No, that is not true. The difference between a journalist and a blogger and/or writer is that a journalist tries to publish the true facts. Mere writers and bloggers don't bother with the unbiased truth, have no problem manufacturing or hiding information to support their spin, and have no qualms about plagiarizing entire articles.
Re:Talk about delusions of grandeur
on
Sun Releases JavaFX
·
· Score: 0, Troll
Real journalists have integrity. Real journalists present data in an unbiased fashion, without spin. Real journalist check their sources, don't manufacture news, and don't commit plagiarism, all of which is rampant on blogs.
I bet you are a wanna-be journalist who does all of the above.
They do not follow the tenets of journalism, therefore they are not journalists and do not deserve the protection accorded journalists.
Sadly, many print reporters are now following the bloggers and are no longer acting as journalists and should be stripped of their journalistic protections.
Network Box are not a development house nor do they provide open source software. They do not follow the open source business model. Just because they use open FOSS, it does not follow they use the FOSS business model. They are selling a service, not developing software. You should provide a first example before you try to provide a second example.
Zabbix is providing software and, by your own admission, it is complex to use and configure. Why not use something easier to use and configure? Many people will pay for software that is easy to use and configure rather than use overly complex and obtuse free software.
Let's assume you get trained to configure Zabbix. The company can charge to train you. The cost will have to be pretty high to cover both training and software development. Once you are trained, you can then market your new skills as a Zabbix consultant and train others. You can write a book on configuring and using Zabbix and sell it, cutting further into the money making end of their operation.
You seem to miss the difference between using FOSS to provide a service or product and developing and releasing FOSS as a business, which is what TFA and the GPP are both about. The former is doable, the latter is rarely even a break-even proposition.
complex task that requires skilled labor you provide cheaper than training staff
OK, I'll bite. Remember it goes like this:
1. Invent really cool new software product. 2. Give it away for free. 3. Enable the community to do all their own support and enhancements. 4. [ your step goes here ] 5. Profit!!!!
Please provide at least two different examples of a complex task that requires skilled labor you provide cheaper than training staff for a software product that will fit into step 4 and lead to step 5. Remember, it can't require that your software be a piece of crap because then no one will want to use your software and/or someone will write something better. The example you provided was not related to a software product.
Build a small closed source application that utilizes the open source software.
Then, you are not following the FLOSS business model. You are not following steps 2 and 3. Specifically, you are taking steps 4 and 5 out of the FLOSS product and moving them into a non-FLOSS product. This makes the model you suggest
FLOSS
Invent really cool new software product.
Give it away for free.
Enable the community to do all their own support and enhancements.
Non-Floss
Build a small closed source application that utilizes the open source software from step 1.
Sell the small closed source application
PROFIT!!!
Make your staff the source for training required to manage a complex system.
In other words, make a crappy product that hard to use and maintain and requires the training. And, that only works until someone gets the training and then starts training others. Once there are a number of well trained people, someone is going to write a book, then another and suddenly, your training isn't necessary or is available somewhere else at a cheaper price.
And, if he does not own the copyright, he should not be receiving the payment. He sold his copyright to someone else, the publisher. And, the publisher has not give anyone the right to make copies, so you will be violating the rights of the publisher.
Funny, that is how we started out conquering the Pacific ocean, by paddling out to the nearest rock. Let me guess, as a baby, you rolled over, stood up, and ran the 100m dash in 4 minutes, right?
In other words, the reason programmers are not engineers is because they and the companies they work for are unprofessional. Programming does not rise to the level of engineering precisely because it is considered OK to do a half-assed job and ship the results.
It wasn't that long ago that the mindset of "We can't test and plan for everything" was in other industries. Then, disasters happened and suddenly it was possible. Now, those industries have engineers and are considerably safer. From automobiles to ship building, spectacular failures have let to professional behavior. The same can not be said of programming.
Slashdot Mirror
Time magazine, NewsWeek, the NYT, the Washington Post, etc, etc, etc.
And, I have submitted stories from those sources, but others have done so before me so my submissions never make it to front page.
You will note, not a single blog among those sources.
Go read my comments in other threads.
Occasionally, writers get jobs as journalists and then precede to give the profession a black eye. It has been happening more and more as of late.
Blogging, however, is built upon lies, half-truths, spin, unsubstantiated claims, and plagiarism.
No, that is not true. The difference between a journalist and a blogger and/or writer is that a journalist tries to publish the true facts. Mere writers and bloggers don't bother with the unbiased truth, have no problem manufacturing or hiding information to support their spin, and have no qualms about plagiarizing entire articles.
What part of "desktop" did you not understand?
Real journalists have integrity. Real journalists present data in an unbiased fashion, without spin. Real journalist check their sources, don't manufacture news, and don't commit plagiarism, all of which is rampant on blogs.
I bet you are a wanna-be journalist who does all of the above.
Now shut your hole and go fuck yourself, pissant.
So, it being the 21st century is an excuse for not having integrity?
No, we are not all journalists. You can call a turd a rose, but that does not make it a rose nor does it smell as sweet.
I call bullshit on both your posts. China is jailing bloggers, not journalists.
Not supporting linux and solaris, which have less than 5% of the desktop market, is not notable and is, in fact, good business sense.
They do not follow the tenets of journalism, therefore they are not journalists and do not deserve the protection accorded journalists.
Sadly, many print reporters are now following the bloggers and are no longer acting as journalists and should be stripped of their journalistic protections.
Network Box are not a development house nor do they provide open source software. They do not follow the open source business model. Just because they use open FOSS, it does not follow they use the FOSS business model. They are selling a service, not developing software. You should provide a first example before you try to provide a second example.
Zabbix is providing software and, by your own admission, it is complex to use and configure. Why not use something easier to use and configure? Many people will pay for software that is easy to use and configure rather than use overly complex and obtuse free software.
Let's assume you get trained to configure Zabbix. The company can charge to train you. The cost will have to be pretty high to cover both training and software development. Once you are trained, you can then market your new skills as a Zabbix consultant and train others. You can write a book on configuring and using Zabbix and sell it, cutting further into the money making end of their operation.
You seem to miss the difference between using FOSS to provide a service or product and developing and releasing FOSS as a business, which is what TFA and the GPP are both about. The former is doable, the latter is rarely even a break-even proposition.
Yes, I saw what you did there.
I think you are underestimating the failure rate. I would put the number of FOSS companies that didn't make it at 100.
Now, if you would like to dispute that number with "facts" you didn't pull out of your ass, please feel free. Until then, STFU.
OK, I'll bite. Remember it goes like this:
Please provide at least two different examples of a complex task that requires skilled labor you provide cheaper than training staff for a software product that will fit into step 4 and lead to step 5. Remember, it can't require that your software be a piece of crap because then no one will want to use your software and/or someone will write something better. The example you provided was not related to a software product.
Then, you are not following the FLOSS business model. You are not following steps 2 and 3. Specifically, you are taking steps 4 and 5 out of the FLOSS product and moving them into a non-FLOSS product. This makes the model you suggest
In other words, make a crappy product that hard to use and maintain and requires the training. And, that only works until someone gets the training and then starts training others. Once there are a number of well trained people, someone is going to write a book, then another and suddenly, your training isn't necessary or is available somewhere else at a cheaper price.
In other words, the GPL is viral and contaminates what comes in contact with it. Just the opposite Stallass and co. have been saying for years.
Yes, as programmers you should put yourselves out of jobs and end up eating ramen and living in tin shacks because you can't sell your skills.
The only problem with your post is that you ignore the fact that properly written software requires little, if any, support.
In other words, if you write the software correctly, you will make no money at all on support.
He is not creating inventions. He is writing software. Inventions fall under patents, software falls under copyright.
You were not "in almost the exact position", not even close.
Try actually reading the law instead of asking a biased bunch of people on a web site. And, if you don't like the conditions, don't take the position.
There was never a virus for an MS product until there was one.
And 640K of memory should be more than anyone ever needs.
It is simple.
Is it ethical to violate someone else's legal rights?
No, it is not. It is as simple as that.
And, if he does not own the copyright, he should not be receiving the payment. He sold his copyright to someone else, the publisher. And, the publisher has not give anyone the right to make copies, so you will be violating the rights of the publisher.
Funny, that is how we started out conquering the Pacific ocean, by paddling out to the nearest rock. Let me guess, as a baby, you rolled over, stood up, and ran the 100m dash in 4 minutes, right?
You are a fucking idiot.
In other words, the reason programmers are not engineers is because they and the companies they work for are unprofessional. Programming does not rise to the level of engineering precisely because it is considered OK to do a half-assed job and ship the results.
It wasn't that long ago that the mindset of "We can't test and plan for everything" was in other industries. Then, disasters happened and suddenly it was possible. Now, those industries have engineers and are considerably safer. From automobiles to ship building, spectacular failures have let to professional behavior. The same can not be said of programming.
And, by your own admission, your work practices show you to be unprofessional.
You are just upset because you know in your heart that he is correct.
You may be a programmer by profession, but you are not a professional programmer nor an engineer.