So if an event "happens" 7500 light years away, did it really happen before the light reaches us?
How about we ask the 10-legged 8-eyed blue/green alien that got obliterated because his planet was circling that supernova?
Sorry, but these silly smart-sounding 'If a tree in the forest fell, but no one heard it fall, did it really make a sound?'-rhetorical questions irk me. The squirrel on who's head that tree fell doesn't give a crap if it made a sound. Think of the squirrels!
To all the slashdotters commenting that they might now call "Freedom Fries" "French Fries" because of a change of politics in France: think again. Sarkozy is Chirac's protege, the same Chirac that questioned the wisdom of invading Iraq. This election means that (nearly) nothing will change.
The french socialists are very left-wing, even for Europe. The policy of Chirac and Sarkozy is much more similar to that of US-Democrats than the policy of the Republicans.
you're full of it. Google never accepted money for higher rankings. You could pay to get in the "sponsored links" section.
A few weeks ago I would have completely agreed with you. Since then, I've been playing around with Adwords, and suddenly found the sites with which I advertised come in quite a bit higher in the organic search results than before.
Naturally, I could be biased due to me paying more attention. I've since added a domain I hardly use to Adwords, just to see what happens. Do no evil? How about: Do less evil...:)
When you pump cash into an open source project, the volunteers will tend to leave or their effort will diminish (why would they invest their precious time, if others are paid to do exactly the same?). Linux is different in this aspect, as companies focus their efforts on separate modules or internal sections of the kernel (the parts that matter to them), but the percentage of volunteer-developers has dropped over the last decade.
It's an interesting problem. I've looked into bounty-offerings from certain projects, but I don't think they really are effective. Debian has recently had issues with paid-for release maintainers. Setting up a company with enough cash can foster a successful open source community if done well and with care (see Canonical/Ubuntu), however if you were to pump cash into an existing community it would be more likely that it does more harm than good.
So you would be willing to search for a cheaper paintbrush, taking maybe an hour of your time, even if it only saved you a dollar?
I would also look for the best deal, but only if in doing so I'd save more per hour than I would make if I were working instead. Personally, I don't enjoy wasting my time running from store to store. Even if I'd save 50 dollars, it probably won't be worth it if that meant shopping 8 hours to find the cheapest store.
This is a kid who's basically threatened to shoot the school up.
I think you're overreacting. This was a work of fiction, and not a threat against his school. Aren't many pieces of fiction about violence? If the goal of his assignment was to write anything that came to mind, where did he go out of bounds?
IMHO this is something completely different than sending a threatening letter out of the blue (to the president, or anyone). He was instructed to write an essay, and was told to write 'without parameters'. If they thought he was messed up a call to a shrink would have been appropriate, but calling the police is post-Virginia-Tech hysteria.
Nice sound-bite, but not true. Hitler rose to power during the time of the Weimar Republic, which was very liberal. Hitler was thrown in jail once after he tried to overthrow a state-government, but not because he was suppressed.
It is interesting to read about the time in which Hitler did rise to power. The problems of the people were mostly social-economic however, which drove the people to Hitler during the great depression.
If the EU wants to avoid another Hitler, it should focus on equality and making sure everyone can earn his/her daily bread.
Color laser printers are getting cheaper too. Bought a Samsung CLP-300N last year for the price of a few ink-cartridges (okay, maybe a bit more, 250 euros).
The quality is quite amazing for both b/w and color/photos, and now I don't have to run to the store every few months when the printer was out of ink (always at the worst possible moment) or deal with messy refill-kits. Having said that, I'd assume color laser printers run out of black toner a bit sooner than an old Laserjet, if only because the toner cartridges are a tad smaller.
And yes, I'm one of those people who think I need color. Be it photos, marketing material or simply making your invoices nice and shiny: it's just that extra touch.
I've for years been eying the open source Exchange replacement projects. The main problem is MAPI-support for Outlook.
Products like Zimbra and Scalix are mostly open source, but their MAPI/Outlook components aren't. OSER was a grass-roots project aimed at developing open source MAPI-support, but has recently been put on hold by the developers.
It might be fair to say that if you have clients using Outlook you shouldn't complain about coughing up cash to have them connect to your exchange-replacement, but after all these years there (to my knowledge) isn't a fully-compatible server-side open source Exchange replacement.
Mozilla and Google? Yeah right. Tell that to a manager with 500 Outlook-using drones.
The Semantic Web is a solution in search of a problem.
No matter how cool your RDF/OWL ontologies are, the real world is perfectly happy with plain XML/CSV. If there isn't an obvious benefit, people won't switch.
In Europe, you work to live. In the USA, you live to work.
Also, 'security' is ambiguous. In Europe, 'security' means that I'll be able to feed my family in case I lose my job. In the USA, 'security' means the ability to apply draconian privacy laws, or side-step them all-together.
Remember kids, claiming that something which doesn't confirm to the OSI definition is "Open Source" is making the same mistake as claiming that Free Software is freeware.
Now if we just renamed both to "Freedom Software"... English does have a translation of Libre.
This is over the top and unfair. The FSF has not called OSS or Torvalds 'heretics'. Your saying so falsely implies that the FSF is filled with evangelical, religious-like zeal. If you have even a shred of evidence to support your absurd implication, please provide it.
Having met Stallman and his evangelical method of presenting Free Software first hand, I don't have a doubt that he sees what he's doing as a near-religious crusade. He might make jokes about his saint-hood, but I sometimes wonder if he's started to believe in them. I sometimes wonder if Open Source would exist at all, if it weren't for his preaching.
I don't see anyone prevent anyone else from making a license, but I do see people like yourself unwilling to deal with criticism ("All Lies! We are the true religion! Our God of Freedom will bring salvation!"). The zeal of certain individuals does more harm than good, in my opinion. I don't have a doubt that the GPLv3 will someday be finished, I see the reasons the FSF is making it and I agree with some of them. I might even consider using it myself. But until that time, I stand by my opinion that FS ?= OSS depends on what you are comparing in both camps.
The debate over the GPL-v3 has brought a lot of shills out of the wood work who have been using lies and deception to try to prevent the creation of the GPL-v3. I call these people anti-Free Software shills.
How could anyone prevent the creation of a software license? Feel free to disagree with me, but please agree with my right to state my opinions (without having to resort to name calling, even if they go against your own opinions).
I very much disagree with you here. I think Torvalds' opinion on the Tivo is extremely important. His main objection to the GPL-v3 is the anti-tivoization clauses it contains. Second, if Torvalds were a FS-proponent, then there is something very simple he could do regarding the Tivo: he could stop fighting the GPL-v3 and work on getting the clearance necessary to start releasing the Linux kernel under the GPL-v3.
The interesting thing about this Tivo/DRM/GPLv3 debate is that it is fairly recent. Was OSS then more equal to FS before the whole GPLv3/Tivo-debate (should I start to call it schism?).
From my point of view however, it is the FSF that is redefining its definition of software freedom: from the freedom to view/modify/distribute software to the controlling the hardware that should run said free software. Isn't it arrogant of the FSF to force compliance outside the realm of software? Shouldn't we rename the Free Software Foundation to the Free Soft- and Hardware Foundation? If a certain company doesn't want to let me run my Free Software on their machine, does my software then cease to be Free? We're going rather off topic here, but I'm trying to follow your lead (SugarCRM isn't open source. Just admit it and we can go grab a beer:)
Also, I don't see Linus fighting the GPLv3, I merely see him disagreeing that the GPLv2 needs fixing, and I do wonder why the FSF doesn't take the moral high-ground and let Linus be. If he doesn't want to be saved, why force him? The FSF wants to alter its license and definition of freedom, not the other way around. Although I see the FSF point to OSS and Linus as 'heretics', is it so strange that certain developers draw the line at the software-level, like the FSF has done in the past?
Haha, an anti-Free Software shill. That's a good one. There's no point to troll, lets just stick to the facts and maybe you'll get a wider perspective on this topic. Or maybe I'll become informed. Or both, which would be twice as good.
I try to see both sides of the FLOSS-coin. If you want to define Open Source, you'll have to start at the source of that term. ESR, as we know, is the main proponent, with people like Bruce Perens and Linus who hopped on at the start. He is one of the people behind OSI, and the OSI definition is as close as you'll get to a formal definition of "open source". A few lines that Linus once said aren't enough as a formal definition. And by this definition and comparing this with (for example) the DFSG, what is Open Source is Free Software. SugarCRM is neither.
The Linux kernel is licensed under the GPLv2. Linus' opinion on the hoops Tivo has set up for it's users is irrelevant, IMHO. According to the GPLv2, users are allowed to use the Tivo-modified kernel source in exactly the same way as the vanilla source. What Tivo allows its users to do isn't relevant to Linus because Tivo adheres to the GPLv2. The question then becomes: even if he didn't agree with Tivo, does it matter? He wouldn't be able to do anything about it, because the GPLv2 doesn't state anything about the openness (or freeness) of the device the free software is running on. Ergo, even if Linus was a FS-proponent, he wouldn't have been able to do a thing about it.
The point I'm trying to make, is that the statement of OSS ?= FS depends both on what you are comparing and your definition of OSS and FS! If you simply look at the law, the rights in both definitions, then they are equal (if they are not, feel free to put me on track). If you look at the philosophy, they emphasize different rights. Saying OSS != FS is just as misinformed as saying OSS == FS (and note I didn't state the latter). It's a matter of what you are comparing, rights or philosophy.
Now having said this, I find both terms to be vague and ambiguous so I tend to FLOSS myself. But I must admit that I write code to reach a technical goal and not a philosophical one, and am perfectly happy with the GPLv2 license. Once the GPLv3 has been tested in court I'll try to wrap my misinformed head around it. In the mean time, my answer to OSS ?= FS is simple: Mu. The question needs to be unasked.
I'm afraid you are misinformed, and those that moderated you up are misinformed too. SugarCRM certainly doesn't conform to the OSI definition (redistribution of modified versions), and therefore isn't "open source software".
It is a wide misconception that open source != free software. In a sense, they are two movements that both emphasize different sides of the same coin. There is a problem with the term "open source" being used as a marketing tool for products not adhering to the proper definition, but the same could apply for the term "free software".
Slashdot Mirror
How about we ask the 10-legged 8-eyed blue/green alien that got obliterated because his planet was circling that supernova?
Sorry, but these silly smart-sounding 'If a tree in the forest fell, but no one heard it fall, did it really make a sound?'-rhetorical questions irk me. The squirrel on who's head that tree fell doesn't give a crap if it made a sound. Think of the squirrels!
The french socialists are very left-wing, even for Europe. The policy of Chirac and Sarkozy is much more similar to that of US-Democrats than the policy of the Republicans.
Liberté, égalité, fraternité, mon ami francais!
A few weeks ago I would have completely agreed with you. Since then, I've been playing around with Adwords, and suddenly found the sites with which I advertised come in quite a bit higher in the organic search results than before.
Naturally, I could be biased due to me paying more attention. I've since added a domain I hardly use to Adwords, just to see what happens. Do no evil? How about: Do less evil...
When you pump cash into an open source project, the volunteers will tend to leave or their effort will diminish (why would they invest their precious time, if others are paid to do exactly the same?). Linux is different in this aspect, as companies focus their efforts on separate modules or internal sections of the kernel (the parts that matter to them), but the percentage of volunteer-developers has dropped over the last decade.
It's an interesting problem. I've looked into bounty-offerings from certain projects, but I don't think they really are effective. Debian has recently had issues with paid-for release maintainers. Setting up a company with enough cash can foster a successful open source community if done well and with care (see Canonical/Ubuntu), however if you were to pump cash into an existing community it would be more likely that it does more harm than good.
Just my two cents. And no, I haven't RTFA.
I would also look for the best deal, but only if in doing so I'd save more per hour than I would make if I were working instead. Personally, I don't enjoy wasting my time running from store to store. Even if I'd save 50 dollars, it probably won't be worth it if that meant shopping 8 hours to find the cheapest store.
Just my two cents.
I think you're overreacting. This was a work of fiction, and not a threat against his school. Aren't many pieces of fiction about violence? If the goal of his assignment was to write anything that came to mind, where did he go out of bounds?
IMHO this is something completely different than sending a threatening letter out of the blue (to the president, or anyone). He was instructed to write an essay, and was told to write 'without parameters'. If they thought he was messed up a call to a shrink would have been appropriate, but calling the police is post-Virginia-Tech hysteria.
Nice sound-bite, but not true. Hitler rose to power during the time of the Weimar Republic, which was very liberal. Hitler was thrown in jail once after he tried to overthrow a state-government, but not because he was suppressed.
It is interesting to read about the time in which Hitler did rise to power. The problems of the people were mostly social-economic however, which drove the people to Hitler during the great depression.
If the EU wants to avoid another Hitler, it should focus on equality and making sure everyone can earn his/her daily bread.
You must be new here.
Color laser printers are getting cheaper too. Bought a Samsung CLP-300N last year for the price of a few ink-cartridges (okay, maybe a bit more, 250 euros).
The quality is quite amazing for both b/w and color/photos, and now I don't have to run to the store every few months when the printer was out of ink (always at the worst possible moment) or deal with messy refill-kits. Having said that, I'd assume color laser printers run out of black toner a bit sooner than an old Laserjet, if only because the toner cartridges are a tad smaller.
And yes, I'm one of those people who think I need color. Be it photos, marketing material or simply making your invoices nice and shiny: it's just that extra touch.
Hostnames / IP addresses are blacklisted. Domainnames are not. Next question.
Tux isn't going to be very popular with these guys...
I'm still playing Super Mario Brothers 3, you insensitive clod!
Seriously. I never did get past 8-1.
Zee svedeesh purete-a perty kerma vhure-a threed! Bork-bork-bork!
Products like Zimbra and Scalix are mostly open source, but their MAPI/Outlook components aren't. OSER was a grass-roots project aimed at developing open source MAPI-support, but has recently been put on hold by the developers.
It might be fair to say that if you have clients using Outlook you shouldn't complain about coughing up cash to have them connect to your exchange-replacement, but after all these years there (to my knowledge) isn't a fully-compatible server-side open source Exchange replacement.
Mozilla and Google? Yeah right. Tell that to a manager with 500 Outlook-using drones.
The Semantic Web is a solution in search of a problem.
No matter how cool your RDF/OWL ontologies are, the real world is perfectly happy with plain XML/CSV. If there isn't an obvious benefit, people won't switch.
You might be mixing up our moon with Mars.
The only way not to lose is not to play at all. If you don't want to be evil, don't start a company.
In Europe, you work to live. In the USA, you live to work.
Also, 'security' is ambiguous. In Europe, 'security' means that I'll be able to feed my family in case I lose my job. In the USA, 'security' means the ability to apply draconian privacy laws, or side-step them all-together.
Now if we just renamed both to "Freedom Software"... English does have a translation of Libre.
So to answer the question: Mu.
Those who don't understand LaTeX are doomed to reinvent it... poorly.
Having met Stallman and his evangelical method of presenting Free Software first hand, I don't have a doubt that he sees what he's doing as a near-religious crusade. He might make jokes about his saint-hood, but I sometimes wonder if he's started to believe in them. I sometimes wonder if Open Source would exist at all, if it weren't for his preaching.
I don't see anyone prevent anyone else from making a license, but I do see people like yourself unwilling to deal with criticism ("All Lies! We are the true religion! Our God of Freedom will bring salvation!"). The zeal of certain individuals does more harm than good, in my opinion. I don't have a doubt that the GPLv3 will someday be finished, I see the reasons the FSF is making it and I agree with some of them. I might even consider using it myself. But until that time, I stand by my opinion that FS ?= OSS depends on what you are comparing in both camps.
And SugarCRM still is neither
How could anyone prevent the creation of a software license? Feel free to disagree with me, but please agree with my right to state my opinions (without having to resort to name calling, even if they go against your own opinions).
The interesting thing about this Tivo/DRM/GPLv3 debate is that it is fairly recent. Was OSS then more equal to FS before the whole GPLv3/Tivo-debate (should I start to call it schism?).
From my point of view however, it is the FSF that is redefining its definition of software freedom: from the freedom to view/modify/distribute software to the controlling the hardware that should run said free software. Isn't it arrogant of the FSF to force compliance outside the realm of software? Shouldn't we rename the Free Software Foundation to the Free Soft- and Hardware Foundation? If a certain company doesn't want to let me run my Free Software on their machine, does my software then cease to be Free? We're going rather off topic here, but I'm trying to follow your lead (SugarCRM isn't open source. Just admit it and we can go grab a beer
Also, I don't see Linus fighting the GPLv3, I merely see him disagreeing that the GPLv2 needs fixing, and I do wonder why the FSF doesn't take the moral high-ground and let Linus be. If he doesn't want to be saved, why force him? The FSF wants to alter its license and definition of freedom, not the other way around. Although I see the FSF point to OSS and Linus as 'heretics', is it so strange that certain developers draw the line at the software-level, like the FSF has done in the past?
I try to see both sides of the FLOSS-coin. If you want to define Open Source, you'll have to start at the source of that term. ESR, as we know, is the main proponent, with people like Bruce Perens and Linus who hopped on at the start. He is one of the people behind OSI, and the OSI definition is as close as you'll get to a formal definition of "open source". A few lines that Linus once said aren't enough as a formal definition. And by this definition and comparing this with (for example) the DFSG, what is Open Source is Free Software. SugarCRM is neither.
The Linux kernel is licensed under the GPLv2. Linus' opinion on the hoops Tivo has set up for it's users is irrelevant, IMHO. According to the GPLv2, users are allowed to use the Tivo-modified kernel source in exactly the same way as the vanilla source. What Tivo allows its users to do isn't relevant to Linus because Tivo adheres to the GPLv2. The question then becomes: even if he didn't agree with Tivo, does it matter? He wouldn't be able to do anything about it, because the GPLv2 doesn't state anything about the openness (or freeness) of the device the free software is running on. Ergo, even if Linus was a FS-proponent, he wouldn't have been able to do a thing about it.
The point I'm trying to make, is that the statement of OSS ?= FS depends both on what you are comparing and your definition of OSS and FS! If you simply look at the law, the rights in both definitions, then they are equal (if they are not, feel free to put me on track). If you look at the philosophy, they emphasize different rights. Saying OSS != FS is just as misinformed as saying OSS == FS (and note I didn't state the latter). It's a matter of what you are comparing, rights or philosophy.
Now having said this, I find both terms to be vague and ambiguous so I tend to FLOSS myself. But I must admit that I write code to reach a technical goal and not a philosophical one, and am perfectly happy with the GPLv2 license. Once the GPLv3 has been tested in court I'll try to wrap my misinformed head around it. In the mean time, my answer to OSS ?= FS is simple: Mu. The question needs to be unasked.
It is a wide misconception that open source != free software. In a sense, they are two movements that both emphasize different sides of the same coin. There is a problem with the term "open source" being used as a marketing tool for products not adhering to the proper definition, but the same could apply for the term "free software".
Exactly. At work we have looked into switching to Gmail, but the lack of IMAP and not having control over our own data made the choice rather easy.