Microsoft is on the way to giving the word 'viral' an ameliorated connotation.
Pretty soon, people will be lining up to buy viruses. Then Microsoft will realize that they tackled the wrong enemy. Open Source will not "win" by people "advocating" it. Or "lose" by MSoft "attacking" it. Open Source already won because it is more noble than money-driven proprietary software.
If you believe in the precepts of capitalism, you'll be a day late and a dollar short on anything of real substance. Capitalism is for losers. Open source is based on a principled idea. MS is based on greed, which lasts briefly.
Now how in the world can they prohibit such things. Jeepers. What will they think of next, a license which is a virus, infecting everything it touches?
Aye. My comment was directed at dmmcarty, not just anyone who'd written a book.:-)
The point was, I've written a book, and I don't criticize ANY author out there, as a result of the process. It's one thing to dream about writing a book. It's another to write one.
As for my book, it has so little to do with programming or anything even remotely Slashdot, I won't link to it here. Though, I will make it Netscape renderable soons I can. It's PDF now...
Tell that to Mozart, who died penniless. Tell that to Van Gogh, who died insane and penniless. Tell that to Socrates, who died at the hands of the state for what he believed. Tell that to Gandhi, who spent seven years of his life in prisons for doing what he believed. He also gave away the hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of gifts given to him throughout his life, dying with ownership of five items: spectacles, a bowl, a blanket, and a couple other things. Tell that to Jesus, who said God would take care of people who put God first and money second. Tell that to Emperor Norton.
If ya wanna be rich, be rich. But don't look down on people who have more noble goals.
It amazes me that you could write so innocently on this topic. You unknowingly gave a revelatory insight into the way MS programmers think, and how they are able to justify the work they do.
Before you can understand anything I will write in this short essay, you must realize that MS programmers think fundamentally differently than most free software/open source programmers. And that way of thinking is clipped by a desire for money which does not exist in the Open Source environment.
In essence, as you so eloquently made clear, we open sourcers do not work for money. We work primarily for passion, with money as a secondary issue. MS employees are the opposite, they tend to work for money first, and passion second. Thus 'they were continually amazed at the amount of work that is poured into free software,' as you said. To Open Sourcers, this is not a source of amazement. This is simply a moment of recognizing the fact that others enjoy programming as much as I do. Lots of others.
Work For Money vs. Work For No Money? It's not quite that simple, but you can understand a lot if you use that as a reference point in building principles to understand what is happening. Here is why I prefer this as a reference point:
For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.
If you stand back from the whole MS/Open Source debate from any distance, this kind of generalization becomes possible, and necessary if you want to comprehend it in a meaningful way. There are many complicated issues stemming from this single duality, none of which I want to address here.
My point is that MS employees work within the "old" American Dream, where all you need to do is get a decent job making money, work at it for a number of years, and voila! You're retired, driving your RV around the country, untrammeled by the daily woes of the great masses.
This doesn't work for the artist. The artist doesn't want to live a life dreaming of the future. The artist LIVES in the future, and makes his own life beautiful each day. Thus, you'll never find an artist in an RV. He can't afford one, and thus has no desire for one. Instead, he creates something beautiful each day, and sleeps well that night.
Sleeping that well at night is a mystery to the man who seeks money. Artists have all kinds of problems we don't need to get into, so I'm not glorifying the art of being an artist, I'm only presenting it side-by-side with the typical MS programmer, who works for money, not for passion. I work for passion. I create an entirely different kind of product than my co-worker, also a programmer, who works for money. Sure, he has passion, but it is sublimated beneath his desire to fulfill his portion of the "American Dream." I chuckle wrily at his earnest efforts to get something THAT ALWAYS MOVES AWAY FROM HIM.
I say, Major Burrito, latch on to the American Dream which is not an illusion. Let Nikola Tesla be your role model, not Thomas Edison. Both were phenomenal inventors. But a close study of their two lives reveals that one worked for money and the other worked for passion. (Both were money hungry, but one more than the other). Same with Salieri and Mozart, Plato and Aristotle, Freud and Jung, and so many other great dualities.
The point I want to make is that the MS perspective is only half the spectrum. The other half is populated by people who wonder what MS would be like if it were programmed by people with REAL passion, not one sublimated by other desires.
This is an easy thing to see for most Open Source programmers. As for whether Open Source programmers have talent or not... we do it the hard way.
-Water Paradox
Aye. Yer forgetting, he wrote a book, too. Have you written any books lately?
You know how they say that coaches are players who don't play so well, so they become coaches? They make fine coaches, just don't have the playin' skills. Same thing with programmers. So he might be a low-level developer for ten years. He _could_ have amazing insights on the industry. I say don't judge this book by its cover (pardon the appropriate pun).
I know that I make a living as a programmer, and I enjoy it, and I fulfill the assignments given to me... but my true passion is writing. Anyone who wants to criticize my programming skills can have at me; I won't complain. But tell me I'm no writer?
I run ya up the yardarm or make ya walk the plank.
RTAA. The original quote was that Microsoft "has the ability to order someone to work on something he or she doesn't want to work on, but I never recall this happening..." (emphasis mine).
That sounding like an unusual situation, too good to be true, because there are ALWAYS things that no one wants to work on, I wonder how they do get people to work on things that no one wants to do.
Drunk at work? No problem. Posting to Slashdot while at work? No problem. Posting to Slashdot while drunk while at work? No problem. It's the damn typos we're upset at.
Your response did not take away from the truth value of his statement.
I still think it is necessarily true. When somone in the Linux community insults Microsoft, that person has run out of reason and is admitting defeat. Others in the community choose not to insult Microsoft, appreciating the foil they've become.
Insulting is a natural human behavior? It can be evolved from, ya know...
On principle, boredom is not an option. Principle takes constant vigilance, which is an adventure of its own. Gandhi was a man of principle--was he boring? Moses was a man of principle--was he boring?
A man of principle is unable to be bored. And whether he is boring to observe or not is a decision best left in the hands of another man of principle.
XBox shouldn't have sold out. But the past cannot be changed. Therefore, if you find yourself in the future being presented with a check from Microsoft... don't sell out. Be remembered for having standards, not for selling them to MS.
The idea of opting OUT of something like this is deeply troubling. This needs to be something that web designers choose to opt IN to. The reason is that Microsoft will target all pages which opt out, and develop a database of sites which need to be targeted for pro-MS tactics. Whenever this dangol XP arrives, everyone who can needs to immediately opt out of every such option, to protect the innocent... that's what I think.
Long post. Programmer. Don't got the time to read this much unless it directly addresses an issue I'm working on. However, a healthy skim brings me to this comment:
Cool is NOT defined by seeing trends early, or with any particular clarity. That's fashion, which is layered on top of cool. To me, "cool" is defined by integrity to certain issues. The coolest people I know don't give a shit about how they dress or what music they listen to: they dress according to their needs, and they listen to music according to their passions--not because they want to impress others, but because they're ALWAYS exploring music that no one else has heard before. One percent of the population is cool. The rest of us tag along behind them, imitating. They're so cool that we are cool just by imitating them...
Am I to understand that Felten is asking to get rid of the entire DMCA? More likely, a clause or two would be changed. Can someone who knows what he's talking about explain this?
Netscape did not lose the browser war. Netscape won
That is the stupidest comment i've ever heard. Why thank you. It must be difficult to impress one such as yourself. The point that I'm making is not intuitive if you count wins and losses by capitalism's rules. Philosophy is less black and white--it is less quantity oriented, and more quality oriented.
using the generally accepted definitions, M$ did indeed win...
I'm using a different generally accepted definition. It's the one Martin Luther King Jr appealed to with his I Have A Dream speech. I meant that it was a giant victory to get M$ to give something away for free, early in their corporate history. M$ will be here decades from now. The point I'm making is not an easy one to grasp if you believe in capitalism. You have to accept the premise that money is irrelevant to what's REALLY happening between us humans. What's important is that Microsoft had to "stoop to Netscape's level" but the beauty is, that Netscape was actually representing the NEXT level of evolution--the idea that we can give things away for free and expect nothing in return. What Microsoft did to Netscape was similar to the Pharisees killing Jesus--all they did was cement him into history forever. Perfecting the art of martyrdom is rarely less than fatal. The more innocent the martyr, though, the more effective the fatality. Netscape lost, but by losing, they win! The beauty of Netscape is that they may be dead now (Just Another Portal to Hack), but their memory will inspire people decades from now.
Oh dear! You quote a saying and from that draw a completely unconected conclusion.
No, my conclusion follows, but you didn't. Let me make it clear that Free Software and Open Source are HERE TO STAY. And, they are evolutionarily a superior tactic. Microsoft WILL eventually capitulate to the idea of Open Source, even if it takes a thousand years. That's the slippery slope Microsoft entered into.
Yeah, right. And selling software is the first step toward realising that Open/Free Source is an inferior marketing strategy in the long run.
See ya in a thousand years, and we'll see who won this one.
If M$ thought they could con enough people into paying for IE, it'd be sold rather than given away again tomorrow.
Are you disagreeing with me? Sounds like you just made my point again. Thank you.
Not quite so - MS released IE for free to *undercut* Netscape's prices, and gain marketshare.
The reason is irrelevant. The fact is, M$ gave something away for free. Look at that fact 50 years from now. See how its repercussions are still thumping through cyberspace. That's what I'm referring to.
"Open Source" software means that you're letting people...
I do appreciate the clarification for the use of folks who are not aware of the distinction, but I am aware of it, and consider it to be irrelevant. Open Source is one flavor of Free Software to me, or the other way around if you wish. Doesn't matter. The attorney who addressed Stallman's question yesterday on the new legal FAQ put it concisely, if you want to see how someone else sees this idea. Free beer or free slaves, use the word any way you want, as long as you do it with integrity (not like MSoft, who did it as a monopolistic ploy), and you're bringing something beautiful into this selfish little world we live in... I'm saying that I agree with your point, that's all.
Why are you evaluating 1994 technology with 2001 eyes? Have you no dignity? Netscape kicked Mosaic's ass to Jupiter and back when it came out. It was quicker, prettier, smaller... nevermind, I think you missed my original point entirely anyway...
Someone once asked Job this very same question. His answer was not what you'd expect:
Job 21: Why do the wicked live, reach old age, and grow mighty in power? Their children are established in their presence, and their offspring before their eyes. Their houses are safe from fear, and no rod of God is upon them. Their bull breeds without fail; their cow calves, and does not cast her calf. They send forth their little ones like a flock, and their children dance. They sing to the tambourine and the lyre, and rejoice to the sound of the pipe. They spend their days in prosperity, and in peace they go down to Sheol. They say to God, 'Depart from us! We do not desire the knowledge of thy ways. What is the Almighty, that we should serve him? And what profit do we get if we pray to him?' Behold, is not their prosperity in their hand? The counsel of the wicked is far from me.
Not changing the subject, but answering with a reference which contains some degree of authority on the topic of good and evil.
Actually, I quite like the term GenXers and all its derivatives. X means transformation, mystery, treasure, pirate maps, all kindsa good things.
Douglas Coupland, who made the term popular with his book by the name Generation X, also wrote a book called "Microserfs" which revealed the inner doldrums which come upon the souls of those who work for Gill Bates.
The coming war will be corporations vs. sovereign states. The corporations will win, and then the war after that will be corporations vs. sovereign individuals. The only thing keeping corporations from eating us alive already is the freedoms set in place by things like the Constitution, Bill of Rights...
Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft is on the way to giving the word 'viral' an ameliorated connotation.
Pretty soon, people will be lining up to buy viruses. Then Microsoft will realize that they tackled the wrong enemy. Open Source will not "win" by people "advocating" it. Or "lose" by MSoft "attacking" it. Open Source already won because it is more noble than money-driven proprietary software.
If you believe in the precepts of capitalism, you'll be a day late and a dollar short on anything of real substance. Capitalism is for losers. Open source is based on a principled idea. MS is based on greed, which lasts briefly.
Now how in the world can they prohibit such things. Jeepers. What will they think of next, a license which is a virus, infecting everything it touches?
Do you know the names of any except the top 3?
The point was, I've written a book, and I don't criticize ANY author out there, as a result of the process. It's one thing to dream about writing a book. It's another to write one.
As for my book, it has so little to do with programming or anything even remotely Slashdot, I won't link to it here. Though, I will make it Netscape renderable soons I can. It's PDF now...
If ya wanna be rich, be rich. But don't look down on people who have more noble goals.
You know how they say that coaches are players who don't play so well, so they become coaches? They make fine coaches, just don't have the playin' skills. Same thing with programmers. So he might be a low-level developer for ten years. He _could_ have amazing insights on the industry. I say don't judge this book by its cover (pardon the appropriate pun).
I know that I make a living as a programmer, and I enjoy it, and I fulfill the assignments given to me... but my true passion is writing. Anyone who wants to criticize my programming skills can have at me; I won't complain. But tell me I'm no writer?
I run ya up the yardarm or make ya walk the plank.
That sounding like an unusual situation, too good to be true, because there are ALWAYS things that no one wants to work on, I wonder how they do get people to work on things that no one wants to do.
Drunk at work? No problem. Posting to Slashdot while at work? No problem. Posting to Slashdot while drunk while at work? No problem. It's the damn typos we're upset at.
I still think it is necessarily true. When somone in the Linux community insults Microsoft, that person has run out of reason and is admitting defeat. Others in the community choose not to insult Microsoft, appreciating the foil they've become.
Insulting is a natural human behavior? It can be evolved from, ya know...
You missed the joke. Of course he's been to a rave. Why else would it be the quote of the decade?
A man of principle is unable to be bored. And whether he is boring to observe or not is a decision best left in the hands of another man of principle.
XBox shouldn't have sold out. But the past cannot be changed. Therefore, if you find yourself in the future being presented with a check from Microsoft... don't sell out. Be remembered for having standards, not for selling them to MS.
It comes down to the quality of sex.
The idea of opting OUT of something like this is deeply troubling. This needs to be something that web designers choose to opt IN to. The reason is that Microsoft will target all pages which opt out, and develop a database of sites which need to be targeted for pro-MS tactics. Whenever this dangol XP arrives, everyone who can needs to immediately opt out of every such option, to protect the innocent... that's what I think.
Cool is NOT defined by seeing trends early, or with any particular clarity. That's fashion, which is layered on top of cool. To me, "cool" is defined by integrity to certain issues. The coolest people I know don't give a shit about how they dress or what music they listen to: they dress according to their needs, and they listen to music according to their passions--not because they want to impress others, but because they're ALWAYS exploring music that no one else has heard before. One percent of the population is cool. The rest of us tag along behind them, imitating. They're so cool that we are cool just by imitating them...
Am I to understand that Felten is asking to get rid of the entire DMCA? More likely, a clause or two would be changed. Can someone who knows what he's talking about explain this?
Now that was a link fun to follow. I clicked on 'parent' for your post, and had a good laugh. Thanks, o anonymous one.
Mod this up. It be a good idear.
Ah. I see. My bad. I didn't know that. Well, I still remember it fondly with 1994 eyes.
That is the stupidest comment i've ever heard.
Why thank you. It must be difficult to impress one such as yourself. The point that I'm making is not intuitive if you count wins and losses by capitalism's rules. Philosophy is less black and white--it is less quantity oriented, and more quality oriented.
-jdjs
I'm using a different generally accepted definition. It's the one Martin Luther King Jr appealed to with his I Have A Dream speech. I meant that it was a giant victory to get M$ to give something away for free, early in their corporate history. M$ will be here decades from now. The point I'm making is not an easy one to grasp if you believe in capitalism. You have to accept the premise that money is irrelevant to what's REALLY happening between us humans. What's important is that Microsoft had to "stoop to Netscape's level" but the beauty is, that Netscape was actually representing the NEXT level of evolution--the idea that we can give things away for free and expect nothing in return. What Microsoft did to Netscape was similar to the Pharisees killing Jesus--all they did was cement him into history forever. Perfecting the art of martyrdom is rarely less than fatal. The more innocent the martyr, though, the more effective the fatality. Netscape lost, but by losing, they win! The beauty of Netscape is that they may be dead now (Just Another Portal to Hack), but their memory will inspire people decades from now.
Oh dear! You quote a saying and from that draw a completely unconected conclusion.
No, my conclusion follows, but you didn't. Let me make it clear that Free Software and Open Source are HERE TO STAY. And, they are evolutionarily a superior tactic. Microsoft WILL eventually capitulate to the idea of Open Source, even if it takes a thousand years. That's the slippery slope Microsoft entered into.
Yeah, right. And selling software is the first step toward realising that Open/Free Source is an inferior marketing strategy in the long run.
See ya in a thousand years, and we'll see who won this one.
If M$ thought they could con enough people into paying for IE, it'd be sold rather than given away again tomorrow.
Are you disagreeing with me? Sounds like you just made my point again. Thank you.
-jdjs
The reason is irrelevant. The fact is, M$ gave something away for free. Look at that fact 50 years from now. See how its repercussions are still thumping through cyberspace. That's what I'm referring to. "Open Source" software means that you're letting people ...
I do appreciate the clarification for the use of folks who are not aware of the distinction, but I am aware of it, and consider it to be irrelevant. Open Source is one flavor of Free Software to me, or the other way around if you wish. Doesn't matter. The attorney who addressed Stallman's question yesterday on the new legal FAQ put it concisely, if you want to see how someone else sees this idea. Free beer or free slaves, use the word any way you want, as long as you do it with integrity (not like MSoft, who did it as a monopolistic ploy), and you're bringing something beautiful into this selfish little world we live in... I'm saying that I agree with your point, that's all.
Why are you evaluating 1994 technology with 2001 eyes? Have you no dignity? Netscape kicked Mosaic's ass to Jupiter and back when it came out. It was quicker, prettier, smaller... nevermind, I think you missed my original point entirely anyway...