They think of alot more than the kernel. In fact, the average Win/Mac user doesn't even know what a kernel is. They think of the OS as the universal menu bar, the file-manager, the desktop, the task-bar, and all of the utils that are needed to at least manage files.
That is what the term OS tends to be taken as today.
This kind of stuff really pisses me off. Mr. Chander has written a basically intelligent article, discussing why SCO's case is BS. Yet, he has revised history, probably unknowingly.
Linus Torvalds did not "indtroduce an operating system...that did some of what UNIX did". Linus wrote a kernel, which is complementary to UNIX kernels (though different in architecture, design, etc). He did not write the entire operating system -- properly called GNU/Linux. He wrote one component necessary for the operating system that is now improperly called "Linux".
This is not a knock again Linus. He has never claimed credit for any entire GNU/Linux operating system, nor GNU/Linux in general. He has simply claimed credit for the Linux kernel.
It is, however, a prime illustration of how simply calling all GNU/Linux OS' "Linux" is revising history. People here talk about it like, "so what, everyone knows Linus didn't write all of the software for Linux-based OS' [GNU/Linux distros]". We know that. Obviously, no one else does. This lawyer thinks that Linus Torvalds created the GNU/Linux distributions from the ground up, single-handedly.
It is an example of revisionist history. Just like how Issac Newton is credited as the founder of Calculus, but no-one mentions Leibniz, who invented calculus at the same time as Newton independently.
Linus has done great things for the FS and OSS communities. We should, however, credit others where credit is due.
as being down-skilled in regards to intelligence and computer aptitude. But even if it were true, there are still DE/WM combinations, along with various default installs of apps, that make things easy for such a demographic.
Install KDE or GNOME with WindowMaker or Sawfish, and a good file-browser, like Gentoo or GWorkspace, along with some apps like OpenOffice, Phoenix, and that do-it all e-mail prog (forget it's name).
Thank you, whoever made that decision. Now, $450million of OUR taxpayer dollars are going to pay for a crappy defective OS with inherent security flaws, and we're going to be forced to upgrade on MS' schedule.
MY tax dollars should not be spent on proprietary software.
Well, that changes things by giving direct credit in the title to those who helped create the software necessary for GNU/Linux distributions. It also helps reduce the confusion that this SCO case brought up: it is confusing to refer to both the OS and the kernel as Linux.
Since GNU/Linux is not an actual operating system, but simply a category of operating systems that use GNU software and the Linux kernel, the actual distribution names are what the OS' are called. E.g., Debian, Gentoo, Slackware, RedHat, Lindows, SuSe, and so on and so-forth. More formally, they'd be called Debian GNU/Linux, Gentoo GNU/Linux, etc.
Any time anyone holds a particular moral, ethical, or other belief -- any belief -- they believe that it is correct, and other beliefs are wrong. If they believed that their belief was incorrect, then they wouldn't hold it. People of every religion believe that every other religion is wrong. That is the very basis for any belief. If you believe in a certain thing (A), then you must necessarily believe that all other things (anything that is not A) are wrong.
The extent to which someone can be called a zealot depends on their self-assuredness relative to proof. If they are very confident that they are correct, but have little physical evidence or logic to back it up, then it may be appropriate to call them a zealot. However, if they have much physical evidence or logic to back them up, that label is not appropriate.
The extent to which someone can be called a zealot does not in any way depend on how strongly they adhere to their beliefs. Adhering strongly to one's beliefs is an admireable quality. The extent to which someone can be called a zealot depends on two things: (1) How confident they are that they are right; (2) How much proof [if it is a scientific opinion] or logic [if a philosophical opinion] they have to back up their confidence.
For example, I do not categorize those who say they are 100% sure of evolution as zealots. There is an enormous pool of proof to back up that belief.
Your analogy of a painter is absurd, since the issues you are talking about with the paintbrush company (global warming) are completely irrelevant to painting. The proper analogy here would be where something was immoral in the very nature of the way in which the paint-brush was made or advertised. In regards to Free Software, freedom of speech (which I think is largely what it's about), and the individual freedom of end users, is not "some vague ethic consideration". It is very real.
Btw, I believe I mentioned this elsewhere: that would not be the only possible decision. It is perfectly possible for someone who thinks that "proprietary software is a social problem, and Free Software is the solution" to use proprietary software at work if not using it means getting fired, and still have ethical self-integrity and consistency (they should, however, ask their boss for a clear statement of if that is the only acceptable solution according to him/her, and try to persuade otherwise if it would be effective). An unemployed person is a person who probably cannot help whatever cause s/he is interested in as much as an employed one. Working from the inside is a useful position from which to effect change. Furthermore, the other consideration in such a case for someone who supports Free Software in a company demanding that they set up proprietary software or be fired, is that if they don't do it, they will be fired and someone else will do it.
Ethical and moral beliefs indeed are black and white. For those who truly believe in the Free Software Movement, it the question of the morality of Free Software vs. proprietary software indeed is black and white. It is only how to act on those beliefs, when presented with a problem, that is a grey area. It is a debate which a British party had within itself a few years ago: "What good is it to win, if you have to compromise your values? Then again, what good are your values if you are in no position to effect them?"
Sigh. Ethics, morality, and politics are applicable to software. Simply because you do not consider the social problems of proprietary software to be serious does not mean that they do not exist and do not pose ethical and moral questions. There are significant ethical and moral implications of choosing to use Free (speech) vs. proprietary software. Stomping your feet and saying that they don't exist does not make them go away. Then again, this is Slashdot, and I wouldn't expect for characters like Xer or his friends to understand anything other than their own interests, and I wouldn't expect them to respond to anything that challenges that in any way execpt being insulting.
Yea, protecting your money from greedy fucks like the RIAA and MPAA by putting it in 401(k)s, 403(b)s, RothIRA's, and foreign bank accounts which are immune to US rulings -- real bad idea.
That creditors will give a damn if you declared bankruptcy, but have many thousands of dollars in a RothIRA (which, btw, you can withdraw before you're 55, without penalties, tax free). The third option (3) may not even be necessary, as retirement plans (403b, 401k, RothIRA) are most likely shielded from lawsuits. Certainly, money in foreign banks is completely immune from any decisions rendered in the US.
Few things could be as useful to society as taking down current copyright laws, patent laws, and trademark laws.
You said, "No, I never said 'Free'". I did not say you did. I paraphrased you to condense things down. Given the context of your comment, it is obvious to assume that you were talking about me using Free Software because I was, according to you, unwilling to pay others for software:
dh003i:Thus, Free Software should be used, even if it is not necessarily the best tool for the job. Furthermore, this prevents vendor-lockouts and allows users a self-determined upgrade cycle. This explains those who will only use Free Software.
Xerithane:Ok, if you use an inferior tool for a job that pays your bills because you have some philosophical issues with people making money to pay people just like you, than you deserve to get shit-canned right after your inferior solution shows it's true colors.
In that context, it is very clear that you were talking about me only using Free Software, because, in your words "...you have some philosophical issues with people making money to pay" [developers for the software they write]. I pointed out that paying people has nothing to do with my decision to use Free Software, and refusal to use proprietary software.
The only person here lying about what the other person is saying is you. You are also trying to lie about what you just said a few posts ago. Anyone reading this can go back over this thread and realize that you have blatantly lied. On top of that, you have been rude and obnoxious from the start.
As I see no point in continuing a debate with someone who thinks that irrelevant insults are in some way appropriate and convincing, this debate is finished. You are welcomed to have the last word. You might consider using it to save some face and apologize for being so rude, as well as lying; or you could just air out more irrelevant personal insults. Your choice.
Because they've basically admitted that they can't sue those who write programs that provide file-sharing services, as there are many legit uses of file-sharing.
The other half of the battle is to thwart their effort to steal the life-savings from individuals who work damn hard to make their money. This means waging a publicity war, and doing whatever it takes to hurt the RIAA. That means not buying any of their songs. Likewise with the MPAA. If you must see or hear something, download it.
Never forget that current copyright laws are illegitimate. We, the people, did not vote for them. They were snuck into law behind closed doors, with no public notification taking place. They were illegitimately retroactively extended.
Also remember that file-sharing -- including the sharing of copyrighted files -- is more legitimate than the President. More people voted for Napster than voted for GW Bush and Al Gore combined. Furthermore, the politicians who make these draconian copyright laws are in no position to tell us what is right and wrong. In fact, it is most likely that doing exactly the opposite of what they say is the right thing. These, remember, are the same bastards who accept bribes from every party that wants to pay for certain laws. They are the same bastards who get together every now and then to vote on how much they want to raise their own fucking salary by, as if they deserve a payraise.
Advice to those individuals:
(1) Put as much money as possible in 401(k) or 403(b) plans, IRAs, and RothIRAs, and possibly annuities. These are sheltered from taxes, and are likely more sheltered from lawsuites. Indeed, colleges don't even consider them when determining how much aid you should get.
(2) Transfer money off-shore to countries that don't recognize the US' insane copyright laws.
(3) After discussing the credit implications with a lawyer, and loan implications, consider the possibility of declaring bankruptcy. They don't get shit if you declare bankruptcy.
Why is it that rich greedy execs are able to steal the life-savings away from individuals in a court of law, yet when those same execs (like Gary Wennig) fuck over millions of investors and tank their life-savings by insider trading, nothing can be done against them, and they don't even go to jail?
That is completely incorrect. More of what you call "RedHat" is GNU than anything else. Those who maintain distributions actually contribute relatively little to the distributions in terms of software, aside from package management. I'm not trying to minimize the role of those who put together GNU/Linux distributions -- it is a significant and enormous task, which is why their name is on the distro.
However, it is simply false to say that GNU software is not the largest part of GNU/Linux OS'. Some of the either very useful or essential things that quickly come to mind are GCC, Emacs, and Screen.
The FSF is not attempting to get credit for the success of various GNU/Linux distributions. They simply want their contribution to those distributions to be recognized. It surely deserves at least as much recognition as Linux.
Sorry, but you don't get to change what you said after the fact. Your said (paraphrasing now, to remove your rude remarks):
if you use inferior (Free) Software because you have problems with [companies] making money to pay people just like you, then you deserve to get fired.
Since you continue to deny the obvious implications of that statement, I will walk you through them:
* Your comment was a response to my original position that Free Software should be used, even if it is not the best solution in terms of what it can do.
* When you said "if you have a problem with companies making money", you imply that I object to proprietary software because I must pay for it.
* This is, as I have pointed out, not the case. The base reasons for objecting to proprietary software are ethical, not moral.
I'm talking about companies
I know that you are talking about companies. However, companies are not physical entities. They are ideas or labels to cover a group of people working together to accomplish a particular goal. Just because you work for a company does not absolve you of ethical responsibility for the actions you take. Ethics and morality do not magically disappear when you enter into a corporate building.
Finally, you may wish to calm down. Using personal insults will neither help you to convince me nor anyone else that you are right, nor do they make your argument any more compelling. Personal information about me is completely irrelevant to this debate, and much of your response is fallacious reasoning (ad hominem). There is a reasoning why your comments in this thread have been moderated as trolls.
GNU makes up ~28% of what ships with most distributions. Linux makes up 3% (albeit a very important 3%). Thus, if you're going to refer to distros generally, it makes sense to call them "GNU/Linux" distros, as that is most of what they are distributing. E.g., Gentoo GNU/Linux. Abbreviating it to just the name of the distribution is fine for informal speak, but not for formal things.
RMS is mentioning the GNU/Linux vs. Linux thing because it is very relevant to the issue. Because SCO says "IBM misappropriated code into Linux", they are creating confusion, as Linux -- which properly refers to only the kernel -- is also loosely used to refer to what should be called GNU/Linux distributions (28% or so of most distributions is GNU). RMS is not explaining this stuff for you and me, who should know it -- even though, judging from many of the comments on/. recently, many here obviously don't know the difference between the FSF, the OSI, OSS, FS, and their ass. RMS is explaining this to the mass-public, to new GNU/Linux users who don't understand such details, to businesses, etc. It is a very important distinction. SCO's charges are specifically against Linux the kernel, not GNU/Linux; however, they purposefully word things so as not to make that clear. To businesses and the mass-public, it sounds like they are alleging code was misappropriated into the entire GNU/Linux distributions, not just the Linux kernel. That is quite a different thing, and would be a much worse and more massive problem.
RMS then went on to mention the problem with the word "intellectual property". "Intellectual property" can be loosely used to refer to patent, copyright, trademark, trade secret, and other types of IP. These things are different in what things they cover (ideas vs. expressions vs. logos/words vs. secrets) and they differ in the duration and scope of protection. It is misleading to lump them all together. Specifically, SCO is very vague about whether it is invoking copyright or patents.
Finally, RMS points out several other important things. (1) FSF did not copy any code from Unix, as that would produce code that is not free; (2) The FSF believes that SCO gave the community permission to use the code they distributed under the GNU GPL in their GNU/Linux distro; (3) In a communities so large as the overlapping communities of FS and OSS developers, plaguarism is inevitable, no matter how many precautions are taken, but the community will discover it, will discard the code, will replace it, and will move on; (4) The contributions of thousands of individuals to Linux cannot be suppressed; (5) Linux the kernel is no longer essential. There are other operating systems that are entirely Free, as defined by the FSF, which use different kernels (e.g., the BSD kernel, the GNU HURD kernel).
How people take this as an illogical rant, which will divide the community, is beyond me. His message is unifying and clarifying, not divisive and obfuscating. "Our community cannot be defeated by this."
P.S.: Stallman's arguing for calling it GNU/Linux is not some egotistical stunt. He has done this for precisely one reason: because GNU makes up a larger percentage of distributions than anything else (~28%). He has not argued that *BSD be called GNU/BSD, for example, because little GNU software is used in *BSD OS'. There is nothing wrong with requesting that credit be given where credit is due. He is also not trying to pull the rug out from under Linus, as he specifically rejects the idea of just calling it GNU.
No, I did not in any way change the subject. I simply noted that when I wrote the post, I was thinking about it from my own perspective -- that of a private individual, who wants a computer and software for home use. I then went on to address the issues you brought up relating to business.
Of course they do not watch every enterprise. They do, however, perform random checks, raids, etc. You can fight it, but that costs money too. No matter what course of action you choose, even if you are a rich corporation, it will cost you money. Heaven forbid if you can't actually prove that you've bought licenses to everything you use. This costs big businesses money, but it can be a really big problem for smaller businesses. If you don't use proprietary software, you have no such worries.
(1) You imply that Free Software is about getting something for free ($0)
When did I imply this?
Your exact words: "...because you have some philosophical issues with people making money to pay people just like you". You are implying that my support for Free Software derives from not wanting to pay for software, which very much implies that Free Software is about getting software for $0.
I stated use the best tool for the job and keep your personal ethics out of company business.
Personal ethics, morality, and responsibility do not leave you just because you enter your office to do corporate work. If a company asks you to do something that you feel is unethical or morally wrong, then you have three options: (1) Go along with it, in which case you really have no ethics*; (2) Try to persuade the company to take a more ethical course of action; (3) Refuse to do it. Doing (3) may get you fired, yes. But the right thing to do is not always the easiest thing to do. *Not necessarily so. If you are fired, the company will simply hire someone else who will do it. So you have to make a choice, which may take into consideration the fact that you cannot assist in the cause if you are not employed.
I never brought cost into it
Yes, you did, as my quote above shows.
Hence, "Use the best tool for the job.
There are many other factors to consider aside from "what it can do". If a program is a little bit easier to learn, but costs twice as much in dollar mount, it is probably not worth it. There are also other considerations, such as the possibility of forced-upgrade, and vendor-lockouts if companies go bankrupt. Free Software projects can always continue going.
one is a zealot of they let their personal beliefs cloud their judgement
According to who, you? Quite frankly, you are not the ultimate arbitrator of what is and is not the right decision for individuals. Personal beliefs and ethics cannot "cloud one's judgement". They are there to guide judgement. You can argue that one's beliefs are misplaced, but you cannot argue that one's beliefs "cloud one's judgement". Anger, sorrow, remourse, pity, self-indulgence, and other irrational emotions can cloud judgement. Thought out ethics and moral positions, however, cannot.
if you use an inferior tool for a job that pays your bills because you have some philosophical issues with people making money to pay people just like you
I was talking about software for personal use in my response to your post (which I did not make clear), so your exmaple is not relevant to that.
However, if someone believes in something as an ethical guideline, then they won't want to work for an employer that categorically violates that guideline. This applies not just for FS but also for any other moral stand. Someone who is anti-choice should not work for an abortion clinic.
In the case of Free Software, that is not, however, the only way to look at it. It is perfectly possible to view proprietary software as a social problem (and Free Software as the solution), yet still use significantly inferior (in terms of practical use) Free Software on the job, if you think you'll be fired for doing so. After all, an unemployed person is a person who cannot contribute to Free Software.
There are also practical reasons for using Free Software, even if it is an "inferior tool for the job that pays your bills". Before I get into those, taking a step backwards, if that "inferior tool" is one that you personally use to help you get your work done, then it doesn't matter -- as long as you get by with it (in which case, it's practical "inferiority" is highly subjective). Now, there is also justification for using those "inferior tools" even as parts of the final product, or for intra-business operations. Your company will not have to worry about the business that makes that tool going bankrupt, and having no possibility of upgrade for future needs, or bug-fixes. Your company will not have to worry about EULAs or audits from the BSA, nor bear the costs of keeping track of licenses and proofs of purchase. Your company will not be forced into mandatory upgrade schedules. Etc etc etc.
Btw, the ethical issues with FS have nothing to do with individuals not wanting to pay money to other developers. It has to do with the essential four freedoms that the FSF deems necessary to call something Free Software. None of them have anything to do with money, and I damn well suspect you knew that. So please stop confusing Free with free. There are many Free Software programs for which it is not practical to obtain the program for free ($0), and there are also many free ($0) programs that are most certainly not Free Software. Simply because most Free Software happens to be free ($0), does not mean that that is required.
Having ethical considerations that cloud judgement, does [make one a zealot]
Clouded judgement according to who, you? Sorry, buddy, but you are not the ultimate authority on that, nor does your example in any way provide evidence as to clouded judgement.
If someone chooses to use an inferior Free Software program due to their ethical considerations, that does not mean their judgement is clouded. It may not be the decision you would choose, nor the one that a business would choose, but that does not mean the person's judgement was clouded.
There are many cases where people choose a suboptimal solution because of their ethical considerations. For example, in labs, when mice are euthanized, they are first gassed with CO2, with 5 mice per cage, and other cages covered so that those mice can't witness the "distress of their fellows"; their necks are then snapped to ensure that they are dead, and they are then incinerated. This process takes up more time and uses more money (because of the CO2) than a faster cheaper alternative: simply putting all of the mice to be euthanized in a bag and incinerating them alive. If you believe in animal welfare (which I don't), then the more costly slower solution is better.
Ethics and morals are additional guidelines in individuals judgement. You can either agree with a person's ethics or not. It is obvious you don't agree with the ethics of Fre
I think that's exactly the point he was making. If companies use GCC as the compiler for programs they benchmark, then they will have a natural interest in making GCC better. Thus, it is good for the FS community if companies use GCC as the compiler of choice.
As for his point about GCC being a better compiler for benchmark, his point was about transparency, not that GCC is equally good for all platforms. We know where it's better and worse. Jobs said so himself.
The people who care are the zealots who don't understand, "Use the best tool for the job."
Some people have something called ethical considerations. They believe that only users should have certain freedoms in regards to the software they user. Thus, Free Software should be used, even if it is not necessarily the best tool for the job. Furthermore, this prevents vendor-lockouts and allows users a self-determined upgrade cycle. This explains those who will only use Free Software.
As for those who will only use Macs, loyalty is what drives them.
Having ethical considerations does not make one a zealot, so please stop being so insulting.
Yea, and then Intel didn't bother using any of their natural knowledge of x86 to make it a good compiler. Come on. Are you implying that those who write GCC aren't hard-working coders and don't read publicly available information? I think that's absurd. They simply have to split their efforts among the several different architectures that they have to support.
Add $70 or $134 for a 17 or 19" monitor, respectively. So, it's really $270 to $370 dollars for a full system (of course, people need not buy monitors if they already have one).
However, the US accounts for more software-using individuals than any other nation, to my knowledge.
Saying Libre Software would be fine for the French division of the FSF. Actually, there is a page Libre Software (Google it). Not for the English division.
Slashdot Mirror
They think of alot more than the kernel. In fact, the average Win/Mac user doesn't even know what a kernel is. They think of the OS as the universal menu bar, the file-manager, the desktop, the task-bar, and all of the utils that are needed to at least manage files.
That is what the term OS tends to be taken as today.
This kind of stuff really pisses me off. Mr. Chander has written a basically intelligent article, discussing why SCO's case is BS. Yet, he has revised history, probably unknowingly.
Linus Torvalds did not "indtroduce an operating system...that did some of what UNIX did". Linus wrote a kernel, which is complementary to UNIX kernels (though different in architecture, design, etc). He did not write the entire operating system -- properly called GNU/Linux. He wrote one component necessary for the operating system that is now improperly called "Linux".
This is not a knock again Linus. He has never claimed credit for any entire GNU/Linux operating system, nor GNU/Linux in general. He has simply claimed credit for the Linux kernel.
It is, however, a prime illustration of how simply calling all GNU/Linux OS' "Linux" is revising history. People here talk about it like, "so what, everyone knows Linus didn't write all of the software for Linux-based OS' [GNU/Linux distros]". We know that. Obviously, no one else does. This lawyer thinks that Linus Torvalds created the GNU/Linux distributions from the ground up, single-handedly.
It is an example of revisionist history. Just like how Issac Newton is credited as the founder of Calculus, but no-one mentions Leibniz, who invented calculus at the same time as Newton independently.
Linus has done great things for the FS and OSS communities. We should, however, credit others where credit is due.
as being down-skilled in regards to intelligence and computer aptitude. But even if it were true, there are still DE/WM combinations, along with various default installs of apps, that make things easy for such a demographic.
Install KDE or GNOME with WindowMaker or Sawfish, and a good file-browser, like Gentoo or GWorkspace, along with some apps like OpenOffice, Phoenix, and that do-it all e-mail prog (forget it's name).
It's still OUR 400 million dollars. We could have gotten the same thing for much much less, if a FS/OSS solution had been used.
Thank you, whoever made that decision. Now, $450million of OUR taxpayer dollars are going to pay for a crappy defective OS with inherent security flaws, and we're going to be forced to upgrade on MS' schedule.
MY tax dollars should not be spent on proprietary software.
Well, that changes things by giving direct credit in the title to those who helped create the software necessary for GNU/Linux distributions. It also helps reduce the confusion that this SCO case brought up: it is confusing to refer to both the OS and the kernel as Linux.
Since GNU/Linux is not an actual operating system, but simply a category of operating systems that use GNU software and the Linux kernel, the actual distribution names are what the OS' are called. E.g., Debian, Gentoo, Slackware, RedHat, Lindows, SuSe, and so on and so-forth. More formally, they'd be called Debian GNU/Linux, Gentoo GNU/Linux, etc.
Any time anyone holds a particular moral, ethical, or other belief -- any belief -- they believe that it is correct, and other beliefs are wrong. If they believed that their belief was incorrect, then they wouldn't hold it. People of every religion believe that every other religion is wrong. That is the very basis for any belief. If you believe in a certain thing (A), then you must necessarily believe that all other things (anything that is not A) are wrong.
The extent to which someone can be called a zealot depends on their self-assuredness relative to proof. If they are very confident that they are correct, but have little physical evidence or logic to back it up, then it may be appropriate to call them a zealot. However, if they have much physical evidence or logic to back them up, that label is not appropriate.
The extent to which someone can be called a zealot does not in any way depend on how strongly they adhere to their beliefs. Adhering strongly to one's beliefs is an admireable quality. The extent to which someone can be called a zealot depends on two things: (1) How confident they are that they are right; (2) How much proof [if it is a scientific opinion] or logic [if a philosophical opinion] they have to back up their confidence.
For example, I do not categorize those who say they are 100% sure of evolution as zealots. There is an enormous pool of proof to back up that belief.
Your analogy of a painter is absurd, since the issues you are talking about with the paintbrush company (global warming) are completely irrelevant to painting. The proper analogy here would be where something was immoral in the very nature of the way in which the paint-brush was made or advertised. In regards to Free Software, freedom of speech (which I think is largely what it's about), and the individual freedom of end users, is not "some vague ethic consideration". It is very real.
Btw, I believe I mentioned this elsewhere: that would not be the only possible decision. It is perfectly possible for someone who thinks that "proprietary software is a social problem, and Free Software is the solution" to use proprietary software at work if not using it means getting fired, and still have ethical self-integrity and consistency (they should, however, ask their boss for a clear statement of if that is the only acceptable solution according to him/her, and try to persuade otherwise if it would be effective). An unemployed person is a person who probably cannot help whatever cause s/he is interested in as much as an employed one. Working from the inside is a useful position from which to effect change. Furthermore, the other consideration in such a case for someone who supports Free Software in a company demanding that they set up proprietary software or be fired, is that if they don't do it, they will be fired and someone else will do it.
Ethical and moral beliefs indeed are black and white. For those who truly believe in the Free Software Movement, it the question of the morality of Free Software vs. proprietary software indeed is black and white. It is only how to act on those beliefs, when presented with a problem, that is a grey area. It is a debate which a British party had within itself a few years ago: "What good is it to win, if you have to compromise your values? Then again, what good are your values if you are in no position to effect them?"
Sigh. Ethics, morality, and politics are applicable to software. Simply because you do not consider the social problems of proprietary software to be serious does not mean that they do not exist and do not pose ethical and moral questions. There are significant ethical and moral implications of choosing to use Free (speech) vs. proprietary software. Stomping your feet and saying that they don't exist does not make them go away. Then again, this is Slashdot, and I wouldn't expect for characters like Xer or his friends to understand anything other than their own interests, and I wouldn't expect them to respond to anything that challenges that in any way execpt being insulting.
Yea, protecting your money from greedy fucks like the RIAA and MPAA by putting it in 401(k)s, 403(b)s, RothIRA's, and foreign bank accounts which are immune to US rulings -- real bad idea.
That creditors will give a damn if you declared bankruptcy, but have many thousands of dollars in a RothIRA (which, btw, you can withdraw before you're 55, without penalties, tax free). The third option (3) may not even be necessary, as retirement plans (403b, 401k, RothIRA) are most likely shielded from lawsuits. Certainly, money in foreign banks is completely immune from any decisions rendered in the US.
Few things could be as useful to society as taking down current copyright laws, patent laws, and trademark laws.
In that context, it is very clear that you were talking about me only using Free Software, because, in your words "...you have some philosophical issues with people making money to pay" [developers for the software they write]. I pointed out that paying people has nothing to do with my decision to use Free Software, and refusal to use proprietary software.
The only person here lying about what the other person is saying is you. You are also trying to lie about what you just said a few posts ago. Anyone reading this can go back over this thread and realize that you have blatantly lied. On top of that, you have been rude and obnoxious from the start.
As I see no point in continuing a debate with someone who thinks that irrelevant insults are in some way appropriate and convincing, this debate is finished. You are welcomed to have the last word. You might consider using it to save some face and apologize for being so rude, as well as lying; or you could just air out more irrelevant personal insults. Your choice.
Because they've basically admitted that they can't sue those who write programs that provide file-sharing services, as there are many legit uses of file-sharing.
The other half of the battle is to thwart their effort to steal the life-savings from individuals who work damn hard to make their money. This means waging a publicity war, and doing whatever it takes to hurt the RIAA. That means not buying any of their songs. Likewise with the MPAA. If you must see or hear something, download it.
Never forget that current copyright laws are illegitimate. We, the people, did not vote for them. They were snuck into law behind closed doors, with no public notification taking place. They were illegitimately retroactively extended.
Also remember that file-sharing -- including the sharing of copyrighted files -- is more legitimate than the President. More people voted for Napster than voted for GW Bush and Al Gore combined. Furthermore, the politicians who make these draconian copyright laws are in no position to tell us what is right and wrong. In fact, it is most likely that doing exactly the opposite of what they say is the right thing. These, remember, are the same bastards who accept bribes from every party that wants to pay for certain laws. They are the same bastards who get together every now and then to vote on how much they want to raise their own fucking salary by, as if they deserve a payraise.
Advice to those individuals:
(1) Put as much money as possible in 401(k) or 403(b) plans, IRAs, and RothIRAs, and possibly annuities. These are sheltered from taxes, and are likely more sheltered from lawsuites. Indeed, colleges don't even consider them when determining how much aid you should get.
(2) Transfer money off-shore to countries that don't recognize the US' insane copyright laws.
(3) After discussing the credit implications with a lawyer, and loan implications, consider the possibility of declaring bankruptcy. They don't get shit if you declare bankruptcy.
Why is it that rich greedy execs are able to steal the life-savings away from individuals in a court of law, yet when those same execs (like Gary Wennig) fuck over millions of investors and tank their life-savings by insider trading, nothing can be done against them, and they don't even go to jail?
That is completely incorrect. More of what you call "RedHat" is GNU than anything else. Those who maintain distributions actually contribute relatively little to the distributions in terms of software, aside from package management. I'm not trying to minimize the role of those who put together GNU/Linux distributions -- it is a significant and enormous task, which is why their name is on the distro.
However, it is simply false to say that GNU software is not the largest part of GNU/Linux OS'. Some of the either very useful or essential things that quickly come to mind are GCC, Emacs, and Screen.
The FSF is not attempting to get credit for the success of various GNU/Linux distributions. They simply want their contribution to those distributions to be recognized. It surely deserves at least as much recognition as Linux.
Sorry, but you don't get to change what you said after the fact. Your said (paraphrasing now, to remove your rude remarks):
if you use inferior (Free) Software because you have problems with [companies] making money to pay people just like you, then you deserve to get fired.
Since you continue to deny the obvious implications of that statement, I will walk you through them:
* Your comment was a response to my original position that Free Software should be used, even if it is not the best solution in terms of what it can do.
* When you said "if you have a problem with companies making money", you imply that I object to proprietary software because I must pay for it.
* This is, as I have pointed out, not the case. The base reasons for objecting to proprietary software are ethical, not moral.
I'm talking about companies
I know that you are talking about companies. However, companies are not physical entities. They are ideas or labels to cover a group of people working together to accomplish a particular goal. Just because you work for a company does not absolve you of ethical responsibility for the actions you take. Ethics and morality do not magically disappear when you enter into a corporate building.
Finally, you may wish to calm down. Using personal insults will neither help you to convince me nor anyone else that you are right, nor do they make your argument any more compelling. Personal information about me is completely irrelevant to this debate, and much of your response is fallacious reasoning (ad hominem). There is a reasoning why your comments in this thread have been moderated as trolls.
GNU makes up ~28% of what ships with most distributions. Linux makes up 3% (albeit a very important 3%). Thus, if you're going to refer to distros generally, it makes sense to call them "GNU/Linux" distros, as that is most of what they are distributing. E.g., Gentoo GNU/Linux. Abbreviating it to just the name of the distribution is fine for informal speak, but not for formal things.
RMS is mentioning the GNU/Linux vs. Linux thing because it is very relevant to the issue. Because SCO says "IBM misappropriated code into Linux", they are creating confusion, as Linux -- which properly refers to only the kernel -- is also loosely used to refer to what should be called GNU/Linux distributions (28% or so of most distributions is GNU). RMS is not explaining this stuff for you and me, who should know it -- even though, judging from many of the comments on /. recently, many here obviously don't know the difference between the FSF, the OSI, OSS, FS, and their ass. RMS is explaining this to the mass-public, to new GNU/Linux users who don't understand such details, to businesses, etc. It is a very important distinction. SCO's charges are specifically against Linux the kernel, not GNU/Linux; however, they purposefully word things so as not to make that clear. To businesses and the mass-public, it sounds like they are alleging code was misappropriated into the entire GNU/Linux distributions, not just the Linux kernel. That is quite a different thing, and would be a much worse and more massive problem.
RMS then went on to mention the problem with the word "intellectual property". "Intellectual property" can be loosely used to refer to patent, copyright, trademark, trade secret, and other types of IP. These things are different in what things they cover (ideas vs. expressions vs. logos/words vs. secrets) and they differ in the duration and scope of protection. It is misleading to lump them all together. Specifically, SCO is very vague about whether it is invoking copyright or patents.
Finally, RMS points out several other important things. (1) FSF did not copy any code from Unix, as that would produce code that is not free; (2) The FSF believes that SCO gave the community permission to use the code they distributed under the GNU GPL in their GNU/Linux distro; (3) In a communities so large as the overlapping communities of FS and OSS developers, plaguarism is inevitable, no matter how many precautions are taken, but the community will discover it, will discard the code, will replace it, and will move on; (4) The contributions of thousands of individuals to Linux cannot be suppressed; (5) Linux the kernel is no longer essential. There are other operating systems that are entirely Free, as defined by the FSF, which use different kernels (e.g., the BSD kernel, the GNU HURD kernel).
How people take this as an illogical rant, which will divide the community, is beyond me. His message is unifying and clarifying, not divisive and obfuscating. "Our community cannot be defeated by this."
P.S.: Stallman's arguing for calling it GNU/Linux is not some egotistical stunt. He has done this for precisely one reason: because GNU makes up a larger percentage of distributions than anything else (~28%). He has not argued that *BSD be called GNU/BSD, for example, because little GNU software is used in *BSD OS'. There is nothing wrong with requesting that credit be given where credit is due. He is also not trying to pull the rug out from under Linus, as he specifically rejects the idea of just calling it GNU.
No, I did not in any way change the subject. I simply noted that when I wrote the post, I was thinking about it from my own perspective -- that of a private individual, who wants a computer and software for home use. I then went on to address the issues you brought up relating to business.
[The] BSA doesn't really watch enterprise services.
Of course they do not watch every enterprise. They do, however, perform random checks, raids, etc. You can fight it, but that costs money too. No matter what course of action you choose, even if you are a rich corporation, it will cost you money. Heaven forbid if you can't actually prove that you've bought licenses to everything you use. This costs big businesses money, but it can be a really big problem for smaller businesses. If you don't use proprietary software, you have no such worries.
(1) You imply that Free Software is about getting something for free ($0)
When did I imply this?
Your exact words: "...because you have some philosophical issues with people making money to pay people just like you". You are implying that my support for Free Software derives from not wanting to pay for software, which very much implies that Free Software is about getting software for $0.
I stated use the best tool for the job and keep your personal ethics out of company business.
Personal ethics, morality, and responsibility do not leave you just because you enter your office to do corporate work. If a company asks you to do something that you feel is unethical or morally wrong, then you have three options: (1) Go along with it, in which case you really have no ethics*; (2) Try to persuade the company to take a more ethical course of action; (3) Refuse to do it. Doing (3) may get you fired, yes. But the right thing to do is not always the easiest thing to do. *Not necessarily so. If you are fired, the company will simply hire someone else who will do it. So you have to make a choice, which may take into consideration the fact that you cannot assist in the cause if you are not employed.
I never brought cost into it
Yes, you did, as my quote above shows.
Hence, "Use the best tool for the job.
There are many other factors to consider aside from "what it can do". If a program is a little bit easier to learn, but costs twice as much in dollar mount, it is probably not worth it. There are also other considerations, such as the possibility of forced-upgrade, and vendor-lockouts if companies go bankrupt. Free Software projects can always continue going.
one is a zealot of they let their personal beliefs cloud their judgement
According to who, you? Quite frankly, you are not the ultimate arbitrator of what is and is not the right decision for individuals. Personal beliefs and ethics cannot "cloud one's judgement". They are there to guide judgement. You can argue that one's beliefs are misplaced, but you cannot argue that one's beliefs "cloud one's judgement". Anger, sorrow, remourse, pity, self-indulgence, and other irrational emotions can cloud judgement. Thought out ethics and moral positions, however, cannot.
Good point. I'll have to ask about that. There must be a reason.
I was talking about software for personal use in my response to your post (which I did not make clear), so your exmaple is not relevant to that.
However, if someone believes in something as an ethical guideline, then they won't want to work for an employer that categorically violates that guideline. This applies not just for FS but also for any other moral stand. Someone who is anti-choice should not work for an abortion clinic.
In the case of Free Software, that is not, however, the only way to look at it. It is perfectly possible to view proprietary software as a social problem (and Free Software as the solution), yet still use significantly inferior (in terms of practical use) Free Software on the job, if you think you'll be fired for doing so. After all, an unemployed person is a person who cannot contribute to Free Software.
There are also practical reasons for using Free Software, even if it is an "inferior tool for the job that pays your bills". Before I get into those, taking a step backwards, if that "inferior tool" is one that you personally use to help you get your work done, then it doesn't matter -- as long as you get by with it (in which case, it's practical "inferiority" is highly subjective). Now, there is also justification for using those "inferior tools" even as parts of the final product, or for intra-business operations. Your company will not have to worry about the business that makes that tool going bankrupt, and having no possibility of upgrade for future needs, or bug-fixes. Your company will not have to worry about EULAs or audits from the BSA, nor bear the costs of keeping track of licenses and proofs of purchase. Your company will not be forced into mandatory upgrade schedules. Etc etc etc.
Btw, the ethical issues with FS have nothing to do with individuals not wanting to pay money to other developers. It has to do with the essential four freedoms that the FSF deems necessary to call something Free Software. None of them have anything to do with money, and I damn well suspect you knew that. So please stop confusing Free with free. There are many Free Software programs for which it is not practical to obtain the program for free ($0), and there are also many free ($0) programs that are most certainly not Free Software. Simply because most Free Software happens to be free ($0), does not mean that that is required.
Clouded judgement according to who, you? Sorry, buddy, but you are not the ultimate authority on that, nor does your example in any way provide evidence as to clouded judgement.
If someone chooses to use an inferior Free Software program due to their ethical considerations, that does not mean their judgement is clouded. It may not be the decision you would choose, nor the one that a business would choose, but that does not mean the person's judgement was clouded.
There are many cases where people choose a suboptimal solution because of their ethical considerations. For example, in labs, when mice are euthanized, they are first gassed with CO2, with 5 mice per cage, and other cages covered so that those mice can't witness the "distress of their fellows"; their necks are then snapped to ensure that they are dead, and they are then incinerated. This process takes up more time and uses more money (because of the CO2) than a faster cheaper alternative: simply putting all of the mice to be euthanized in a bag and incinerating them alive. If you believe in animal welfare (which I don't), then the more costly slower solution is better.
Ethics and morals are additional guidelines in individuals judgement. You can either agree with a person's ethics or not. It is obvious you don't agree with the ethics of Fre
I think that's exactly the point he was making. If companies use GCC as the compiler for programs they benchmark, then they will have a natural interest in making GCC better. Thus, it is good for the FS community if companies use GCC as the compiler of choice.
As for his point about GCC being a better compiler for benchmark, his point was about transparency, not that GCC is equally good for all platforms. We know where it's better and worse. Jobs said so himself.
The people who care are the zealots who don't understand, "Use the best tool for the job."
Some people have something called ethical considerations. They believe that only users should have certain freedoms in regards to the software they user. Thus, Free Software should be used, even if it is not necessarily the best tool for the job. Furthermore, this prevents vendor-lockouts and allows users a self-determined upgrade cycle. This explains those who will only use Free Software.
As for those who will only use Macs, loyalty is what drives them.
Having ethical considerations does not make one a zealot, so please stop being so insulting.
Yea, and then Intel didn't bother using any of their natural knowledge of x86 to make it a good compiler. Come on. Are you implying that those who write GCC aren't hard-working coders and don't read publicly available information? I think that's absurd. They simply have to split their efforts among the several different architectures that they have to support.
Add $70 or $134 for a 17 or 19" monitor, respectively. So, it's really $270 to $370 dollars for a full system (of course, people need not buy monitors if they already have one).
However, the US accounts for more software-using individuals than any other nation, to my knowledge.
Saying Libre Software would be fine for the French division of the FSF. Actually, there is a page Libre Software (Google it). Not for the English division.