the license require of me?
Nothing. The GPL does not place any conditions on this activity.
My friendly advice is that you should worry about ninjas attacking you in your sleep. It's far more likely that you'll get attacked by ninjas than get sued for using Free Software without a license.
The ExtJS example is somewhat special because since it is javascript you clearly distribute their software. That's not the case for your database software, or the software you use to generate your HTML pages. However, even if using ExtJS required that you distributed your code under the GPL that's only problematic if you actually distribute the software that runs your web site.
Basically this sort of thing is pretty old hat in the Free Software community. Lots of companies, including MySQL AB and TrollTech, have proffered interpretations of the GPL that are more stringent than what the FSF has said it believes is defensible in court. The purpose of these interpretations has generally been to encourage people doing proprietary development using the vendor's tools from using the GPL version of the tool.
Personally, I don't have a problem with these tactics. If your project has grown to the point where you are concerned that you might get sued for copyright infringement, you probably can afford a commercial license. Alternatively, you can always use someone else's software.
The point is that just because someone at a Free Software vendor says you need a commercial license doesn't necessarily make it true. It's in their best interest to stretch what the GPL requires. Don't expect the FSF to contradict what the commercial Free Software vendors say either. After all, the folks at the FSF would *love* to wake up and find that a court had ruled in ExtJS's favor. That would give the GPL even more power than it currently has, and it would further their goal of making Free Software ubiquitous.
Sure, once the end user downloads a plugin.
This new software runs on almost precisely the same number of computers as the old one, but now it has the added advantage that Microsoft can break it every time they rev their browser.
Oh yeah, that's progress.
Most of the people making new EEE PC clones seem to believe that Asus' success has come from the fact that the EEE PC was small and not that it was inexpensive. Heck, even Asus' new version seems to make that assumption.
It will be interesting to see how the next generation sells.
I would admit that it is possible that I am breaking the law without knowing it, but I doubt it, as I am very careful about respecting copyrights. First of all, I use only Free Software (with the minor exception that I do load the non-free Flash plugin on my computers). My music all comes from CDs that I have purchased. I rip the tracks to ogg vorbis, and store the CDs in case I need them again. I read a fair amount of ebooks, but I either get works from project gutenberg, or I purchase them in unecrypted formats from baen.com or fictionwise.com. I don't share either my music or copyrighted ebooks with other people. I use a DVR for time shifting television, but I don't even try and watch the shows on another device. I sometimes quote parts of people's posts on /., but I am pretty sure that's fair use :).
Thanks for clearing that up for me.
Seriously, I appreciate it. Not that I expect to find myself on the wrong side of copyright law. Still, I appreciate you taking the time to clear up my misconceptions.
Don't run a host yourself. Sign up for a referral program.
You can make well over $50 a signup if you shop around. That's a significant part of a year's hosting fees, and you don't have to do a thing other than get people to click on a link and sign up.
Yes, my post was a bit simplistic. However, it is true that distribution is the bit that triggers the ridiculously high penalties, and as you point out it is also distribution that is the easiest to track and prosecute.
From a practical standpoint distribution of copyrighted materials is clearly the crime to watch out for.
I've been laid off with no notice before, and it sucks. Of course, it was because the startup was closing down. I would have preferred more notice, but I understand why the owners did what they did. I would definitely work with them again.
If a employer lays off people with no notice (and no or very little severance) then people talk and it becomes difficult or impossible for the business to hire talented new people. That's why businesses generally offer severance and try and give some sort of warning. If I quit without giving notice I would expect my employer to do the same to me. I don't know what the market is like where you live, but where I live it is relatively easy to get blacklisted.
Besides, I make it a rule to not act like a jerk just because someone else might act like a jerk. For the most part this has worked out well for me.
You may be careless with your own reputation, but I am very careful with mine. I'm only 36 and yet I have already been recruited by a previous boss on several different occasions.
You apparently have a different history, and a different strategy. That's fine.
You'd be surprised. Sometimes private business can move even more slowly than that. I took a job once that had been vacant for nearly a year. Worse, the lack of a warm body meant that the plant had several downtimes on the factory floor that added up to real money lost.
Of course, as anyone who has ever done any hiring knows finding a good replacement can be hard.
It's up to you how you handle these situations. You can, if you want, simply walk tell your boss that you quit effective immediately. Generally speaking, however, offering two weeks notice is customary. If the roles were reversed and you were getting laid off you'd expect at least that much notice.
Your employer may not accept the offer, and they may have a policy (or decide to adopt a policy) of immediate termination. That's fine. After all, you already have another job.
Generally speaking I am not a huge fan of burning bridges. Then again, I've never worked for someone that I wouldn't work for again under the right circumstances. Your situation might well be different.