Now, what exactly are your complaints against X? Let's see if they can hold up to some scrutiny.
In one word: no policy. This is both a good thing and a bad thing. The good part is that it makes X the most flexible GUI system around. The bad part is that you end up with X/Xt/Motif/GTK/Qt/Fltk/Fox/Zoolib/homegrown. Ever have KDE or GNOME tricked up with an awesome theme to make teh OSX users drool? Then go and open up Emacs or Netscape? Gaaagh! Better yet, go put KDE on Mosfet's Liquid theme, and GTK under the blueHeart theme, then mix those applciations together on Blackbox. Yuck...
The quote "BSD is a license to steal" is so common here that it's become a noxious cliche. But my favorite GPL Zealot was a prominant member of GNU (but not RMS) who wrote me complaining about my choice of the BSD license for one of my applications, warning me that I was opening myself up to "exploitation".
Remember the old adage "give away the razor and sell the blades?" It works great for hardware, and it seems to make sense for software.
But common practice in the Open Source world is different. Here, they give away the razor, flame anyone who sells blades, and wonder why no one's paying them for the privilege of being a barber.
Yeah, and then they go dump the only *product* line they had: hardware. It's inconceivable that they'll be able to continue making payroll using only the banner ads on SourceForge and Slashdot.
Great Bridge on the other hand is probably a real loss. They stood for the Service & Support business model. I shed a tear.
Perhaps the Service and Support model doesn't work for software, or at least certain kinds of software. Postgres was a developer's tool. Developer traditionally need less support than other user.
Service and support might work for some categories of software, but for most categories, I haven't seen it work anywhere. It might be possible, for sure, but I just haven't seen it. I'm guessing that that Great Bridge's dropout is a signal that hackers should stick with hacking, instead of devising radically new business models and then accepting on faith that they work. Sometimes reality doesn't operate the way that CaTB says it should.
Instead of Service and Support, perhaps they should have used Cygnus' model for financing freeware developer tools: Consultation and Customization. At least that one has been proven to work in the long run by both closed and open development firms.
Some of the code I write is closed source (cries of 'heresy' can be heard). I do it because my employer pays me to do it.
Some of the code I write is open source. I do it because I want to. I don't need to get paid for it, since I get paid for my other software. I'm just doing it mostly for fun, and a little for the educational experience and practice. Absent the need for payment, I made it freeware. The benefits accrued to both the user and myself by making it open source freeware far outweighs the benefits from closed source freeware.
Make no mistake, I consider my open source software to be freeware. That's because that is what it is: free beer. I do not charge for downloading it. And I do not forbid anyone from distributing it free of charge once they obtain it.
I'm not making my stuff open source out of some sense of duty, or because I think I am supposed to, or because it is politically correct, or becauseI think it will save the world from destruction, or that I will go to hell if I don't. I do it because I want to. It's an ego boost, an itch scratcher, and a thank you note, all rolled up into one.
Okay, let's look at real estate. Other than the government, I don't see vast areas of the earth owned by single entities. San Fransisco is not owned by one large corporation. Berkeley is not owned by one large cooprerative. LA is not owned by some hollywood magnate.
You may have large tracts here are there owned by one firm or another, but by and large, there are no monopolies or cartels on real estate (in the US at least).
If the airwaves were NOT regulated, then what is to stop me from broadcasting at the same frequency you are? If you start talking about protocols or laws, then you are sliding down the path to regulation.
Privatizing the airwaves means that frequencies would be owned just like any other property. Without government regulation it will be harder to protect and defend these properties (just like the lack of trespass laws would make it harder to defend your home), but it can be done.
In an anarcho-capitalist society (as an example), if everyone started broadcasting on whatever frequency seemed most convenient at the time, very shortly all of the broadcasters would agree on certain rules of the road, and enforce them through contracts. In an anarcho-socialist society (to take another example), individuals and companies could not own property, but syndicates and collectives would manage the unowned resources (they would "own" those resources in all but name) and they would make similar agreements with each other regarding the airwaves.
The management of the airwaves is an old and settled topic on both the libertarian and socialist spectrum. Only those advocating mixed economies still consider it an insoluble problem.
The airwaves belong just as much to me as they do to anybody else; don't be so eager about taking away my property.
When a certain resource is limited, property is the most efficient means of allocating it. Even under pure socialist dogma, property will still exist in all but name. Consider other limited resources, like airspace. Private airports are every bit as efficient as public airports in managing the use of the airspace around them.
Of course, the airwaves are much more complicated than other forms of property, even intellectual property. How can you own something that is everywhere? How can someone else be justified in owning broadcast rights for a frequency that anyone can receive anywhere? The problem is, the airwaves are still limited, and in order to be of use, someone has to control/own them, and odds are it won't be you. It might be the government (who still won't let you broacast on them despite the fact that they give lip service to the public being the actual owners), a corporation, a cooperative, a wealthy individual, etc.
Sure you get a single vote with the government. But you also get multiple votes with commercial firms. With governments it's a winner-take-all election, but with business it's a share-the-pie arrangement. Piss off enough customers and see your market share erode. Please everyone in the world and you'll still have competition.
Hee hee. And Windows even comes with a command line ftp!
I had a friend that wanted a website. So he created a bunch of pages and was ready to upload them. He asked me what ftp he should use, as there were so many choices on download.com. So I told him to use just plain ftp. And proceeded to show him how with the software he already had.
Of course, he hated the command line, so he still went and grabbed some crappy shareware front end.
This quasi-privatization of the airwaves combines the worst of both worlds, with few, if any, of the best. All the worst of government regulation, and all the worst of business since they control a product which someone else owns.
Let's have real privatization of the airwaves. Yes, their is a fixed amount of frequencies available, but the market works for other fixed resources, like real estate. Will there be some large players that will grab up large chunks of frequencies? Of course! But I would rather have half a dozen mega conglomerates competing with each other, than a single government agency accountable to no one at all. (and of course, government regulation has done nothing to hinder the current crop of megacorps, but plenty to keep the small independent off the market)
How would it work in practice? Just take a look at the internet. Next to zero regulation, backbones that in many areas are fixed resources, heavy commercialization, yet there are unlimited opportunities for individuals, non-profits, and other noncommercial organizations.
There is a hierarchy of development. At the top is the core team. Below them are the contributors. As a newbie, no matter how experienced in writing drivers for Linux, Solaris or even OpenBSD, you will have to work your way up. Even if Bill Joy decided to join in FreeBSD development, he would have to start at the bottom like everyone else.
But it can be done. Just because they won't except a driver from someone they never heard of doesn't mean that they don't want drivers. If your driver is fully tested, then send it to one of the contributors lower on the rungs, and maybe he or she will bounce it up higher.
Ditto. For Linux users that don't know the difference, this would be like Linus saying "3.0 is delayed a year, but 2.4 is going strong, and we'll do a 2.6 if necessary."
The FreeBSD 5.0 branch will have some MAJOR changes to the architecture. Delaying it is a Good Thing(tm).
At the LWCE I picked up a LinuxPPC dated December 2000. So that's about 9 months since an official stable release.
From what I understand, LPPC does not have a current maintainer. BFD. That doesn't mean people aren't using it, or that it won't have a maintainter in the very near future.
Just what makes a distribution "dead"? The fact that they haven't released anything in over two weeks? Two months? Six months? I remember the days when everyone said Slackware was dead because they hadn't released anything in a year. Then boom! Then they said it was dead because Windriver laid them off, then boom!
The viability of a Free Software project is not predicated upon the sales figures, or the market share, or how many people are using it. I strongly suspect that Yggdrasil is dead, but if they came out with a new release tomorrow, it wouldn't surprise me.
Slackware never wanted to be a multi-million dollar commercial firm, so of course they're not. You measure success by the attainment of your goals, not by the attainment of someone else's goals.
(oh, and LinuxPPC and Turbolinux aren't dead either)
Absolutely right! If you haven't heard, freedom and democracy have been redefined. Get with the program sir!
Freedom means the ability to make the same decisions are everyone else. Democracy means the right to vote for the same people as everyone else. Do you understand now?
You are required to pay a tax levied by the government. Even so-called "use fees" may only be collected by one party, namely the government.
The use of credit card companies are entirely voluntary. Obviously, you can't send cash over the internet, so an information-based payment method is required. Credit and debit cards are the most convenient form of these, which is why they are so common. So what if MegaSitePlus doesn't accept paypal? I've been to brick-and-mortor stores where they didn't accept Visa, and others where they didn't accept Amex. I've been to still others where they wouldn't accept credit cards at all.
Because if you borrow from the work of someone who *specifically intended* for his work (and work based on his work) to remain free, you must abide by his wishes, don't you think?
It depends upon how you define freedom. If freedom means never having to ask the author for permission, then no, the GPL is not free. Because the author is still telling how I can or cannot use it, even though I have a legal copy.
And I don't know where you got the assumption that I write proprietary software. I write BSD and MIT licensed software. But according to the rules of the GPL, a license freer than the GPL is just as bad as one that is more restrictive.
But a question: If the GPL is free despite its restrictions, since the end developers agrees to those restrictions, then why aren't proprietary licenses free as well? Don't users of VC++ also voluntarily give up their freedoms when they agree not to distribute code linked to the MFC libraries? Oh...wait...you're allowed to distribute...without restriction your code developed using VC++ and MFC... Damn. I'll have to think of another analogy.
Not at all. When you buy a book you own the book. When you are done with it you can give it to a friend.
I don't see why the same thing can't be made the default with software. You buy the software and you own the CD. You don't have the right to give away copies, just like you don't have the right to give away copies of a book you bought. But when you are done with it you can sell to a "used software" store. You can make copies for you own use. You can install it in your living room AND your bedroom, just like you can read your book in your living room and your bedroom. Since it is your CD, you can decompile and reverse engineer it. You can modify it for your own personal use. Etc.
"Sometimes", says Ricky, the Big Green Donkey, "like pruning your garden, cutting back on certain freedoms can allow more freedom to grow. That's why the GPL is so important. It prevents people from making wrong decisions. When people are only allowed to make right decisions, then we will live in peace and propserity and mindless servitude to those who decide what the right decision should be."
"True", says Bluto the Blue Bug, "by tying a stake to a plant we force it to grow in only one direction. By using the GPL we force developers to GPL their own original code that merely links to Kylix runtimes. We have decided for them, and they can grow up straight and tall and vote for all the right people."
"You are right Bluto", responds Ricky, "which is why Chairman Stallman, in his GNU Manifesto, advocates taxing all software to support Free Software development. Supporting the Free Software is a right decision to make, but if people have too much freedom they might decide to keep their money to themselves."
"Well said Ricky", replies Bluto, "which is why the GPL makes the right decision to take freedom away from the developer, because the user is more important. Right now there are more users of BSD and MIT licensed software than there is of GPL licensed software. That is because the BSD and MIT licenses do not restrict their developers, so they end up with XFree86 and Apache being the most used Free Software projects ever."
"You said it Bluto" continued Ricky "because they are not under the GPL, Mickey the Soft Turtle can steal XFree86 and Apache, and just because he hasn't stolen them yet doesn't mean that he won't tomorrow. Although it doesn't hurt us or take away our freedom at all, it is still our right to stick our noses into their affairs and tell them what to do. That's because the GPL is the right decision, and we can't have people having the freedom to make the wrong decision. Using the BSD and MIT style licenses does not hurt us, or take away our freedoms, but it does insult us since it is not the decision we would make. So we must make it for them."
"Yes, you are right, Ricky. Just like we prune the limbs from wayward trees, we must hack off the limbs of wayward developers. We must tie them to stakes and make them stand up straight (or they would slouch!) and grow tall. Freedom only belongs to those of us who would make right decisions."
EULAs generally include statements such as "This software is licensed, not sold" in order to circumvent the arguments you've presented...
That's all well and good except for two things: First, I don't get to read the EULA until after I have made a purchase. Second, the software is packaged as a salable product, not as a lease.
Granted, I know that just about any software package I buy is going to have a license in it telling me what I can or cannot do with that circular plastic disk I just bought. So I'm not really bitching about any one particular company, but rather I'm bitching about the entire system that defrauds consumers by giving them a sales receipt then they lease software.
GNOME is a subsidiary of GNU, which is founded on the idea that all software should be Free, so of course allowing people to use your code to create unfree and subjugating software is a Good Thing(tm).
Oh, and Qt is not licensed under the GPL, it is dual licensed under the GPL *and* the QPL, with an option to purchase an even freer license.
Since the days of GNOME 0.3, I have been continually told some variant of "that's because you were using a version from last week/month and you should try to latest version instead because it's faster/stabler."
Slashdot Mirror
Now, what exactly are your complaints against X? Let's see if they can hold up to some scrutiny.
In one word: no policy. This is both a good thing and a bad thing. The good part is that it makes X the most flexible GUI system around. The bad part is that you end up with X/Xt/Motif/GTK/Qt/Fltk/Fox/Zoolib/homegrown. Ever have KDE or GNOME tricked up with an awesome theme to make teh OSX users drool? Then go and open up Emacs or Netscape? Gaaagh! Better yet, go put KDE on Mosfet's Liquid theme, and GTK under the blueHeart theme, then mix those applciations together on Blackbox. Yuck...
The quote "BSD is a license to steal" is so common here that it's become a noxious cliche. But my favorite GPL Zealot was a prominant member of GNU (but not RMS) who wrote me complaining about my choice of the BSD license for one of my applications, warning me that I was opening myself up to "exploitation".
And what other products do they offer? And don't say Redcarpet, because none of the distros/systems I use are supported yet.
Remember the old adage "give away the razor and sell the blades?" It works great for hardware, and it seems to make sense for software.
But common practice in the Open Source world is different. Here, they give away the razor, flame anyone who sells blades, and wonder why no one's paying them for the privilege of being a barber.
Okay, rant off...
Did you *buy* Ximian for your new system? If not, that expensive booth was wasted.
Yeah, and then they go dump the only *product* line they had: hardware. It's inconceivable that they'll be able to continue making payroll using only the banner ads on SourceForge and Slashdot.
Perhaps the Service and Support model doesn't work for software, or at least certain kinds of software. Postgres was a developer's tool. Developer traditionally need less support than other user.
Service and support might work for some categories of software, but for most categories, I haven't seen it work anywhere. It might be possible, for sure, but I just haven't seen it. I'm guessing that that Great Bridge's dropout is a signal that hackers should stick with hacking, instead of devising radically new business models and then accepting on faith that they work. Sometimes reality doesn't operate the way that CaTB says it should.
Instead of Service and Support, perhaps they should have used Cygnus' model for financing freeware developer tools: Consultation and Customization. At least that one has been proven to work in the long run by both closed and open development firms.
Some of the code I write is closed source (cries of 'heresy' can be heard). I do it because my employer pays me to do it.
Some of the code I write is open source. I do it because I want to. I don't need to get paid for it, since I get paid for my other software. I'm just doing it mostly for fun, and a little for the educational experience and practice. Absent the need for payment, I made it freeware. The benefits accrued to both the user and myself by making it open source freeware far outweighs the benefits from closed source freeware.
Make no mistake, I consider my open source software to be freeware. That's because that is what it is: free beer. I do not charge for downloading it. And I do not forbid anyone from distributing it free of charge once they obtain it.
I'm not making my stuff open source out of some sense of duty, or because I think I am supposed to, or because it is politically correct, or becauseI think it will save the world from destruction, or that I will go to hell if I don't. I do it because I want to. It's an ego boost, an itch scratcher, and a thank you note, all rolled up into one.
Okay, let's look at real estate. Other than the government, I don't see vast areas of the earth owned by single entities. San Fransisco is not owned by one large corporation. Berkeley is not owned by one large cooprerative. LA is not owned by some hollywood magnate.
You may have large tracts here are there owned by one firm or another, but by and large, there are no monopolies or cartels on real estate (in the US at least).
If the airwaves were NOT regulated, then what is to stop me from broadcasting at the same frequency you are? If you start talking about protocols or laws, then you are sliding down the path to regulation.
Privatizing the airwaves means that frequencies would be owned just like any other property. Without government regulation it will be harder to protect and defend these properties (just like the lack of trespass laws would make it harder to defend your home), but it can be done.
In an anarcho-capitalist society (as an example), if everyone started broadcasting on whatever frequency seemed most convenient at the time, very shortly all of the broadcasters would agree on certain rules of the road, and enforce them through contracts. In an anarcho-socialist society (to take another example), individuals and companies could not own property, but syndicates and collectives would manage the unowned resources (they would "own" those resources in all but name) and they would make similar agreements with each other regarding the airwaves.
The management of the airwaves is an old and settled topic on both the libertarian and socialist spectrum. Only those advocating mixed economies still consider it an insoluble problem.
The airwaves belong just as much to me as they do to anybody else; don't be so eager about taking away my property.
When a certain resource is limited, property is the most efficient means of allocating it. Even under pure socialist dogma, property will still exist in all but name. Consider other limited resources, like airspace. Private airports are every bit as efficient as public airports in managing the use of the airspace around them.
Of course, the airwaves are much more complicated than other forms of property, even intellectual property. How can you own something that is everywhere? How can someone else be justified in owning broadcast rights for a frequency that anyone can receive anywhere? The problem is, the airwaves are still limited, and in order to be of use, someone has to control/own them, and odds are it won't be you. It might be the government (who still won't let you broacast on them despite the fact that they give lip service to the public being the actual owners), a corporation, a cooperative, a wealthy individual, etc.
Sure you get a single vote with the government. But you also get multiple votes with commercial firms. With governments it's a winner-take-all election, but with business it's a share-the-pie arrangement. Piss off enough customers and see your market share erode. Please everyone in the world and you'll still have competition.
People always scream about change. But it happens anyway. Otherwise Microsoft would never have become a monopoly.
I remember when a million secretaries were dragged kicking and screaming from WordPerfect to MS Word.
Hee hee. And Windows even comes with a command line ftp!
I had a friend that wanted a website. So he created a bunch of pages and was ready to upload them. He asked me what ftp he should use, as there were so many choices on download.com. So I told him to use just plain ftp. And proceeded to show him how with the software he already had.
Of course, he hated the command line, so he still went and grabbed some crappy shareware front end.
This quasi-privatization of the airwaves combines the worst of both worlds, with few, if any, of the best. All the worst of government regulation, and all the worst of business since they control a product which someone else owns.
Let's have real privatization of the airwaves. Yes, their is a fixed amount of frequencies available, but the market works for other fixed resources, like real estate. Will there be some large players that will grab up large chunks of frequencies? Of course! But I would rather have half a dozen mega conglomerates competing with each other, than a single government agency accountable to no one at all. (and of course, government regulation has done nothing to hinder the current crop of megacorps, but plenty to keep the small independent off the market)
How would it work in practice? Just take a look at the internet. Next to zero regulation, backbones that in many areas are fixed resources, heavy commercialization, yet there are unlimited opportunities for individuals, non-profits, and other noncommercial organizations.
There is a hierarchy of development. At the top is the core team. Below them are the contributors. As a newbie, no matter how experienced in writing drivers for Linux, Solaris or even OpenBSD, you will have to work your way up. Even if Bill Joy decided to join in FreeBSD development, he would have to start at the bottom like everyone else.
But it can be done. Just because they won't except a driver from someone they never heard of doesn't mean that they don't want drivers. If your driver is fully tested, then send it to one of the contributors lower on the rungs, and maybe he or she will bounce it up higher.
Ditto. For Linux users that don't know the difference, this would be like Linus saying "3.0 is delayed a year, but 2.4 is going strong, and we'll do a 2.6 if necessary."
The FreeBSD 5.0 branch will have some MAJOR changes to the architecture. Delaying it is a Good Thing(tm).
At the LWCE I picked up a LinuxPPC dated December 2000. So that's about 9 months since an official stable release.
From what I understand, LPPC does not have a current maintainer. BFD. That doesn't mean people aren't using it, or that it won't have a maintainter in the very near future.
Just what makes a distribution "dead"? The fact that they haven't released anything in over two weeks? Two months? Six months? I remember the days when everyone said Slackware was dead because they hadn't released anything in a year. Then boom! Then they said it was dead because Windriver laid them off, then boom!
The viability of a Free Software project is not predicated upon the sales figures, or the market share, or how many people are using it. I strongly suspect that Yggdrasil is dead, but if they came out with a new release tomorrow, it wouldn't surprise me.
Slackware never wanted to be a multi-million dollar commercial firm, so of course they're not. You measure success by the attainment of your goals, not by the attainment of someone else's goals.
(oh, and LinuxPPC and Turbolinux aren't dead either)
Absolutely right! If you haven't heard, freedom and democracy have been redefined. Get with the program sir!
Freedom means the ability to make the same decisions are everyone else. Democracy means the right to vote for the same people as everyone else. Do you understand now?
You are required to pay a tax levied by the government. Even so-called "use fees" may only be collected by one party, namely the government.
The use of credit card companies are entirely voluntary. Obviously, you can't send cash over the internet, so an information-based payment method is required. Credit and debit cards are the most convenient form of these, which is why they are so common. So what if MegaSitePlus doesn't accept paypal? I've been to brick-and-mortor stores where they didn't accept Visa, and others where they didn't accept Amex. I've been to still others where they wouldn't accept credit cards at all.
Because if you borrow from the work of someone who *specifically intended* for his work (and work based on his work) to remain free, you must abide by his wishes, don't you think?
It depends upon how you define freedom. If freedom means never having to ask the author for permission, then no, the GPL is not free. Because the author is still telling how I can or cannot use it, even though I have a legal copy.
And I don't know where you got the assumption that I write proprietary software. I write BSD and MIT licensed software. But according to the rules of the GPL, a license freer than the GPL is just as bad as one that is more restrictive.
But a question: If the GPL is free despite its restrictions, since the end developers agrees to those restrictions, then why aren't proprietary licenses free as well? Don't users of VC++ also voluntarily give up their freedoms when they agree not to distribute code linked to the MFC libraries? Oh...wait...you're allowed to distribute...without restriction your code developed using VC++ and MFC... Damn. I'll have to think of another analogy.
Not at all. When you buy a book you own the book. When you are done with it you can give it to a friend.
I don't see why the same thing can't be made the default with software. You buy the software and you own the CD. You don't have the right to give away copies, just like you don't have the right to give away copies of a book you bought. But when you are done with it you can sell to a "used software" store. You can make copies for you own use. You can install it in your living room AND your bedroom, just like you can read your book in your living room and your bedroom. Since it is your CD, you can decompile and reverse engineer it. You can modify it for your own personal use. Etc.
"Sometimes", says Ricky, the Big Green Donkey, "like pruning your garden, cutting back on certain freedoms can allow more freedom to grow. That's why the GPL is so important. It prevents people from making wrong decisions. When people are only allowed to make right decisions, then we will live in peace and propserity and mindless servitude to those who decide what the right decision should be."
"True", says Bluto the Blue Bug, "by tying a stake to a plant we force it to grow in only one direction. By using the GPL we force developers to GPL their own original code that merely links to Kylix runtimes. We have decided for them, and they can grow up straight and tall and vote for all the right people."
"You are right Bluto", responds Ricky, "which is why Chairman Stallman, in his GNU Manifesto, advocates taxing all software to support Free Software development. Supporting the Free Software is a right decision to make, but if people have too much freedom they might decide to keep their money to themselves."
"Well said Ricky", replies Bluto, "which is why the GPL makes the right decision to take freedom away from the developer, because the user is more important. Right now there are more users of BSD and MIT licensed software than there is of GPL licensed software. That is because the BSD and MIT licenses do not restrict their developers, so they end up with XFree86 and Apache being the most used Free Software projects ever."
"You said it Bluto" continued Ricky "because they are not under the GPL, Mickey the Soft Turtle can steal XFree86 and Apache, and just because he hasn't stolen them yet doesn't mean that he won't tomorrow. Although it doesn't hurt us or take away our freedom at all, it is still our right to stick our noses into their affairs and tell them what to do. That's because the GPL is the right decision, and we can't have people having the freedom to make the wrong decision. Using the BSD and MIT style licenses does not hurt us, or take away our freedoms, but it does insult us since it is not the decision we would make. So we must make it for them."
"Yes, you are right, Ricky. Just like we prune the limbs from wayward trees, we must hack off the limbs of wayward developers. We must tie them to stakes and make them stand up straight (or they would slouch!) and grow tall. Freedom only belongs to those of us who would make right decisions."
EULAs generally include statements such as "This software is licensed, not sold" in order to circumvent the arguments you've presented...
That's all well and good except for two things: First, I don't get to read the EULA until after I have made a purchase. Second, the software is packaged as a salable product, not as a lease.
Granted, I know that just about any software package I buy is going to have a license in it telling me what I can or cannot do with that circular plastic disk I just bought. So I'm not really bitching about any one particular company, but rather I'm bitching about the entire system that defrauds consumers by giving them a sales receipt then they lease software.
Oh yeah, I hear yah...
GNOME is a subsidiary of GNU, which is founded on the idea that all software should be Free, so of course allowing people to use your code to create unfree and subjugating software is a Good Thing(tm).
Oh, and Qt is not licensed under the GPL, it is dual licensed under the GPL *and* the QPL, with an option to purchase an even freer license.
Off topic, but I couldn't help it...
Since the days of GNOME 0.3, I have been continually told some variant of "that's because you were using a version from last week/month and you should try to latest version instead because it's faster/stabler."