In terms of the entire philosophical issue of "Free Software..." (are you listening here, FSF?)
Neurologically/socially NORMAL people DO. NOT. CARE.
People with girlfriends, people with families, people who live above ground...they see a computer purely as a convenience; a means of hopefully making their endlessly busy existence somewhat less busy. Being a member of the Stallmanite cult is the last thing they want. They want nothing other than a computer that works.
This is the entire reason why the FSF have to rely on the closest thing we've got to earthbound extraterrestrials - isolated, disaffected freaks - both to spread the "message," and to fill out their membership. Normal people don't care, because normal people have lives and far more important things to think about.
This is part of the negative element of Slashdot being "News for Nerds," in that part of the definition of a nerd, at least at times, is a pedant with such exotic fringe neurology that they actually care about linguistic hair-splitting such as the above.
I appreciate you so honestly characterising what is in reality the attitude of a lot of people developing open source.
Read closely here, people...because this more than in many other ways is the tyranny of Richard Stallman.
Said developers often actually want to make money themselves, but working on GPL licensed projects, feel as though socially speaking, they're not allowed to...so they work on something GPL licensed in order to be politically correct, but because that isn't what they really want, heaven help the poor soul who decides to attempt to capitalise on said code themselves.
As an idea, try contributing to a project under a non-GPL license, so that you can then not only contribute code of your own, but also sell the entire project outright if you so choose, in order to gain economic compensation. Good form suggests that you donate some of your profit from doing this back into the project as well, but you are under no hard legal obligation to do so either.
By contributing to say, a BSD licensed project, you can both feel like you're doing the right thing, and receive economic compensation for it if you so choose, without any of the GPL's attendant legal complexities whatsoever.
If you try using it, you'll discover for yourself that in practice, the BSD license is a better license. Fear however can be a very powerful motivator, and the GPL has fear on its' side. Fear of Microsoft, fear of the legal system, fear of the rest of the corporate world. Fear, fear, and more fear. The GPL also has Stallman's army of cultists behind it, to socially/politically enforce its' use.
Mr Mickos, I am grateful for the opportunity to respond to a representative of the company directly.
I wish to make it known that for what it is worth, I myself harbour no ill will towards MySQL AB for being a commercial entity, or towards its' staff for attempting to seek financial recompense for the hard work that they presumably engage in. As someone who seeks to improve my own financial situation, I would be hypocritical if I were to do otherwise.
My own occupation as an occasional web developer, among other persuits, has at times in the past led me to encounter and use MySQL. In what experience I have had with it, it is a fine application, worthy of its' reputation with developers, and I also found the documentation to be highly detailed and useful.
While work that I may undertake as a web designer in the future will likely cause me to have further encounters with MySQL, a couple of years ago, I began a different project than that which I have previously attempted. Given the (hopefully eventually) commercial nature which I plan for this project to have, for my own purposes it became apparent that a database package under the BSD license would be more appropriate. I will also admit that the BSD license is more in line with my own philosophical perspective in general; part of that is the need for a license which is not under the authorial control of any single entity, which most definitely includes the Free Software Foundation. I however acknowledge that for certain uses, version 2 of the GPL can be appropriate, and also harbour no hostility towards those who choose to use it. License choice can be a deeply personal thing, as well as legal and economic.
I wish your company all possible success, as well as commending the company for offering support as one of its' services. Migrating to open source, as with any large endeavour, can be a greatly complex and at times imposing thing, and I feel that though there are some, there sadly are still not enough entities yet in existence to offer concrete guidance to those individuals and entities who wish to join the exodus. We must therefore be grateful for those that do exist.
The other thing is to educate them about the DRM, spying, manipulation, and generally bad faith in which Windows has been built to hide the fact that so much spying is going on on the user.
I can just hear the mental chorus which is accompanying this post. It starts off quietly, but gradually gets louder until it's at the level of shouting.
Most of the time, I can take the brainwashed utterances of Stallman's footsoldiers in stride, but every so often one of you comes out with something that truly makes me gasp.
Heard of b/pmake, or nbtar, as but two examples? I'm guessing not.
I'm talking about the BSD userland; one that to a very large extent has been written entirely independently of the GNU project. The only real element of the GNU toolchain that the BSDs haven't replaced is GCC.
Stallman's minions are not merely obnoxious in continuing to promote the lie that the GNU system is the only toolchain in existence, but they're also wrong. As I said, GCC is the only critical element. Everything else is entirely replaceable, and has been re-implemented several times, under open source licenses.
Your adamancy would not be so grating if it was not based in such unbelievable ignorance.
It's become clear that the FSF has put its battle against the external "enemy" on hold and is focused on destroying internal enemies, i.e., those who dissent from the party line.
You must have missed the memo; the FSF have been engaging in their own ideological answer to the Purges for a while now. And yes, RMS does have more than a few things in common with Uncle Joe, when you look beneath the surface. There are those of us who think that the degree of similarity between the names "Stallman," and "Stalin," isn't pure coincidence.;-)
I appreciate the fact that you were down-modded into oblivion, as is only right and proper. There are times when the bias of the moderators distresses me, but others where I am given cause for optimism. This is evidence that the system does work the way it's supposed to, at least some of the time.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again. FSF cultists, please do not attempt to pass the basis of your mind control off as fact.
I suppose that's always been the FSF view if Linus.
I'm guessing Stallman doesn't want people to think highly of Linus. It becomes difficult to obtain a sufficiently high amount of narcissistic supply if people admire someone else. As a narcissist, that's the last thing you want. You want people thinking that you and you alone are God; nobody else must be allowed to enter that picture at all.
Wow...watch the GNU/cultists pour in droves out the woodwork. The thing that's truly depressing is how many of you zombies are apparently left in existence.
Linus's analyses are usually clear, indeed, but almost always short-sighted. He doesn't seem to notice anything beyond the end of his nose
Let me guess. He's short sighted because his opinions aren't in slavish conformity with the decrees of your Messiah, RMS?
If all of FOSS and not just the Linux kernel were in Linus's hands, we'd be in trouble. Fortunately almost nobody else in the community is that naive.
True...Most people prefer to swallow the rampant, baseless fearmongering that gets propogated by a certain aspirant cult leader and his lackies. No points for guessing which side of that particular fence you happen to be on, eh?
Also...just a thought. If you're so sure of the validity of your beliefs and your position, why are you posting as an AC?
Please...do us a favour. Don't quote what is purely your own pro-FSF brainwashing, and then try and pass it off as fact. A lot of people also think that Rael or Sun Myung Moon is the Messiah, that you can get emotionally and spiritally clear via Dianetics, and that you can become a billionaire from being a distributor in Amway. I used to believe in the Easter bunny before my parents told me the truth at a certain age, as well.
You might not realise it, but you and the above groups of people have a lot in common.
Good grief, there are some mentally diseased freaks among the Linux users of Slashdot.
Sometimes when a Linux related story comes up, and I read some of the replies, I honestly find myself wondering...Who the hell left the basement door unlocked?;-)
They're very kind things he said about MS compared to what he could have said, things like:
Go and crawl back under your rock. This is the usual cultic line of, "It doesn't matter what someone does; if they're not conforming with the groupthink that I've bought into to the last possible degree, then anything they do is entirely worthless."
Dare I ask whether or not you think "sycophantic hero worship" of Stallman is acceptable? Chances are it's never even dawned on you at all...in fact, if you're like a lot of people, you probably worship the ground Stallman walks on without paying a lot of attention to the fact that you do.
I mean, it's just so completely normal to mindlessly idolise Stallman, (but nobody else, of course) that why on Earth would you bother to reflect on it at all? It's a lot like questioning why the Sun comes up in the morning. Pointless, and entirely unthinkable.
Right on, Linus. It was a tempest in a teapot, mostly stirred up by FSF fanatics who wouldn't think twice about sinking the second most important Linux distro just to prove they're more "moral" than everybody else.
The only really big mistake Linus has ever made, IMHO, was getting into bed with the FSF in the first place. It continues to hold Linux back as far as adoption is concerned, because the FSF aren't a group that people who live above ground tend to want to have anything to do with.
I wasn't actually talking purely about what the GPL says, but rather about my own expectations. Granted, MySQL are under no obligation whatsoever to adhere to those, just as in the same sense, I'm not under any obligation to use their software.
Your other clarification, however, is appreciated.
The Linux Foundation calling for respect for Microsoft will have less than no effect.
The only way this could happen would be if hell froze over and Stallman himself called for it. He's the only person that most of the people who are seriously into hating Microsoft will listen to. In many cases, the only reason why said people started hating Microsoft is purely because Stallman told them to, rather than because of any more logical reason.
Get the Prophet (gag) to decree it, and his followers will listen. If anyone else tries, however, the cult will remain entirely impervious. As Jesus himself said, sheep only follow one shepherd. If another tries to lead them, they either simply do not follow, or run away, because they do not recognise a stranger's voice.
I completely agree with what you're saying in terms of the GPL3, however in terms of MySQL...
When I (not speaking for anyone else here, purely me) download something that calls itself "open source," my expectation of what that means is that I should be able to get source with binaries. That is, if I download binary packages or archives from a given web page, I should be able to download source that will compile into an exact copy of the binaries, from the same page.
Ditto for buying a CD/set of CDs. If you call yourself open source, and you sell me a CD set, I expect to get source on those CDs, with exactly the same priority as the binaries. I don't expect to get (as was the case with Xandros) binaries only, and then the vendor telling me about some deliberately obscure FTP site where I can go and (if I rummage around long enough) download sources which may or may not compile into exact copies of the binaries I was given.
Bottom line to MySQL:- If you want to run a closed source/proprietary app/project, that is entirely your right. I will not condemn anyone for wanting to earn bread for the work they do. I also will not condemn anyone for seeking to obtain that which is promised them by capitalist economic theory, if they do so in a principled manner. However, I would appreciate it that you don't try and make yourselves deceptively look good by merely claiming to be open source if you are not prepared to give me what I have outlined above.
I will buy a completely open source product, because I know what I'm getting. I will buy a completely closed, proprietary product, because I know what I'm getting. I will however not buy anything which merely claims to be open source, but which in reality exists in a vague, ambiguous manner somewhere between the two, because then I don't know what I'm getting, I don't know where I stand legally in regards to using the product, and I don't know what legal risks I may be exposing myself to by using the product.
While I'm not doing database stuff currently, last time I was a year or two ago, I actually saw this coming and opted for Postgres rather than MySQL.
Postgres is a fantastic project. It's very solid, can handle huge transaction/request loads, has concurrent locking etc, from memory supports a large number of different datatypes, and is also very configurable. Even better, it's under what is my own favourite license, the BSD license...so you can do pretty much whatever you want with it.
MySQL will probably continue to have its' place, with people who need the things they're charging for, (presumably support options etc) and I wish the project well.
However, for people like me who don't have a lot of money, MySQL ceased being an entirely legally safe option a while ago.
I'm in no way a biologist, but I have read a certain amount about attempts to simulate genetic evolutionary processes in order to produce artificial intelligence. I've also read Genesis, and tried to read the Origin of Species once. (Although most of that went over my head)
From the AI stuff I read, I got the impression that in order for the entire evolutionary process to occur at all, you need a pre-existing set of heuristics (the "genetic algorithm") that define what "evolutionary fitness" means for a given species.
Hence, a chicken-and-egg problem. Once you've got the GA, the whole process can go along just fine, working according to the rules of the GA. However, the burning question is, how did the GA itself get there? I've never heard of any scenario where a GA itself can evolve via an atheistic process, but if anyone knows of one, please share.
Thus, when I think about it at all, at least at the moment I'm inclined towards a hybrid theory of how we got here, which actually includes elements of both creationism and evolutionary thinking. My own perspective is that yes, evolution happens. We see the end products of it all the time, and yes, to a degree the process has been successfully simulated (with some interesting results) in the AI field.
However, where God steps into the picture for me in this context is as the provider of the initial GA, after which organisms can themselves take over the process from there. I'm not claiming (at least in this context) to have any definite idea of what God actually is or was, either...but I do think that there are at least a couple of areas, (such as the GA question) which atheistic evolutionary theory alone can't really account for.
The other thing I'd like to have an atheist tell me is how they believe water got here initially, and more specifically, why the water cycle starts on some planets and not on others. From what I was reading a while back, water actually initially gets produced in a closed-circuit chemical reaction, with the three elements, hydrogen, oxygen, and carbon. Once it gets started, the loop can keep going as long as those three elements are all present; my question is, how did those three elements become present here on Earth, especially when oxygen in particular seems to be rare almost to the point of being entirely unique in the universe, from what I've seen?
Oh, and to get back on topic...Yes, of course Erectus and Habilis could co-exist simultaneously. The simultaneous co-existence of different sub-species, (or breeds, if you like) is the entire way in which the natural selection process can work. You don't need to know much about biology to know that.;-)
We call this game "See What You Made Me Do". It's no more convincing from Shuttleworth than it is from my nine-year-old grandson.
Yeah, except maybe both Shuttleworth and said nine year old know something you don't, gramps. It's true, and nothing proves it more than the release of GPLv3. Mainstream Linux has been the victim of assisted suicide. It was already looking to hang itself, and Microsoft, charitable souls that they are, provided the rope.
It makes sense that Microsoft would try to turn the fractious and already divisive nature of at least the older elements of Linux's userbase against itself. It isn't as though such an activity would be terribly difficult, either.
This is another part of the reason why I view the Linux "community" as such a toxic, virulent sociological sickness. It's because things like this effort on Microsoft's part demonstrate that, while Linux advocates can talk about the community valuing unity to the degree that they do, that's all such talk is; talk. Linux users are a lot quicker to shun each other for imagined violations of Stallmanite philosophy than they are to genuinely stand together against a common enemy. This is easy for Microsoft to see, and in conflict, it is customary to attempt to capitalise on the enemy's weakness. Sun Tzu also wrote that one of the most important things in war is to divide the enemy wherever possible, and to prevent the enemy from forming alliances with anyone.
Microsoft signs one of these agreements with Novell or whoever else, and it wins in two ways. It wins by potentially driving said company out of business, because of said company no longer being able to sell its' distribution, and it also wins by making sure that members of the community are too busy fighting each other to be able to do anything else, because of splits between those who still want to keep using said companies' distros and those who think it is wrong to do so. So they can sign these agreements, and then merely stand back to observe the fireworks. You yourselves do the rest.
The only time I'm ever going to see the Linux community as being a good thing is when said community genuinely starts behaving like one. That means getting some basic maturity. It also means that if someone is doing what you believe is the wrong thing, that rather than shunning that person at the first sign of infraction, you instead at least initially attempt to talk to the person about what it is that they're doing, and also that in such situations you also check your own assumptions. Most importantly, the howling, red eyed zealotry needs to go.
Want to start beating Microsoft, Linux users? Stop thinking and acting like religious fanatics, and in general, grow the hell up. Right now, you're being played like a violin, and if you want that to continue, just keep doing more of the same.
Slashdot Mirror
In terms of the entire philosophical issue of "Free Software..." (are you listening here, FSF?)
Neurologically/socially NORMAL people DO. NOT. CARE.
People with girlfriends, people with families, people who live above ground...they see a computer purely as a convenience; a means of hopefully making their endlessly busy existence somewhat less busy. Being a member of the Stallmanite cult is the last thing they want. They want nothing other than a computer that works.
This is the entire reason why the FSF have to rely on the closest thing we've got to earthbound extraterrestrials - isolated, disaffected freaks - both to spread the "message," and to fill out their membership. Normal people don't care, because normal people have lives and far more important things to think about.
This is part of the negative element of Slashdot being "News for Nerds," in that part of the definition of a nerd, at least at times, is a pedant with such exotic fringe neurology that they actually care about linguistic hair-splitting such as the above.
I appreciate you so honestly characterising what is in reality the attitude of a lot of people developing open source.
Read closely here, people...because this more than in many other ways is the tyranny of Richard Stallman.
Said developers often actually want to make money themselves, but working on GPL licensed projects, feel as though socially speaking, they're not allowed to...so they work on something GPL licensed in order to be politically correct, but because that isn't what they really want, heaven help the poor soul who decides to attempt to capitalise on said code themselves.
As an idea, try contributing to a project under a non-GPL license, so that you can then not only contribute code of your own, but also sell the entire project outright if you so choose, in order to gain economic compensation. Good form suggests that you donate some of your profit from doing this back into the project as well, but you are under no hard legal obligation to do so either.
By contributing to say, a BSD licensed project, you can both feel like you're doing the right thing, and receive economic compensation for it if you so choose, without any of the GPL's attendant legal complexities whatsoever.
If you try using it, you'll discover for yourself that in practice, the BSD license is a better license. Fear however can be a very powerful motivator, and the GPL has fear on its' side. Fear of Microsoft, fear of the legal system, fear of the rest of the corporate world. Fear, fear, and more fear. The GPL also has Stallman's army of cultists behind it, to socially/politically enforce its' use.
Mr Mickos,
I am grateful for the opportunity to respond to a representative of the company directly.
I wish to make it known that for what it is worth, I myself harbour no ill will towards MySQL AB for being a commercial entity, or towards its' staff for attempting to seek financial recompense for the hard work that they presumably engage in. As someone who seeks to improve my own financial situation, I would be hypocritical if I were to do otherwise.
My own occupation as an occasional web developer, among other persuits, has at times in the past led me to encounter and use MySQL. In what experience I have had with it, it is a fine application, worthy of its' reputation with developers, and I also found the documentation to be highly detailed and useful.
While work that I may undertake as a web designer in the future will likely cause me to have further encounters with MySQL, a couple of years ago, I began a different project than that which I have previously attempted. Given the (hopefully eventually) commercial nature which I plan for this project to have, for my own purposes it became apparent that a database package under the BSD license would be more appropriate. I will also admit that the BSD license is more in line with my own philosophical perspective in general; part of that is the need for a license which is not under the authorial control of any single entity, which most definitely includes the Free Software Foundation. I however acknowledge that for certain uses, version 2 of the GPL can be appropriate, and also harbour no hostility towards those who choose to use it. License choice can be a deeply personal thing, as well as legal and economic.
I wish your company all possible success, as well as commending the company for offering support as one of its' services. Migrating to open source, as with any large endeavour, can be a greatly complex and at times imposing thing, and I feel that though there are some, there sadly are still not enough entities yet in existence to offer concrete guidance to those individuals and entities who wish to join the exodus. We must therefore be grateful for those that do exist.
The other thing is to educate them about the DRM, spying, manipulation, and generally bad faith in which Windows has been built to hide the fact that so much spying is going on on the user.
I can just hear the mental chorus which is accompanying this post. It starts off quietly, but gradually gets louder until it's at the level of shouting.
"Fear...fear...fear...fear...fear...fear...FEAR!"
RMS doesn't care much about credit.
Do you really believe that? Really?
Most of the time, I can take the brainwashed utterances of Stallman's footsoldiers in stride, but every so often one of you comes out with something that truly makes me gasp.
How can you be so deluded? How is it possible?
ROFL.
"Can I get an AH-MEN, brothahs and sistahs?"
Heard of b/pmake, or nbtar, as but two examples? I'm guessing not.
I'm talking about the BSD userland; one that to a very large extent has been written entirely independently of the GNU project. The only real element of the GNU toolchain that the BSDs haven't replaced is GCC.
Stallman's minions are not merely obnoxious in continuing to promote the lie that the GNU system is the only toolchain in existence, but they're also wrong. As I said, GCC is the only critical element. Everything else is entirely replaceable, and has been re-implemented several times, under open source licenses.
Your adamancy would not be so grating if it was not based in such unbelievable ignorance.
It's become clear that the FSF has put its battle against the external "enemy" on hold and is focused on destroying internal enemies, i.e., those who dissent from the party line.
;-)
You must have missed the memo; the FSF have been engaging in their own ideological answer to the Purges for a while now. And yes, RMS does have more than a few things in common with Uncle Joe, when you look beneath the surface. There are those of us who think that the degree of similarity between the names "Stallman," and "Stalin," isn't pure coincidence.
I appreciate the fact that you were down-modded into oblivion, as is only right and proper. There are times when the bias of the moderators distresses me, but others where I am given cause for optimism. This is evidence that the system does work the way it's supposed to, at least some of the time.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again. FSF cultists, please do not attempt to pass the basis of your mind control off as fact.
I suppose that's always been the FSF view if Linus.
I'm guessing Stallman doesn't want people to think highly of Linus. It becomes difficult to obtain a sufficiently high amount of narcissistic supply if people admire someone else. As a narcissist, that's the last thing you want. You want people thinking that you and you alone are God; nobody else must be allowed to enter that picture at all.
Wow...watch the GNU/cultists pour in droves out the woodwork. The thing that's truly depressing is how many of you zombies are apparently left in existence.
Linus's analyses are usually clear, indeed, but almost always short-sighted. He doesn't seem to notice anything beyond the end of his nose
Let me guess. He's short sighted because his opinions aren't in slavish conformity with the decrees of your Messiah, RMS?
If all of FOSS and not just the Linux kernel were in Linus's hands, we'd be in trouble. Fortunately almost nobody else in the community is that naive.
True...Most people prefer to swallow the rampant, baseless fearmongering that gets propogated by a certain aspirant cult leader and his lackies. No points for guessing which side of that particular fence you happen to be on, eh?
Also...just a thought. If you're so sure of the validity of your beliefs and your position, why are you posting as an AC?
Please...do us a favour. Don't quote what is purely your own pro-FSF brainwashing, and then try and pass it off as fact. A lot of people also think that Rael or Sun Myung Moon is the Messiah, that you can get emotionally and spiritally clear via Dianetics, and that you can become a billionaire from being a distributor in Amway. I used to believe in the Easter bunny before my parents told me the truth at a certain age, as well.
You might not realise it, but you and the above groups of people have a lot in common.
Good grief, there are some mentally diseased freaks among the Linux users of Slashdot.
;-)
Sometimes when a Linux related story comes up, and I read some of the replies, I honestly find myself wondering...Who the hell left the basement door unlocked?
They're very kind things he said about MS compared to what he could have said, things like:
Go and crawl back under your rock. This is the usual cultic line of, "It doesn't matter what someone does; if they're not conforming with the groupthink that I've bought into to the last possible degree, then anything they do is entirely worthless."
Dare I ask whether or not you think "sycophantic hero worship" of Stallman is acceptable? Chances are it's never even dawned on you at all...in fact, if you're like a lot of people, you probably worship the ground Stallman walks on without paying a lot of attention to the fact that you do.
I mean, it's just so completely normal to mindlessly idolise Stallman, (but nobody else, of course) that why on Earth would you bother to reflect on it at all? It's a lot like questioning why the Sun comes up in the morning. Pointless, and entirely unthinkable.
Right on, Linus. It was a tempest in a teapot, mostly stirred up by FSF fanatics who wouldn't think twice about sinking the second most important Linux distro just to prove they're more "moral" than everybody else.
The only really big mistake Linus has ever made, IMHO, was getting into bed with the FSF in the first place. It continues to hold Linux back as far as adoption is concerned, because the FSF aren't a group that people who live above ground tend to want to have anything to do with.
Stop being logical. It's got a lot of the fanboys of that big unkempt hairy guy upset.
;-)
Linus isn't a terminally narcissistic, wannabe cult leader. Stallman is. Therein lies the key difference.
No - that is not what the GPL says.
I wasn't actually talking purely about what the GPL says, but rather about my own expectations. Granted, MySQL are under no obligation whatsoever to adhere to those, just as in the same sense, I'm not under any obligation to use their software.
Your other clarification, however, is appreciated.
The Linux Foundation calling for respect for Microsoft will have less than no effect.
The only way this could happen would be if hell froze over and Stallman himself called for it. He's the only person that most of the people who are seriously into hating Microsoft will listen to. In many cases, the only reason why said people started hating Microsoft is purely because Stallman told them to, rather than because of any more logical reason.
Get the Prophet (gag) to decree it, and his followers will listen. If anyone else tries, however, the cult will remain entirely impervious. As Jesus himself said, sheep only follow one shepherd. If another tries to lead them, they either simply do not follow, or run away, because they do not recognise a stranger's voice.
I completely agree with what you're saying in terms of the GPL3, however in terms of MySQL...
When I (not speaking for anyone else here, purely me) download something that calls itself "open source," my expectation of what that means is that I should be able to get source with binaries. That is, if I download binary packages or archives from a given web page, I should be able to download source that will compile into an exact copy of the binaries, from the same page.
Ditto for buying a CD/set of CDs. If you call yourself open source, and you sell me a CD set, I expect to get source on those CDs, with exactly the same priority as the binaries. I don't expect to get (as was the case with Xandros) binaries only, and then the vendor telling me about some deliberately obscure FTP site where I can go and (if I rummage around long enough) download sources which may or may not compile into exact copies of the binaries I was given.
Bottom line to MySQL:- If you want to run a closed source/proprietary app/project, that is entirely your right. I will not condemn anyone for wanting to earn bread for the work they do. I also will not condemn anyone for seeking to obtain that which is promised them by capitalist economic theory, if they do so in a principled manner. However, I would appreciate it that you don't try and make yourselves deceptively look good by merely claiming to be open source if you are not prepared to give me what I have outlined above.
I will buy a completely open source product, because I know what I'm getting. I will buy a completely closed, proprietary product, because I know what I'm getting. I will however not buy anything which merely claims to be open source, but which in reality exists in a vague, ambiguous manner somewhere between the two, because then I don't know what I'm getting, I don't know where I stand legally in regards to using the product, and I don't know what legal risks I may be exposing myself to by using the product.
While I'm not doing database stuff currently, last time I was a year or two ago, I actually saw this coming and opted for Postgres rather than MySQL.
Postgres is a fantastic project. It's very solid, can handle huge transaction/request loads, has concurrent locking etc, from memory supports a large number of different datatypes, and is also very configurable. Even better, it's under what is my own favourite license, the BSD license...so you can do pretty much whatever you want with it.
MySQL will probably continue to have its' place, with people who need the things they're charging for, (presumably support options etc) and I wish the project well.
However, for people like me who don't have a lot of money, MySQL ceased being an entirely legally safe option a while ago.
I'm in no way a biologist, but I have read a certain amount about attempts to simulate genetic evolutionary processes in order to produce artificial intelligence. I've also read Genesis, and tried to read the Origin of Species once. (Although most of that went over my head)
;-)
From the AI stuff I read, I got the impression that in order for the entire evolutionary process to occur at all, you need a pre-existing set of heuristics (the "genetic algorithm") that define what "evolutionary fitness" means for a given species.
Hence, a chicken-and-egg problem. Once you've got the GA, the whole process can go along just fine, working according to the rules of the GA. However, the burning question is, how did the GA itself get there? I've never heard of any scenario where a GA itself can evolve via an atheistic process, but if anyone knows of one, please share.
Thus, when I think about it at all, at least at the moment I'm inclined towards a hybrid theory of how we got here, which actually includes elements of both creationism and evolutionary thinking. My own perspective is that yes, evolution happens. We see the end products of it all the time, and yes, to a degree the process has been successfully simulated (with some interesting results) in the AI field.
However, where God steps into the picture for me in this context is as the provider of the initial GA, after which organisms can themselves take over the process from there. I'm not claiming (at least in this context) to have any definite idea of what God actually is or was, either...but I do think that there are at least a couple of areas, (such as the GA question) which atheistic evolutionary theory alone can't really account for.
The other thing I'd like to have an atheist tell me is how they believe water got here initially, and more specifically, why the water cycle starts on some planets and not on others. From what I was reading a while back, water actually initially gets produced in a closed-circuit chemical reaction, with the three elements, hydrogen, oxygen, and carbon. Once it gets started, the loop can keep going as long as those three elements are all present; my question is, how did those three elements become present here on Earth, especially when oxygen in particular seems to be rare almost to the point of being entirely unique in the universe, from what I've seen?
Oh, and to get back on topic...Yes, of course Erectus and Habilis could co-exist simultaneously. The simultaneous co-existence of different sub-species, (or breeds, if you like) is the entire way in which the natural selection process can work. You don't need to know much about biology to know that.
We call this game "See What You Made Me Do". It's no more convincing from Shuttleworth than it is from my nine-year-old grandson.
Yeah, except maybe both Shuttleworth and said nine year old know something you don't, gramps. It's true, and nothing proves it more than the release of GPLv3. Mainstream Linux has been the victim of assisted suicide. It was already looking to hang itself, and Microsoft, charitable souls that they are, provided the rope.
It makes sense that Microsoft would try to turn the fractious and already divisive nature of at least the older elements of Linux's userbase against itself. It isn't as though such an activity would be terribly difficult, either.
This is another part of the reason why I view the Linux "community" as such a toxic, virulent sociological sickness. It's because things like this effort on Microsoft's part demonstrate that, while Linux advocates can talk about the community valuing unity to the degree that they do, that's all such talk is; talk. Linux users are a lot quicker to shun each other for imagined violations of Stallmanite philosophy than they are to genuinely stand together against a common enemy. This is easy for Microsoft to see, and in conflict, it is customary to attempt to capitalise on the enemy's weakness. Sun Tzu also wrote that one of the most important things in war is to divide the enemy wherever possible, and to prevent the enemy from forming alliances with anyone.
Microsoft signs one of these agreements with Novell or whoever else, and it wins in two ways. It wins by potentially driving said company out of business, because of said company no longer being able to sell its' distribution, and it also wins by making sure that members of the community are too busy fighting each other to be able to do anything else, because of splits between those who still want to keep using said companies' distros and those who think it is wrong to do so. So they can sign these agreements, and then merely stand back to observe the fireworks. You yourselves do the rest.
The only time I'm ever going to see the Linux community as being a good thing is when said community genuinely starts behaving like one. That means getting some basic maturity. It also means that if someone is doing what you believe is the wrong thing, that rather than shunning that person at the first sign of infraction, you instead at least initially attempt to talk to the person about what it is that they're doing, and also that in such situations you also check your own assumptions. Most importantly, the howling, red eyed zealotry needs to go.
Want to start beating Microsoft, Linux users? Stop thinking and acting like religious fanatics, and in general, grow the hell up. Right now, you're being played like a violin, and if you want that to continue, just keep doing more of the same.