The reason to bring it up is because it is directly related to this case, as I pointed out. The confusion created by SCO is only possible because of the confusion between Linux (kernel) and GNU/LInux (base OS). If asking people to give credit where credit is due alienates them, then that is a serious problem. Obviously, this indicates that people have a lax attitude towards intellectual honesty. If being asked to be intellectually honest offends and alienates some people, then obviously their college professors should have flunked them out of several courses.
The point of the FSF is not to get as many people as possible to use GNU/Linux. It is to get as many people as possible to embrace Free Software, thus a certain set of freedoms which should be granted to everyone using software. If they have to compromise those values to get Free Software in the corporate world, then it's not really about Free Software anymore. The software is still Free, of course, but there are prone to be problems in the future. Getting companies to use Free Software is only half way there. RMS has written a very good article on why it's just as important to educate people on the Freedoms Free Software provides, as it is to get them into the community.
for those turned off by the elitist Debian commune
on
Introduction to Debian
·
· Score: 0, Troll
try Gentoo. The community is very helpful. Message boards extremely useful, as is IRC room. You won't get told that your a stupid newbie, and they won't "RTFM, bitch" you.
Re:so, why exactly are corporations and organizati
on
Working Hard?
·
· Score: 1
Yep, it is rare. But it's usually possible to at least reach a mutual understanding when two individuals don't automatically reply to eachother, upon finding out they may disagree with eachother, with something like "yoU $ux0r$, m@n".
Oh please, that's such bullshit. So what, this device was illegal? You can hardly compare it to drug, and even with drugs, it's questionable that they should be illegal. In any case, 5 years is far far too much time. Who did he harm? No-one. Thus, any time is unacceptable. Who did he intend to harm? No one. Sorry, but selling a device to make manipulate radio-waves in the air is an absurd reason to send someone to prison for. Finally, regarding financial penalties, who did he harm financially? No-one. The satellite companies lost no money; thus, asking him to pay them ANYTHING is unacceptable.
The only acceptable outcome of this case would have been if he had been ordered to destroy the device and not sell it in the future. Period. Anything else is a draconian imposal of the will of the rich onto the poor.
As an aside, no-one should be allowed to own radio-waves going through the air, or any kind of wave going through the air (or space). Once your radio-wave enters my property, it's fucking mine, and I should be able to do whatever the fuck I want with it. What's next, are we going to allow the rich to own the very air itself?
Child molesters have gotten away with 5 years. See Where's The Outrage. In one case, a judge all but let a child-molester off, saying "the girl provoked her by her dressing, and was willing", or some bullshit like that. Also, murderers have gotten about that much time (see my other example, about the guy who beat someone to death over a hockey game). OJ Simpson got away with nothing. This is a place where rich people get away with everything, and poor people get life for the even attempting to do something against the evil empire.
In regards to the coffee case, the very temperatures mentioned on the site you referred to are hot enough to effectively thin out the coffee, meaning that less coffee-bean grind is required. McDonald's even admitted that the coffee was not suitable for drinking, as it would cause 3rd degree gurns on the mouth and throat if drank. Yet, they only had to pay about 400k. And actual damages were done there, not just some theoretical damages that didn't occur.
Regarding the current lawsuit, the article clearly says that no harm was actually done to the satellite companies. His device was never released, thus there's no justification for ANY sentence against him, nor any punitive damages. This case is almost as bad as the one where the RIAA stole the life-savings of a college student (though he currently has them back, from generous donations). $6,000 dollars a year is still a lot of money, and severely limits this man's capabilities to live. If he made 30,000 a year for the rest of his working career, that would leave him with only 24,000 dollars a year -- barely enough to live on. He won't be able to save anything for retirement.
Not only that, but he won't be able to live in any decent condition once he retires. 6000 dollars a year is a huge burden for the average retired person, who almost exclusively relies on social security (and, as I've already mentioned, this guy probably won't be able to save anything for retirement).
If you had actually bothered to read the article, you'd note that the current confusion is only allowed because no-one bothers to distinguish between Linux the kernel, and the GNU/Linux set of OS'. Your talk about the Linux kernel doing just as well without GNU software is irrelevant. There is currently *one* Linux-based OS that does not use GNU tools to form the rest of the OS, to my knowledge. The point is that credit should be given where credit is due. As all Linux-based OS' distributed today require you to install and use GNU tools to be in any way useful to even the most minimal of users, it is fair to call the OS' as a set GNU/Linux.
The FSF and RMS in particular have never asked to be given credit or partial for anything that wasn't created by them or partially created by them. Neither have they beared any ill-will towards the Linux kernel or Linus in particular. RMS has specifically said that the FSF wouldn't have even bothered to create the HURD kernel if Linux had existed when they started. So much for your arguments about them hating Linux. The reason they're continuing to develop HURD now is because it would be a shame to waste what has been developed of it so far, when it is pretty much near completion for a useable state. And maybe because the developers like doing it.
In fact, in this article, the FSF lawyers points out several reasons as to why these claims against IBM's contributions to the Linux kernel will fail. That is obviously explicitly defending the Linux kernel against attacks.
You also completely ignore the point of the FSF. The FSF is not about a development model. It is about an ideal of Free Software. The OSI is about a development model. The two happen to agree on the vast majority of their practical recommendations -- and thus are allies, despite having completely different reasons for supporting those recommendations. The point behind FS is not to "sell" it to corporations. Getting more people to agree with you by compromising the values of FS is not what the FSF is about. The OSI isn't about that either, but they have a different set of values.
As I said before, the two groups happen to agree with eachother on 99% of practical recommendations (so far). At the moment, any license that is accepted by the FSF is also accepted by the OSI, though that may not hold in the future. This is probably because the Open Source Initiative is a splinter from the Free Software Movement. Because the two agree on practical recommendations, they are natural allies (as the FSF has stated). Two groups that support the right to choose can be allies, despite one supporting that right for idealistic reasons, the other for practical reasons.
Child molesters have gotten away with less time than 5 years. Some schmuck got only 6 years for beating another to death over a hockey game. Yet, even think about violating some corporation's bullshit tradesecret/patent rights, and you get 5 years.
McDonald's only had to pay several million dollars to that woman who got 3rd degree burns on her private area because they made the coffee scalding hot so as to save money on coffee-beans.
This guy having to pay money to these crooks for something that he didn't even do is absurd. They lost no money, so him paying damages is completely unjust.
The only reasonable outcome of this would have been an injunction against him releasing that device. Anything else is completely out of proportion.
The people who still insist on calling the entire OS "Linux" are, imo, fanatics.
This is a demonstratable case of where harm is being done to the entire FS and OSS community because of the confusion between Linux the kernel and the GNU/Linux OS, which is at the core of what every distributor (like RedHat, Suse, Gentoo, Debian, etc) distributes as a distribution.
The only reason SCO is able to exploit the confusion between Linux the kernel and the "Linux OS" is because fanatics insist that because most people have always called the entire OS "Linux", we should continue to do so; despite the fact that it creates confusion between the kernel and the OS, while another name (GNU/Linux) ameliorates that confusion.
Now, I'm not saying that if everyone knew that Linux referred properly to the kernel, and GNU/Linux to the set of OS distributions, this lawsuit would have been prevented. SCO still could have sued IBM, and still could have launched this smear-campaign. However, they would have to specify exactly what they were referring to -- the kernel or the entire OS. They would not be able to exploit ambiguity and confusion to as great an extent as they currently are.
Re:so, why exactly are corporations and organizati
on
Working Hard?
·
· Score: 1
Well, that's what unions are for. A company may easily be able to replace one employee who wants more vacation with some standardless worker imported from a foreign country who thinks that $100/wk is a fortune.
However, they will not so easily be able to replace hundreds, or thousands, of workers. Even if current laws permitted companies to fire individuals while on strike, companies would probably not be able to do it, as there's no way they could replace those workers in a reasonable alotment of time. I am not arguing against unions. Unions serve a very useful role.
Though I don't argue against unions in general, I do argue against some union behaviors in specific. While on strike, workers have no right to be on corporate property; thus, if they are there, they are tresspassing if the owners ask them to leave. They can strike on the nearest public grounds. Blocking entrances for those who do want to work is also not acceptable. Furthermore, forcing indivudals into unions, or taking the overtime salary of those who work while on strike, is unacceptable.
Finally, many union guys are just assholes. My father worked as a manager at a telephone company in Rochester until he retired. While walking down a hallway once, he noticed that something was wrong (an alarm was off, and the problem causing it was not being fixed). So, he fixed it, after which, some asshole from the union ran up to him and told him he wasn't supposed to do that. You see, fixing that broken thing was the responsibility of one of the union members, and his job is "devalued" if others are allowed to fix things he's supposed to fix. Naturally, the reaction to this was that when the lazy union bum fixes things, he won't need to.
There are other conditions where unions are simply assinite as a whole. Companies start to go under, and face hard economic times. So they have to start cutting back on salaries, firing people, and eliminating benefits. Unions then go on strike. This serves no productive purpose, as it only harms the company further, furthering the cause of them having to cut back in the first place.
so, why exactly are corporations and organizations
on
Working Hard?
·
· Score: 1
obligated to give you vacation?
If you don't like the vacation options of your current job, look for another with better ones. If there is enough demand for vacation time in the employee market, then companies will have to compete to give it to you.
I work at the University of Rochester Medical Center, where starters get 15 days of vacation by the 6th month of satisfactory job-performance. If vacation isn't taken, then those 15 days are paid for as if full salary.
For starting lab technicians, that's two weaks of salary, or about $900 dollars after taxes.
The down-side is that there's no over-time, because hours aren't clocked. In a lab-environment, the "hours" you put in don't really matter, as long as you take care of your responsibilities. Most lab-technicians, and all grad students and phDs, do more than their minimum responsibilities, and run several experiments at once; so, they do more than their minimum required duties.
Quite frankly, I think alot of the bitching about overtime and vacation and etc here is not well-considered. Sure, we work harder and get less vacation. But we also have lower taxes. The tax-rates in Europe are astronomical.
I don't mind working longer hours, as long as
on
Working Hard?
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
I'm justly compensated.
Now, 1.5 times salary is a very nice, very generous, compensation for overtime. But I'd hardly say that anything less is an injustice.
I'd say that as long as you get paid at least in direct proportion to how many hours you work, it's just.
(1) If the ads are really good. Not even always then. If immediately when the ad section starts, you get a crappy ad, you might not watch the rest. So, alot of it depends on what the first ad is.
(2) Cliffhanger programs, or can't-miss'. If someone really doesn't want to miss anything, they're more likely to put up with ads. This means that the program needs to be that good, and it needs to have left off at the right moment.
It's most likely that these guys are bluffing. In any case, MS' optimum course of action for their own insatiable greed and tyranical control-obsession is not to do this.
If it was a bluff, they called it. If it was real, then it was real, and the exploit's out there: that's not a worse situation than if they'd released a boot-CD for Linux.
These guys should just publish the exploit that allows you to install GNU/Linux on an X-box. There is no risk here -- it is easy to publish something and remain completely annonymous on the net.
Quite frankly, though, I really don't care. I don't own an X-box, and wouldn't support MS' evil empire of greed and control by buying one. Even if I had one, why would I want to use it as a desktop-platform? It sucks for that.
Well, I have to disagree with you. The law professor thinks Linus created the GNU/Linux OS all by himself. He certainly hasn't bothered to find anything out about the contributions of others not associated with Linus.
Common people do not know what GNU is. That is the problem. They do not know that the GNU/Linux OS is not the same thing as Linux, the kernel. Thus, they think that this lawsuite threatens the integrity of the entire OS. Yes, there is an operating system out there that uses Linux but no GNU tools, though the name of it escapes me at the moment (I believe it uses all BSD tools with Linux).
Hell, the average person thinks s/he's running Linux 9, not RedHat GNU/Linux 9. The common person doesn't even know what a fscking kernel is. That's part of the problem.
The other part of the problem is when people who do know better use terminology that causes confusion between what is the OS and what is the kernel and what is all the extra software that flushes out a GNU/Linux distribution like Gentoo, Debian, Slackware, RedHat, or Lindows.
Your right, it is common that most people think that Linus started the movement and work that led to the OS that is properly called GNU/Linux. That is exactly the problem. History has effectively been re-written. No-one knows that RM Stallman in fact started that movement, and Linus capped it off by completing the puzzle with his kernel. If more people know that RMS started the movement that lead to the GNU/Linux OS, more people may come to know of the FSF and understand the values behind Free Software.
But, all this values stuff aside, it really boils down to credit where credit is due. This lawyer would have been flunked out of any college journalism class for such a thing, and probably would face disciplinary action. The cavalear attitude among many about giving intellectual credit is particularly disturbing to me. It seems like the attitude of students bitching because they have to list references. On many modern Science papers which feature micro-array studies, there are hundreds of authors. All of them are listed on the front page of the paper underneath the title.
PS: Calling it "Red Hat" is fine among those who know what is implied by that (that it has GNU and Linux parts). The reason that it is better to call the distributions GNU/Linux is precisely to avoid the kind of confusion between kernel and OS that SCO is exploiting. The reason we don't call it GNU/Linux/GNOME/KDE/Xfree86, is because none of those things are either as essential or as massive in terms of how much they account for. No-one needs to use GNOME, KDE, Xfree86, nor any WM or X-implementation when they install distributions. They do, however, need to use the Linux kernel and GNU software. However, RMS has said that if you really feel XFree is that much of an important part of it, then call it GNU/Linux/XFree, or whatever.
According to most of your definitions -- half of which, btw, are meaningless in modern times -- a zealot must be someone who is fanatical and militant. I am neither. I have logical reasons for believing in everything I do. Sorry, buddy, but you don't get to call someone a zealot every time they have a strong belief that you disagree with.
Even so, buddy, you own fucking definitions disagree with you. Overzealous, or carried away by his zeal; fanatical; militant. Nope, sorry, buddy, but that's not me. I'm not carried away by anything, fanatical, or militant.
Here's a few definitions for you (see dictionary.com, buddy):
pretentious -- Making or marked by an extravagant outward show; ostentatious.
pedant -- One who exhibits one's learning or scholarship ostentatiously.
asshole -- A thoroughly contemptible, detestable person.
I'll even use all three words in a sentence for you: Aside from being a complete asshole, you are a pretentious pedant. So fuck off, buddy.
Finally, someone who calls another a zealot simply because they strongly believe in something that they disagree with -- and then proceeds to call those people imbeciles when they call him on it -- is in no position to be giving anyone lessons on courtesy.
PS: Your damn right, I'm condescending to talk to you. Your a pathetic imbecile who's only method of arguing is calling those who you disagree with zealots or fanatics. Now, I'll have to ascend back to a civilized level. Here in civilized society, we don't call eachother zealots and fanatics whenever we disagree with one another. But I'm sure you've been in your parents basement far too long to know of any such thing.
Well, I don't agree that improper implies wrongdoing. I'm not trying to imply that the people who call it Linux are in some way vile (aside from SCO). Just like I wouldn't say someone who says "wanna" is vile, though that is improper.
You are supporting plaguarism. That is, taking credit for what is NOT YOUR OWN WORK. You lose all credability in the future, because you are too much of a fucktard to understand the most basic of intellectual curtousies -- giving credit where credit is due.
The Linux kernel is great. It, however, would be useless without GNU utilities and software, as well as other FS and OSS utilities and software.
What I am taking serious issue here with is the fact that this ignoramus (the guy who wrote the Law.com article) is claiming that Linus created the ENTIRE GNU/Linux Operating System by himself. That is simply false. Linus created the kernel, not the entire OS. The entire OS is the culmination of the hard work of thousands of developers.
I am sure that Linus damn well would be pissed off if someone claimed that RM Stallman created the Linux kernel. And rightfully so. It is also rightfully so that people be pissed off that this lawyer is claiming Linus created the entire GNU/Linux OS. That is disrespectful to everyone who has worked hard and contributed to the GNU/Linux OS'.
Regarding GNU/Linux, my point there was that by calling the entire OS Linux, when it is more proper to just call the kernel Linux, you create confusion. The kind of confusion that allows SCO to say "we're suing IBM for contributing to Linux" meaning the kernel, but not specifying so, and leading millions to believe that the all of the code in the entire set of GNU/Linux OS' would be tainted by this lawsuit if SCO won, when in fact, only some tiny insignificant portion of the Linux kernel would be tained.
So, how about you fuck off and go back to high-school? Obviously, you need to be disciplined a few more times for plaguarism. Just because you are too fucking lazy to give credit where credit is due in references does not make it ok.
to this mess of confusion. SCO damn well knows the diff between Linux the kernel and the entire OS (GNU/Linux), but they're purposeful obfuscating so that technically, they can say they were only talking about the kernel, but the impression everyone gets is they're talking about the entire OS. That's what every executive and layperson thinks -- that this lawsuit affect the entire GNU/Linux OS.
I think that if calling something one thing leads to a bunch of confusion, that is not good.
I would simply like credit to be given where credit is freaking due.
Irrelevant of the GNU/Linux (proper) vs. Linux (improper) way to say it, Linus Torvalds did not create the OS. He started the kernel.
It is patently wrong, and unethical, to say that Linus created the entire OS. That denies credit to thousands of hard-working individuals who's combined contributions create the OS (GNU/Linux).
Giving proper credit to those who create things shouldn't have to be in licenses. It should be the default. If you quote someone, you have to say that you're quoting them. You certainly don't pass off the quote as your own words, nor do you say that person X said what, in fact, person Y said.
What I am criticizing this guy for is for stating something as a fact which is not the truth. He researched UNIX history before saying anything about who created what, so he damn well should have researched the history behind GNU/Linux before saying that Linus created it. But since he didn't, now there are even more people who have that misconception, and have no idea of the real history of GNU/Linux, no idea that the contributions of the FSF (and those who contributed to it) were essential.
Saying something like "Linus created the kernel to power the GNU OS created by FSF contributors" would have detracted from the article? I disagree. It would have added to it. False-hoods are always bad, and truths in their place always good. He bothered to go into UNIX history, so he could have devoted a sentence to this.
It is important, because the confusion between Linux the kernel and the GNU/Linux OS' creates legal confusion as well. Most people think that SCO is alleging that the entire GNU/Linux OS (what they think of as "Linux") has their code in it, when they are only really alleging that the Linux kernel has their proprietary code in it. SCO knows damn well the difference, and is using this subtle point of confusion for their advantage.
Few people would be worried about this if they knew that only a few insignificant portions of the kernel that probably don't even affect them anyways are in question, which can be easily and quickly replaced anyways.
However, this guy is a lawyer, and obviously made as point of researching the history of the situation a little, to form what is obviously an intelligent position, and what anyone reading it can tell is an intelligent position.
This is what makes his revision of history all the worse. Because people read his article, and are probably impressed by him, and his knowledge of UNIX history, they then think that Linus single-handedly created entire GNU/Linux distributions. Linus started Linux, the kernel. He did all of the initial work, and then others started helping him out.
Your explanation for Linux' success is absurd. The idea that a logo is what makes a project successful is absurd (though I would suggest GNU look into changing their logo). People judge something on it's merits, not the publishability of it's logo.
RMS and others who insist on GNU/Linux bear Linux, the kernel, no ill will; nor Linux. They simply want history recorded in the proper fucking manner. It is now being written in articles explaining the history of GNU/Linux that Linus invented it by himself. That marginalizes the contributions of everyone else who helped to create what we now as the GNU/Linux distributions (e.g., RedHat, SuSe, Gentoo, Debian, Slackware, etc).
To be technically correct, SCO is attacking the kernel. However, they have no clarified that; thus, it seems like they are attacking the entire OS. Another reason why this ambiguity between the kernel and the entire OS. Obviously, the guy who wrote this article does not understand that SCO is only attacking the kernel; he thinks they are attacking the entire OS. Thus, he says Linux, referring to the entire OS that he claims Linus created, when he should be saying Linux in reference to the kernel that Linus started and headed.
The entire OS was created by the collaborative efforts of Linus, RMS, the FSF, and millions of others; but most of it is GNU software, and a small (but very important) part of it is Linux (though Linux is no longer essential). Thus, for increased clarity, it is better to call it the GNU/Linux OS'. Simply calling it Linux creates confusion between the kernel, the OS, and the entire distributions.
But he's a lawyer. Who's writing an article that's supposed to educate people. His article generally seems to be intelligent and informed; thus, someone who doesn't know better will come away thinking that on the first day, Linus created the Linux kernel, on the 2nd he created the GNU tools, on the 3rd he created XFree86,..., and on the 7th day, he rested.
I agree completely in regards to your point on Newton/Leibniz. I wish I'd mentioned the difference you pointed out; however, the injustice is essentially similar.
Sorry, buddy, but the way in which you attempt to apply the word zealot is nonsense. Just because someone fervently beleaves in something -- be it Free Software, Pro-Life, Pro-Choice, Euthanasia, or whatever -- does not make them a zealot. By your definition, anyone who feels passionately and strongly about anything is a zealot.
I'll say someone's a zealot if they claim to have certainty that they are right, when there is little proof to back them up, or little solid reasoning, AND if they act in extreme and anti-social ways because of those beliefs. E.g., those who break into scientific research labs or blow up abortion clinics -- zealots.
Slashdot Mirror
The reason to bring it up is because it is directly related to this case, as I pointed out. The confusion created by SCO is only possible because of the confusion between Linux (kernel) and GNU/LInux (base OS). If asking people to give credit where credit is due alienates them, then that is a serious problem. Obviously, this indicates that people have a lax attitude towards intellectual honesty. If being asked to be intellectually honest offends and alienates some people, then obviously their college professors should have flunked them out of several courses.
The point of the FSF is not to get as many people as possible to use GNU/Linux. It is to get as many people as possible to embrace Free Software, thus a certain set of freedoms which should be granted to everyone using software. If they have to compromise those values to get Free Software in the corporate world, then it's not really about Free Software anymore. The software is still Free, of course, but there are prone to be problems in the future. Getting companies to use Free Software is only half way there. RMS has written a very good article on why it's just as important to educate people on the Freedoms Free Software provides, as it is to get them into the community.
try Gentoo. The community is very helpful. Message boards extremely useful, as is IRC room. You won't get told that your a stupid newbie, and they won't "RTFM, bitch" you.
Yep, it is rare. But it's usually possible to at least reach a mutual understanding when two individuals don't automatically reply to eachother, upon finding out they may disagree with eachother, with something like "yoU $ux0r$, m@n".
Oh please, that's such bullshit. So what, this device was illegal? You can hardly compare it to drug, and even with drugs, it's questionable that they should be illegal. In any case, 5 years is far far too much time. Who did he harm? No-one. Thus, any time is unacceptable. Who did he intend to harm? No one. Sorry, but selling a device to make manipulate radio-waves in the air is an absurd reason to send someone to prison for. Finally, regarding financial penalties, who did he harm financially? No-one. The satellite companies lost no money; thus, asking him to pay them ANYTHING is unacceptable.
The only acceptable outcome of this case would have been if he had been ordered to destroy the device and not sell it in the future. Period. Anything else is a draconian imposal of the will of the rich onto the poor.
As an aside, no-one should be allowed to own radio-waves going through the air, or any kind of wave going through the air (or space). Once your radio-wave enters my property, it's fucking mine, and I should be able to do whatever the fuck I want with it. What's next, are we going to allow the rich to own the very air itself?
Child molesters have gotten away with 5 years. See Where's The Outrage. In one case, a judge all but let a child-molester off, saying "the girl provoked her by her dressing, and was willing", or some bullshit like that. Also, murderers have gotten about that much time (see my other example, about the guy who beat someone to death over a hockey game). OJ Simpson got away with nothing. This is a place where rich people get away with everything, and poor people get life for the even attempting to do something against the evil empire.
In regards to the coffee case, the very temperatures mentioned on the site you referred to are hot enough to effectively thin out the coffee, meaning that less coffee-bean grind is required. McDonald's even admitted that the coffee was not suitable for drinking, as it would cause 3rd degree gurns on the mouth and throat if drank. Yet, they only had to pay about 400k. And actual damages were done there, not just some theoretical damages that didn't occur.
Regarding the current lawsuit, the article clearly says that no harm was actually done to the satellite companies. His device was never released, thus there's no justification for ANY sentence against him, nor any punitive damages. This case is almost as bad as the one where the RIAA stole the life-savings of a college student (though he currently has them back, from generous donations). $6,000 dollars a year is still a lot of money, and severely limits this man's capabilities to live. If he made 30,000 a year for the rest of his working career, that would leave him with only 24,000 dollars a year -- barely enough to live on. He won't be able to save anything for retirement.
Not only that, but he won't be able to live in any decent condition once he retires. 6000 dollars a year is a huge burden for the average retired person, who almost exclusively relies on social security (and, as I've already mentioned, this guy probably won't be able to save anything for retirement).
If you had actually bothered to read the article, you'd note that the current confusion is only allowed because no-one bothers to distinguish between Linux the kernel, and the GNU/Linux set of OS'. Your talk about the Linux kernel doing just as well without GNU software is irrelevant. There is currently *one* Linux-based OS that does not use GNU tools to form the rest of the OS, to my knowledge. The point is that credit should be given where credit is due. As all Linux-based OS' distributed today require you to install and use GNU tools to be in any way useful to even the most minimal of users, it is fair to call the OS' as a set GNU/Linux.
The FSF and RMS in particular have never asked to be given credit or partial for anything that wasn't created by them or partially created by them. Neither have they beared any ill-will towards the Linux kernel or Linus in particular. RMS has specifically said that the FSF wouldn't have even bothered to create the HURD kernel if Linux had existed when they started. So much for your arguments about them hating Linux. The reason they're continuing to develop HURD now is because it would be a shame to waste what has been developed of it so far, when it is pretty much near completion for a useable state. And maybe because the developers like doing it.
In fact, in this article, the FSF lawyers points out several reasons as to why these claims against IBM's contributions to the Linux kernel will fail. That is obviously explicitly defending the Linux kernel against attacks.
You also completely ignore the point of the FSF. The FSF is not about a development model. It is about an ideal of Free Software. The OSI is about a development model. The two happen to agree on the vast majority of their practical recommendations -- and thus are allies, despite having completely different reasons for supporting those recommendations. The point behind FS is not to "sell" it to corporations. Getting more people to agree with you by compromising the values of FS is not what the FSF is about. The OSI isn't about that either, but they have a different set of values.
As I said before, the two groups happen to agree with eachother on 99% of practical recommendations (so far). At the moment, any license that is accepted by the FSF is also accepted by the OSI, though that may not hold in the future. This is probably because the Open Source Initiative is a splinter from the Free Software Movement. Because the two agree on practical recommendations, they are natural allies (as the FSF has stated). Two groups that support the right to choose can be allies, despite one supporting that right for idealistic reasons, the other for practical reasons.
Child molesters have gotten away with less time than 5 years. Some schmuck got only 6 years for beating another to death over a hockey game. Yet, even think about violating some corporation's bullshit tradesecret/patent rights, and you get 5 years.
McDonald's only had to pay several million dollars to that woman who got 3rd degree burns on her private area because they made the coffee scalding hot so as to save money on coffee-beans.
This guy having to pay money to these crooks for something that he didn't even do is absurd. They lost no money, so him paying damages is completely unjust.
The only reasonable outcome of this would have been an injunction against him releasing that device. Anything else is completely out of proportion.
The people who still insist on calling the entire OS "Linux" are, imo, fanatics.
This is a demonstratable case of where harm is being done to the entire FS and OSS community because of the confusion between Linux the kernel and the GNU/Linux OS, which is at the core of what every distributor (like RedHat, Suse, Gentoo, Debian, etc) distributes as a distribution.
The only reason SCO is able to exploit the confusion between Linux the kernel and the "Linux OS" is because fanatics insist that because most people have always called the entire OS "Linux", we should continue to do so; despite the fact that it creates confusion between the kernel and the OS, while another name (GNU/Linux) ameliorates that confusion.
Now, I'm not saying that if everyone knew that Linux referred properly to the kernel, and GNU/Linux to the set of OS distributions, this lawsuit would have been prevented. SCO still could have sued IBM, and still could have launched this smear-campaign. However, they would have to specify exactly what they were referring to -- the kernel or the entire OS. They would not be able to exploit ambiguity and confusion to as great an extent as they currently are.
Well, that's what unions are for. A company may easily be able to replace one employee who wants more vacation with some standardless worker imported from a foreign country who thinks that $100/wk is a fortune.
However, they will not so easily be able to replace hundreds, or thousands, of workers. Even if current laws permitted companies to fire individuals while on strike, companies would probably not be able to do it, as there's no way they could replace those workers in a reasonable alotment of time. I am not arguing against unions. Unions serve a very useful role.
Though I don't argue against unions in general, I do argue against some union behaviors in specific. While on strike, workers have no right to be on corporate property; thus, if they are there, they are tresspassing if the owners ask them to leave. They can strike on the nearest public grounds. Blocking entrances for those who do want to work is also not acceptable. Furthermore, forcing indivudals into unions, or taking the overtime salary of those who work while on strike, is unacceptable.
Finally, many union guys are just assholes. My father worked as a manager at a telephone company in Rochester until he retired. While walking down a hallway once, he noticed that something was wrong (an alarm was off, and the problem causing it was not being fixed). So, he fixed it, after which, some asshole from the union ran up to him and told him he wasn't supposed to do that. You see, fixing that broken thing was the responsibility of one of the union members, and his job is "devalued" if others are allowed to fix things he's supposed to fix. Naturally, the reaction to this was that when the lazy union bum fixes things, he won't need to.
There are other conditions where unions are simply assinite as a whole. Companies start to go under, and face hard economic times. So they have to start cutting back on salaries, firing people, and eliminating benefits. Unions then go on strike. This serves no productive purpose, as it only harms the company further, furthering the cause of them having to cut back in the first place.
obligated to give you vacation?
If you don't like the vacation options of your current job, look for another with better ones. If there is enough demand for vacation time in the employee market, then companies will have to compete to give it to you.
I work at the University of Rochester Medical Center, where starters get 15 days of vacation by the 6th month of satisfactory job-performance. If vacation isn't taken, then those 15 days are paid for as if full salary.
For starting lab technicians, that's two weaks of salary, or about $900 dollars after taxes.
The down-side is that there's no over-time, because hours aren't clocked. In a lab-environment, the "hours" you put in don't really matter, as long as you take care of your responsibilities. Most lab-technicians, and all grad students and phDs, do more than their minimum responsibilities, and run several experiments at once; so, they do more than their minimum required duties.
Quite frankly, I think alot of the bitching about overtime and vacation and etc here is not well-considered. Sure, we work harder and get less vacation. But we also have lower taxes. The tax-rates in Europe are astronomical.
I'm justly compensated.
Now, 1.5 times salary is a very nice, very generous, compensation for overtime. But I'd hardly say that anything less is an injustice.
I'd say that as long as you get paid at least in direct proportion to how many hours you work, it's just.
(1) If the ads are really good. Not even always then. If immediately when the ad section starts, you get a crappy ad, you might not watch the rest. So, alot of it depends on what the first ad is.
(2) Cliffhanger programs, or can't-miss'. If someone really doesn't want to miss anything, they're more likely to put up with ads. This means that the program needs to be that good, and it needs to have left off at the right moment.
when you know damn well they won't release it.
It's most likely that these guys are bluffing. In any case, MS' optimum course of action for their own insatiable greed and tyranical control-obsession is not to do this.
If it was a bluff, they called it. If it was real, then it was real, and the exploit's out there: that's not a worse situation than if they'd released a boot-CD for Linux.
These guys should just publish the exploit that allows you to install GNU/Linux on an X-box. There is no risk here -- it is easy to publish something and remain completely annonymous on the net.
Quite frankly, though, I really don't care. I don't own an X-box, and wouldn't support MS' evil empire of greed and control by buying one. Even if I had one, why would I want to use it as a desktop-platform? It sucks for that.
Well, I have to disagree with you. The law professor thinks Linus created the GNU/Linux OS all by himself. He certainly hasn't bothered to find anything out about the contributions of others not associated with Linus.
Common people do not know what GNU is. That is the problem. They do not know that the GNU/Linux OS is not the same thing as Linux, the kernel. Thus, they think that this lawsuite threatens the integrity of the entire OS. Yes, there is an operating system out there that uses Linux but no GNU tools, though the name of it escapes me at the moment (I believe it uses all BSD tools with Linux).
Hell, the average person thinks s/he's running Linux 9, not RedHat GNU/Linux 9. The common person doesn't even know what a fscking kernel is. That's part of the problem.
The other part of the problem is when people who do know better use terminology that causes confusion between what is the OS and what is the kernel and what is all the extra software that flushes out a GNU/Linux distribution like Gentoo, Debian, Slackware, RedHat, or Lindows.
Your right, it is common that most people think that Linus started the movement and work that led to the OS that is properly called GNU/Linux. That is exactly the problem. History has effectively been re-written. No-one knows that RM Stallman in fact started that movement, and Linus capped it off by completing the puzzle with his kernel. If more people know that RMS started the movement that lead to the GNU/Linux OS, more people may come to know of the FSF and understand the values behind Free Software.
But, all this values stuff aside, it really boils down to credit where credit is due. This lawyer would have been flunked out of any college journalism class for such a thing, and probably would face disciplinary action. The cavalear attitude among many about giving intellectual credit is particularly disturbing to me. It seems like the attitude of students bitching because they have to list references. On many modern Science papers which feature micro-array studies, there are hundreds of authors. All of them are listed on the front page of the paper underneath the title.
PS: Calling it "Red Hat" is fine among those who know what is implied by that (that it has GNU and Linux parts). The reason that it is better to call the distributions GNU/Linux is precisely to avoid the kind of confusion between kernel and OS that SCO is exploiting. The reason we don't call it GNU/Linux/GNOME/KDE/Xfree86, is because none of those things are either as essential or as massive in terms of how much they account for. No-one needs to use GNOME, KDE, Xfree86, nor any WM or X-implementation when they install distributions. They do, however, need to use the Linux kernel and GNU software. However, RMS has said that if you really feel XFree is that much of an important part of it, then call it GNU/Linux/XFree, or whatever.
According to most of your definitions -- half of which, btw, are meaningless in modern times -- a zealot must be someone who is fanatical and militant. I am neither. I have logical reasons for believing in everything I do. Sorry, buddy, but you don't get to call someone a zealot every time they have a strong belief that you disagree with.
Even so, buddy, you own fucking definitions disagree with you. Overzealous, or carried away by his zeal; fanatical; militant. Nope, sorry, buddy, but that's not me. I'm not carried away by anything, fanatical, or militant.
Here's a few definitions for you (see dictionary.com, buddy):
pretentious -- Making or marked by an extravagant outward show; ostentatious.
pedant -- One who exhibits one's learning or scholarship ostentatiously.
asshole -- A thoroughly contemptible, detestable person.
I'll even use all three words in a sentence for you: Aside from being a complete asshole, you are a pretentious pedant. So fuck off, buddy.
Finally, someone who calls another a zealot simply because they strongly believe in something that they disagree with -- and then proceeds to call those people imbeciles when they call him on it -- is in no position to be giving anyone lessons on courtesy.
PS: Your damn right, I'm condescending to talk to you. Your a pathetic imbecile who's only method of arguing is calling those who you disagree with zealots or fanatics. Now, I'll have to ascend back to a civilized level. Here in civilized society, we don't call eachother zealots and fanatics whenever we disagree with one another. But I'm sure you've been in your parents basement far too long to know of any such thing.
Well, I don't agree that improper implies wrongdoing. I'm not trying to imply that the people who call it Linux are in some way vile (aside from SCO). Just like I wouldn't say someone who says "wanna" is vile, though that is improper.
You are supporting plaguarism. That is, taking credit for what is NOT YOUR OWN WORK. You lose all credability in the future, because you are too much of a fucktard to understand the most basic of intellectual curtousies -- giving credit where credit is due.
The Linux kernel is great. It, however, would be useless without GNU utilities and software, as well as other FS and OSS utilities and software.
What I am taking serious issue here with is the fact that this ignoramus (the guy who wrote the Law.com article) is claiming that Linus created the ENTIRE GNU/Linux Operating System by himself. That is simply false. Linus created the kernel, not the entire OS. The entire OS is the culmination of the hard work of thousands of developers.
I am sure that Linus damn well would be pissed off if someone claimed that RM Stallman created the Linux kernel. And rightfully so. It is also rightfully so that people be pissed off that this lawyer is claiming Linus created the entire GNU/Linux OS. That is disrespectful to everyone who has worked hard and contributed to the GNU/Linux OS'.
Regarding GNU/Linux, my point there was that by calling the entire OS Linux, when it is more proper to just call the kernel Linux, you create confusion. The kind of confusion that allows SCO to say "we're suing IBM for contributing to Linux" meaning the kernel, but not specifying so, and leading millions to believe that the all of the code in the entire set of GNU/Linux OS' would be tainted by this lawsuit if SCO won, when in fact, only some tiny insignificant portion of the Linux kernel would be tained.
So, how about you fuck off and go back to high-school? Obviously, you need to be disciplined a few more times for plaguarism. Just because you are too fucking lazy to give credit where credit is due in references does not make it ok.
to this mess of confusion. SCO damn well knows the diff between Linux the kernel and the entire OS (GNU/Linux), but they're purposeful obfuscating so that technically, they can say they were only talking about the kernel, but the impression everyone gets is they're talking about the entire OS. That's what every executive and layperson thinks -- that this lawsuit affect the entire GNU/Linux OS.
I think that if calling something one thing leads to a bunch of confusion, that is not good.
I would simply like credit to be given where credit is freaking due.
Irrelevant of the GNU/Linux (proper) vs. Linux (improper) way to say it, Linus Torvalds did not create the OS. He started the kernel.
It is patently wrong, and unethical, to say that Linus created the entire OS. That denies credit to thousands of hard-working individuals who's combined contributions create the OS (GNU/Linux).
Giving proper credit to those who create things shouldn't have to be in licenses. It should be the default. If you quote someone, you have to say that you're quoting them. You certainly don't pass off the quote as your own words, nor do you say that person X said what, in fact, person Y said.
What I am criticizing this guy for is for stating something as a fact which is not the truth. He researched UNIX history before saying anything about who created what, so he damn well should have researched the history behind GNU/Linux before saying that Linus created it. But since he didn't, now there are even more people who have that misconception, and have no idea of the real history of GNU/Linux, no idea that the contributions of the FSF (and those who contributed to it) were essential.
Saying something like "Linus created the kernel to power the GNU OS created by FSF contributors" would have detracted from the article? I disagree. It would have added to it. False-hoods are always bad, and truths in their place always good. He bothered to go into UNIX history, so he could have devoted a sentence to this.
It is important, because the confusion between Linux the kernel and the GNU/Linux OS' creates legal confusion as well. Most people think that SCO is alleging that the entire GNU/Linux OS (what they think of as "Linux") has their code in it, when they are only really alleging that the Linux kernel has their proprietary code in it. SCO knows damn well the difference, and is using this subtle point of confusion for their advantage.
Few people would be worried about this if they knew that only a few insignificant portions of the kernel that probably don't even affect them anyways are in question, which can be easily and quickly replaced anyways.
though I will correct them.
However, this guy is a lawyer, and obviously made as point of researching the history of the situation a little, to form what is obviously an intelligent position, and what anyone reading it can tell is an intelligent position.
This is what makes his revision of history all the worse. Because people read his article, and are probably impressed by him, and his knowledge of UNIX history, they then think that Linus single-handedly created entire GNU/Linux distributions. Linus started Linux, the kernel. He did all of the initial work, and then others started helping him out.
Your explanation for Linux' success is absurd. The idea that a logo is what makes a project successful is absurd (though I would suggest GNU look into changing their logo). People judge something on it's merits, not the publishability of it's logo.
RMS and others who insist on GNU/Linux bear Linux, the kernel, no ill will; nor Linux. They simply want history recorded in the proper fucking manner. It is now being written in articles explaining the history of GNU/Linux that Linus invented it by himself. That marginalizes the contributions of everyone else who helped to create what we now as the GNU/Linux distributions (e.g., RedHat, SuSe, Gentoo, Debian, Slackware, etc).
To be technically correct, SCO is attacking the kernel. However, they have no clarified that; thus, it seems like they are attacking the entire OS. Another reason why this ambiguity between the kernel and the entire OS. Obviously, the guy who wrote this article does not understand that SCO is only attacking the kernel; he thinks they are attacking the entire OS. Thus, he says Linux, referring to the entire OS that he claims Linus created, when he should be saying Linux in reference to the kernel that Linus started and headed.
The entire OS was created by the collaborative efforts of Linus, RMS, the FSF, and millions of others; but most of it is GNU software, and a small (but very important) part of it is Linux (though Linux is no longer essential). Thus, for increased clarity, it is better to call it the GNU/Linux OS'. Simply calling it Linux creates confusion between the kernel, the OS, and the entire distributions.
But he's a lawyer. Who's writing an article that's supposed to educate people. His article generally seems to be intelligent and informed; thus, someone who doesn't know better will come away thinking that on the first day, Linus created the Linux kernel, on the 2nd he created the GNU tools, on the 3rd he created XFree86, ..., and on the 7th day, he rested.
I agree completely in regards to your point on Newton/Leibniz. I wish I'd mentioned the difference you pointed out; however, the injustice is essentially similar.
Sorry, buddy, but the way in which you attempt to apply the word zealot is nonsense. Just because someone fervently beleaves in something -- be it Free Software, Pro-Life, Pro-Choice, Euthanasia, or whatever -- does not make them a zealot. By your definition, anyone who feels passionately and strongly about anything is a zealot.
I'll say someone's a zealot if they claim to have certainty that they are right, when there is little proof to back them up, or little solid reasoning, AND if they act in extreme and anti-social ways because of those beliefs. E.g., those who break into scientific research labs or blow up abortion clinics -- zealots.